graduate institute of management college of management...
TRANSCRIPT
國立臺灣師範大學管理學院管理研究所
碩士論文
Graduate Institute of Management
College of Management
National Taiwan Normal University
Master Thesis
Peer Identification, Online Brand Community Identification and
Brand Loyalty: Brand-Community Identity Fusion as a Moderator
Jui-Che Chang
Advisor： Shih-Ju Wang Ph.D.
July, 2013
i
Table of Content
Table of Content ..................................................................................................................................................................i
List of Figures .................................................................................................................................................................... iii
List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................................................... iv
Chapter 1：Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Research Background ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Research Question ............................................................................................................................................... 6
Chapter 2：Theoretical Background and Hypotheses ..................................................................................... 7
2.1 Brand Community Identification ................................................................................................................... 7
2.1.1 Community ....................................................................................................................................................... 7
2.1.2 Online Brand Community ........................................................................................................................... 8
2.1.3 Brand Community Identification .......................................................................................................... 12
2.2 Antecedents of Brand Community Identification ................................................................................ 14
2.2.1 Community Support .................................................................................................................................. 15
2.2.2 Community Value Congruence .............................................................................................................. 16
2.2.3 Community Affirmation ........................................................................................................................... 16
2.3 Peer Identification ............................................................................................................................................ 17
2.3.1 Peer Identity Similarity ............................................................................................................................ 18
2.3.2 Peer Identity Distinctiveness .................................................................................................................. 19
2.3.3 Peer Identity Prestige ............................................................................................................................... 20
2.3.4 Peer Identification to Brand Community Identification .............................................................. 20
2.4 Brand Loyalty ...................................................................................................................................................... 21
2.5 Moderating role of Identity Fusion ............................................................................................................ 23
Chapter 3：Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 25
3.1 Research Model .................................................................................................................................................. 25
3.2 Sampling and Data Collection Procedures .............................................................................................. 27
ii
3.3 Questionnaire Design ...................................................................................................................................... 29
3.4 Measures ............................................................................................................................................................... 30
Chapter 4: Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 34
4.1 Descriptive Statistics........................................................................................................................................ 34
4.1.1 Sample Characteristics ............................................................................................................................. 34
4.1.2 User Behavior Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 36
4.2 Factor Analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 42
4.3 Structural Equation Model ............................................................................................................................ 47
4.3.1 Test of Goodness-of-fit .............................................................................................................................. 47
4.3.2 Parameter estimation ............................................................................................................................... 48
4.4 Hypothesis Testing ........................................................................................................................................... 52
Chapter 5: Discussion .................................................................................................................................................. 56
5.1 Research Contributions .................................................................................................................................. 56
5.1.1 Peer identification lead to brand community identification ...................................................... 56
5.1.2 Peer identification lead to brand loyalty, rather than brand community identification . 56
5.1.3 Community support facilitates the forming of peer identification........................................... 57
5.1.4 The brand-community identity fusion strengthen the positive effect member similarity
on peer identification .......................................................................................................................................... 57
5.2 Managerial Implications ................................................................................................................................. 58
5.3 Limitations and Directions for Further Research ................................................................................ 59
References ........................................................................................................................................................................ 61
Appendix.............................................................................................................................................................................67
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1.1 Growth of global internet users ............................................................................................................ 2
Figure 1.2 Internet users per 100 inhabitants ..................................................................................................... 2
Figure 1.3 Online activities people do in an hour ............................................................................................... 3
Figure 1.4 Popular internet activities changing over time .............................................................................. 4
Figure 1.5 The reasons for joining brand communities ................................................................................... 5
Figure 2.1 Bhattacharya and Sen’s framework of organizational identification ................................. 18
Figure 3.1 Research model ........................................................................................................................................ 25
Figure 3.2 Types of issues discussed through communities ....................................................................... 27
Figure 4.1 Statistical result of survey respondents’ possession of automobile ................................... 37
Figure 4.2 Statistical result of survey respondents’ most-used camera ................................................. 37
Figure 4.3 Statistical result of survey respondents’ length of car usage ................................................ 38
Figure 4.4 Statistical result of survey respondents’ membership of automobile brand
communities .................................................................................................................................................................... 38
Figure 4.5 Statistical result of survey respondents’ most-visited automobile brand communities
............................................................................................................................................................................................... 39
Figure 4.6 Path diagram .............................................................................................................................................. 48
Figure 4.7 Parameter estimates for conceptual model .................................................................................. 55
iv
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Four elements definite community ....................................................................................................... 8
Table 3.1 Hypotheses ................................................................................................................................................... 26
Table 3.2 Brand communities as subjects of study ......................................................................................... 28
Table 3.3 Operational definitions and measurement items ........................................................................ 30
Table 4.1 Descriptive statistics of respondents’ characteristics (N=280) ............................................. 35
Table 4.2 Analysis of user behavior (N=280) .................................................................................................... 40
Table 4.3 Factor analysis results ............................................................................................................................. 44
Table 4.4 Correlations among constructs, convergent validity and discriminant validity ............. 46
Table 4.5 Goodness-of-fit statistics for conceptual model ........................................................................... 47
Table 4.6 Standardized estimates on latent endogenous variables and observed variables ......... 49
Table 4.7 Decomposition of standardized effects for conceptual model (γ value) ............................. 50
Table 4.8 Decomposition of standardized effects for conceptual model (β value) ............................ 50
Table 4.9 Moderating effect of brand-community identity fusion ............................................................ 51
Table 4.10 Hypotheses testing ................................................................................................................................. 54
1
Abstract: Building an online brand community is an important mission for
business and companies who want to obtain the marketing benefit, but few of them
succeed. This research examines the relationship between the identification
(member-to-community and member-to-member) in online brand community and
brand loyalty. In addition, we also examine the effect that brand-community identity
fusion brought to online brand communities owing to the diversified non-brand related
content of them. At last, we propose several advice for practitioners to build an online
brand community right.
Keyword: Brand Community, Identification, Peer Identification, Brand Loyalty,
Identity Fusion
Chapter 1：Introduction
1.1 Research Background
Internet nowadays becomes a media for information exchange and social
interaction and bring a radical change to human’s daily life. Tremendous growth in
internet and smartphone usage worldwide these years make the global internet
population grow by 1.1 billion from 2007 to 2012 (seeing figure 1.1), and the increase is
more obvious in developed countries rather than developing country (seeing figure 1.2).
2
Source: Internet World Stats (2012)
Figure 1.1 Growth of global internet users
Source: International Telecommunications Union(2012)
Figure 1.2 Internet users per 100 inhabitants
3
People's online behavior is changing day by day. In August 2011, the UK internet
population spent 3.4 billion hours online, figure 1.3 shows the portions of time if we
distilled all usage into a single hour. It indicated that they spent most of time in social
media, accounted for 14 minutes of an hour. Besides, according to a February 2012
survey examined by Pew Internet and America Life Project shows that 66% of online
adults use social network site on the web, up from 11% in 2005(seeing figure 1.4). The
social media change the communication and linkage of inter-personal by the features
such like producing and delivering by users, more and more channels to
communicate, information explosion and highly interactive.
Source: Experian Hitwise (2011)
Figure 1.3 Online activities people do in an hour
4
Source: The Pew Research Center's Internet & America Life Project (2002-2012)
Figure 1.4 Popular internet activities changing over time
More and more company saw the great potential in social media and try to figure
out how to connect and interact with customers at any time. They first establish official
brand/company website in order to maintain the business model of O2O (online to
offline) and gain their benefit. The official website seems to be the best media for
communication between company and consumers; however, according to the global
survey from University of MaCann (2011) of these four years, the population of
consumers visited the official website decreased from 85% to 72%, while 67% in
Taiwan.
Although the decline of visiting the official website, the research found that more
and more consumer joined particular brand communities or fan club for acquiring
information. UM (2010) survey found that the participation rate of specific brand
communities and fan club in Taiwan is 51%. Accordingly, marketers in industries are
5
busy trying to build communities around their own brands. The timing is right because
people are hungry for a sense of connection in today’s turbulent world and companies
need to do more about their products by new ways. Unfortunately, although many firms
seek a strong community to reach marketing efficiency and increase the customer
loyalty, few understand what it takes to attain such benefits.
For customers, there are many reasons to join a brand community. A survey from
InsightXplorer marketing research (seeing figure 1.5) shows that: After joining the
brand community, 72% of customers enhance their sense of belonging to the brand,
71% of them believe they are more likely to purchase the product of the brand, 66% of
them feel more loyal to the brand, as well as 63% of them think they would recommend
others to join. It is speculated that consumers increase the purchase intention and brand
identification after joining brand communities.
Source: InsightXplorer(2010/09)
Figure 1.5 The reasons for joining brand communities
6
Building brand community is a challenging task for every company and there are
some research proposed that enhancing community identification of customers will
increase the marketing effect such as brand loyalty and prestige, making customers
spend on the product and service. Because in the online brand community, members
build relationship with not only the community but the other members, this study takes
brand communities as samples and divides brand community identification into two
parts—to the community and to the members within. Besides, the interaction between
members make brand communities more diversity and plentiful, so we examine its'
effect to the degree of fusion between the brand and the community. We also observe
the impact identification on brand loyalty in such communities.
1.2 Research Question
This paper uses two point of view to explore the identification and its' antecedents
in the brand community. Moreover, we also explore the impact of the identification to
the brand loyalty.
1. What antecedents lead to brand community identification and peer identification?
2. Would peer identification lead to brand community identification within an online
brand community?
3. Would peer identification and brand community identification lead to greater
brand loyalty?
4. Could brand-community identity fusion moderate the influence member similarity
have on peer identification in the context of more diversified community?
7
Chapter 2：Theoretical Background and Hypotheses
2.1 Brand Community Identification
2.1.1 Community
Rothaermel and Sugiyama (2001) suggested that individuals come together as a
group based on an obligation to one another or come together as a group to be one in
purpose are community (Rothaermel and Sugiyama, 2001). Community phenomenon is
a core areas of anthropological research, and many studies have previously proposed
almost one hundred definitions of "community". Although there is no definite theory
of community, but some scholars still attempt to integrate the wide variety of definition
in previous studies. Three elements defining communities identified by Karp, Stone and
Yoels (1977) : (1) sustained social interaction, (2) shared attributes and values, and (3)
a delineated geographical space (Karp, Stone and Yoels, 1977). McMillan and
Chavis(1986) examined a definition of community, including four elements:
membership, influence, integration and fulfillment of needs and shared emotional
connection (McMillan and Chavis, 1986).
8
Table 2.1 Four elements definite community
Source: McMillan and Chavis(1986)
Two types of communities defined by Gusfield: One is the geographic community
like an area, town or district, another is a relational community regarding human
relationships like hobby clubs, religious groups and fan clubs (Gusfield, 1978).
