The role of consumer–brand identification in building brand relationships

Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 53–59

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

The role of consumer–brand identification in building brand relationships☆ Urška Tuškej a, Urša Golob b, Klement Podnar b,⁎ a b

Brand Business School, Dunajska 5, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Social Sciences, Marketing Communication and Public Relations Department, Kardeljeva pl. 5, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 1 June 2010 Received in revised form 1 February 2011 Accepted 1 May 2011 Available online 9 August 2011 Keywords: Consumer Brand Identification Value congruity Commitment Word of mouth

a b s t r a c t The purpose of this paper is to investigate relationships between congruity of consumer and brand values, brand identification, brand commitment, and word of mouth. The results show that congruity of consumer and brand values tends to have positive influence on consumers' identification. Consumers who identify with a brand tend to commit stronger to a brand and generate positive word of mouth. The results show that consumers' identification fully mediates the impact of value congruity on brand commitment. However, brand commitment does not mediate the impact of consumers' identification on generating positive word of mouth. © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction For decades, brands have been crucial for building relationships with consumers assuring long-term business success. In the time of great consumer skepticism toward brands, coupled with the fall in value of traditional media in promoting brands and the current global economic crisis, questions concerning consumer–brand identification have become even more important for brand management. Here, consumer–brand identification refers to the individual's sense of sameness with a particular brand. Despite growing awareness, scholars (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003; Tildesley and Coote, 2009) argue that there is still much to learn about the role of consumers' identification with a brand, as well as its relation to consumer behavior and branding. Scholars recognize that consumer identification process has a significant impact on individual consumer behavior including: consumer buying-related decisions Ahearne et al. (2005), brand preference (Tildesley and Coote, 2009), consumer loyalty (Bhattacharya et al.,1995; Kim et al., 2001), psychological sense of brand community and brand commitment (Casaló et al., 2008), consumer satisfaction and a higher possibility of repurchase (Kuenzel and Halliday, 2008),

☆ The authors thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions on the manuscript. ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (U. Tuškej), [email protected] (U. Golob), [email protected] (K. Podnar). 0148-2963/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.022

positive word of mouth (Del Rio et al., 2001; Kim et al., 2001; Kuenzel and Halliday, 2008) and consumers' willingness to pay a price premium (Del Rio et al., 2001). Though prior studies offer important insights into consumer identification process and related constructs, future research could still bridge important gaps in this scholarly inquiry. Firstly, whilst much research deal with concepts that relate to consumers’ identification with a brand in the literature, there is little attempt to empirically document the factors that affect consumers' identification with a brand and to relate the concept of consumers' identification with other variables, such as brand commitment and positive word of mouth (WOM). Secondly, the branding literature mostly focuses on the concept of brand loyalty and less on the concept of brand commitment generally housed within the relationship marketing literature (e.g., Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2001). Additionally, the understudied relationship between brand commitment and positive WOM (Harrison-Walker, 2001) has recently emerged as a major issue in using new media in brand promotion. An investigation of relations among the following key issues concerning the consumers' identification with a brand value congruity, consumer–brand identification, consumer–brand commitment, and positive WOM should bridge these gaps in consumer behavior and branding literature. The purpose of this study is to conduct such an investigation. This paper employs a pragmatist position and searches for methods and approaches that can best address useful research questions. This approach supports the importance of theories as mechanisms to help explain and predict phenomena and create valuable practical

