Exploring the impact of brand community identification on Facebook: Firm-directed and self-directed drivers

Journal of Business Research 96 (2019) 115–124

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jbusres

Exploring the impact of brand community identification on Facebook: Firmdirected and self-directed drivers

T

⁎

Melek Demiray , Sebnem Burnaz Istanbul Technical University, Faculty of Management, Management Engineering Department, Macka, 34367 Istanbul, Turkey

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Brand community Facebook Community identification Drivers Opinion leadership Opinion seeking

The interaction between consumers and brands has become more dynamic and powerful through online brand communities. Although brand communities commonly use Facebook as virtual platform, yet little is known about potential antecedents of identification. This paper presents two new concepts as antecedents named firmdirected and self-directed drivers by expanding the social identity approach to Facebook in the context of brand community identification. Specifically, this study explores the impact of drivers on community members' WOM communication and purchase intention for a new product through brand community identification and commitment. An exploratory research has been conducted to understand the brand community drivers, followed by a quantitative study to reveal the relationships in the proposed research model. The findings demonstrate how differing levels of opinion leadership or opinion seeking can shift attitude toward brand community on Facebook by highlighting the role of firm-directed and self-directed drivers in identification.

1. Introduction Research focusing on brand communities has become more popular over the last two decades. Individuals are able to access brand communities regardless of time and geographic restrictions through a technological interface; hence, communication within the community has become more dynamic and rich (Kim, Bae, & Kang, 2008) and the interactions between brands and customers more intense. Social networking sites eventually become an indispensable part of daily life and a means for creating powerful communication between brands and consumers. By enabling organizations to generate their own brand community, Facebook as the world's biggest social networking site with 2.23 billion monthly active users (Facebook, 2018) offers the opportunity to easily access their target consumers and create dialogue with community members (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010). According to the Social Media Marketing Industry Report, Facebook is also the dominant social networking site used by 93% of marketers (2016). A key consequence of strong ties between consumers and brands is the formation of brand community identification. This term means that individuals describe themselves as belonging to the community because of their membership to the group (Algesheimer, Dholakia, & Herrmann, 2005). Although previous studies on brand community identification provide important insights about its dimensions in offline environments (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2006), its role on brand website (Alden, Kelley,

⁎

Youn, & Chen, 2016) and its outcomes (Popp & Woratschek, 2017), research about the potential drivers of brand community identification on social media remains unclear. Drivers of identification in the context of brand community on Facebook deserve attention because these drivers depending on the Facebook template might be the sole tools to be used by brand managers for influencing identification level of the members. The authors identify these drivers as firm-directed and selfdirected. Firm-directed driver is related to the instruments such as information, content, photos, video and survey. This kind of driver is controlled by the brand that leads to passive experiences of brand community members. Self-directed driver is related to the perceived benefits of joining a brand community such as keeping up to date and being aware of promotions/competitions. Self-directed driver requires a cognitive process to assess the meaningfulness of the content. Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook, stated in a recent post on his Facebook page that Facebook will change its strategy by de-emphasizing posts from brands and businesses in its News Feed to encourage users to reach relevant content and have more meaningful interactions (2018). He also added that contents which lead to start conversations on significant topics will be more desirable than passive experiences such as reading posts or watching videos regardless of their enjoyable or informative impression. In parallel with his explanation, one can say that the focus of Facebook based on brand communities might shift from firm-directed drivers to self-directed ones. Therefore,

Corresponding author at: Istanbul Teknik Universitesi, Isletme Fakultesi, Isletme Muh. Bolumu, Macka, 34367 Istanbul, Turkey. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M. Demiray), [email protected] (S. Burnaz).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.11.016 Received 27 September 2017; Received in revised form 7 November 2018; Accepted 10 November 2018 0148-2963/ © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Journal of Business Research 96 (2019) 115–124

M. Demiray, S. Burnaz

2.2. Social identity theory and brand community identification: firmdirected and self-directed drivers

exploring the impact of drivers of Facebook on brand community identification has become much more critical to create and manage meaningful interactions. The interaction of customers with a brand community influences their behavior (Algesheimer et al., 2005) in the form of word of mouth (WOM) communication and purchase intention of a new product. This occurs because members identify and commit to these products (Dick & Basu, 1994). Additionally, the concept of brand community includes social identities such as opinion leaders and opinion seekers. These social identities are critical for spreading WOM communication and, consequently, affecting consumers' purchase intention for a product (Cho, Hwang, & Lee, 2012; Valente & Davis, 1999). It is important that companies develop effective communication strategies to identify and influence opinion leaders and opinion seekers (Stern & Gould, 1988). This ensures their identification with the brand community based on social identity theory (Grewal, Mehta, & Kardes, 2000). The aim of this study is to understand the impact of drivers on Facebook on brand community identification, and consequently members' WOM communication and purchase intention for a product through brand community commitment. Prior research has focused on the roles of opinion leaders on social media (e.g., Turcotte, York, Irving, Scholl, & Pingree, 2015; Winter & Neubaum, 2016) and the influences of social identities on the relationships between brand community identification and its antecedents on Facebook remain unexplored. Therefore, the moderating roles of opinion leadership and opinion seeking in the relationship between firm-directed/self-directed drivers and brand community identification are also explored in the context of this study.