2.1.2 Online Brand Community
The research of community became broader with the trend of modernity, market
capitalism, and consumer culture (Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001). Mechanical advancement
as well as scientific and technological progress driven by modernization make
community more than a place. Muniz and O’Guinn (2001) emphasized that communities
are not restricted by geography any more. It was described as a place at the first, just
like rural. Nevertheless, the thought of community breakthrough those limitation and
ran over into a much broader field of meaning. Thanks to new communication
technologies’ ability, geographically dispersed individuals are brought together with a
Element Explanation
Membership To feel a sense of belonging or to share a sense of
personal relatedness.
Influence One is mattering to make a difference to a group
and the group is important for its members
Integration and
Fulfillment of needs
Members can meet their needs by receiving
resources through the membership in a group.
Shared Emotional
Connection
Members have the commitment and belief to share
the common places and time together, and much
the same experiences.
9
commonality of purpose and identity (Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001).
In the consumer behavior area, a periodic community in a farmer’s market has
been recorded by McGrath, Sherry, and Heisley (1993). They argued that the members
in consumption communities considered some consumer experiences and behaviors as
contents and issues in the community, and deemed it as a part of the traditions of the
community. For instance, collective purchase (McGrath, Sherry, and Heisley, 1993).
Schouten and McAlexander (1995) proposed the concept of "subculture". The
Harley Davidson riders share the connection between each other, it play an important
role of making them understand more about the brand. Further, the understanding
become a real life style they called subculture (Schouten and McAlexander, 1995).
Consumers have shared common interest, values and behaviors in sub groups where
they engaged in. As a consequence, these groups bring about a high degree of
commitment to a particular product or brand and we can find their subculture in the
products they deal with. Their own social structure and core values involve to all facets
of their lives. The members' commitment and the product or activities maintain their
subculture and bring them together (Schouten and McAlexander, 1995).
Based on Schouten and McAlexander(1995), the concept of a community built
specifically around brands has been introduced by Muniz and O’Guinn (2001). A brand
community is a bound community that is specialized and non-geographically, consisted
with admirers of a brand and based on a set of social relationships(Muniz and O’Guinn
2001). It's possible to form a community like this around any brand, especially a brand
which has a strong image, a abounding and lengthy history. Furthermore, threatening
competition. Because of the omnipresent essence of brands, this kind of communities
10
may go beyond geography and may include numerous consumer members. The
commitment to both the brand and the group make these social groups quite stable.
They would be commercial and provided with a mass-media sensibility (Muniz and
O’Guinn 2001).
After observed the communities of computers and cars, three core components of
brand community identified by Muniz and O’Guinn (2001) as following:
(1) Consciousness of Kind:
Members in brand communities feel that they have links with the brand.
However, they think that the connection among other members is more stronger.
Members think that they somehow know each other even though they have never
met. As Cova's (1997) argument that “the link is more important than the thing.”
Consciousness of Kind is also represents the intrinsic link between members and
drive them distinguish themselves from users of other brands. Below are two
elements compose Consciousness of Kind:
Legitimacy: Legitimacy is a process to differentiate whether a person as a true
member of the community and those who are not. Brand communities do not
reject membership as a open social organizations, but they have status
hierarchies just like most communities. And that, distinguish between true
believer and a passing-fad members is a common issue for the members in the
brand community.
Oppositional Brand Loyalty: It's also a social process to sustain consciousness
of kind. Members in brand community place importance on social experiences
and gain understanding of the meaning of the brand through opposition to
competing brands.
(2) Rituals and Traditions:
11
Rituals and traditions indicate important social processes in brand community
which go around the shared consumption experience with the brand. These brand
community rituals and traditions created in order to maintain the culture of the
community.
Celebrating the History of the Brand: It's important for brand community to
transmit the history of brand to members, for the purpose of strengthening the
value of community. It's also can encourage the similarity between members.
Sharing Brand Stories: Storytelling facilitate to maintain a community. An
organization use legend to create different impressions and strengthen the
consciousness of kind. Members in the community feel safety after they
recognize that there are many like-minded others. Text and symbols are vital
elements representing the culture of a group (Gusfield, 1978). The product and
logo of the brand , not only contemporary and classic, but also images and text
from advertisements, are text and symbols in brand community (Muniz and
O’Guinn 2001).
(3) Moral Responsibility:
Members have a sense of duty to the entire community, and to every single
members of the community. Sense of moral responsibility push ahead the
community cohesive and bring collective actions. Two important errands to execute
in brand community:
Integrating and Retaining Members: To ensure the sustainable operation and
development of the community, keep old members stay and arrange for
making new members fit in to the community is very important. Through
integrating and retaining Members, loyalty to the community and the brand
will be perpetuating.
12
Assisting in the Use of the Brand: Members call for or help other members in
the consumption of the brand. They do this without consideration and
originate in the sense of responsibility.
The components above-mentioned are proposed by Muniz and O'Guinn(2001), and
they defined brand community as a community established at the base of "product" or
"service" of a brand. It has not only the three core component that possessed by other
general community, but also a social structure of relationship formed by a group of
people who advocate the brand, which is specific and non-geographic restriction.
Therefore, the members in brand community can persistently and widely effect the
ideas and acts of the brand community (Muniz and O'Guinn, 2001). Moreover, spreading
knowledge (Brown et al, 2003), knowing other customers' evaluation of products,
increasing opportunities for customers to participate in activities and cooperating with
highly loyal customers (Franke and Shah, 2003).
2.1.3 Brand Community Identification
The process that individuals categorize themselves into a particular social group is
called identification, and it helps themselves recognize that they are special and distinct
from others (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003).
Relate to intergroup relations, group processes, and the social self, social identity
theory is a social psychological theory (Hogg et al. 1995). An individual is
psychologically aware of a linkage between himself or herself and the group, and
sharing the experience of the group through the formation of a social identity. Social
identification helps people to answer the question, “Who am I?” (Ashforth and Mael
13
1989).
Organizational identification, a specific form of social identification that defined as
an individual's perception of belongingness to an organization (Mael and Ashforth
1992). It's also referred to as a critical component that binding individuals to an
organization. Mael and Ashforth (1992) have demonstrated that a persons'
identification to an organization can not only cause increased support of the
organization, but participation in it. Organizational identification lead to increased
intention of purchasing products or brands (Aaker 1999) and raise the receptivity and
effectiveness of advertising (Wheeler et al. 2005); and further, it reduce the turnover
rate of employee (O’Reilly and Chatman 1986), increase customer citizenship behaviors
and market share (Ahearne et al. 2005). Seeing that organizational identification leads
to positive firm outcomes, constituents' strong identification with the organization
become a marketer's goal (Fombelle, Paul W.; Jarvis, Cheryl Burke; Ward, James,
2012). In other words, Due to much benefit come from organizational identification, the
researchers figured out factors that can increase an individual’s organizational
identification, such like organizational distinctiveness, organizational prestige, tenure
and satisfaction in the organization, and the visibility of the membership (Algesheimer
et al. 2005; Bhattacharya et al. 1995). Marketers want to encourage constituents to
strongly identify with their organizations, because organizational identification
contributes to positive firm outcomes.
Algesheimer, Dholakia and Herrmann (2005) describe "brand community
identification" as the strength of the relationship between consumers and the
community. This relationship between consumers and the community affects the
identification which can bring about engagement and perceptions of normative pressure
14
and resistance. Finally, lead to various community- and brand-related behaviors.
Consumers consider himself or herself to be a member who "belonging" to the
brand community, which is characterized as "brand community identification". This
kind of identification is a shared or collective identity and make an individual unique
and separate. Algesheimer et al. (2005) defined social identity as the cognitive and
affective component (Bagozzi and Bergami, 2000) involved in a valued group such like
brand community. With regard to the cognitive component, the brand community
identification is related to categorization processes which is a self-awareness of
membership formulated and maintains by consumers in the community. Such like "I see
myself as part of the community", presents the similarities with other members and the
dissimilarities with nonmembers more clearly. The concept is just like the
consciousness-of-kind aspect of brand communities (Muniz and O'Guinn 2001). The
identification regarding the affective component implies a sense of emotional
involvement with the group, which is described as an "affective commitment" to the
group (Ellemers, Kortekaas, and Ouwerkerk 1999). The researchers of brand
community characterized it as "kinship between members" (McAlexander, Schouten,
and Koenig 2002). In short, identification indicates that the consumer agrees with the
community's norms, traditions, rituals, and objectives (Bhattacharya, Rao, and Glynn
1995).
2.2 Antecedents of Brand Community Identification
However, although there are many research shows that increasing members’
identification with an organization leads to a lots of positive effects, few have sought to
figure out the reason why organizational identification occur.
15
Fombelle, Jarvis, Ward and Ostrom (2012) synthesized previous research and
shown that organizational identification is positively affected by: perceived support
(McAlexander et al. 2002), value congruence (Bhattacharya and Sen 2003), and identity
affirmation (Drigotas et al. 1999).
2.2.1 Community Support
Members feel that they were supported in an organization when their contribution
is respected and their existence is cared about by the organization. (Eisenberger et al.
1986). Perceived organizational support represents a psychological contract between
members and the organization (Kraimer and Wayne, 2004). When the psychological
contract satisfied by the organization, members feel that the organization respect for
their contributions (Eisenberger et al. 1990).
In an organization, job attendance and performance of employees are positively
related to their perceived support (Eisenberger et al. 1990). Further, the increased
affective attachment and the expectancies of performance outcome will lead them to
help the organization through some behaviors such like proposing valuable suggestion.
We argued that the perceived support in brand community will strengthen the
identification of the community and make the positive impact to it.
H1: Greater perceived community support is directly and positively related to greater
brand community identification.
16
2.2.2 Community Value Congruence
In addition to perceived community support, value congruence is also a antecedent
of identification. Values are basic convictions of an individual which motivate action and
help them to define their identities (Fombelle et al. 2012).
Two entities perceived that they have similar value is called value congruence, and
they tend to perceive external stimuli in similar ways (Meglino and Ravlin 1998). It has
been shown that perceived value congruence with the organization will increase job
satisfaction, identification and extending the relationship with the organization
( Meglino and Ravlin 1998).
Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) argued that alike to consumers' brand congruity
perceptions on self relevant dimensions, their perceptions of congruence between their
own identity and that of relevant companies can be a source of self-definition. Therefore,
we deemed that value congruence between a member and the brand community will
strengthen his or her identification with the community.
H2: Greater perceived community value congruence is directly and positively related
to greater brand community identification.
2.2.3 Community Affirmation
A form of identity verification is affirmation because individuals usually seek
positive self views (Drigotas et al. 1999). Affirmation is described as positive feedback
that a person has reached or is reaching an identity goal. For instance, an individual may
pursue the goal of being a good parent, a top sale, and a great basketball player.
17
The organization provide the affirmation of important personal identities make
individual to incorporate more of their energy into the organization. Individuals will
attend to act like the particular identity that have a strong connection to him/her
(Arnett et al. 2003). They'll try to find organizations that provide them with such
affirmation (Fombelle et al. 2012). We proposed that the members' identification with
the brand community has positively related to the degree of the affirmation community
provided to them.
H3: Greater perceived community affirmation is directly and positively related to
greater brand community identification.