54

U. Tuškej et al. / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 53–59

implications (Wicks and Freeman, 1998). As Ravasi and van Rekom (2003) report, consumer identification clearly has multidisciplinary foundations. Thus, on the theoretical side, the study advances the relations among studied concepts by integrating diverse literatures. On the practical side, this paper uses the approach similar to consumer psychology approaches such as self-brand connection and consumer– brand relationships Van Doorn et al. (2010), which should provide compelling answers about the relationships among the researched phenomena. The rest of the paper reads as follows. The next section presents an overview of the relevant literature and hypotheses. Following that is a discussion of study methodology and findings. The paper concludes with highlighting managerial implications, research limitations, and suggestions for future research. 2. Literature review and research hypotheses 2.1. Consumers' identification with a brand Two main streams of studying consumer identification are present in the literature: interpretative/sociological and psychological approaches. While sociological approaches mostly interpret structures within which the identification processes unfold, the psychological approaches illuminate the corresponding processes at the level of the individual (Ravasi and van Rekom, 2003). The first group of approaches tries to explain consumer behavior as an important part of construction of self (Belk, 1988; Johar and Sirgy, 1991; Kleine et al., 1993). Similarly to theorists of consumer culture and society (Douglas and Isherwood, 2005; Ekstrom and Brembeck, 2004; Warde, 2008) researchers in the marketing field establish that brands, as the signifiers of consumption goods, are important in creating and communicating consumer identity (Kuenzel and Halliday, 2008; Rodhain, 2006). Because brands and possessions help consumers emphasize their uniqueness, express their identity, and provide a sense of past, consumers tend to identify with them at an early stage in life (Belk, 1988). McEwen (2005) agrees with this argument: a consumer tends to create powerful relations with brands because they express and enhance one's identity, which play an important role in a consumer's life. Even though this relationship is not interpersonal, brands can take the role of the “other” with whom the consumer identifies, especially if consumers animate, humanize or somehow personalize the brand (Fournier, 1998, p. 346). The perception of brands and social entities facilitate consumers' identification with a brand (Scott and Lane, 2000). Identification in this respect is identification with an object instilled with meanings that, in relation to the individual, functions as a pseudo person, while the consumer perceives its meanings and characteristics as his or her own. As such, according to Lasswell's identification theory through a symbol (Lasswell, 1935/1965), this paper defines consumers’ identification with a brand as the perception of sameness between the brand (signifying an object with symbolic meanings) and the consumer. Beside this view, most definitions of consumers' identification with a brand derive from social identity theory based on social psychology. According to this theory, Kim et al. (2001, p. 196) define the level of consumer–brand identification as the degree to which the brand expresses and enhances consumers’ identity. Del Rio et al. (2001) distinguish between personal identification and social identification function of a brand (see also Carlson et al., 2008). Personal identification function means that consumers can identify with a specific brand and develop feelings of affinity towards the brand, whereas social identification refers to the brand's ability to act as a communication instrument allowing consumers to manifest the desire to integrate with or to dissociate from the groups of individuals that make up their closest social environment (Del Rio et al., 2001, p. 412). According to Carlson et al. (2008, p. 286), personal identification with a brand refers to the degree of overlap between an individual's self-schema and the schema s/he holds for a brand.

2.2. Value congruity Consumers are likely to find brand's identity more attractive when the brand matches their own sense of who they are because such identities enable them to maintain and express their sense of self more fully and authentically (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003). The self-congruity theory (Johar and Sirgy, 1991) defines value congruity as a mental comparison that consumers make in respect to the similarity or dissimilarity of entity's values and their own set of values. Self-congruity theory defines consumer behavior as partly determined by the congruence resulting from a psychological comparison involving the product user or brand image and the consumer selfconcept (Hamilton and Xiaolan, 2005, p. 7). Such psychological comparison can lead to high congruity when consumers perceive that brand image matches their own sense of self (Johar and Sirgy, 1991). Using perceived brand values and consumer values to measure value congruity is similar to the brand personality congruity (BPC) concept where instead of user-imagery brand personality is used to asses brand image (Parker, 2009). However, values can also act as an important and basic linking element between consumers and a brand (Allen et al., 2002; De Chernatony and McDonald, 2003), and have an important influence on consumer activities. Consumers tend to acquire brands to perform actions that move them closer to realizing their values and ideal selves (Belk, 1988). Similarly, from the social identity theory perspective Bhattacharya and Sen (2003, p. 77) in the corporate context propose that in the process of identification “a state of self-categorization into organizationally defined categories” helps consumers to compare their own defining characteristics such as values with those that define the company. Hence, brand values that are congruent with consumers' values are likely to lead to stronger identification: H1. Value congruity positively influences consumers' identification with a brand. Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) further suggest that identification relates to satisfaction of self-definitional consumer needs. Moreover, because consumers have needs for self-consistency and self-esteem, brands that can establish high self-congruity do not enhance only consumer–brand identification, but also positive attitudes toward the brand (Hamilton and Xiaolan, 2005). Some previous studies have already confirmed that self-congruity has a positive impact on brand loyalty (Kressman et al.,2006; Sirgy et al., 2007), which is a similar though weaker behavioral process compared to consumers' commitment to a brand. Organizational identity theory additionally confirms the impact of congruity on commitment by suggesting that identity congruence has a significant effect on member commitment (Dutton et al.,1994; Foreman and Whetten, 2002). H2. Value congruity positively influences consumers' commitment to a brand. 2.3. Consumers' commitment to a brand Consumers' commitment to a brand implies an emotional or psychological attachment that reflects the degree to which a brand is firmly entrenched as the only acceptable choice within a product class (Warrington and Shim, 2000, p. 764). Commitment in contrast to identification represents a positive attitude toward the brand while consumers' self and the brand remain separate entities (Ashforth et al., 2008, p. 333). Brand commitment also closely relates to but is different from brand loyalty. Brand loyalty refers to the behavioral perspective and reflects mainly in the repeated purchase of a particular brand (Assael, 1998) as well as consumers’ need to reduce effort and simplify decision-making processes (Warrington and Shim, 2000). Brand commitment, on the other hand, relates to an attitudinal perspective. This perspective is the “reason why brand commitment is a better