Social identity theory is laying out that an individual's self-concept consists of a personal identity which includes specific attributes, abilities, and interests, and a social identity which involves various social categories or groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). It places emphasis on group dynamics and in-group bias based on the formation of social identities. Intergroup behaviors such as group memberships are associated with this theory (Heere et al., 2011). Identification which is derived from social identity theory can be characterized by the perceived overlap between an individual's self-image and the image of a social category (e.g. brand community) (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000). Identification occurs when one perceives a sense of “oneness or belongingness to a group, or organization, where the individual defines him or herself in terms of the organization of which he or she is a member” (Mael & Ashforth, 1992, p. 104). Social identity which was introduced by Ellemers, Kortekaas, and Ouwerkerk (1999) is one of the most pervasive theoretical frameworks in contemporary brand community research (e.g. Algesheimer et al., 2005; Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2006). Group self-esteem and self-categorization are respectively evaluative and cognitive components of an individual's social identity (Ellemers et al., 1999). An individual will attribute a positive or negative value to a brand community membership, which is explaining the evaluative component of identification. Concerning this component, identification with the group may be directed by the firm via the firm-initiated online brand communities on Facebook. In fact, brand communities on social networking sites are templates that brand managers are able to involve in the design depending on the platform (e.g. Facebook) features. Prior studies have described such instruments as offering rich and reliable information (Hausman & Siekpe, 2009), user friendly navigation (Casalo, Flavián, & Guinalíu, 2010; Hung, Li, & Tse, 2011) and attractive content and visuals (Kim, Shaw, & Schneider, 2003). All these elements which generate firm-directed drivers have critical importance in the assessment of membership of a brand community on Facebook with negative or positive attribution. Since information sharing decreases uncertainty and information asymmetry and increases the predictability of a brand (Ba, 2001), it may lead to arise in-group self-esteem as a consequence of the evaluative component of social identity theory. When a member sees the post of a brand as positive, distinctive and prestigious, the member's identification with that brand community strengthens (Mousavi, Roper, & Keeling, 2017). Because consumer-company identification can be revealed through a company's website (Homburg, Wieseke, & Hoyer, 2009), this study proposes that exposure to web-related instruments organized by a firm within the brand community on Facebook may influence members' evaluation about the degree of their sense of belonging to the brand community.

2. Literature review 2.1. Online brand community and Facebook Bagozzi and Dholakia (2006) characterized a brand community as a “… group of consumers with a shared enthusiasm for the brand and a well-developed social identity, whose members engage jointly in group actions to accomplish collective goals and/or express mutual sentiments and commitments” (p. 45). Brand communities are usually formed by sharing brand knowledge, brand history and consumption experiences with the brand. They help companies attract individuals and build successful connections through establishing long-term relationships (Stokburger-Sauer, 2010). It is imperative for businesses and customers to find ways to utilize the benefits of both virtual settings and brand communities at the same time. An online brand community is described as a cyberspace where an increasing number of people interact, communicate with each other (Sicilia & Palazon, 2008), and create characteristics similar to traditional communities (Shang, Chen, & Liao, 2006). The placeless, timeless and comprehensive nature of online brand communities provides easy access to information exchange and community participation (Palmer & Koenig-Lewis, 2009). This facilitates long-term and close links which prevent the loss of relationships (Ba, 2001; Kim, Bae, & Kang, 2008). Online brand communities are created as either consumer-initiated or firm-initiated (Kim, Bae, & Kang, 2008). Companies organize these settings to gain competitive advantages through building strong relationships with their customers at minimal cost in terms of time and money (Muniz & O'Guinn, 2001). Facebook's brand profile page appears as a convenient platform for online brand communities offering companies the template for their own customized profile. Thus, the role of social networking sites is critical for brands to access current and potential customers to create and strengthen the relationships regardless of geographic constraints (Kang, Lee, Lee, & Choi, 2007).

H1. Firm-directed drivers have a positive impact on brand community identification. The cognitive component of social identity theory is defined as a cognitive awareness of one's membership in a social group (Ellemers et al., 1999). These social groups offer an opportunity for people to recognize themselves and others in a community such that individuals cognitively identify themselves as members (Johnson, Morgeson, & Hekman, 2012) and the cognition leads to increase one's willingness on participation and contribution to online brand community (Liao, Huang, & Xiao, 2017). The cognitive component is accepted as the first and most fundamental dimension and the center of identification (Deaux, 1996). Identification with the brand community also includes members' self-categorization, which can be explained as seeing oneself as part of the community on account of a cognitive categorization process (Algesheimer et al., 2005). After the self-categorization process, which presents the possibility to distinguish between members of different social categories, members intrinsically seek to achieve positive 116

Journal of Business Research 96 (2019) 115–124

M. Demiray, S. Burnaz

affect attitudes toward a product due to the effect of drivers on Facebook. Shoham and Pesämaa (2013) claims that firms can easily and rapidly diffuse and penetrate into the market when they shape their strategy based on opinion leaders, due to their early adopter ability. Rogers (2003) defines opinion leadership as the “degree to which an individual is able to influence other individuals' attitudes or overt behavior in a desired way with relative frequency” (p. 300). Opinion leaders generally are at the center of interpersonal networks that include interconnected users linked in terms of information (Cho et al., 2012; Valente & Davis, 1999). By using marketing media (i.e. brand communities) to create a relationship, marketers stimulate favorable curiosity about their product. However, individual users (i.e. opinion leaders) have power which stems from being a part of this relationship (Lehtonen, 2003) and these leaders as well as seekers must define themselves with regards to a shared social identity (Haslam & Platow, 2001). Opinion leaders as social identities, hold a critical role in building and sustaining relationships involving product related exchanges that may occur in the brand community on Facebook. Opinion leaders have a high degree of involvement in a particular product category and exhibit a tendency to sustain their enthusiasm by increasing their knowledge (Bertrandias & Goldsmith, 2006) because of firm-directed drivers. Opinion leaders may identify themselves in terms of the group due to the information that is transmitted through brand communities. Thus, for opinion leaders, any firm-directed driver is likely to facilitate identification with a given brand community.

distinctiveness by making an effort to obtain and continue a positive self-concept. In other words, the influence of a community is not shallow, instead its impact can be characterized by the integration of member's self-concept (Wyer, 2010). Enhancing one's cognitive identification and self-categorization with a community is desirable since it helps to specify the border line that recognizes the community as exclusive in a member's mind (Johnson et al., 2012). Members put their own group above other groups on various valued criteria (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). In the online community, members are satisfied by receiving particular offerings such as detailed information about products/services, special promotions/incentives, and personalized solution to their problems (Casaló, Flavian, & Guinalíu, 2007; Sung, Kim, Kwon, & Moon, 2010). Thus, individuals may be intrinsically motivated to pursue in-group positive distinctiveness in the Facebook brand community. H2. Self-directed drivers have a positive impact on brand community identification.