2.3 Peer Identification
Based on the research of Bhattacharya and Sen (2003), identification is influenced
by three factors that are identity similarity, identity distinctiveness and identity prestige.
This framework of identification is considered as a identity-related and individual-level
framework because it satisfy three basic self-definitional needs (Bhattacharya & Sen,
2003). The needs of self-continuity are reflects by that individuals will find an entity
which has similar identity with them. In addition, identity distinctiveness satisfy the
needs of self-distinctiveness and identity prestige fulfills the needs of self-enhancement.
The framework of identification which proposed by Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) is
provided in figure 2.2.
It is worthy to be mentioned that the paper argues that identity of an online brand
community is constructed by the members in it, not the enduring features of an entity
18
itself, such as company or brand. In other words, identity similarity, identity
distinctiveness and identity prestige of an online brand community argued in this paper
are come from the members inside the community. Perceived similarity with other
members as well as perceived distinctiveness and perceived prestige of them in the
community will attract individuals. Therefore, we apply Bhattacharya and Sen's (2003)
framework to the peer-to-peer identification in the brand community; further,
member-to-member identification.
2.3.1 Peer Identity Similarity
Individuals will always be attracted by someone or something that perceived to be
similar factually or symbolically with their own social identity according to the
similarity-attraction theory. Besides, individuals always create their self-image through
products and brands they used for achieving the social identity goals (Huffman,
Source: Bhattacharya & Sen (2003)
Figure 2.1 Bhattacharya and Sen’s framework of organizational identification
19
Ratneshwar and Mick, 2000). In organizational research, Pratt (1998) observed that
people will identify with an organization which can fulfill their own needs for
self-continuity so that they can establish their cognitively consistent social identities.
Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) also claimed that when a company's identity matches
consumers' identity, they will be attracted. In order to consumer psychology literature,
it is verified that a product will become more desirable when the consumers feel
similarity with its typical user. In this paper, we proposed that the individual's
identification with other members in the brand community has positively related to the
degree of the similarity they perceived between themselves and other members in it.
H4: Greater perceived member similarity is directly and positively related to greater
peer identification.
2.3.2 Peer Identity Distinctiveness
Tajfel and Turner (1985) argued that people will always try to make themselves
distinctive against others in any social context they participate in. It means that
individuals’ want to be unique and special. The argument however seems to be a
contradiction with the sense of identity similarity. Brewer (1991) explained that people
will always identify with groups which can satisfy both needs. In other words, the
groups they choose to identify with would be unique from other groups and similar to
their self-concept simultaneously. Besides, the groups people choose to identify with are
not required to be a entirely distinctive one but particularly distinctive on the
dimensions they value. In this research, we suggest that the individual's identification
with other members in the brand community has positively related to the degree of the
distinctiveness they perceived with the brand community against other community.
20
H5: Greater perceived member distinctiveness is directly and positively related to
greater peer identification.
2.3.3 Peer Identity Prestige
A organization has a great potential to promote self-esteem through identification
when it is prestigious (Mael and Ashforth, 1992). To fulfill the needs for
self-enhancement, joining a prestigious organization is a common way (Ashforth & Mael,
1989; Dutton et al., 1994). Based on Bergami and Bagozzi (2000), prestige are positive
perception which organization’s stakeholders’ perceive that other peoples' evaluation
towards the organization. In consequence, in terms of organizational identification,
Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) claimed that consumers will reflect themselves in the
prestige of a brand or a company in order to raise their sense of self-worth. However,
this research argues that a member in the brand community will enhance the
identification with other members when they perceived the prestige of other members.
H6: Greater perceived member prestige is directly and positively related to greater
peer identification.
2.3.4 Peer Identification to Brand Community Identification
People’s identification with an organization is influenced not only by the
relationship between individuals and the organization, but also by their identification
with other individuals involved in the organization, such as other customers and
employees. Prentice et al. (1994) validated the distinction between common-bond
groups, which are based mainly on identification with group members, and
common-identity groups, which are based mainly on direct identification to the
organization. In common-bond groups, the extent to which an individual knows and
21
feels similar to other individuals of the group affect the formation of a group
identification. However, in common identity groups, the identification of a group
depends on one’s commitment to the identity of the group, not to the individuals within
the group. Moreover, McAlexander et al. (2002) argue that important relationships can
form between not only the customer and the organization, but the customer and other
customers. Therefore, we suggest that the identification with other members in the
brand community will also lead to higher brand community identification.
H7: Greater peer identification is directly and positively related to greater brand
community identification.
2.4 Brand Loyalty
Loyalty can be viewed as a sense of attachment toward a certain set of brands and
companies. Companies can obtain competitive advantages in marketing when their
consumers are strongly loyal. For example, reduced marketing and transactional costs,
positive word-of-mouth effect, and lowered the risk of failure (Griffin, 1996).
Aaker(1991) proposed that there has six dimensions of loyalty: consumer willingness to
repurchase, price premium, satisfaction rate, switching cost, preference over brand, and
commitment to brand. Further, Oliver (1999) argued that consumer loyalty derived from
a high level of commitment will make them repurchase the product or service.
Griffin (1996) also described loyalty as an important role in expanding e-commerce
in that it can establish any kind of relationship marketing. According to the preceding
research, loyalty can lead to the behaviors such like brand recommendation and
retention of consumer.
22
There have been many factors influencing loyalty, such as service and product
quality, brand image, price, and commitment, but few research mentioning the
relationship between brand loyalty and the identification with brand community. As we
mentioned before, people’s identification with an organization is influenced not only by
the relationship between individuals and the organization, but also by their
identification with other individuals involved in the organization. Moreover, the
identification with the brand community will increase the degree of members'
participation.
In Bagozzi and Dholakia's (2006) report about the purchase behaviors in a
motorcycle community, members' participation in brand community(ex. browsing,
discussion, on-line meeting) has a significant impact to their brand-related
behavior(brand-purchase behaviors, visit the product display center). Algesheimer et
al.(2005) explored that the more the individual's aspiration to maintain the
membership in brand community is, the greater their loyalty toward the brand.
Therefore, we suggested that both the members' identification toward the brand
community and other members within can be a factor affecting the brand loyalty of
members.
H8: Greater brand community identification is directly and positively related to
greater brand loyalty.
H9: Greater peer identification is directly and positively related to greater brand
loyalty.
23
2.5 Moderating role of Identity Fusion
Identity fusion is defined as a group identification phenomenon in which "the
self-other barrier is blurred and the group comes to be regarded as functionally
equivalent with the personal self (Swann et al., 2009)." This concept is about not a
simple feeling particularly close to one's group, nor is it a matching closely some group
prototype. For these fused people, one's group identity is one's personal identity, and
vice versa.
When individuals become fused with a group, their personal and social identities
become functionally equivalent and it encourages some extreme behaviors (Swann et al.,
2009 ). This phenomenon is particularly common in relational group where members in
it have extremely close personal relationships with one another such as family members
and close friends.
In practice, a great diversity of activities and issues is more common in an online
brand community. Members in this kind of brand communities just like live in a small
society, doing things not only surround the brand but everything they want. It makes the
connection between community and its brand more blurred and weak. Customers may
join the brand community because of the fancy to the brand at first, but sustained
participation in it depend on the relationship and interaction with other members. In
this research, we transform the concept of identity fusion between individuals and
group abovementioned into the members perception of the degree of identity fusion
between the brand community and brand itself. We propose that the impact of member
similarity on peer identification should be moderated by this brand-community identity
fusion. An online brand community with low brand-community identity fusion is more
24
likely to strengthen the link between members by meet their various needs, and vise
versa.
H10: Brand-Community identity fusion moderates the association between member
similarity and peer identification: Low (versus high) brand-community identity fusion is
more likely to form the peer identification in online brand communities.
25
Chapter 3：Methodology
3.1 Research Model
This paper establishes a framework of studying the antecedents of identification in
a brand community and the moderating effect of brand-community identity fusion. The
whole picture of this research is shown in Figure 3.1.
Figure 3.1 Research model
It is argued that peer identification in the brand community will also raise the
identification to the community. Further, lead the members to higher brand loyalty.
Besides, this paper examines the degree of identity fusion between the brand
community and the brand which members within perceived will moderate the
relationship between member similarity and peer identification. To sum up, this paper
proposes several research hypotheses as follows:
26
Table 3.1 Hypotheses
Hypotheses Valence
H1 Greater perceived community support is directly and positively
related to greater brand community identification. Positive
H2 Greater perceived community value congruence is directly and
positively related to greater brand community identification. Positive
H3 Greater perceived community affirmation is directly and
positively related to greater brand community identification. Positive
H4 Greater perceived member similarity is directly and positively
related to greater peer identification. Positive
H5 Greater perceived member distinctiveness is directly and
positively related to greater peer identification. Positive
H6 Greater perceived member prestige is directly and positively
related to greater peer identification. Positive
H7 Greater peer identification is directly and positively related to
greater brand community identification. Positive
H8 Greater brand community identification is directly and positively
related to greater brand loyalty. Positive
H9 Greater peer identification is directly and positively related to
greater brand loyalty. Positive
H10
Brand-Community identity fusion moderates the association
between member similarity and peer identification: Low (versus
high) brand-community identity fusion is more likely to form the
peer identification in online brand communities.
27
3.2 Sampling and Data Collection Procedures
Based on the survey from Foreseeing Innovative New Digiservices (FIND) of
Institute For Information Industry (IFII) in 2011, members in brand communities would
discuss the information of the product to each other. About 80 percents of the
participant in this survey talked about the issue of education and sports, and above 60
percents of participant talked about topics about entertainment, automobiles and 3C
products(see figure 3.2). In this research, we prefer to choose the communities which
have not only specific brand, but also tangible products like cars.
Source: FIND of IFII (2011)
Figure 3.2 Types of issues discussed through communities
As a result, we collected data from a survey of online members of nine well-known
brand communities about automobiles in Taiwan. Listed below (see Table 3.2) are nine
automobile brand communities.
28
Table 3.2 Brand communities as subjects of study
Types Brand Community Name
Automobiles Ford Focus-Sport Club (FSC)
Nissan SAVRIN Happy Family Club
Nissan Tiida Club
Volkswagen VW LUPO Club
Infiniti 555 Club
Renault Renault Fans Club
Luxgen iLuxgen
Honda VTEC SPIRIT
Mitsubishi Taiwan Colt Plus Club
The reasons for choosing these brand communities: The information and
knowledge exchange in these brand communities is obvious and the diversity in
subjects make them flourishing. In addition, most of the registered members are
discovered attend to develop the relationship with others by organizing offline meeting
and activities, such as outdoor activities and tour shooting.
In order to test the research model and hypotheses, we designed a questionnaire
and administered to registered members of the brand communities. This study
established a web questionnaire based on the network questionnaire system provided
by my3q. To avoid the repeat-respondents, the system will filter duplicate respondents
by recording IP addresses. In addition, in order to enhance the motivation to respond,
we have lucky draws for those who fills the valid questionnaires.