U. Tuškej et al. / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 53–59

indicator of consumer satisfaction with brand choice” (Warrington and Shim, 2000, p. 364), and is therefore the concept of interest in this study. According to Ellis (2000, p. 39–40) consumers' commitment to a brand is two-dimensional, resulting either from an emotional attachment to a brand (affective brand commitment) or from a need for approval or motivation to comply with normative beliefs and purchase an object (social compliance commitment). Although Ellis (2000, p. 35) discusses loyalty dimensions, both evidently refer to consumers' commitment or “true loyalty” to a brand. Both, affective and social compliance commitments are a consequence of attitudinal influences on consumer behavior and imply high involvement processes (Ellis, 2000). Although scholars tend to research the positive impact of identification on commitment more frequently in the organizational commitment context (Bergami and Bagozzi, 2000; Podnar, 2004), prior research documents that consumers' identification may have a favorable impact on brand loyalty and brand commitment as well (Brown et al., 2005; Kim et al., 2001). Bhattacharya and Sen (2003, p. 83) claim that brand identification causes people to become psychologically attached to the organization, which motivates them to commit to the achievement of its goals. Additionally, value congruity influences both consumers' identification (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003; Dutton et al., 1994; Hamilton and Xiaolan, 2005), as well as consumers' commitment to a brand (Foreman and Whetten, 2002; Kressman et al., 2006; Sirgy et al., 2007). Further, consumer–brand identification could be one of the main factors that influence brand commitment (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003; Brown et al., 2005). Hence, this finding implies that consumers' identification with a brand at least partially mediates the influence of value congruity on commitment to a brand. These notions lead to a third research hypothesis: H3. Consumers' identification with a brand has a positive influence on brand commitment and is a mediating variable between value congruity and brand commitment. 2.4. Positive WOM Consumers' identification does not only have a positive influence on consumers' commitment to a brand but can also influence positive WOM. The idea behind WOM is that product information can spread from one consumer to another (Brown et al., 2005). WOM communication has a considerable importance to marketing research and is becoming a notable tool of integrated marketing communication, as WOM plays an important role in shaping consumer attitudes and behaviors (HarrisonWalker, 2001; Katz and Lazarsfeld, 1955). Most recent studies in relationship marketing suggest that WOM may be among the most important responses that can emerge from efforts directed at relationships with consumers (Brown et al., 2005, p. 123). For this reason, the findings of several previous studies in consumer research suggest that consumers’ identification has a positive impact on generating positive WOM (Del Rio et al., 2001; Kim et al., 2001; Kuenzel and Halliday, 2008). Authors report that consumers who identify with a company tend to promote the company to other consumers (Bhattacharya and Sen, 2003, p. 83), recommend company's products more often (Ahearne et al., 2005, p. 580), and make supportive and positive recommendations about the brand (Algesheimer et al., 2005). Not only identification but commitment as well reflects favorable attitudes toward the company or its brand. When consumers perceive a brand as the only acceptable choice because they are emotionally attached to the brand, they may participate in WOM for the reasons of comfort and reassurance or simply because they believe in the brand (Ellis, 2000). Social compliance commitment “develops from a need to conform to social influences as a way of obtaining social rewards” (Ellis, 2000, p. 66) and thus positively influences positive WOM. HarrisonWalker (2001) reports that affective commitment in particular has a strong and positive influence on WOM. Additionally, scholars frequently

55

investigate the influence of consumers' loyalty on generating positive WOM (Casaló et al.,2008; Dick and Basu, 1994; Ellis, 2000). Dick and Basu (1994) suggest that a potential consequence of loyalty includes WOM. Loyal customers also tend to promote the company by emphasizing the main attributes of their products or services (Casaló et al., 2008). Previous studies suggest the direct link between identification, commitment and generating positive WOM. However, in a services marketing context, Brown et al. (2005) argue that rather than directly affecting WOM, identification first leads to increased commitment that then affects positive WOM. The effect of identification with a brand on positive WOM is thus more complex because commitment to a brand mediates WOM, which leads us to the fourth and fifth research hypotheses of this study: H4. Consumers' identification positively influences positive WOM. H5. Consumers' commitment to a brand has a positive influence on positive WOM and is a mediating variable between consumers' identification and positive WOM. Fig. 1 shows the five hypothesized relationships. 3. Methodology 3.1. Data collection and sample Data were gathered via web-based questionnaire to survey consumers' attitudes about their favorite brand. The internet survey was carried out in Slovenia (EU) in June 2009. The sampling procedure used nonprobability snowball sampling consisting of two stages (e.g., Goodman, 1961). In the first stage, two groups, one of around 120 units and the second of around 100 units, were approached by email and via the social network Facebook. Snowball sampling via Facebook is no substitute for probability-based techniques; however, the fact that Facebook is the most popular social network in Slovenia – 44% of internet users accessed Facebook at least once a month in 2009 (Brečko, 2010) – supports the decision to use Facebook as a sampling tool. Studies have not yet extensively exploited social networking sites such as Facebook as a tool of research to approach respondents. However, this kind of sampling shares similar strengths and limitations associated with other forms of web-based research (Brickman-Bhutta, 2009). Each of the respondents was asked to forward the link to the questionnaire to three other individuals they frequently associate with. Thus, around 660 respondents were in the sampling pool. A total of 596 respondents completed the questionnaire, indicating a response rate of around 86%. The sample was 70% female with 46% respondents aged less than 25 years, 27% respondents aged between 26 and 35 years, and 26% of respondents aged over 35 years. Respondents were well educated — 52% completed secondary education, and more than 44% have postsecondary education or a university degree. The respondents resided mainly in urban and suburban areas (83%). This sample structure has general demographic