2.3. Outcomes: brand community commitment, WOM impact and purchase intention Commitment is considered a psychological attachment (Dick & Basu, 1994) and a process of bridging from a certain set of leading variables to the resulting behavioral outcomes (Wiener, 1982). Online brand community commitment is defined as “strong and positive feelings among members toward the community” (McWilliam, 2000). Likeminded members who have shared interests and social identities (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2006; Hsu, Chiang, & Huang, 2012) are expected to exhibit commitment to the community. Commitment is an attitudinal factor (Jang, Olfman, Ko, Koh, & Kim, 2008) that appears when the members feel a valuable continuing relationship between themselves and their community. Bergami and Bagozzi (2000) reveal that brandconsumer identification is critical because customers who identify themselves with a brand can exhibit a high level of commitment to that brand and related issues.

H6. Opinion leadership strengthens the positive relationship between firm-directed drivers and brand community identification. Social identity theory emphasizes “personal identity” including an individual's specific abilities and interests and “social identity” including various social categories (e.g. opinion leadership and opinion seeking) (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) based on group memberships and ingroup bias (Heere et al., 2011). In addition, according to self-categorization theory, individuals consider themselves with regard to personal versus group characteristics (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). This theory is associated with interpersonal and ingroup behaviors that are related to the formation of self-concept as unstable between personal and social identities (Johnson et al., 2012). Based on this theory, the information about the community can be related to self-concept due to the cognitive categorization process (Wyer, 2010). While self-directed drivers which are identified with members' cognitive process can be regarded as part of the personal identity, opinion leadership characteristic is accepted as social identity. Selfcategorization theory states that when a social identity is salient, individuals express themselves as identical with other members of the community and their focal point changes into group-centered and so depersonalization occurs (Wyer, 2010). It has been found that opinion leaders have a tendency to exhibit higher confidence scores in the public sphere rather than in a situation that requires self-reliance (Bertrandias & Goldsmith, 2006). Opinion leaders feel comfortable ingroup while putting forward their comments without the concern of being judged individually. Therefore, in-group salience and identification influence the likelihood that one's attitudes, judgements and behavior are associated with social identities instead of personal identities (Wyer, 2010). Self-directed drivers as personal identity might become less effective on brand community identification due to having a high level of opinion leadership as salient social identity. Therefore, for opinion leaders, self-directed drivers are likely to weaken identification with the brand community.

H3. Brand community identification has a positive impact on brand community commitment. Drawing on social identity theory, studies have proven that customers in brand communities tend to support products and brands related with these communities (Algesheimer et al., 2005; Muniz & O'Guinn, 2001). Companies can provide better communication about their products through their members' knowledge. Hence, consumers become more familiarized with the brand's products and develop less uncertainty (Casaló et al., 2007). Thompson and Sinha (2008) have discovered that membership and participation in a brand community lead to a sense of loyalty among members. Therefore, one can assume that individuals who are loyal and committed to a brand community on Facebook are more likely to develop positive WOM behavior and increase purchasing for the company's new products. H4. Brand community commitment has a positive impact on WOM behavior about a new product of a given brand. H5. Brand community commitment has a positive impact on purchase intention for a new product of a given brand.

2.4. Opinion leadership and opinion seeking as moderators According to social identity theory, individuals develop social identities such as opinion leadership and opinion seeking based on group membership, and in-group bias occurs due to the sense of belonging to that community (Heere et al., 2011). Different levels of opinion leadership and opinion seeking as multiple social identities are studied in this research, since social identification at any level may

H7. Opinion leadership weakens the positive relationship between selfdirected drivers and brand community identification. While opinion seeking is as significant as opinion leadership due to its representation of its complementary side (Feick, Price, & Higie, 1986), researchers have demonstrated less attention to opinion seeking. 117

Journal of Business Research 96 (2019) 115–124

M. Demiray, S. Burnaz

Flynn, Goldsmith, and Eastman (1996) state that “opinion seekers imitate purchase and consumption behavior they admire, gather information from other consumers in the process of social communication and seek advice from others who have greater knowledge and experience” (p. 137). Similar to the opinion leadership, opinion seeking as social identity is developed based on group membership and plays a role in the perceived importance of membership related to the evaluative component of social identity theory. The members' in-group favoritism based on social identities (i.e. opinion seeking) changes depending on their comparisons of various reference groups within the community (Marzocchi, Morandin, & Bergami, 2013). Opinion seeking activity is used to reduce perceived risk in making decisions (Punj & Staelin, 1983). It may also imply that seekers desire to understand a group's values and beliefs to be able to comply with its norms (Bertrandias & Goldsmith, 2006). By subjecting to information about products and brands, seekers may obtain an opportunity to build or to reinforce their relationship with a community (Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1955), and they are implicitly open to normative effects. Thus, opinion seeking is expected to strengthen the ties between firm-directed drivers and community identification.

3. Method Since the study of underlying drivers of brand community in Facebook is currently a developing area of investigation, this research also includes an exploratory part. Study I consists of focus group studies representing the qualitative approach. Study II is based on both existing literature and the outcomes of Study I and uses a survey instrument to collect field data.

3.1. Study I: qualitative research A preliminary survey was applied to 120 students to understand their membership status to a brand community and determine possible participants for the qualitative research. Based on this preliminary survey, students who were actively members of brand communities were invited to join focus groups. The total number of participants was 36 in five separate sessions. Each group consisted of 5–11 students whose ages were between 22 and 30. The researchers acted as moderators, and a semi-structured questionnaire form was used. The exploratory research findings mainly present the attitudes and behaviors of people about brand communities in Facebook. The majority of them prefer being a member of firm-initiated brand communities because they find them official and more trustworthy. The most significant finding emerging from these discussions is to identify the firm-directed and self-directed drivers with regard to Facebook derived from their membership experience. Concerning the firm-directed drivers, participants declare that informative, reliable, enjoyable and distinctive content are important for members' visiting frequency and time spent on each visit. Additionally, participants indicated that their assessment about being membership of that brand community become positive if the firms effectively use photos, videos and short surveys. When it comes to the self-directed drivers, people who took part in the focus group discussions stated various reasons to explain why they were part of a brand community. Most of the reasons are related perceived benefits of joining a community such as keeping up to date with brand, saving time for research, benefiting from promotions and being aware of competitions.