29
3.3 Questionnaire Design
The research model of this paper consists of several constructs, including brand
community identification, community support, community value congruence,
community affirmation, peer identification, member similarity, member distinctiveness,
member prestige, brand loyalty and brand-community identity fusion.
The measures used in this research were all developed by adapting existing scales
from prior studies. Necessary modifications were done in accordance with the research
context of this paper. Likert scales, which consist of 7-point scale ranging from “strongly
disagree”(1) to “strongly agree”(7) were used for all items.
30
3.4 Measures
Table 3.3 show the operational definitions and measurement items of each variable.
Table 3.3 Operational definitions and measurement items
Construct/Item
(Operational definitions)
Brand Community Identification (Ashforth and Mael 1989)
(Degree to which members see themselves as a member or belong to a brand
community)
1. When someone criticizes the (this brand community), it feels like a personal insult.
2. I am very interested in what others think about (this brand community).
3. When I talk about (this brand community), I usually say ‘we’ rather than ‘they.
4. (This brand community’s) successes are my successes.
5. When someone praises (this brand community), it feels like a personal compliment.
Community Support (Eisenberger et al. 1990)
(Extent to which members' perception of the support from a brand community)
1. (This brand community) cares about my well-being as a member.
2. (This brand community) cares about my opinions as a member.
3. (This brand community) is willing to help me in my role as a member.
4. (This brand community) considers my goals and values as a member.
Community Value Congruence (Maxham and Netemyer 2003)
(Extent to which members' perception of the similarity of the value with a brand
community)
1 This brand community has the same values as I do.
31
Table 3.3 Operational definitions and measurement items(continue)
Construct/Item
(Operational definitions)
Community Affirmation (Drigotas et al. 1999)
(Extent to which the members' perception of the positive feedback provided by a brand
community)
1. (This brand community) sees me as a good member.
2. (This brand community) thinks I have the traits and dispositions of a good
member.
3. (This brand community) treats me like I am a good member.
Peer Identification (Ashforth and Mael 1989)
(Degree to which members' identification with other members in a brand community)
1. When someone criticizes other members of (this brand community), it feels like a
personal insult.
2. I am very interested in what others think about other members of (this brand
community).
3. When I talk about other members of (this brand community), I usually say ‘we’
rather than ‘they.
4. The members’ successes are my successes.
5. When someone praises other members of (this brand community), it feels like a
personal compliment.
Member Similarity (Shen et al.,2010 ; Turban et al, 1988; Liden et al., 1993)
(Extend to which there is a match in values, interests and so on between oneself and
other members of a brand community)
1. I share similar preferences with other members of (this community).
2. I share similar interests with other members of (this community).
3. I share similar values with other members of (this community).
4. I joined in (this community) for the same purpose as other community members
do.
5. The members of (this community) and I see things in a similar way.
6. The members of (this community) and I deal with issues in much the same way.
32
Table 3.3 Operational definitions and measurement items(continue)
Construct/Item
(Operational definitions)
Member Distinctiveness (Jones and Volpe, 2010)
(Extend to which individuals perceive other members in a brand community to be
unique and different from the out-group)
1. When I think about (this community), the way it runs the community is unique and
different from other communities.
2. The other members of (this community) are unique in my point of view.
3. There are some experts who only participate in (this community).
4. The purposes of (this community) outshine the other communities.
5. The members of (this community) have special and unique characteristics.
Member Prestige (Ashforth and Mael, 1992)
(Extend to which individuals perceive other members in a brand community to be
prestigious)
1. Experts generally think highly of (this community).
2. It is considered prestigious in (the community) of fans to be a member of this
community.
3. This community is considered one of the best (in this kind of communities).
4. People from other communities respect the members of (this community).
5. Members of (this community) would be proud to introduce others the other
members of this community.
6. The members of (this community) have a good reputation.
7. Showing associations with (this community) could make oneself respected.
8. Members of (this community) are widely welcome by any kinds of contest and
activities.
33
Table 3.3 Operational definitions and measurement items(continue)
Construct/Item
(Operational definitions)
Brand Loyalty (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001)
(Extend to which members in a brand community willing to purchase or use the
products of the brand)
1. I will buy products of this brand next time.
2. I prefer to keep buying products of this brand.
3. I am loyalty to this brand.
4. I would pay higher price to this brand rather than other brand.
Identity Fusion(Swann, Gómez, Huici, Morales and Hixon, 2010)
(The degree of the fusion between the community and the brand member perceived)
I think the degree of brand-community fusion is:
Community Brand
Community Brand
Community Brand
Community Brand
Community Brand
A B C D E
34
Chapter 4: Results
4.1 Descriptive Statistics
A total of 420 respondents representing different automobile brand communities
collected in the survey. However, 89 responses were found to be invalid as they were
either miss-responses or not fit in our objective communities of this study, and thus
eliminated to ensure the quality of the survey results. 51 responses were afterwards
filtered out due to answering with stereotyped pattern and failed to meet the logical
consistencies. Only 280 responses were left valid for follow-up analysis at last.
4.1.1 Sample Characteristics
Questionnaire was mainly administered online through posting URL address of
online web questionnaire in PTT, Facebook and the automobile brand communities. Of
the entire sample, only 3.9% were female, the other 96.1% were male. This result shows
that members of automobile brand communities are predominantly men.
Respondents ranged in age from 20 to above 50, with most of the respondents
come from the age range of 30-35 (34.3%). While 83.3% were working people, the other
2.1% were students and the remained 14.6% did not specify.
With more than half of the respondents was either undergraduate or postgraduate
degree holders (67.5%), the respondents of this survey were believed to be relatively
well-educated and knowledgeable. Table 4.1 summarizes the respondent characteristics.
35
Table 4.1 Descriptive statistics of respondents’ characteristics (N=280)
Characteristics Items Frequency Percentage
Gender Male
Female
11
269
3.9%
96.1%
Age
＜20~25
＜25~30
＜30~35
＜35~40
＜40~45
＜45~50
＜50 and above
22
76
96
45
26
8
7
7.9%
27.1%
34.3%
16.1%
9.3%
2.9%
2.5%
Occupation
Housework
Military, civil and teaching
Service industry
Banking and insurance industry
IT industry
Manufacturing and transportation
Business
Freelance
SOHO
Student
Others
1
31
36
9
51
79
13
12
1
6
41
0.4%
11.4%
12.9%
3.2%
18.2%
28.2%
4.6%
4.3%
0.4%
2.1%
14.6%
Education
High school
Technical institute
Undergraduate
Postgraduate and above
35
56
109
80
12.5%
20.0%
38.9%
28.6%
Annual Income
(in thousands)
300 or below
＜300~400
＜400~500
＜500~600
＜600~700
＜700~800
＜800~900
＜900~1000
＜1000 and above
22
34
46
41
33
34
16
17
37
7.9%
12.1%
16.4%
14.6%
11.8%
12.1%
5.7%
6.1%
13.2%
36
Table 4.1 Descriptive statistics of respondents’ characteristics (N=280)(continue)
Yearly Expenses
on Automobile
Equipments (in
thousands)
5 or below
＜5~10
＜10~15
＜15~20
＜20~25
＜25 and above
11
42
49
23
29
126
3.9%
15.0%
17.5%
8.2%
10.4%
45.0%
4.1.2 User Behavior Analysis
Figure 4.1 and figure 4.2 shows the types of car possessed and the car most-used by
survey respondents respectively. Because questionnaire was mostly distributed in FSC,
FORD ranked highest in both results. Besides, figure 4.3 indicates respondents' usage of
their car, most of them have used their own car for 5 years. In addition, these 3
questions served not only as contingency questions but also sleeper questions, which
used to search out for abnormality.
Referring to the statistical results from figure 4.4 and figure 4.5, Focus-Sport
Club(FSC) is the most popular automobile brand community perhaps due to the
abovementioned reason. In addition, these 2 questions were also sleeper questions.
37
Figure 4.1 Statistical result of survey respondents’ possession of automobile
Figure 4.2 Statistical result of survey respondents’ most-used car
176
14
53
15 11 20 25
72
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Survey respondents' possession of car (Multiple-choice) N=280
12 32
151
4 11 20 10 11 10 19 0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Survey respondents' most-used car N=280
38
Figure 4.3 Statistical result of survey respondents’ length of car usage
Figure 4.4 Statistical result of survey respondents’ membership of
automobile brand communities
59
25 29
8 16 17 18 12 4 15
77
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Survey respondents' length of car usage N=280
176
12 2 17 6 21 4 21 13 46 0
20 40 60 80
100 120 140 160 180 200
Survey respondents' membership of automobile brand communities(Multiple-choice )
N=280
39
Figure 4.5 Statistical result of survey respondents’ most-visited
automobile brand communities
There were several questions designed to reveal the user behavior of the brand
communities’ members. These questions included car usage, membership details, extent
of community participation and so on.
Table 4.2 summarizes the user behavior of respondents. Most of them has been
registered members ranged from 6 months to 2.5 years as well as 87.5% of the
respondents visited automobile brand communities more than 11 times a month.
Besides, about 50% of the respondents browsed the communities for more than 15
minutes but less than 45 minutes. This shows that most of the respondents are
remarkably fit for analysis.
As most of the respondents (66.5%) indicated that they either often or always
interacted with other members, showing the evidence of high level of interaction among
members of automobile brand communities. However, with 80.8% of the respondents
160
11 14 21 4 2 20 12 36 0
20 40 60 80
100 120 140 160 180
Survey respondents' most-visited automobile brand communities
N=280
40
indicated that they never/seldom/sometimes published and/or replied photos and/or
articles, they were viewed to be less contributive as they might be behaving as a lurker
most of the time. In last, most of the respondents (91.1%) indicated that they
never/seldom/sometimes participate in activities held by the community, this suggests
that the participation in automobile brand communities is frequent online more than
offline.
Table 4.2 Analysis of user behavior (N=280)
Category Items Frequency Percentage
Length of membership
6 months or below
<6 months~1 year
<1 year~1.5 years
<1.5 years~ 2 years
<2 years~2.5 years
<2.5 years~3 years
<3 years~3.5 years
<3.5 years~4years
<4 years~4.5 years
<4.5 years~5 years
<5 years and above
71
64
0
55
23
0
22
12
0
8
25
25.4%
22.9%
0%
19.6%
8.2%
0%
7.9%
4.3%
0%
2.9%
8.9%
Frequency of logging-on
(month)
1~2
3~4
5~6
7~8
9~10
11
4
6
9
8
8
245
1.4%
2.1%
3.2%
2.9%
2.9%
87.5%
Browsing duration
(in minutes)
15 or below
<15~30
<30~45
<45~60
<60~75
<75~90
<90 and above
30
98
58
24
21
11
38
10.7%
35.0%
20.7%
8.6%
7.5%
3.9%
13.6%
Awareness of others on
membership
No
Yes
166
114
59.3%
40.7%
41
Table 4.2 Analysis of user behavior (N=280)(continue)
Interaction among
members
Never
Seldom
Sometimes
Often
Always
7
29
58
136
50
2.5%
10.4%
20.7%
48.6%
17.9%
Contributions
(publishing and/or
replying photos and/or
articles)
Never
Seldom
Sometimes
Often
Always
24
54
148
44
10
8.6%
19.3%
52.9%
15.7%
3.6%
Participation in
activities held by
communities
Never
Seldom
Sometimes
Often
Always
111
71
73
19
6
39.6%
25.4%
26.1%
6.8%
2.1%
42
4.2 Factor Analysis
Because most of the measurements used in this research were previously
conducted in offline and working context, we modified some items to fit the research
context. We perform a factor analysis in order to check on the validity and reliability as
well as unidimensionality of all variables in this research because each variable
consisted of multiple items.