Brand commitment

H2

Value congruity

H1

Consumers' identification

H3 H5 H4

Positive word of mouth

Fig. 1. Hypothesized model of consumers' identification with a brand.

56

U. Tuškej et al. / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 53–59

characteristics of other web respondents (Kwak and Radler, 2002) and overrepresents younger and better-educated respondents in comparison with the total Slovenian population. Appendix A presents the categories of brands that consumers chose as their favorites. 3.2. Measures All constructs in the research model are measured using multi-item scales. Scale items in the questionnaire are measured with a 5-point Likert scale (anchored by 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree with the option 9 = no opinion) or with semantic differential scales. Appendix B presents all measures and reliabilities of scores. Consumers indicated their identification with a brand on a three-item scale. To this end, existing measures were adapted from the instrument for measuring organizational identification (Podnar, 2004) to suit the particular context. The measure of consumers’ identification with a brand is one-dimensional, and scores on the scale are reliable (Cronbach's alpha = 0.80). Two scales captured value congruity — one measuring consumer's values and the other brand values. Both scales contained three items from The Rokeach Value Survey (Rokeach, 1974). A variability analysis was conducted for a computed variable named as value congruity (Cronbach's alpha = 0.82). The measuring instrument designed by Ellis (2000) captured respondents' affective and social compliance commitment. The reliability analysis revealed that scores on both measures were reliable (Cronbach's alpha= 0.87 for affective commitment, and Cronbach's alpha = 0.76 for social compliance commitment). A three-item scale constructed from various measuring instruments (Casaló et al., 2008; Ellis, 2000; Harrison-Walker, 2001) measured positive WOM. Scores on this scale are also reliable (Cronbach's alpha=0.86). 4. Results 4.1. Preliminary analysis and measurement model Mean values show that, on average, all measures with one exception are quite high, averaging above 3 on the 5-point Likert scales (Table 1). Correlations among all concepts are, as expected, positive and significant. Consumers' identification had the strongest relationship with affective brand commitment. As presumed, value congruity positively correlates with consumer–brand identification and commitment. The results show strong and positive correlations among identification, both dimensions of commitment, and positive WOM (Table 1). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using Lisrel 8.8 software, and a reduced sample of 269 respondents due to listwise deletion as recommended when the sample is large, further assesses the measures. Each factor in CFA carries three indicators. Three indicators per factor give proper results for sample size N N 200 (Marsh et al.,1998). CFA tests all scales simultaneously. Each item loads only on its respective factor. CFA results indicate that the measurement model fits the data reasonably well (χ2 = 159.3; df = 79; RMSEA = 0.062; CFI = 0.97; GFI= 0.93). All loadings between indicators and latent variables are

Table 1 Means, standard deviations and correlations. Construct

M

SD

1

2

3

4

1 2 3 4 5

3.2 3.3 2.2 3.5 3.7

1.03 1.06 0.93 0.94 1.14

0.44 0.34 0.35 0.35

0.45 0.32 0.24

0.46 0.22

0.24

Consumers' identification affective brand Commitment social compliance brand Commitment Positive WOM Value congruity

All correlations are significant at the 0.01 level.