H8. Opinion seeking strengthens the positive relationship between firm-directed drivers and brand community identification. Concerning self-categorization theory, in contrast to the mechanism on the impact of opinion leadership, when personal identity is salient, individuals express themselves as distinct and they concentrate on their individual characteristics (Wyer, 2010). In this study, individual characteristics are represented as self-directed drivers which are related to using the individuals' cognitive processes. Opinion seekers are more likely to cognitively process self-directed drivers in order to understand the meaning of the messages, thereby leading to greater identification with brand community. H9. Opinion seeking strengthens the positive relationship between selfdirected drivers and brand community identification. Based on these explanations, the proposed research model is given in Fig. 1.

Opinion leadership

H6 Firm-directed drivers

H7

WOM H1

H4 H3 Brand community identification

Brand community commitment

H2

Self-directed drivers

H8

H5

H9

Opinion seeking

Fig. 1. Research model. 118

Purchase intention

Journal of Business Research 96 (2019) 115–124

M. Demiray, S. Burnaz

among constructs may occur. That is why common method variance was tested by using two techniques. First, the most common test called Harman's single-factor test (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003) was performed. All items were tested via an exploratory factor analysis to load on an unrotated single factor. The results show that no single factor explained most of the variance, since the first factor accounted for only 44.1% of the variance. As the second technique, common latent factor was applied in which a new latent variable was added, and all other constructs were linked to it. All the paths were constrained to a same value and 1 was assigned for the variance of the common factor. The square of the path's constrained value indicated the common variance, which was 0.31. Since the common variance was smaller than 0.5, it could be concluded that there is no common method bias in this study.

3.2. Study II: quantitative research and measurement scales The measurement scales of Study II were adapted from previous research. Due to the lack of valid scales in the context of Facebook, firm-directed and self-directed drivers of brand page were measured by adapting from Kim et al. (2003), Hausman and Siekpe (2009) and Sung et al. (2010). In addition, the authors utilized insights revealed from focus group discussions, and elaborated on professional and academic experts. The resulting two scales are related to Facebook template which is more constrained than classical community webpages. The scales' face validity and content validity were tested by consulting with academic and professional experts and via literature review. For the scale of brand community identification, the study of Algesheimer et al. (2005) was used. The items listed in brand community commitment were adapted from Kim, Choi, Qualls, and Han (2008) and Sung et al. (2010). For the WOM communication scale, Hur, Ahn, and Kim (2011) was used, and items related to new product purchase intention were adapted from Casalo et al. (2010). Finally, opinion leadership and opinion seeking scales were adapted from Flynn et al. (1996). All these items were translated into Turkish, with back translation to provide conceptual equivalence. In the survey questionnaire, respondents were asked to indicate by a five-point Likert scale (1: “strongly disagree” and 5: “strongly agree”) the extent of their agreement with a series of statements about the constructs of the research. Appendix A lists measurement items.

4.2. Measurement model An exploratory factor analysis was conducted in order to identify the appropriate items for the tests. All constructs were reviewed using principal component analysis with varimax rotation. Factor loadings were higher than 0.5, and total explained variance (76%) of eight factor solution met the requirements (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 1998). The Cronbach alpha was used to assess the reliability of a minimum value of 0.7 (Nunnally, 1978). The reliabilities of the scales were given in Appendix A. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using maximum likelihood estimation of the covariance matrix was performed on all items corresponding to eight constructs in this research. As for the construct validity of the measurement model, convergent validity and discriminant validity of the constructs were examined. Fornell and Larcker (1981) claimed that convergent validity would be confirmed by examining three conditions. First, standardized loadings of items in CFA are expected to be more than 0.7. Except a very few ones which are greater than 0.6, measurement items met the criteria (see Appendix A). Second, the average variance extracted (AVE) measure is suggested to be used. As Fornell and Larcker (1981) assert for cases in which AVE is lower than the recommended threshold (0.5), if the CR is higher than 0.6, the convergent validity of the construct can still be considered adequate. It can be seen from Table 1, although AVE value of self-directed drivers (0.46) is slightly less than 0.5, CR value of the construct (0.81) is significantly higher than 0.6. Finally, the CR for each measure exceeded 0.7, satisfying the general requirement of reliability for research instruments. As illustrated in Table 1, the diagonal values demonstrate the square root of AVE for each construct and values below are correlation estimates. Discriminant validity is confirmed if the square root of the AVE of each measurement is greater than the inner-construct correlation. Although the value representing the square root of AVE for self-directed drivers was slightly less than its correlations with firm-directed drivers and brand community commitment, it can be accepted that the overall results confirm the discriminant validity of the measures used in the study. In addition, the goodness-of-fit indices of CFA were examined to ensure that the model represents the data well (χ2 = 1165.89,

3.3. Sampling and data collection Turkey is among the top ten Facebook user countries in the world (Statista, 2016). Turkish people frequently interact on Facebook, making this market an ideal setting for investigating consumer behavior relating to Facebook pages. A large-scale company in the electronics industry was selected to make the survey questionnaire accessible on its brand community Facebook page. The page has more than 1.5 million fans, which is a high number within the country's electronics industry (Socialbakers, 2017). Also, the company has introduced a new product to the market, very recently to this study. After the questionnaire was posted, a total of 408 individuals replied to the survey. SPSS and AMOS were used for analyzing the data. Concerning the demographic characteristics of the respondents, 85% were male and more than half of them were single, which is in line with the population of the company Facebook page. Thirty six percent of the participants were aged between 25 and 34, 47% have up to a 2year college degree, 22.7% were professionals, and only 30.6% of them were students. 4. Results 4.1. Common method variance Since the data for predictor and criterion constructs were gathered from the same sample, respondents' bias that affects the relationships Table 1 Correlations among constructs, convergent validity, and discriminant validity.

WOM (1) Firm-directed drivers (2) Self-directed drivers (3) Brand community identification (4) Brand community commitment (5) Opinion seeking (6) Opinion leadership (7) Purchase intention (8)

CR

AVE

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

0.91 0.93 0.81 0.91 0.87 0.92 0.93 0.93

0.77 0.59 0.46 0.72 0.70 0.75 0.81 0.88

0.88 0.49 0.50 0.44 0.58 0.42 0.38 0.63

0.77 0.71 0.67 0.77 0.68 0.49 0.26

0.68 0.53 0.73 0.58 0.32 0.23

0.85 0.79 0.71 0.63 0.27

0.84 0.67 0.61 0.34

0.87 0.64 0.27

0.90 0.23

0.94

119

Journal of Business Research 96 (2019) 115–124

M. Demiray, S. Burnaz

Firm-directed drivers

WOM

.59*

.60* .83* Brand community identification

Brand community commitment

.18*

Self-directed drivers

.39*

Purchase intention

Fig. 2. Results of model with standardized path estimates. *p-value < .01.

df = 492, pb.000; χ2/df = 2.37; GFI = 0.86; TLI = 0.93; NFI = 0.90).

