are facebook brand community members truly loyal to the brand
Are Facebook brand community members truly loyal to the
brand?
Juha Munnukka,Heikki Karjaluoto ?,Anna Tikkanen
Jyv?skyl?University School of Business and Economics,P.O.Box 35,FI-40014,University of Jyv?skyl?,Finland
a r t i c l e i n f o Article history:
Available online 1June 2015Keywords:
Brand community commitment Community promotion behavior Attitudinal loyalty Repurchase intention Word-of-mouth
a b s t r a c t
This study examines members of Facebook brand communities and tests the relationships between their commitment to the community and brand loyalty.A conceptual model on the linkages between brand community commitment,community promotion behavior and brand loyalty including attitudinal loy-alty,repurchase intention and positive word-of-mouth (WOM)is developed and tested with two sam-ples.Data from 3305Facebook brand community members were analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling.The results show that brand loyalty is in?uenced by brand community commitment and community promotion behavior.Brand community commitment and community pro-motion behavior have the largest effect on positive WOM in both samples.
ó2015Elsevier Ltd.All rights reserved.
1.Introduction
In social media era,consumers interaction with brands and with one another in content creation activities is forcing compa-nies to change their communication practices and branding activ-ities to re?ect a more participatory approach.Research on brand communities has concentrated on identifying speci?c attributes of communities (Muniz &O’Guinn,2001)and brand community commitment (Hur,Ahn,&Kim,2011)as well as relationships that are formed within brand communities (Habibi,Laroche,&Richard,2014);such research has also focused on exploring the relation-ships between brand use,brand communities,and social networks (Schau,Mu?iz,&Arnould,2009).Previous studies have shown a positive link between online brand community participation and customer loyalty (Algesheimer,Dholakia,&Herrmann,2005;Gummerus,Liljander,Weman,&Pihlstr?m,2012).In the same vein,Gamboa and Gon?alves (2014)?nd that Facebook brand com-munity commitment is positively related to enhanced customer loyalty.Brand community membership also predicts an individ-ual’s behavior within and outside of a community (Algesheimer et al.,2005;Casaló,Flavián,&Guinalíu,2007)and indicates and stimulates his/her purchasing intentions (Cheung &Lee,2012).In terms of brand community participation,previous studies have examined the effects of community practices (Schau et al.,2009),brand community commitment (Hur et al.,2011),and par-ticipation motives (Nambisan &Baron,2007).In a qualitative study of brand communities that manifest both online and of?ine,Schau et al.(2009)illustrated how brand communities collectively gener-ate value through the processes of community engagement,social networking,brand use,and impression management,i.e.,word-of-mouth (WOM)behavior.However,there is still a lack of evidence veri?ed through a quantitative empirical examination to describe in detail how consumers’brand manifestations in online communities converge with brand loyalty manifestations outside of these communities.In addition,Habibi et al.(2014)state that there is a need for research taking the social context dimen-sion as it differs from previous online platforms.Therefore,we extend this stream of research (Algesheimer et al.,2005;Gamboa &Gon?alves,2014;Schau et al.,2009)by examining how brand loyalty is related to brand community commitment,to the inten-tion to spread information and to community promotion behavior in Facebook brand communities.
The importance of customers spreading positive messages to others about a company and its products has been widely recog-nized and linked to company pro?ts and revenues (Reichheld,2003).Brown,Broderick,and Lee (2007)showed that consumers consider peer opinions and recommendations to be more trustwor-thy than company-generated information.The content of a peer message is perceived as more meaningful and relevant (Mazzarol,Sweeney,&Soutar,2007)when the sender is not con-nected to the brand.However,more research is needed on the cau-sal linkages between the conversational elements within consumer networks (i.e.,community promotion)and performance outcomes (Adjei,Noble,&Noble,2010),such as repurchase intention and WOM.For example,the European Communication Monitor (2012)highlighted the importance of online brand communities and emphasized the need to increase competence in the use of this medium for marketing activities.Prior studies have also been
https://www.sodocs.net/doc/6418315022.html,/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.031
0747-5632/ó2015Elsevier Ltd.All rights reserved.
?Corresponding author.Tel.:+358405767814.
E-mail addresses:juha.t.munnukka@jyu.?(J.Munnukka),heikki.karjaluoto@jyu.?(H.Karjaluoto),anna.k.tikkanen@student.jyu.?(A.Tikkanen).
limited insofar as they have focused solely on college students (Chu&Kim,2011),examined brand communities in a single-brand context(Marzocchi,Morandin,&Bergami,2013), measured the behavioral intention to share WOM rather than to engage in actual WOM behavior(Yeh&Choi,2011)or studied only the direct effects of community commitment on brand loyalty (rather than the indirect and total effects)(Hur et al.,2011;Kim, Choi,Qualls,&Han,2008).In summary,there are still notable gaps in our understanding of how consumers’commitment to online brand communities,such as Facebook brand communities,mani-fests in different forms of community outcomes and brand loyalty.