statistically significant (pb 0.001). Standardized paths between factor and indicators are all above .40 and are thus meaningful (Chin, 1998). 4.2. Structural model and hypotheses tests Structural equation modeling tests the hypotheses concerning the key influences among latent variables. The fit indices for the structural model indicate a reasonably good model fit (χ2 = 153.1; df = 79; RMSEA = 0.059; CFI = 0.97; GFI = 0.93). Results confirm the first hypothesis: a positive influence of value congruity on consumers’ identification with a brand exists (H1: Standardized Path Coefficient [SPC] = 0.57; t = 4.98; p b 0.001). However, value congruity does not relate significantly to both types of brand commitment and thus, results do not support the second hypothesis 2 (H2: affective commitment SPC = 0.02; t = 0.17; p N 0.05 and social compliance commitment SPC= 0.11; t = 1.06; p N 0.05). Further, the results show that consumers' identification has a relatively strong and positive influence on brand commitment, and confirm hypothesis 3 (H3: SPC = 0.34; t = 3.47; p b 0.001 for affective commitment; SPC= 0.35; t = 3.02; p b 0.001 for social compliance commitment). The results of direct and indirect effects obtained via effect decomposition also support the suggestion that consumers' identification with a brand serves as mediator of the effects of value congruity on brand commitment. The standardized direct effects of value congruity on both types of brand commitment are very low and nonsignificant (pN 0.05). Indirect effects are higher and significant (SPC from value congruity to affective commitment was 0.34, t = 3.98; p b 0.001; SPC from value congruity to social compliance commitment was 0.20, t = 2.67; p b 0.001), indicating a full mediation of consumers' identification (Baron and Kenny, 1986) and thus, leading to full support for hypothesis 3. Hypothesis 4 suggests that consumers' identification positively influences consumers’ intentions to generate positive WOM about the brand and the results are consistent with H4 (H4: SPC = 0.22; t = 2.47; p b 0.001). Brand commitment only partially influences positive WOM (H5); only social compliance commitment influences positive WOM (SPC = 0.44; t = 4.05; p b 0.001), while affective commitment does not (SPC = −0.03; t = −0.27; p b 0.05). Additionally, the values of standardized indirect effects of consumers' identification on positive WOM are zero, indicating that commitment to a brand does not mediate the effects of consumers’ identification on positive WOM as hypothesis 5 suggests. Based on this, the results do not support this part of hypothesis five. Fig. 2 summarizes the results. 5. General discussion From an academic point of view, this study contributes to growing research on consumers' relationships with a brand (Aaker, 1997; Fournier, 1998; Thomson et al., 2005 by empirically addressing the relationships across identification and consumers' values, commitment, and positive WOM. The study empirically highlights the significance of consumers' identification as a basic psychological process that enables formation of committed and meaningful relationships with brands. Additionally, this study joins a number of articles (e.g., Brown et al., 2005; Harrison-Walker, 2001) that focus the attention to the attitudinal loyalty, named commitment to a brand. The study strives to convert the focus of previous branding literature that mainly deals with the concept of loyalty (Casaló et al., 2008; Kressman et al., 2006; Sirgy et al., 2007). Results of the present study emphasize the importance of differentiating between behavioral loyalty (loyalty) and attitudinal loyalty (commitment). Finally, this study stresses the importance of using the consumer commitment concept when studying high involvement processes of consumers toward brands because attitudes toward brands, not behavior habits, such as repeated purchasing, enable consumers' emotional attachment to the brand. The results of the analyses mostly support the hypothesized relationships. They illustrate that consumers do identify with their favorite brands and therefore, perceive the brand as a part of their

U. Tuškej et al. / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 53–59

57

0.52 Affective brand commitment

-0.03

0.02 0.70

0.34* Value congruity

0.46*

Consumers' identification

0.57*

Positive word of mouth

0.22* 0.35*

0.11

0.44*

0.67 Compliance brand comm.

* Significant at the .01 level.

0.82

Fig. 2. Structural model — standardized paths among latent variables.

self-concept. Specifically, the findings demonstrate that the stronger a consumer identifies with a brand, the stronger he or she tends to commit to this brand and more likely is he or she to generate positive WOM. Results also indicate the importance of a match between brand values and the values of brand's target group of consumers meaning that brands can also help satisfy self-definitional needs of an individual and that identification can be an important and relevant concept even without interpersonal connection. Similar to findings of research on identity and image congruence (Dutton et al., 1994; Johar and Sirgy, 1991), this study shows that value congruity as well positively affects consumers’ identification and that, through identification, value congruity affects consumers’ commitment to a brand. At the theoretical level, the present research reveals value congruity as an important factor of consumer–brand identification. Previous studies have not yet extensively empirically explored and confirmed value congruity in this context. Hence, this paper supplements previous research on consumers’ identification with a brand (Kim et al., 2001; Kuenzel and Halliday, 2008) by adding an important factor that influences identification, namely value congruity. As predicted, consumers' identification with a brand fully mediates the impact of value congruity on consumers' commitment to a brand. Contrary to the assumption, the results indicate that consumers' commitment does not mediate the impact of consumers' identification on generating positive WOM. This finding surprisingly contradicts results from Brown et al. (2005) who established a mediating role of commitment between identification and positive WOM. However, those authors argue that the mediating role of commitment is not likely one that lasts forever and is highly dependent on other factors. The cause of discrepancy between the present study and previous research (Brown et al., 2005; Harrison-Walker, 2001) can be that unlike previous studies, this research operationalizes consumers’ commitment as a two-dimensional concept composed of affective and social compliance commitment. The results of this study show a great importance of identification that strongly influences commitment and show that consumers are willing to become great supporters of a brand if they identify with the brand. The finding that only social compliance commitment influences positive WOM shows that only when commitment focuses on the social rather than on the individual a tendency that consumers will engage in positive WOM exists. On the other hand, affective commitment is a consequence of personal interaction with a brand and relates to expressing individuality and differentiation. Therefore, when committing affectively, the brand is a reward and a means for self-confirmation. On the contrary, social compliance commitment to a brand occurs as the consequence of social interactions. Here, the communal action is one of the most obvious consequences and is manifested through consumers' tendency to generate positive WOM. This finding has important implications for the new approaches in branding that deal with the concept of customer engagement behavior (Van Doorn et al., 2010),