First of all, we use a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to examine our measurements
and deleted several items because of unacceptably low loadings or high cross-loadings. The
results of the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) indicated that the measurement model
of our research was well fit with the data. Table 4.3 shows that the convergent validity of
all constructs was satisfied. The CFA factor loadings for all items were respectable and
the Cronbach’s alpha values for all constructs were near to or greater than the
conventional value of 0.7, showing high internal consistency.
The summary of the latent construct’s composite reliability, average variance extracted
(AVE), and between-construct correlations shows in table 4.4. Seeing table 4.4, the estimates
of composite reliability were all greater than .85 and showed a high level of internal
consistency (Bagozzi and Yi 1988; Fornell and Larcker 1981). In other hand, all the square
roots of the AVEs on the diagonal were greater than the off-diagonal elements, shows the
evidence of discriminant validity.
In addition, the AVE values for all constructs were significantly higher than the
stipulated criteria (50%), suggesting well validity of each latent variable. In sum, the
evidence for good convergent validity are proved by all the tests. Also, there was
43
evidence of an adequate level of discriminant validity too. Table 4.5 providing the
evidence of discriminant validity, and all the construct intercorrelations were
significantly less than 1 (p<.05).
In consequence, all data were good to analysis in validity and reliability. Good result
of convergent validity and discriminant validity allow us move to next step: estimate the
structural model.
44
Table 4.3 Factor analysis results
Construct ID Measurement item Mean SD CFA factor
loading
Cronbach‘s
α
AVE
Community Support
V19 1. (This brand community) cares about my well-being as a member. 5.07 1.238 0.89 0.87 0.78
V20 2. (This brand community) cares about my opinions as a member. 5.13 2.173 0.92
V22 3. (This brand community) considers my goals and values as a
member.
4.98 1.181 0.84
Community
Affirmation
V24 1. This brand community) sees me as a good member. 5.05 1.107 0.95 0.94 0.90
V25 2. This brand community) thinks I have the traits and dispositions of
a good member.
4.96 1.080 0.95
V26 3. This brand community) treats me like I am a good member. 5.10 1.064 0.94
Member Similarity
V34 1. I share similar preferences with other members of (this
community).
5.28 1.104 0.82 0.91 0.70
V35 2. I share similar interests with other members of (this community). 5.17 1.138 0.86
V36 3. I share similar values with other members of (this community). 4.88 1.247 0.86
V37 4. I joined in (this community) for the same purpose as other
community members do.
5.19 1.133 0.81
V38 5. The members of (this community) and I see things in a similar
way.
4.74 1.146 0.86
V39 6. The members of (this community) and I deal with issues in much
the same way.
4.71 1.197 0.81
Member
Distinctiveness
V40 1. When I think about (this community), the way it runs the
community is unique and different from other communities.
4.87 1.223 0.84 0.92 0.77
45
V41 2. The other members of (this community) are unique in my point of
view.
4.73 1.203 0.91
V42 3. There are some experts who only participate in (this community. 5.22 1.268 0.82
V43 4. The purposes of (this community) outshine the other
communities.
4.94 1.150 0.91
V44 5. The members of (this community) have special and unique
characteristics.
4.90 1.178 0.89
Member Prestige V45 1. Experts generally think highly of (this community). 5.01 1.136 0.68 0.94
0.52
V46 2. It is considered prestigious in (the community) of fans to be a
member of this community.
5.02 1.257 0.80
V47 3. This community is considered one of the best (in this kind of
communities).
5.24 1.138 0.68
V48 4. People from other communities respect the members of (this
community).
4.98 1.151 0.68
V49 5. Members of (this community) would be proud to introduce others
the other members of this community.
5.23 1.121 0.70
V50 6. The members of (this community) have a good reputation. 5.06 1.093 0.76
V51 7. Showing associations with (this community) could make oneself
respected.
4.87 1.258 0.72
V52 8. Members of (this community) are widely welcome by any kinds of
contest and activities.
4.98 1.173 0.73
Brand Community
Identification
V16 1. When I talk about (this brand community), I usually say "we"
rather than "they".
5.08 1.433 0.91 NA 0.83
V17 2. (This brand community’s) successes are my successes. 4.54 1.490 0.91
46
Peer Identification V29 1. When someone criticizes other members of (this brand
community), it feels like a personal insult.
4.38 1.429 0.72 0.86 0.68
V32 2. The members’ successes are my successes. 4.59 1.401 0.88
V33 3. When someone praises other members of (this brand
community), it feels like a personal compliment.
5.04 1.284 0.87
Brand Loyalty
V54 1. I prefer to keep buying products of (this brand). 5.39 1.268 0.94 NA 0.89
V55 2. I am loyalty to (this brand). 4.95 1.355 0.94
Table 4.4 Correlations among constructs, convergent validity and discriminant validity
Construct Number of items Composite
reliability
Average variance extracted
Correlation
between
Latent
Constructs
1. 2. 3.
1. Brand community identification 2(5) 0.91 0.83 0.91
2. Peer identification 3(5) 0.86 0.68 0.79 0.82
3. Brand loyalty 2(4) 0.94 0.89 0.40 0.42 0.94
47
4.3 Structural Equation Model
In structural equation model, we estimate the hypothesized conceptual model
shown in the figure 3.1.
4.3.1 Test of Goodness-of-fit
The chi-square value was not significant (χ2(279) = 63.747, p>0.05) and all the
statistics were good, indicating a good fit to the data. Table 4.5 reports the respectively
absolute fit measures, comparative fit measures and parsimonious fir measures, and the
overall goodness-of-fit indices are satisfied.
Table 4.5 Goodness-of-fit statistics for conceptual model
Index Value Stipulated criteria Result
Absolute fit
measures
χ2/d.f.
GFI
AGFI
RMR
RMSEA
1.45
0.966
0.930
0.0289
0.0401
<3
>0.9
(Joreskog and Sorbom, 1996)
>0.9
(Joreskog and Sorbom, 1996)
The smaller, the better
(Hair, 1998)
<0.05
(Browne and Cudeck, 1993)
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Comparative
fit measures
NFI
NNFI
CFI
IFI
RFI
0.989
0.993
0.996
0.996
0.980
>0.9
(Bentler and Bonnett, 1980)
>0.9
(Tucker and Lewis, 1973)
>0.9(Bentler, 1990)
>0.9(Bentler, 1990)
>0.9(Hu and Bentler, 1999)
Good
Good
Good
Good
Good
Parsimonious
fit measures
PNFI
PGFI
0.558
0.467
>0.5
(Joreskog and Sorbom, 1996)
>0.5
(Joreskog and Sorbom, 1996)
Good
Acceptable
48
4.3.2 Parameter estimation
There were 6 exogenous variables used in this research: community support (ξ1),
community value congruence (ξ2), community affirmation (ξ3), member similarity (ξ4),
member distinctiveness (ξ5) and member prestige (ξ6). On the other hand, 3 endogenous
variables were used in this research: brand community identification (η1), peer
identification (η2), brand loyalty (η3). Figure 4.6 illustrates the path diagram.
The standardized estimates on latent endogenous variables and observed variables
are shown in table 4.6, including the results of SMC and t-value for each construct and
item. The t-value of all items were statistically significant (t>3.29, p<0.001), indicating a
good quality in terms of measurement characteristics, all SMC values were also
satisfactory simultaneously.
Figure 4.6 Path diagram
49
Table 4.6 Standardized estimates on latent endogenous variables and observed
variables
λy Observed
variables
Standardized
coefficient
t-value SMC
Brand Community
Identification
(η1)
Y1 0.73 ─ 0.49
0.73 Y2 0.89 12.33*** 0.73
Peer Identification
(η2 )
Y3 0.71 ─ 0.46
0.68 Y4 0.48 4.88*** 0.73
Y5 0.91 12.26*** 0.76
Brand Loyalty
(η3)
Y6 0.84 ─ 0.65 0.16
Y7 0.92 8.82*** 0.79
＊p<0.05; ＊＊p<0.01; ***p<0.001
Table 4.7 and 4.8 summarize the standardized effects for the conceptual model.
Relationships between endogenous variables are illustrated by β value as well as the
relationships between exogenous variables and endogenous variables are illustrated by
γ value. Referring to table 4.7 and 4.8, all paths are statistically significant in addition to
H2 and H8. Thus, community value congruence (ξ2) is found to have indirect effect
(γ12=0.02) on brand community identification (η1). Even more surprising is that brand
community identification (η1) is also found to have indirect effect (β31=0.07) on brand
loyalty (η3). Moreover, there is an unexpected discovery that showing that brand
community support (ξ1) has direct effect (γ22=0.24) on peer identification (η2).
50
Table 4.7 Decomposition of standardized effects for conceptual model (γ value)
γ Path Valence Path
coefficient
t-value Result
γ11 ξ1→η1 + 0.28 3.75*** H1 supported
γ12 ξ2→η1 + 0.02 0.38 H2 unsupported
γ13 ξ3→η1 + 0.16 2.31* H3 supported
γ24 ξ4→η2 + 0.29 4.59*** H4 supported
γ25 ξ5→η2 + 0.17 2.60** H5 supported
γ26 ξ6→η2 + 0.27 3.77*** H6 supported
γ22 ξ2→η2 + 0.24 4.15***
＊p<0.05; ＊＊p<0.01; ***p<0.001
Table 4.8 Decomposition of standardized effects for conceptual model (β value)
β Path Valence Path
coefficient
t-value Result
β12 η2→η1 + 0.50 5.56*** H7 supported
β31 η1→η3 + 0.07 0.53 H8 unsupported
β32 η2→η3 + 0.50 3.15** H9 supported
＊p<0.05; ＊＊p<0.01; ***p<0.001
We have proposed that brand-community identity fusion would moderate the
relationship between member similarity and peer identification. To test this moderating
effect, we divided the participants into three groups, according to their scores on the
brand-community identity fusion. We took the low degree of identity fusion (the first
group) with the high degree and conduct a multi-sample test─94 participants who
scored low on brand-community identity fusion (mean=2.43), and 94 participants who
scored high (mean=4.85).