Research on Facebook brand communities and their effects on performance outcomes(such as brand loyalty)is important because an increasing number of companies are investing time and money in managing brand communities in social networks,although uncertainties remain with respect to the ROI of these investments. To date,only a handful of studies have examined Facebook brand communities.Whereas Ruiz-Mafe,Martí-Parre?o,and Sanz-Blas (2014)examined the drivers of customer loyalty in Facebook fan pages,Gamboa and Gon?alves(2014)looked at how Facebook affects loyalty drivers between fans and non-fans.The limited evi-dence suggests that Facebook communities work in a similar man-ner compared to other online brand communities,con?rming a positive effect of the community on customer loyalty.In Finland, where the empirical data for this study were obtained,nearly90% of those aged18–24and around half of the Finnish adult population have a user pro?le on Facebook(Statistics Finland,2013),and the platform’s global active user base is around1.20billion(Facebook, 2015).Therefore,a current examination of online brand communi-ties,particularly Facebook brand communities,is relevant and con-cerns nearly every company wanting to build stronger relationships with its customers and its prospective customers online.However, it is notable that Facebook is particularly important to younger peo-ple:thus,only22%of the55–64age group in Finland have a Facebook pro?le(Statistics Finland,2013).
This study aims to address the aforementioned limitations and to contribute to current knowledge in several respects.First,we build and empirically test a comprehensive conceptual model explaining how brand loyalty is formed and strengthened through online brand community commitment and its outcome,commu-nity promotion behavior.Second,we contribute to prior research by testing the effects of brand community commitment and its outcomes as well as brand loyalty.Finally,we examine the direct and indirect effects of community promotion behavior on three aspects of brand loyalty:attitudinal loyalty,repurchase intention, and WOM.This information can help companies better understand the value of a Facebook brand community for brand loyalty and speci?cally for WOM behavior.
Hur et al.(2011,p.1196)de?ned a brand community as a ‘‘group of people who possess a particular brand or who have a strong interest in a brand,and who are active both online and off-line.’’A brand community is considered as a meeting place for brand users connecting them to the brand and allowing them to interact with the content and with each other(Gummerus et al., 2012).Brand community commitment refers to each community member’s attitude toward the community,which is‘‘a predictor of a member’s actual behaviors in an online community,such as participating in community activities,offering help to the commu-nity and solving problems for others’’(Hur et al.,2011,p.1198).The outcome of brand community commitment is examined through online brand community promotion(Koh&Kim,2004). Community promotion behavior relates to the activity of promot-ing the brand community to others outside of the Facebook brand community(Koh&Kim,2004).
We conceptualize online brand community commitment and brand community promotion as brand-related activities restricted to online channels that are antecedents of brand loyalty.Our con-ceptualization of brand loyalty includes three aspects:attitudinal loyalty,repurchase intention,and WOM.Sirdeshmukh,Singh, and Sabol(2002,p.20)posited,‘‘consumer loyalty is indicated by an intention to perform a diverse set of behaviors that signal a motivation to maintain a relationship with the focal?rm includ-ing...positive word of mouth(WOM),and repeat purchasing.’’Attitudinal loyalty refers to the degree of dispositional commit-ment to a brand(Chaudhuri&Holbrook,2001)in terms of liking and loyalty to spread information,such as value,quality and price (Oliver,1999).Repurchase intention is de?ned as a measure of loy-alty intention,which is an antecedent of loyalty behavior(cf. Algesheimer et al.,2005).Following the suggestion of De Matos and Rossi(2008),we de?ne attitudinal loyalty,repurchase inten-tion and WOM as items that are independent of the loyalty construct.
In the following section,we brie?y describe the study frame-work and subsequently develop hypotheses regarding how brand community commitment,community promotion behavior,attitu-dinal loyalty and repurchase intention drive WOM,which is fol-lowed by a description of the methods and measures used to test the framework.We present the results in the penultimate section and close with a discussion of the results that addresses the theo-retical,managerial,and research implications of these?ndings.