RMSEA = 0.06;

identification is stronger when opinion leadership is high. Also, the relationship between self-directed drivers and brand community identification weakens when opinion leadership is high, thus supporting H7. Concerning the moderating role of opinion seeking, the multigroup analysis reveals that the unconstrained model fits the data fairly well (χ2 = 1322.00, df = 622, pb.000; χ2/df = 2.13; RMSEA = 0.05; CFI = 0.90; GFI = 0.82; TLI = 0.89; NFI = 0.83). Based on the ChiSquare difference test, opinion seeking does not moderate the relationship between firm-directed drivers and brand community identification, therefore not supporting H8 since the t-value for this difference was not statistically significant (see Table 5). However, a significant difference (p < .01) in Chi-Square values exists between M1 and M2 groups as illustrated in Table 5, leading to a moderating effect of opinion seeking on the relationship between self-directed drivers and brand community identification, thus confirming H9. The relationship between these two constructs is stronger when opinion seeking is high (see Table 4).

CFI = 0.94;

4.3. The structural model evaluation and comparison of the moderating effects Hypotheses one through five were tested by the structural equation modeling (SEM) approach. The structural model is a good fit with the data (χ2 = 925.79, df = 311, pb.000; χ2/df = 925.78; RMSEA = 0.07; CFI = 0.93; GFI = 0.86; TLI = 0.92; NFI = 0.89). As illustrated in Fig. 2, all hypotheses are supported. Specifically, both firm-directed drivers (H1) and self-directed drivers (H2) have an impact on brand community identification, outlining a major contribution of this study. However, the large difference between two path coefficients (0.59 and 0.18, respectively) demonstrates that firm-directed drivers have a greater positive influence on brand community identification than selfdirected drivers. Concerning H3, there is a strong relationship between brand community identification and brand community commitment. In addition, WOM and purchase intention are influenced by brand community commitment, supporting therefore H4 and H5. The moderating roles of opinion leadership and opinion seeking were then tested via multigroup analyses in SEM. Groups were created for opinion leadership and opinion seeking through a median split. To analyze the difference of groups (high vs. low), competitive model strategy (M1: unconstrained model vs. M2: constrained model) and the Chi-Square difference test proposed by Satorra and Bentler (2001) were conducted. In examining opinion leadership, hypotheses H6 and H7 were analyzed. Even though the NFI value is slightly less than 0.9, the unconstrained model for opinion leadership achieves an acceptable fit with the data (χ2 = 1432.42, df = 622, pb.000; χ2/df = 2.30; RMSEA = 0.06; CFI = 0.90; TLI = 0.88; NFI = 0.83). The analysis demonstrates that opinion leadership significantly moderates the relationships between firm-directed drivers and self-directed drivers and brand community identification since the Chi-Square difference tests between M1 and M2 are statistically significant (p < .01) (see Table 3). As shown in Table 2, the findings support H6 since the relationship between firm-directed drivers and brand community

5. Discussion 5.1. Theoretical implications This study investigated the under-explored question of what kind of drivers in a brand community affect WOM behavior and purchase intention of a product. One of the major contributions of the study is to explore the concept of brand community by focusing on Facebook, in order to gain insights in this significant phenomenon. Specifically, based on existing literature and the qualitative study, this research depicts two main drivers as distinctive antecedents of brand community identification: firm-directed and self-directed drivers. These novel drivers are revealed to influence members' identification with brand communities on Facebook. Based on the social identity theory, since the cognitive component is the most basic dimension of identification, it is expected that self-directed drivers have more impact on identification than the firm-directed ones (Deaux, 1996; Johnson et al., 2012). However, results show that although these drivers have impact, brand community identification is more sensitive to firm-directed than to selfdirected drivers. One possible reason of this finding is that companies frequently benefit from firm-directed drivers rather than self-directed ones as indicated by Mark Zuckerberg (2018). In other words, people who are exposed to Facebook instruments that are controlled by the firm such as information, content, photos, video and survey have a higher sense of membership than those who are subject to contents related to the perceived benefits of joining a brand community such as keeping up to date and being aware of promotions/competitions. In fact, such a passive experience of a brand community member on Facebook based on reading posts or watching videos are more effective than an active experience which requires a cognitive process to assess the meaningfulness of the content. Therefore, attribution of an individual's positive or negative value to membership by evaluating firmdirected drivers on Facebook has more significant impact than one's

Table 2 Multigroup analysis results for opinion leadership. Hypothesis: Path

H6: Firm-directed drivers → brand community identification H7: Self-directed drivers → brand community identification

Low opinion leadership Standardized β

High opinion leadership Standardized β 0.68 −0.07

⁎⁎⁎

n.s.

0.31 0.51

⁎⁎⁎

⁎⁎⁎

n.s. = non-significant. Opinion leadership: MHigh = 4.38; SDHigh = 0.50; MLow = 2.12; SDLow = 0.77. ⁎⁎⁎ p < .01. 120

Journal of Business Research 96 (2019) 115–124

M. Demiray, S. Burnaz

Table 3 Chi-Square difference tests for opinion leadership. Hypothesis: Patha

M1: unconstrained model Chi-square

H6: Firm-directed drivers → brand community identification H7: Self-directed drivers → brand community identification

M2: constrained model df

1432.42 1432.42

Chi-square 622 622

(df = 1) df

1441.69 1442.01

623 623

⁎⁎⁎

3.14 3.44

⁎⁎⁎

⁎⁎⁎ a

p < .01. Freely estimated in the unconstrained model.