This research conducted a multiple group analysis to examine the moderating
51
effects. In addition, we tested the structural model with free parameter estimates and a
model with an equality constraint imposed on the path between member similarity and
peer identification simultaneously. A higher chi-square indicated a poorer fit, would
prove a significant difference between the models for the high versus low
brand-community identity fusion groups. Table 4.9 shows the moderating effect of
brand-community identity fusion is significant (Δχ2=5.94, Δdf=1). The estimated
coefficient of member similarity on peer identification decreased from .39 (low
brand-community identity fusion, t=3.91) to .17 (high brand-community identity fusion,
t=1.07). That is, the direct effect of member similarity on peer identification appeared
more evident for consumers who scored low in brand-community identity fusion.
Table 4.9 Moderating effect of brand-community identity fusion
Hypothesized
relationship
Group Standardized
coefficient
Δχ2 Δdf
Member similarity→Peer
identification
High identity
fusion
0.17 5.94 1
Low identity
fusion
0.39***
52
4.4 Hypothesis Testing
All SEM result were obtained by using maximum likelihood method. Considering
the results from table 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9, 8 proposed hypotheses receive considerable
amount of supports and 2 proposed hypotheses don't. Table 4.10 summarizes the
results of hypothesis testing.
In terms of the antecedents of brand community identification, the results prove
that community support (H1; γ=0.28, p<0.001) and community affirmation (H3; γ=0.16,
p<0.05) have positively direct effects on brand community identification. However,
community value congruence (H2; γ=0.02, p<0.001) isn't significant may due to the only
one question as the measurement.
By comparing the standardized coefficients, member similarity has the strongest
effect (H4; γ=0.29, p<0.001) over member prestige (H6; γ=0.27, p<0.001) and member
distinctiveness (H5; γ=0.17, p<0.01) on peer identification. In addition, member
distinctiveness is the weakest antecedent, indicating that distinctiveness among
members is not the vital account of peer identification. However, we found an
unexpected relationship (γ=0.24, p<0.001) between community support and peer
identification. The finding indicated that community support can also directly positively
influence peer identification, and it's never previously identified by any researches.
Furthermore, the results suggest that peer identification has a positively strong
effects on brand community identification (H7; β=0.50, p<0.001) and brand loyalty (H9;
β=0.50, p<0.01). On the other hand, contrast with our expectation, brand community
identification has no direct effect on brand loyalty (H8; β=0.07).
53
In last, with regard to the moderating role of brand-community identity fusion, we
discovered that low brand-community identity fusion would strengthen the positive
effect between member similarity and peer identification. Path diagram with parameter
estimates is illustrated in the figure 4.7.
54
Table 4.10 Hypotheses testing
Hypotheses Result
H1 Greater perceived community support is directly and positively
related to greater brand community identification. Supported
H2 Greater perceived community value congruence is directly and
positively related to greater brand community identification. Unsupported
H3 Greater perceived community affirmation is directly and
positively related to greater brand community identification. Supported
H4 Greater perceived member similarity is directly and positively
related to greater peer identification. Supported
H5 Greater perceived member distinctiveness is directly and
positively related to greater peer identification. Supported
H6 Greater perceived member prestige is directly and positively
related to greater peer identification. Supported
H7 Greater peer identification is directly and positively related to
greater brand community identification. Supported
H8 Greater brand community identification is directly and positively
related to greater brand loyalty. Unsupported
H9 Greater peer identification is directly and positively related to
greater brand loyalty. Supported
H10
Brand-Community identity fusion moderates the association
between member similarity and peer identification: Low (versus
high) brand-community identity fusion is more likely to form the
peer identification in online brand communities.
Supported
55
Figure 4.7 Parameter estimates for conceptual model
56
Chapter 5: Discussion
5.1 Research Contributions
This research investigate the identification in online brand community
through two aspect: members-to-community and members-to-members.
Moreover, separately discuss the relationship between these two type of
identification and brand loyalty. Besides, we add the variable "brand-community
identity fusion" into this model to prove the effect on peer identification. Follows
are major findings of this research.
5.1.1 Peer identification lead to brand community identification
The results of this research provide evidence in support of the argument
that peer identification play an important role in building the identification
toward the brand community. In this research, it is confirmed that identification
to a brand community base on not only the feeling of members to "brand" or
"community" itself, but also the relationship between members. Not like most
previous researches of brand community identification focused on the traits of
brand community, this research provided a different aspect to look upon the
identification in online brand community by considering the peer identification.
5.1.2 Peer identification lead to brand loyalty, rather than brand community
identification
We find a bizarre result that peer identification lead to brand loyalty, but
57
brand community identification doesn't. The interesting result indicated
members' identification to a brand community doesn't represent their loyalty to
the brand, and their positive relationship and interaction with other members in
the community may be a accelerator to enhance the loyalty toward the brand.
5.1.3 Community support facilitates the forming of peer identification
The results of this research provide evidence that community support not
only lead to brand community identification but also facilitate the formation of
peer identification. Thus, the extent to members' perception of the support from
a brand community also influence members' identification toward other
members.
5.1.4 The brand-community identity fusion strengthen the positive effect
member similarity on peer identification
This research demonstrates that low brand-community identity fusion
facilitates the path from member similarity to peer identification, and vise versa.
The result indicates diversified operating in brand community makes members
feel closer to each other and increase the identification toward them through
anticipating varied activities and discussing broad issues instead of only focus on
the brand-related issues. Take Ford as a example, the car fellows not only talk
about their car but also go badminton together, it satisfies their social needs and
gains the sense of belonging to the community.
58
5.2 Managerial Implications
The study finds several important implications for practitioners who aiming
to establish brand communities and long for the benefit from community growth.
First, marketers must understand the importance of peer identification when
operating a brand community. Members in brand communities build relationship
not only with community as a whole but also with other members within the
community. This study shows the importance of peer identification in brand
community even superior to the identification to the community. For this reason,
marketers should focus on the characteristics of the members in the community
such as enhancing the similarity and prestige of members and making them
more close to each other. Another aspect, managers shall construct a appropriate
environment to make understanding among members as well as stimulate
impersonal interaction. Besides, enough support gave by brand community also
lead to high peer identification. It indicates that when members perceived the
support the community gave, they will be more willing to build relationships
with other members. In short, increase the peer identification in the brand
community, the good effect will feedback to the brand itself.
Second, a brand community exists to serve the members in it instead of
serve the business or brand. This study's finding shows that only peer
identification can lead to brand loyalty but brand community identification can't.
The truth is, a brand builds loyalty through brand community not by driving sales
transactions but by helping people meet their needs. On the other words, for
members, brand communities are a means to reach varied ends, not an end. Thus,
managers should set out from the perspective of community members,
59
understand and provide what they need. As a result, brand loyalty will comes
naturally.
Last but not least, this research points out that the degree of the fusion
between brand and community is an important factor for forming peer
identification in the context of online brand community. In practice, a brand
community chiefly connects to its own brand is not a main stream anymore,
because customers join the brand community not only for specific brand but also
for the social need: other members in it. As a result, managers shall break the
myth that brand communities must be brand-related and come up with ways to
create opportunities for members' interaction through diversified operating such
as anticipating varied activities and discussing broad issues. Moreover, develop
common interests among members. These are means to enhance peer
identification in brand communities. Finally, it will transform to identification to
the brand community and bring positive feedback to brand loyalty.
5.3 Limitations and Directions for Further Research
There are several important limitations have to address when interpreting
the empirical results and then develop directions for further research. First, our
sample consists of only automobile brand communities members. Because
members in automobile brand communities usually have a unique member
attribute—most of them are financially independent and predominantly
male—our findings might not generalize to other types of online brand
communities such as cosmetics communities, which normally composed by
female members. Future research can extend the object of study to other types of
60
online brand communities by different customers' characteristics.
Second, there may have a "consumer switching behavior" occur when
customers execute next purchase behavior. It also called "migration" as migrants
(consumers) move (switch) from one country (service provider) to another
(Bansal, Taylor, and James, 2005). Customers may switching to another brand
due to the pull effects such as alternative attractiveness — the positive
characteristics of competing service providers (Jones et al. 2000). This
phenomenon may be more obvious when purchasing a car because people
usually demonstrate the social identity and status through their car and tend to
purchase a higher level car than they have now. As a result, the brand community
members may have a high identification to the community but it won't lead them
to repurchase the brand's product, it probably influence the effect the brand
community identification on brand loyalty. Future research can extend the object
of study to other types of online brand communities by different products.
Third, the result of our study shows that brand loyalty is irrelevant to the
identification to brand communities, but related to peer identification. As a result,
the researchers shall find out what other factors can affect the peer identification
in online brand communities in addition to members' characteristics used in this
study. Besides, other non-community related factors may lead to brand loyalty
like brand reputation and the quality of product are worthy of further, in-depth
examination.
61
References
Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing Brand Equity: Capitalizing on the Value of a Brand.
New York: The Free Press.
Aaker, J. L. (1999). The malleable self: the role of self expression in persuasion.
Journal of Marketing Research, 36(1), 45–57.
Ahearne, M., Bhattacharya, C. B., and Gruen, T. (2005). Antecedents and
consequences of customer-company identification: expanding the role of
relationship marketing. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 574–585.
Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U. M. and Herrmann, A. (2005). The social influence of
brand community: evidence from European car clubs. Journal of Marketing,
69(3), 19-34.
Arnett, D. B., German, S. D., and Hunt, S. D. (2003). The Identity Salience Model of
Relationship Marketing Success: The Case of Nonprofit Marketing. Journal of
Marketing, 67, 89-105.
Ashforth, B. E., and Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization.
Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.
Bagozzi, R. P., and Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.
Bansal, H. S., Taylor, S. F. and James, Y. S. (2005). “Migrating” to New Service
Providers: Toward a Unifying Framework of Consumers’ Switching
Behaviors. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(1), 96-115.
Bagozzi, R. P., and Dholakia, U. M. (2006). Antecedents and purchase
62
consequences of customer participation in small group brand communities.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23(1), 45-61.
Bergami, M., and Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Self-Categorization, Affective
Commitment, and Group Self- Esteem as Distinct Aspects of Social Identity
in an Organization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39 (4), 555-77.
Bhattacharya, C. B., Hayagreeva, Rao, and Mary Ann Glynn (1995). Understanding
the Bond of Identification: An Investigation of its Correlates Among Art
Museum Members. Journal of Marketing, 59 (October), 46–57.
Bhattacharya, C. B., and Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: a
framework for understanding consumers’ relationships with companies.
Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 76–88.
Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self - on being the same and different at the
same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17(5), 475-482.
Brown, S., Kozinets, R. V., and Sherry, J. F. (2003). Teaching old brands new tricks:
Retro branding and the revival of brand meaning. Journal of Marketing,
67(3), 19-33.
Chaudhuri, A., and Holbrook, M. B. (2001). The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust
and Brand Affect to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty. Journal
of Marketing, 65(2), 81-93.
Cova, B. (1997). Community and Consumption: Towards a Definition of the
Linking Value of Product or Services. European Journal of Marketing, 31
(Fall/Winter), 297–316.
Drigotas, S. M., Rusbult, C. E., Wieselquist, J., and Whitton, S. W. (1999). Close
63
partner as sculptor of ideal self: behavioral affirmation and the Michelangelo
phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(2), 293–323.
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., and Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and
member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2), 239-263.
Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., and Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived
organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., and Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived
organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and
innovation. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1), 51–59.
Ellemers, N., Paulien, K., and Ouwerkerk, J. W. (1999). Self-Categorization,
Commitment to the Group, and Group Self-Esteem as Related but Distinct
Aspects of Social Identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29 (2-3),
371-89.
Fombelle, P. W., Jarvis, C. B., and Ward, J. (2012). Leveraging customers' multiple
identities: identity synergy as a driver of organizational identification.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(4), 587-604.
Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing
Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Franke, N., and Shah, S. (2003). How communities support innovative
activities_an exploration of assistance and sharing among end-users.
Research Policy, 32(3), 157-178.
Griffin, J. (1996). The Internet’s expanding role in building customer loyalty.
64
Direct Marketing, 59(7), 50–53.
Gusfield, J. (1978). The Community: A Critical Response. New York: Harper
Colophon.
Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J., and White, K. W. (1995). A tale of two theories: a critical
comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 58(4), 255–269.
Huffman, C., Ratneshwar, S., and Mick, D. G. (2000). Consumer goal structures
and goal-determination processes: An integrative framework. In Srinivasan
Ratneshwar, David G. Mick, & Cynthia Huffman (Eds.), The why of
consumption: Contemporary perspectives on consumer motives, goals, and
desires(pp. 9–35). London and New York: Routledge.
Jang, H., Olfman, L., Ko, I., Koh, J. and Kim, K. (2008). The influence of online
brand community characteristics on community commitment and brand
loyalty. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 12 (3), 57-80.
Jones, M. A., Mothersbaugh, D. L., and Beatty, S. E. (2000). Switching Barriers and
Repurchase Intentions in Service. Journal of Retailing, 72, 259-274.
Jones, C., and Volpe, E. H. (2010). Organizational identification: Extending our
understanding of social identities through social network. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 32(3), 413-434.
Karp, D., Stone, G., and Yoels, W. (1977). Being urban: a social psychological view
of city life. Lexington, MA: Heath and Company.
Kraimer, M. L., and Wayne, S. J. (2004). An examination of perceived
organizational support as a multidimensional construct in the context of
65
expatriate assignment. Journal of Management, 30(2), 209–237.
Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., and Stilwell, D. (1993). A longitudinal-study on the early
development of leader member exchanges. Journal of Applied Psychology,
78(4), 662-674.
Mael, F., and Ashforth, B. E.(1992). Alumni and Their Alma Mater: A Partial Test
of the Reformulated Model of Organizational Identification. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 13 (2), 103-123.
Maxham, J. G., and Netemeyer, R. G. (2003). Firms Reap What They Sow: The
Effects of Shared Values and Perceived Organizational Justice on Customer
Evaluations of Complaint Handling. Journal of Marketing, 67 (1), 46-62.
McAlexander, J. H., Schouten, J. W., and Koenig, H. F. (2002) Building brand
community. The Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 38-54.
McGrath M. A., Sherry, J. F., and Heisley, D. D. (1993). An ethnographic study of an
urban periodic marketplace: Lessons from the Midville farmers' market.
Journal of Retailing, 69(3), 280-319.
McMillan, D. W., and Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of Community: A Definition and
Theory. Journal of Community Psychology, Volume 14.
Meglino, B. M., and Ravlin, E. C. (1998). Individual values in organizations:
concepts, controversies, and research. Journal of Management, 24(3),
351–389.
Muniz, A. M., and O'Guinn, T. C. (2001). Brand community. Journal of Consumer
Research, 27(4), 412-432.
O’Reilly, C., and Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and
66
psychological attachment: the effects of compliance, identification and
internalization on prosocial behavior. The Journal of Applied Psychology,
71(3), 492–499.
Oliver, R. L. (1999) Whence customer loyalty? Journal of Marketing, 63, Special
Issue, 33–45.
Pratt, M. G. (1998). To be or not to be: Central questions in organizational
identification. In D. A. Whetten & P. C. Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in
organizations (pp. 171–207). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publication.
Prentice, D. A., Miller, D. T., and Lightdale, J. R. (1994). Asymmetries in
attachments to groups and to their members: distinguishing between
common-identity and common-bond groups. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 484–493.
Rothaermel, F. T., and Sugiyama, S. (2001). Virtual internet communities and
commercial success: individual and community-level theory grounded in the
atypical case of TimeZone.com. Journal of Management, 27, 297–312
Schouten, J. H., and McAlexander, J. W. (1995). Subcultures of consumption: An
ethnographyof the new bikers. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(1), 43-61.
Shen, Y. C., Huang, C. Y., Chu, C. H., and Liao, H. C. (2010). Virtual Community
Loyalty: An Interpersonal-Interaction Perspective. International Journal of
Electronic Commerce, 15(1), 49-73.
Swann, W. B. Jr., Go mez, A., Seyle, D. C., Morales, J. F., and Huici, C. (2009).
Identity fusion: The interplay of personal and social identities in extreme
group behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 995–1011.
67
Swann, W.B., Jr., Gómez, A., Huici, C., Morales, J. F., & Hixon, J. G. (2010). Identity
fusion and self-sacrifice: Arousal as catalyst of pro-group fighting, dying and
helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 824-841.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1985). The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup
Behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup
Relations (pp. 6-24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Turban, D. B., and Jones, A. P. (1988). Supervisor subordinate similarity - types,
effects, and mechanisms. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 228-234.
Wheeler, S. C., Petty, R. E., and Bizer, G. Y. (2005). Self-schema matching and
attitude change: situational and dispositional determinants of message
elaboration. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 787–797.
68
Brand Community Identification 品牌社群認同
Ashforth and Mael (1989)
1. When someone criticizes the (this brand community), it feels like a
personal insult.
2. I am very interested in what others think about (this brand
community).
3. When I talk about (this brand community), I usually say "we"
rather than "they".
4. (This brand community’s) successes are my successes.
5. When someone praises (this brand community), it feels like a
personal compliment.
1. 當別人批評這個品牌社群時，我也感覺被冒犯了。
2. 我想要知道別人如何看待這個品牌社群。
3. 當我提及這個品牌社群時，我偏向使用"我們"，而非"他們"。
4. 這個品牌社群若經營的成功，這也是我的成功。
5. 當別人讚賞這個品牌社群時，我也與有榮焉。
Community Support 社群支持
Adapted from Eisenberger et al. (1990)
1. (This brand community) cares about my well-being as a member.
2. (This brand community) cares about my opinions as a member.
3. (This brand community) is willing to help me in my role as a
member.
4. (This brand community) considers my goals and values as a
member.
1. 這個品牌社群在乎我的福利。
2. 這個品牌社群在乎我提出的意見。
3. 這個品牌社群願意提供幫助並協助我解決問題。
4. 這個品牌社群有考慮到我的目標及價值觀。
Appendix1
69
Community Value Congruence 社群價值一致性
Maxham and Netemyer (2003)
1. This brand community has the same values as I do. 1. 這個品牌社群跟我擁有相同的價值觀。
Community Affirmation 社群肯定
Drigotas et al. (1999)
1. (This brand community) sees me as a good member.
2. (This brand community) thinks I have the traits and dispositions
of a good member.
3. (This brand community) treats me like I am a good member.
1. 這個品牌社群把我視為優良會員。
2. 這個品牌社群認為我有成為優良會員的特質和性格。
3. 這個品牌社群對待我就像我是個優良會員一般。
Peer Identification 同儕認同
Ashforth and Mael (1989)
1. When someone criticizes other members of (this brand
community), it feels like a personal insult.
2. I am very interested in what others think about other members of
(this brand community).
3. When I talk about other members of (this brand community), I
usually say ‘we’ rather than ‘they.
4. The members’ successes are my successes.
5. When someone praises other members of (this brand
community), it feels like a personal compliment.
1. 當有人批評這個品牌社群裡的其他成員時，我也感覺被冒犯了。
2. 我想要知道別人如何看待這個品牌社群裡的其他成員。
3. 當我提及這個品牌社群裡的其他成員時，我偏向使用"我們"，而非
"他們"。
4. 這個品牌社群成員的成功，也是我的成功。
5. 當別人稱讚這個品牌社群裡的其他成員時，我也與有榮焉。
70
Member Similarity 成員相似性
Shen et al.(2010) ; Turban and Jones (1988) & Liden et al. (1993)
1. I share similar preferences with other members of (this
community).
2. I share similar interests with other members of (this community).
3. I share similar values with other members of (this community).
4. I joined in (this community) for the same purpose as other
community members do.
5. The members of (this community) and I see things in a similar
way.
6. The members of (this community) and I deal with issues in much
the same way.
1. 我和這個品牌社群裡的其他成員有著相似的喜好。
2. 我和這個品牌社群裡的其他成員有著相似的興趣。
3. 我和這個品牌社群裡的其他成員有著相似的價值觀。
4. 我參加這個品牌社群的目的和其他成員的一樣。
5. 我和這個品牌社群裡的其他成員看待事物的角度一致。
6. 在面對問題時，我和這個品牌社群裡的其他會員會用相似的處理
方式。
Member Distinctiveness 成員獨特性
Jones and Volpe (2010)
1. When I think about (this community), the way it runs the community
is unique and different from other communities.
2. The other members of (this community) are unique in my point of
view.
3. There are some experts who only participate in (this community).
4. The purposes of (this community) outshine the other communities.
5. The members of (this community) have special and unique
characteristics.
1. 我覺得這個品牌社群的運作很特別，和其他的粉絲社群不同。
2. 我覺得這個品牌社群裡的成員是與眾不同的。
3. 這個品牌社群裡有些專家是別的粉絲社群沒有的。
4. 這個品牌社群的目的和其他的粉絲社群有所不同。
5. 這個品牌社群的成員擁有特別且獨特的人格特質。
71
Member Prestiget 成員尊榮感
Ashforth and Mael (1992)
1. Experts generally think highly of (this community).
2. It is considered prestigious in (the community) of fans to be a
member of this community.
3. This community is considered one of the best (in this kind of
communities).
4. People from other communities respect the members of (this
community).
5. Members of (this community) would be proud to introduce others
the other members of this community.
6. The members of (this community) have a good reputation.
7. Showing associations with (this community) could make oneself
respected.
8. Members of (this community) are widely welcome by any kinds of
contest and activities.