customer-to-customer interactions related to brands (Libai et al., 2010), and the impact of new media on those interactions (Hennig-Thurau et al., 2010). 6. Managerial implications This study offers some important insights into high involvement consumer behavior processes and has some important implications for managerial choices in building strong and lasting relationships with consumers. The findings of the study clearly indicate that brands play an important role in the everyday lives of consumers and can even influence the construction of individual's identity. Specifically, the results suggest that by focusing on factors that influence consumer– brand identification brand managers could achieve some important and desired consequences, most notably consumers’ commitment and their willingness to generate positive WOM. According to the findings of this study, the most important factors influencing consumer–brand identification are the fundamental and intangible characteristics of the brands, such as brand values. Brand values, especially if they are congruent with the values of the consumer target group, play a major role in influencing consumer behavior. The implication of this finding is two-fold; firstly, brand values should be determined based on the values of the largest segment of current or potential customers; and secondly, it is important to consider that just like values of target groups change over time, so should brand values. Therefore, brand managers should constantly monitor perceived values of the brand as well as values of consumers to examine whether an overlap exists between them. Furthermore, the finding that congruity between perceived brand values and consumer values increases consumer–brand identification highlights the importance of focused and personified brand communications because it shows that consumers are more likely to identify with brands whose core values are consistently communicated and relevant for them. According to the findings, integrated marketing media that uniformly communicates brand values that are congruent with the values of target groups of consumers will have a positive impact on consumers' identification with a brand. The study indicates that when building consumers' commitment, brand managers should differentiate between its individual and social dimension. Brands are elements of consumers’ expressive portfolio, and can be elements for expressing individuality as well as parts of the social discourse. If the first meaning of brand prevails in the mind of consumers, then brand strategy demands building consumer–brand relationships based on individuality and the main aim should be to stimulate affective brand commitment. If consumers see brands as a sort of social currency, then the brand strategy should focus on generating positive WOM, and managers should make every effort to enhance social compliance commitment emphasizing the meaning of the brand as a social capital.

58

U. Tuškej et al. / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 53–59

To enhance social compliance commitment, brand managers could – in compliance with the finding that consumers who identify with and commit to a brand are more likely to generate positive WOM – make use of social media. Social media could facilitate and stimulate WOM, because they offer platforms for interactive communication, collaboration, and information sharing among consumers. Moreover, social media enable consumers to produce their own (user-generated) content in connection with a brand, thus being able to use the brand in the context that is congruent with their own values, attitudes, and lifestyles.

the context of different types of brands, such as product, service, and retail brands. Appendix A. Brand categories

7. Limitations and directions for future research This study reports some important findings on consumer behavior, however, the study is not without limitations. First, the key limitation of this study refers to the use of online surveys distributed through nonprobability snowball sampling. This sampling procedure, however, captures only a specific part of the population — the ones more willing to collaborate in the survey (Fricker, 2008). Additionally, “referrals occur through network links, so subjects with larger personal networks will be oversampled, and relative isolates will be excluded” (Heckathorn, 1997, p. 175). Such procedure could cause a selection bias resulting in higher means of items measuring the concept of positive WOM because respondents with higher probability of collaboration (the ones more likely to produce WOM) tend to be overrepresented in such a sample. Nonprobability sampling also means that the results of the study are not generalizable. However, they are not trivial either and are useful in other research contexts such as research model testing (Fricker, 2008). Second, the study assessed consumer's behavior processes only in relation to their favorite brand, which likely caused higher means of the items and correlations between them. Therefore, this study can only confirm that consumers identify with their favorite brands in which case it is more likely that they will in fact perceive oneness with the brand. This finding implies taking care when generalizing the results of this study to situations in which consumers are not previously involved with the brand. In situations when consumers do not know the brand and do not have previous experiences or knowledge about it, such processes may not even occur. The study of consumer–brand identification applied to a specific brand is therefore a very worthwhile future research endeavor. Future studies could also contribute to the findings of this study by researching consumer identification processes in situations without predetermined consumer's involvement. In such cases, researchers should add and study other antecedents of consumer's identification. Past purchase behavior is an important factor to consider when studying the strength of consumers’ identification with a brand. The relationship between past usage and attribute recall has already been established (Bird et al.,1970), showing that having used a brand greatly influences one's (favorable) perception of the brand. The respondents therefore have higher perceptions of and are more likely committed to the brand. The respondents are also likely to associate inherently a brand they have already purchased with a brand that matches their values. Researchers studying value congruity, consumers' identification and commitment when the involvement with the brand is not presupposed should consider all above-mentioned aspects. Such study could also empirically test other important antecedents and consequences of consumers' identification with a brand and check whether some differences in the degree of consumers' identification, value congruity, and commitment appear. A worthwhile future research would be, for example, to study how brand awareness, personal income, brand prestige, brand image, perceived originality of brand associations, reference groups, and other factors influence consumer– brand identification. In addition, an interesting future study would be to test how consumers' identification and commitment influence purchase behavior. Researches should also replicate these findings in