Table 4 Multigroup analysis results for opinion seeking. Hypothesis: Path

High opinion seeking Standardized β

H8: Firm-directed drivers → brand community identification H9: Self-directed drivers → brand community identification

Low opinion seeking Standardized β ⁎⁎⁎

0.48 0.35

⁎⁎⁎

⁎⁎⁎

0.55 0.08

n.s.

n.s. = non-significant. Opinion seeking: MHigh = 4.15; SDHigh = 0.67; MLow = 2.46; SDLow = 0.83. ⁎⁎⁎ p < .01. Table 5 Chi-square difference tests for opinion seeking. Hypothesis: Patha

H8: Firm-directed drivers → brand community identification H9: Self-directed drivers → brand community identification

M1: unconstrained model

M2: constrained model

(df = 1)

Chi-square

df

Chi-square

df

1322.00 1322.00

622 622

1322.18 1338.94

623 623

0.44 2.70

n.s. ⁎⁎⁎

n.s. = non-significant. ⁎⁎⁎ p < .01. a Freely estimated in the unconstrained model.

Further, the analysis is in accordance with previous research (i.e. Zhou, Zhang, Su, & Zhou, 2012) which states that identifying with a brand community brings about commitment to that community where members are more likely to have sustainable and strong associations. Indeed, as a result of brand community commitment, positive outcomes influencing the success of a new product such as WOM communication and purchase intention occur. Members within the community on Facebook are more likely to increase WOM communication than purchase intention for a new product of a given brand. Since the nature of this platform tolerates more networking interactivity, new product purchase intention may be affected by various other factors.

cognitively identification with a community on that member's sense of belongingness to the brand community. Another important outcome of this study for which previous research have not yet supplied compelling evidence is about the exploration of social identities (opinion leadership and opinion seeking) which are critical for WOM behavior and purchase intention of a new product in the context of a brand community platform. Thus, opinion leaders' and opinion seekers' roles are explored in terms of their moderating impact on the relationship between newly developed drivers and brand community identification in a manner which has not been tackled before. The identification of opinion leaders who have a high degree of category involvement regarding the new product occurs as a result of sharing on the Facebook page sponsored by the firm. These opinion leaders display continuing enthusiasm to enhance their knowledge about the product. Conversely, opinion leaders who have a low degree of category involvement tend to exhibit a much higher sense of belonging to the community when they are intrinsically motivated instead of externally stimulated. Based on social categorization theory, since holding a social identity is more salient for opinion leaders, their personal identities triggered by self-directed drivers generate counter effects on community identification, which means that individuals who have a high level of opinion leadership are more influenced by extrinsic motivation. This study clearly shows that self-directed drivers, which are related to intrinsic motivation, are more influential in the case of low level of opinion leadership. On the other hand, opinion seeking is subject to opposite impact, thereby personal identity is more prominent. Interestingly, regardless of the level of seeking, opinion seekers strongly identify with the brand community on Facebook created by firm-directed drivers. One explanation behind this finding is the fact that opinion seekers may find it more effective to acquire information in this interactive environment. Besides, opinion seekers' involvement strengthens their sense of belonging to the particular community.

5.2. Managerial implications The research findings demonstrate the importance of understanding how a brand community on Facebook leads to community identification, which brings new product success, mainly through spreading WOM communication and inspiring purchase intention. Considering that 67% of marketers plan on increasing their use of Facebook (Social Media Marketing Industry Report, 2016), this study shows that focusing on providing useful and relevant information about a brand community on Facebook might actually be a very effective strategy to build strong level of identification and commitment among members toward that community. It is also seen that various degrees of different social identities (opinion leadership and opinion seeking) within the brand community on Facebook exhibit corresponding degrees of belongingness resulting in the two main drivers directed by the firm and the self. However, based on Mark Zuckerberg's (2018) declaration about Facebook's new strategy which is related to the shift of focus from firmdirected drivers to self-directed ones, it can be claimed that this new decision might negatively affect the marketing effectiveness of Facebook for business to business context. This new approach based on de121

Journal of Business Research 96 (2019) 115–124

M. Demiray, S. Burnaz

opinion seeking characteristics.

emphasizing posts from brands and businesses in its News Feed and encouraging the contents which generate meaningful members' interactions on noteworthy issues might lead to a decline in the interest to and usage of Facebook brand pages hosted by the firms due to the less impact of self-directed drivers on identification with the brand community. Additionally, this new strategy might negatively influence marketing activities of managers who use Facebook to create a sense of belongingness to their brand communities for opinion leaders and opinion seekers. Depending on the findings of this study, marketing managers who desire using a brand community on Facebook to increase positive impact of WOM communication and purchase intention about their products through brand community identification and commitment, may benefit from social identity-based marketing strategies. Through the management of self-directed drivers of Facebook, brand community pages might become more effective media for individuals who have a low degree of opinion leadership or a high degree of

5.3. Limitations and future research Even though this research brings about the above stated contributions, it is not free of limitations. Due to the nature of brand communities on Facebook of being newly emerging, there are no commonly used and validated scales for measuring drivers that influence individuals' attitudes and behaviors toward a new product in an online context. The usage of a single community and a specific product category limits the generalizability of the results. Further research needs to incorporate follow-up studies examining brand communities across different product categories from diverse cultures and nations to determine the applicability of the model and scales. Additionally, potential moderators, such as different types of industries and social networking platforms, could be analyzed.

Appendix A

Construct and description of items (Cronbach's alpha)

Loading

CR

Firm-directed drivers (0.93) I find photos/videos shared on brand's Facebook page interesting I think brand's Facebook page offers a rich content that includes all kind of information. I think brand's Facebook page offers useful content I find the links shared on brand's Facebook page convenient I find short survey questions used on the brand's Facebook page interesting I find the topics shared on the brand's Facebook page remarkable I think the content shared on the brand's Facebook page is entertaining I think authorized people from company take comments posted on its Facebook page into consideration I think frequency of contents shared on the Facebook page is sufficient I find brand's support on brand's Facebook page helpful

0.82 0.78 0.86 0.79 0.77 0.76 0.83 0.71 0.63 0.71

18.25 21.16 18.68 17.81 17.59 19.92 15.95 13.85 15.97

Self-directed drivers (“I visit this brand community…) (0.81) to keeping up to date about the brand to save time for searching information about the brand's products to reach authorized people from the company to become aware of promotions about products of the brand to become aware of competitions and their premiums arranged by the company

0.77 0.66 0.60 0.72 0.64

12.48 11.41 13.57 11.90

Brand community identification (0.92) Other brand community members and I share the same objectives. The friendships I have with other brand community members mean a lot to me If brand community members planned something, I'd think of it as something “we” would do rather than something “they” would do. I consider that my personality is similar to others in this community.