1. 專家普遍認為這個社群很好。
2. 對同好而言，成為這品牌社群的成員是值得自豪的。
3. 這品牌社群是眾多粉絲社群中最好的社群之一。
4. 其他粉絲社群的人尊重這個品牌社群的成員。
5. 這個品牌社群的成員會自豪地向別人推薦這個社群的其他成員。
6. 這個品牌社群的成員擁有好名聲。
7. 一個人若向別人展示他是這個品牌社群的成員，他將會受到尊重。
8. 這個品牌社群的成員受到各種競賽和活動的歡迎。
Brand Loyalty品牌忠誠度
Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001)
1. I will buy products of (this brand) next time.
2. I prefer to keep buying products of (this brand).
3. I am loyalty to (this brand).
4. I would pay higher price to (this brand) rather than other brand.
1. 下次我會買這個品牌的產品。
2. 我傾向繼續購買此品牌的商品。
3. 我對這個品牌是忠誠的。
4. 跟其他品牌比起來，我會願意為這個品牌付出比較高的車價。
72
Appendix 2
親愛的小姐／先生，您好：
這是一份有關「汽車線上社群使用行為」的學術問卷，我們需要的填答者必須是「最
近一個月內曾登入某汽車線上社群的註冊成員」。所謂汽車線上社群（汽車粉絲社群）是
指成員們可以彼此互動，分享購車心得、相關產品知識、個人意見，以及舉辦成員活動的
線上社群。如果您不是任何線上汽車社群的註冊成員，那麼請您不要填答這份問卷。謝謝
您的合作！
填寫這份問卷大約需要 5分鐘左右的時間，您的答案對我們的研究相當重要，懇請您
耐心作答。為了感謝您在百忙中抽空填答，有效問卷者可參加現金抽獎活動（一千元現金
三名、五百元現金六名），得獎名單我們將於 2013年 6月 30日下午 5點前公布於問卷施
放位置，同時寄發 Email通知得獎者，獎金會以現金袋方式寄送。
最後，本問卷採匿名方式，所有資料僅供學術研究之用，絕不外洩或轉用它途，請您
放心作答。
敬祝
身體健康 事事順心
國立台灣師範大學管理研究所
指導教授：王仕茹 博士
研 究 生：張睿哲
1.請問您擁有以下哪些品牌的汽車？（可複選）
□Ford
□雷諾(Renault)
□Nissan
□Infiniti
□福斯(Volkswagen)
□Luxgen
□Honda
□Mitsubishi
□Toyota
□其他（請註明品牌名稱）____________________
2.在您擁有過的汽車中，請問您目前最常使用的是哪一個品牌之汽車？（單選）
□雷諾(Renault)
□Nissan
□Ford
73
□福斯(Volkswagen)
□Infiniti
□Luxgen
□Honda
□Mitsubishi
□Toyota
□其他（請註明品牌名稱）____________________
3. 接續上一題，針對您目前最常使用品牌之汽車，請問您使用它的時間有多久了？
□半年(含)以下 □半年～1年(含) □1年～1年半(含)
□1年半～2年(含) □2年～2年半(含) □2年半～3年(含)
□3年～3年半(含) □3年半～4年(含) □4年～4年半(含)
□4年半～5年(含) □5年以上
4. 請問您是下列哪個汽車線上社群的註冊成員？（可複選）
□FSC車友會
□RFC銀鑽俱樂部
□SAVRIN幸福家族俱樂部
□555 CLUB
□福斯小狼俱樂部
□愛納車隊
□VTEC SPIRIT CLUB
□NISSAN TIIDA CLUB
□台灣小可俱樂部
□其他（請註明社群名稱）____________________
5. 請問您最常登入哪個汽車線上社群？（單選）
□SAVRIN幸福家族俱樂部
□FSC車友會
□RFC銀鑽俱樂部
□555 CLUB
□愛納車隊
□福斯小狼俱樂部
□VTEC SPIRIT CLUB
□NISSAN TIIDA CLUB
□台灣小可俱樂部
□其他（請註明社群名稱）____________________
74
【第一部分】請針對您所勾選的「最常登入的汽車線上社群」，回答下列各部份的問題。
6.您註冊成為這個汽車線上社群的成員已經有多久時間了？
□半年(含)以下 □半年～1年(含) □1年～1年半(含)
□1年半～2年(含) □2年～2年半(含) □2年半～3年(含)
□3年～3年半(含) □3年半～4年(含) □4年～4年半(含)
□4年半～5年(含) □5年以上
7.在過去一個月內，您登入這個社群的次數有多少次？
□0次 □1～2次 □3～4次
□5～6次 □7～8次 □9～10次
□11次以上
8.您每次停留在這個社群的時間約有多長？
□15分鐘(含)以下 □15分鐘～30分鐘(含) □30分鐘～45分鐘(含)
□45分鐘～60分鐘(含) □60分鐘～75分鐘(含) □75分鐘～90分鐘(含)
□90分鐘以上
9.您認為這個社群裡成員彼此間的回應／互動程度如何？
□幾乎沒有 □很少 □偶爾 □經常 □總是
10.您身邊那些對您很重要的親友絕大多數都知道您是這個社群的成員嗎？
□知道 □不知道
11.您曾在這個社群的論壇裡發表文章／照片或者回應其他成員所發表的文章／照片嗎？
□幾乎沒有 □很少 □偶爾 □經常 □總是
12. 您曾經參與過這個線上社群所舉辦的活動嗎？
□幾乎沒有 □很少 □偶爾 □經常 □總是
13.您最近一次登入這個線上社群是多久以前？
□一個月以上 □兩星期～一個月 □一星期～兩星期 □一個星期內
【第二部分】針對您所參與的汽車線上社群，依據您的直覺或感受回答下列問題。
非常不同意
不同意
同意
有點不同意
普通
有點同意
同意
同意
非常同意
14 當別人批評這個社群時，我會感覺到自己也受到了侮辱。
75
15 我很想要知道別人如何看待這個社群。
16 當我提到這個社群時，我會使用「我們」而不是「他們」。
17 這個社群的成功就是我的成功。
18 當別人讚美這個社群時，我會覺得與有榮焉。
19 這個社群關心我做為一個成員的福利。
20 這個社群在乎我做為一個成員的意見。
21 這個社群願意提供幫助並協助我解決問題。
22 這個社群會考慮到我做為一個成員的目標及價值觀。
23 這個社群跟我擁有相同的價值觀。
24 這個社群把我視為一個好的成員。
25 這個社群認為我具有一個好成員的特質和性格。
26 這個社群對待我就像我是一個好成員一般。
27 當這個社群裡有人在攝影比賽中獲獎時，我會感到很高興。
28. 針對你主要參與的品牌社群，請分別就社群本身，以及該社群所鎖定的品牌本身，回答下列問題。
這個問題沒有標準答案，答案也無好壞之別，請依照自身的直覺作答即可。
想像一下，下圖中每一個選項中
左邊的圓圈代表我對這個社群的整體感覺
右邊的圓圈代表我對這個品牌的整體感覺
請指出下圖中，A、B、C、D、E哪一個狀態最能夠表達這個社群與這個品牌兩者間的一致程度
請以下述五項標準，判斷此社群與品牌兩者間的一致程度：
(1) 我認為這個社群的價值觀和這個品牌的價值觀，兩者是否一致？
(2) 我認為這個社群的特質和這個品牌的特質，兩者是否一致？
(3) 我認為這個社群的形象和這個品牌的形象，兩者是否一致？
(4) 我認為這個社群的參與者形象和這個品牌的使用者形象，兩者是否一致？
(5) 我認為這個社群的整體感覺和這個品牌的整體感覺，兩者是否一致？
兩者愈不一致則愈往選項 A靠近，兩者間愈一致則愈往選項 E靠近。
我認為這個「社群」與其「品牌」的一致程度是： A. B. C. D. E.
社群 品牌
社群 品牌
社群 品牌
社群 品牌
社群 品牌
A B C D E
76
【第三部分】針對您所參與的汽車線上社群裡的「成員」，依據您的直覺或感受回答下列問題。
非常不同意
不同意
同意
有點不同意
普通
有點同意
同意
同意
非常同意
29 當有人批評這個社群裡的其他成員時，我會感覺到自己也受
到了侮辱。
30 我想要知道別人如何看待這個社群裡的其他成員。
31 當我提及這個社群裡的其他成員時，我會使用「我們」而不
是「他們」。
32 這個社群成員的成功就是我的成功。
33 當別人稱讚這個社群裡的其他成員時，我也與有榮焉。
34 我和這個社群裡的其他成員有著相似的喜好。
35 我和這個社群裡的其他成員有著相似的興趣。
36 我和這個社群裡的其他成員有著相似的價值觀。
37 我參加這個社群的目的和其他成員的一樣。
38 我和這個社群裡的其他成員看待事物的角度是很像的。
39 我和這個社群裡的其他成員處理問題的方式很相似。
【第四部分】針對您所參與的汽車線上社群裡的「成員」，依據您的直覺或感受回答下列問題。
非常不同意
不同意
同意
有點不同意
普通
有點同意
同意
同意
非常同意
40 我覺得我的社群成員運作社群的方式很特別，和其他的粉絲
社群不同。
41 我覺得這個社群裡的成員是與眾不同的。
42 這個社群裡有些專家是別的粉絲社群沒有的。
43 這個社群裡的成員追求的目標和其他的粉絲社群有所不同。
44 這個社群的成員擁有特別且獨特的人格特質。
45 專家普遍認為這個社群很好。
46 成為這社群的成員是值得自豪的。
47 這社群是眾多同類粉絲社群中最好的社群之一。
48 其他粉絲社群的人尊重這個社群的成員。
77
49 這個社群的成員會自豪地向別人介紹這個社群的其他成員。
50 這個社群的成員擁有好名聲。
51 一個人若向別人展示他是這個社群的成員，他將會受到尊
重。
52 這個社群的成員受到各種競賽和活動的歡迎。
【第五部分】針對這個品牌，依據您的直覺或感受回答下列問題。
非常不同意
不同意
同意
有點不同意
普通
有點同意
同意
同意
非常同意
53 下次我會買這個品牌的產品。
54 我偏好繼續購買這個品牌的產品。
55 我對這個品牌是忠誠的。
56 跟其他品牌比起來，我會願意為這個品牌付出比較高的價
格。
【第六部分】基本資料
57.性別
□女 □男
58.年齡
□15歲以上～20歲(含) □20歲以上～25歲(含) □25歲以上～30歲(含)
□30歲以上～35歲(含) □35歲以上～40歲(含) □40歲以上～45歲(含)
□45歲以上～50歲(含) □50歲以上
59.職業
□家管 □軍公教 □服務業 □金融保險業 □資訊業
□製造運輸業
□其他
□商業 □學生 □自由業 □SOHO族
60.教育程度
□國中(含)以下 □高中／職 □專科／技術學院
78
□公私立大學 □研究所(含)以上
61.個人年所得（新台幣）
□30萬(含)以下 □30萬～40萬(含) □40萬～50萬(含)
□50萬～60萬(含) □60萬～70萬(含) □70萬～80萬(含)
□80萬～90萬(含) □90萬～100萬(含) □100萬以上
62.每一年在汽車相關產品的花費金額（新台幣）
□5千元(含)以下 □5千元～1萬元(含) □1萬元～1萬 5千元(含)
□1萬 5千元～2萬元(含) □2萬元～2萬 5千元(含) □2萬 5千元以上
63. E-mail（請填寫您常用的 email和暱稱。email是為了聯繫現金袋寄發之用，請正確填寫；暱稱是為了作為公佈抽
獎結果之用。我們不會公布得獎人的 email，只會公布暱稱，敬請安心填寫。）
Email： 暱稱：
～～填答結束 感謝您～～