Brand category

Percentage

Clothes and shoes Cosmetics Food and drinks Electronics Sports Motoring Other Sum

40.4 12.7 12.1 9.4 7.6 6.2 11.6 100.0

Appendix B. Measures, reliability and CFA statistics Average variance extracted

Construct reliability

0.57

0.80

0.64

0.87

Social compliance brand commitment I would like it if people talked about 0.90 me buying this brand The good thing about buying this brand 0.82 is that I can talk to my friends/family about it My family and/or friends influence my 0.40 decision to buy this brand

0.55

0.76

Positive WOM I transmit my personal experiences with this brand also to other people I know I give advice about this brand to people I know I talk about this brand because it is offers really good products

0.68

0.86

0.42

0.82

Parameter estimatesa Consumer's identification I feel that my personality and the personality of this brand are very similar I have a lot in common with other people using this brand I feel that my values and the values of this brand are very similar Affective brand commitment I feel rewarded when I buy this brand I get excited when I think of buying this brand I feel personally satisfied when I buy this brand

Value congruity Independent Freedom Security a

0.67

0.73 0.86

0.78 0.84 0.77

0.81

0.90 0.76

0.66 0.76 0.48

Standardized values.

References Aaker JL. Building dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research 1997;23:347–56. Ahearne M, Bhattacharya CB, Gruen T. Antecedents and consequences of customer– company identification: expanding the role of relationship marketing. The Journal of Applied Psychology 2005;90:574–85. Algesheimer R, Dholakia UM, Herrmann A. The social influence of brand community: evidence from European car clubs. The Journal of Marketing 2005;69(3):19–34. Allen WM, Hung NS, Wilson M. A functional approach to instrumental and terminal values and the value–attitude–behavior system of consumer choice. European Journal of Marketing 2002;36:111–35. Ashforth BE, Harrison SH, Corely KG. Identification in organizations: an examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management 2008;34:325–74.

U. Tuškej et al. / Journal of Business Research 66 (2013) 53–59 Assael H. Consumer behavior and marketing action. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing; 1998. Baron RM, Kenny DA. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1986;51:1173–82. Belk WR. Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research 1988;15: 139–66. Bergami M, Bagozzi RP. Self-categorization, affective commitment and group selfesteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. British Journal of Social Psychology 2000;39:555–77. Bhattacharya CB, Rao H, Glynn MA. Understanding the bond of identification: an investigation of its correlates among art museum members. The Journal of Marketing 1995;59(4):46–57. Bhattacharya CB, Sen S. Consumer–company identification: a framework for understanding consumers' relationships with brands. The Journal of Marketing 2003;67(2):76–88. Bird M, Channon C, Ehrenberg ASC. Brand image and brand usage. Journal of Marketing Research 1970;7:307–14. Brečko BN. Spletna obiskanost 2010, RIS — Raba interneta v Sloveniji. Retrieved from http://www.ris.org/2010/06/RIS_porocila/Spletna_obiskanost_2010/2010. Brickman-Bhutta C. Not by the book: Facebook as sampling frame. Retrieved from http://www.thearda.com/workingpapers/facebook.asp. 2009. Brown TJ, Barry TE, Dacin PA, Gunst RF. Spreading the word: investigating antecedents of consumers' positive word-of-mouth intentions and behaviors in a retailing context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 2005;33:123–38. Carlson BD, Suter TA, Brown TJ. Social versus psychological brand community: the role of psychological sense of brand community. Journal of Business Research 2008;61: 284–91. Casaló LV, Flavian C, Guinaliu M. The role of satisfaction and website usability in developing customer loyalty and positive word-of-mouth in the e-banking services. The International Journal of Bank Marketing 2008;26:399–417. Chaudhuri A, Holbrook MB. The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand loyalty. The Journal of Marketing 2001;65(2): 81–93. Chin WW. Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. Management Information Systems Quarterly 1998;22:1–11. De Chernatony L, McDonald M. Creating powerful brands in consumer, service and industrial markets. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinenmann; 2003. Del Rio AB, Vazquez R, Iglesias V. The effects of brand associations on consumer response. Marketing Science 2001;25:740–59. Dick AS, Basu K. Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 1994;22:99–113. Douglas M, Isherwood B. The world of goods: towards anthropology of consumption. London: Routledge; 2005. Dutton JE, Dukerich JM, Harquail CV. Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly 1994;39:239–63. Ekstrom KM, Brembeck H. Elusive consumption. Oxford: Berg; 2004. Ellis BT. The development, psychometric evaluation, and validation of a customer loyalty scale. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)Graduate School Southern Illinois University. Carbondale; 2000. Foreman P, Whetten DA. Members' identification with multiple-identity organizations. Organization Science 2002;13:618–35. Fournier S. Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research 1998;24:343–73. Fricker RD. Sampling methods for web and e-mail surveys. In: Fielding N, Lee RM, Blank G, editors. The Sage handbook of online research methods. London: Sage Publications Ltd; 2008. p. 195–216. Goodman LA. Snowball sampling. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 1961;32:148–70. Hamilton M, Xiaolan S. Actual self and ideal brand image: an application of self-congruity to brand image positioning. Retrieved from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/ p14451_index.html. 2005.