0.80 0.84 0.87 0.89

18.85 19.79 20.41

Brand community commitment (0.90) I am an actively participating member of the community. I care about the long-term success of this brand community. I will visit this brand community continuously

0.85 0.79 0.86

18.24 20.80

WOM (0.90) I will leave positive comments about the new product “A” of this brand on community sites I recommend the new product “A” of this brand to others I often tell others about the new product “A” of this brand

0.79 0.92 0.91

21.39 21.03

Purchase intention (0.93) I would buy the new product “A” of this brand. It is likely that I buy the new product “A” of this brand in the near future.

0.93 0.94

23.03

Opinion leadership (0.93) People in this community that I know pick smart phone based on what I have told them. I often persuade other people in this community to buy the smart phone that I like. I often influence people's opinions in this community about smart phone

0.85 0.91 0.93

25.11 25.91

Opinion seeking (0.92) I feel more comfortable buying a smart phone when I have gotten other people's opinions in this community on it. I like to get others' opinions in this community before I buy a smart phone. Other people in this community influence my choice of smart phone When I consider buying a smart phone, I ask other people opinions in this community for advice.

0.88 0.90 0.82 0.88

25.39 21.31 24.31

5909–5916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.04.108. Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U. M., & Herrmann, A. (2005). The social influence of brand community: Evidence from European car clubs. Journal of Marketing, 69, 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.69.3.19.66363. Ba, S. (2001). Establishing online trust through a community responsibility system.

References Alden, D. L., Kelley, J. B., Youn, J. B., & Chen, Q. (2016). Understanding consumer motivations to interact on brand websites in the international marketplace: Evidence from the US, China, and South Korea. Journal of Business Research, 69(12),

122

Journal of Business Research 96 (2019) 115–124

M. Demiray, S. Burnaz

product development: Case studies on digital product manufacturers in Korea. International Journal of Innovation Management, 12(3), 357–376. https://doi.org/10. 1142/S1363919608002011. Kim, J. W., Choi, J., Qualls, W., & Han, K. (2008). It takes a marketplace community to raise brand commitment: The role of online communities. Journal of Marketing Management, 24(3–4), 409–431. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725708X306167. Kim, S. E., Shaw, T., & Schneider, H. (2003). Web site design benchmarking within industry groups. Internet Research, 13(1), 17–26. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 10662240310458341. Lehtonen, T. K. (2003). The domestication of new technologies as a set of trials. Journal of Consumer Culture, 3(3), 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/14695405030033014. Liao, J., Huang, M., & Xiao, B. (2017). Promoting continual member participation in firmhosted online brand communities: An organizational socialization approach. Journal of Business Research, 71, 92–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.10.013. Mael, F. A., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130202. Marzocchi, G., Morandin, G., & Bergami, M. (2013). Brand communities: Loyal to the community or the brand? European Journal of Marketing, 47(1/2), 93–114. https:// doi.org/10.1108/03090561311285475. McWilliam, G. (2000). Building stronger brands through online communities. Sloan Management Review, 41(3), 43–54. Mousavi, S., Roper, S., & Keeling, K. A. (2017). Interpreting social identity in online brand communities: Considering posters and lurkers. Psychology and Marketing, 34(4), 376–393. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20995. Muniz, A. M., Jr., & O'Guinn, T. C. (2001). Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4), 412–432. https://doi.org/10.1086/319618. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric methods. Palmer, A., & Koenig-Lewis, N. (2009). An experiential social network based approach to direct marketing. Direct Marketing: An International Journal, 3(3), 162–176. https:// doi.org/10.1108/17505930910985116. Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0021-9010.88.5.879. Popp, B., & Woratschek, H. (2017). Consumers' relationships with brands and brand communities–The multifaceted roles of identification and satisfaction. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 35, 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser. 2016.11.006. Punj, G. N., & Staelin, R. (1983). A model of consumer information search for new automobiles. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(4), 366–380. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press. Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4), 507–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF02296192. Shang, R. A., Chen, Y. C., & Liao, H. J. (2006). The value of participation in virtual consumer communities on brand loyalty. Internet Research, 16(4), 398–418. https:// doi.org/10.1108/10662240610690025. Shoham, A., & Pesämaa, O. (2013). Gadget loving: A test of an integrative model. Psychology and Marketing, 30(3), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20602. Sicilia, M., & Palazon, M. (2008). Brand communities on the internet: A case study of Coca-Cola's Spanish virtual community. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 13(3), 255–270. https://doi.org/10.1108/13563280810893643. Social Media Marketing Industry Report. (2016). https://www.socialmediaexaminer. com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/SocialMediaMarketingIndustryReport2016.pdf (21 March 2017). Socialbakers (2017). https://www.socialbakers.com/statistics/facebook/, Accessed date: 15 May 2017. Statista (2016). Worldwide; Statista Market Analytics. https://www.statista.com/ statistics/268136/top-15-countries-based-on-number-of-facebook-users/, Accessed date: 22 April 2017. Stern, B. B., & Gould, S. J. (1988). The consumer as financial opinion leader. Journal of Retail Banking, 10(2), 43–52. Stokburger-Sauer, N. (2010). Brand community: Drivers and outcome. Psychology and Marketing, 27(4), 347–368. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20335. Sung, Y., Kim, Y., Kwon, O., & Moon, J. (2010). An explorative study of Korean consumer participation in virtual brand communities in social network sites. Journal of Global Marketing, 23, 430–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/08911762.2010.521115. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin, & S. Worchel (Eds.). The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of group behavior. In S. Worchel, & W. G. Austin (Vol. Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations: Vol. 2, (pp. 7– 24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Thompson, S. A., & Sinha, R. K. (2008). Brand communities and new product adoption: The influence and limits of oppositional loyalty. Journal of Marketing, 72, 65–80. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.72.6.65. Turcotte, J., York, C., Irving, J., Scholl, R. M., & Pingree, R. J. (2015). News recommendations from social media opinion leaders: Effects on media trust and information seeking. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(5), 520–535. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12127. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell. Valente, T. W., & Davis, R. L. (1999). Accelerating the diffusion of innovations using opinion leaders. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,