59

Harrison-Walker JL. The measurement of word-of-mouth communication and an investigation of service quality and customer commitment as potential antecedents. Journal of Service Research 2001;4:60–75. Heckathorn DD. Respondent-driven sampling: a new approach to the study of hidden populations. Social Problems 1997;44:174–99. Hennig-Thurau T, Malthouse EC, Friege C, Gensler S, Lobschat L, Rangaswamy A, Skiera B. The impact of new media on customer relationships. Journal of Service Research 2010;13:311–30. Johar JS, Sirgy J. Value-expressive versus utilitarian advertising appeals: when and why to use which appeal. Journal of Advertising 1991;20(3):23–33. Katz E, Lazarsfeld PF. Personal influence. Glencoe, IL: Free Press; 1955. Kim AC, Dongchul H, Aeung-Bae P. The effect of brand personality and brand identification on brand loyalty: applying the theory of social identification. Japanese Psychological Research 2001;43:195–206. Kleine III RE, Schultz Kleine S, Kernan JB. Mundane consumption and the self: a social-identity perspective. Journal of Consumer Psychology 1993;2:209–35. Kressman FJ, Sirgy MJ, Herrmann A, Huber F, Huber S, Lee DJ. Direct and indirect effects of self-image congruence on brand loyalty. Journal of Business Research 2006;59:955–64. Kuenzel S, Halliday VS. Investigating antecedents and consequences of brand identification. The Journal of Product and Brand Management 2008;17:293–304. Kwak N, Radler BA. Comparison between mail and web surveys: response pattern, respondent profile, and data quality. Journal of Official Statistics 2002;18:257–74. Lasswell DH. World politics and personal insecurity. New York: The Free Press; 1935/1965. Libai B, Bolton R, Bügel MS, de Ruyter K, Götz O, Risselada H, Stephen AT. Customer-to-customer interactions: broadening the scope of word of mouth. Research Journal of Service Research 2010;13:267–82. Marsh HW, Hau K, Balla RJ, Grayson D. Is more ever too much? The number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research 1998;33: 181–220. McEwen JW. Married to the brand. Why consumers bond with some brands for life. New York: Gallup Press; 2005. Parker TB. A comparison of brand personality and brand user-imagery congruence. Journal of Consumer Marketing 2009;26:175–84. Podnar K. Corporate reputation, orgnizational identification and commitment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ljubljana: Faculty of Social Sciences; 2004. Ravasi D, van Rekom J. Key issues in organizational identity and identification theory. Corporate Reputation Review 2003;6:118–32. Rodhain A. Brands and the identification process of children. Advances in Consumer Research 2006;33:549–55. Rokeach MJ. Change and stability in American value system, 1968–1971. Public Opinion Quarterly 1974;38:222–38. Scott SG, Lane VR. A stakeholder approach to organizational identity. The Academy of Management Review 2000;25:43–62. Sirgy MJ, Lee DJ, Johar JS, Tidwell J. Effect of self-congruity with sponsorship on brand loyalty. Journal of Business Research 2007;61:1091–7. Thomson M, MacInnis JD, Park CW. The ties that bind: measuring the strength of consumers' emotional attachments to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology 2005;15:77–91. Tildesley AE, Coote LV. This brand is me: a social identity based measure of brand identification. Advances in Consumer Research 2009;36:627–8. Van Doorn J, Lemon KN, Mittal V, Nass S, Pick D, Pirner P, Verhoef PC. Customer engagement behavior: theoretical foundations and research directions. Journal of Service Research 2010;13:253–66. Warde A. Consumption, identity — formation and uncertainty. In: Miller D, editor. Consumption: critical concepts in the social sciences. Disciplinary Approaches to ConsumptionLondon: Routledge; 2008. p. 9–33. Warrington P, Shim S. An empirical investigation of the relationship between product involvement and brand commitment. Psychology and Marketing 2000;17(9):76–88. Wicks AC, Freeman ER. Source organization studies and the new pragmatism: positivism, anti-positivism, and the search for ethics. Organization Science 1998;9:123–40.