Decision Support Systems, 31, 323–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-9236(00) 00144-5. Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. M. (2006). Antecedents and purchase consequences of customer participation in small group brand communities. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 23, 45–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2006.01.005. Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Self-categorization, affective commitment and group self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 555–577. https://doi.org/10.1348/ 014466600164633. Bertrandias, L., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2006). Some psychological motivations for fashion opinion leadership and fashion opinion seeking. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal, 10(1), 25–40. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 13612020610651105. Casaló, L., Flavian, C., & Guinalíu, M. (2007). The impact of participation in virtual brand communities on consumer trust and loyalty: The case of free software. Online Information Review, 31(6), 775–792. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684520710841766. Casalo, L. V., Flavián, C., & Guinalíu, M. (2010). Relationship quality, community promotion and brand loyalty in virtual communities: Evidence from free software communities. International Journal of Information Management, 30, 357–367. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.01.004. Cho, Y., Hwang, J., & Lee, D. (2012). Identification of effective opinion leaders in the diffusion of technological innovation: A social network approach. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(1), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore. 2011.06.003. Deaux, K. (1996). Social identification. In E. T. Higgins, & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.). Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 777–798). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Dick, A. S., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), 99–113. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0092070394222001. Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & 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), 371–389. Facebook (2018). https://investor.fb.com/investor-news/press-release-details/2018/ Facebook-Reports-Second-Quarter-2018-Results/default.aspx, Accessed date: 18 July 2018. Feick, L., Price, L. L., & Higie, R. A. (1986). People who use people: The other side of opinion leadership. Advances in Consumer Research, 13(3), 301–305. Flynn, L. R., Goldsmith, R. E., & Eastman, J. K. (1996). Opinion leaders and opinion seekers: Two new measurement scales. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 24(2), 137–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070396242004. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 382–388. Grewal, R., Mehta, R., & Kardes, F. R. (2000). The role of the social-identity function of attitudes in consumer innovativeness and opinion leadership. Journal of Economic Psychology, 21(3), 233–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(00)00003-9. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River. Haslam, S. A., & Platow, M. J. (2001). The link between leadership and followership: How affirming social identity translates vision into action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(11), 1469–1479. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672012711008. Hausman, A., & Siekpe, J. S. (2009). The effect of web interface features on consumer online purchase intentions. Journal of Business Research, 62(1), 5–13. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.01.018. Heere, B., Walker, M., Yoshida, M., Ko, Y. J., Jordan, J. S., & James, J. D. (2011). Brand community development through associated communities: Grounding community measurement within social identity theory. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(4), 407–422. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190404. Hennig-Thurau, T., Malthouse, E., Friege, C., Gensler, S., Lobschat, L., Rangaswamy, A., & Skiera, B. (2010). The impact of new media on customer relationships. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 311–330. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670510375460. Homburg, C., Wieseke, J., & Hoyer, W. D. (2009). Social identity and the service-profit chain. Journal of Marketing, 73(1), 38–54. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.73.2.38. Hsu, C. P., Chiang, Y. F., & Huang, H. C. (2012). How experience-driven community identification generates trust and engagement. Online Information Review, 36(1), 72–88. https://doi.org/10.1108/14684521211206971. Hung, K., Li, S. Y., & Tse, D. K. (2011). Interpersonal trust and platform credibility in a Chinese multibrand online community. Journal of Advertising, 40(3), 99–112. https:// doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367400308. Hur, W., Ahn, K., & Kim, M. (2011). Building brand loyalty through managing brand community commitment. Management Decision, 49(7), 1194–1213. https://doi.org/ 10.1108/00251741111151217. Jang, H., Olfman, L., Ko, I., Koh, J., & Kim, K. (2008). The influence of on-line brand community characteristics on community commitment and brand loyalty. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 12(3), 57–80. https://doi.org/10.2753/ JEC1086-4415120304. Johnson, M. D., Morgeson, F. P., & Hekman, D. R. (2012). Cognitive and affective identification: Exploring the links between different forms of social identification and personality with work attitudes and behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(8), 1142–1167. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1787. Kang, I., Lee, K. C., Lee, S., & Choi, J. (2007). Investigation of online community voluntary behavior using cognitive map. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 111–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2004.03.039. Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communication. New York, NY: The Free Press. Kim, J. H., Bae, Z. T., & Kang, S. H. (2008). The role of online brand community in new

123

Journal of Business Research 96 (2019) 115–124

M. Demiray, S. Burnaz

Melek Demiray is a Ph.D. candidate in Business Administration, Institute of Social Sciences, Istanbul Technical University. She works as a research assistant at Department of Management Engineering in Istanbul Technical University. Her research interests are in the areas of online communities, social network marketing, e-WOM communication, and crowdfunding. She studied as a visiting scholar at Labovitz School of Business & Economics in University of Minnesota Duluth from March 2017 to April 2018.

566(1), 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/000271629956600105. Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: Normative view. Academy of Management Review, 7, 418–428. Winter, S., & Neubaum, G. (2016). Examining characteristics of opinion leaders in social media: A motivational approach. Social Media+ Society, 2(3), 1–12. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/2056305116665858. Wyer, N. A. (2010). Selective self-categorization: Meaningful categorization and the ingroup persuasion effect. The Journal of Social Psychology, 150(5), 452–470. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00224540903365521. Zhou, Z., Zhang, Q., Su, C., & Zhou, N. (2012). How do brand communities generate brand relationships? Intermediate mechanisms. Journal of Business Research, 65(7), 890–895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.06.034. Zuckerberg, M. (2018). https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10104413015393571, Accessed date: 24 February 2018.

Sebnem Burnaz is a Professor of Marketing at Istanbul Technical University, Faculty of Management. She holds Ph.D. degree in Management with major in marketing from Bogazici University. Her research interests are in the fields of Marketing, Retailing, Decision Making, and Business Ethics. She published articles which appeared in Advances in International Marketing, Journal of Business Ethics, Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, Qualitative Marketing Research: An International Journal of Product & Brand Management and Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis.

124