2.The effects of online brand community dynamics on brand loyalty
Social media has proven to be an effective channel through which to in?uence consumers’brand perceptions and consump-tion behavior(e.g.,Marzocchi et al.,2013).This?nding highlights the need to thoroughly understand the forms and especially the consequences of consumers’participation in personal networks, particularly on Facebook(Gamboa&Gon?alves,2014).Brand com-munity commitment is closely connected to social behavior between community members that collectively creates value for a company and customers(Hur et al.,2011;Oestreicher-Singer& Zalmanson,2013).Brand owner–led communities enable compa-nies to engage in closer and more collaborative relationships with customers and to gain a better understanding of their behavior (Laroche,Habibi,Richard,&Sankaranarayanan,2012).Online brand communities are understood to be effective platforms for both brand owners and customers(Adjei et al.,2010)that enhance the development of loyal customer relationships(Casalóet al., 2007;Laroche et al.,2012).Brand communities act as a means to enhance customer involvement in marketing dialogue with brands and to foster customer interactions with one another(Hur et al., 2011).These interactions have been found to positively affect cus-tomers’brand perceptions(Marzocchi et al.,2013),brand loyalty (Gummerus et al.,2012),and purchasing and WOM behavior (Algesheimer et al.,2005;Hur et al.,2011).In the social media con-text,Laroche,Habibi,and Richard(2013)con?rm that brand com-munities established on social media have a positive relationship with several customer-centric strategy outcomes such as attach-ment to the product,brand and the company in question. Customers’commitment to and behavior within brand communi-ties vary signi?cantly among different community types,such as online and of?ine communities(Muniz&O’Guinn,2001),fan pages (Zaglia,2013)and small-group brand communities(Bagozzi& Dholakia,2006),as well as between different contexts and within the minds of customers(Jang,Olfman,Ko,Koh,&Kim,2008). Zaglia(2013)de?ned a Facebook group established by a company around its brand as a true brand community,which should be dis-tinguished from a mere fan page.
In the current research,brand community commitment and community promotion are examined as the antecedents of
430J.Munnukka et al./Computers in Human Behavior51(2015)429–439
attitudinal loyalty,repurchase intention and WOM behavior (Algesheimer et al.,2005;De Matos&Rossi,2008;Hur et al., 2011;Jang et al.,2008).There is wide agreement that positive WOM re?ects brand loyalty(Brown,Barry,Dacin,&Gunst,2005; Casalóet al.,2007;Royo-Vela&Casamassima,2011).In this study, we de?ne attitudinal loyalty,repurchase intention,and WOM as the outcome variables of brand community commitment and com-munity promotion(cf.Algesheimer et al.,2005;Hur et al.,2011).
Previous research has examined speci?c aspects of online brand communities and behavior within communities,such as brand community characteristics(Muniz&O’Guinn,2001;Zaglia, 2013),practices(Schau et al.,2009),and participation motives (Nambisan&Baron,2007).However,previous research has still not provided robust evidence regarding how Facebook brand com-munities relate to brand loyalty,particularly how brand-related manifestations in online channels,such as brand community com-mitment and brand community promotion behavior,are linked and jointly affect different aspects of brand loyalty.This linkage highlights the potential of online brand communities as a commu-nication medium for building relationships with customers.
2.1.Research hypotheses
The conceptual framework of this study is presented in Fig.1. The model suggests that brand community commitment is directly associated with community promotion behavior,which is in turn hypothesized to be an antecedent to attitudinal loyalty,repurchase intention and WOM.In this study,we also examine the indirect and total effects of community promotion behavior on WOM, which may reveal interesting insights into the dynamics between these constructs.
2.2.Brand community commitment and community promotion behavior
Brand community commitment is positively related to brand loyalty(Jang et al.,2008),brand commitment,repurchase inten-tion,participation in a company’s marketing activities(Kim et al., 2008),and positive WOM communications(Carlson,Suter,& Brown,2008).These positive emotional and behavioral effects are generated by individuals’social interactions with other mem-bers of a community,such as giving and receiving brand-related information within a brand community,as well as sharing this information with others outside of the community(Casalóet al., 2007).Therefore,as social exchange is the essence of brand com-munities,higher levels of commitment to a community are likely to foster members’information-sharing behavior(Yeh&Choi, 2011),encourage value creation for community members(see Hur et al.,2011;Oestreicher-Singer&Zalmanson,2013)and strengthen members’brand loyalty(Muniz&O’Guinn,2001).
Prior studies on the outcomes of commitment suggest that cus-tomers’brand community commitment leads to more intense social behavior within the community(Kang,Lee,Lee,&Choi, 2007)and a stronger propensity to promote the community to others(Hur et al.,2011).Muniz and O’Guinn(2001)posited that social exchanges within brand communities provide opportunities for members to differentiate themselves from one another and to demonstrate their brand devotion and brand knowledge.This behavior is understood as strengthening customers’loyalty to a brand,which is the fundamental idea behind brand communities (e.g.,Laroche et al.,2012).
Brand loyalty offers a useful way to examine the interplay between a customer’s relationship found with a brand and with a brand community.Bagozzi and Dholakia(2006)determined that customers’brand loyalty captures aspects of product-related cog-nitions,brand commitment,and identi?cation with the brand image.The loyalty that customers feel toward a brand may be enhanced by encouraging them to interact within the brand com-munity,thus enhancing identi?cation with and commitment to the brand community and to the brand itself(Algesheimer et al.,2005; Casalóet al.,2007).However,previous studies have indicated that customers more often engage in non-interactive behaviors,such as ‘‘lurking’’–observing without actively participating–which may be even more strongly related to brand loyalty than active partic-ipation(see Carlson et al.,2008;Gummerus et al.,2012;Shang, Chen,&Liao,2006).
Nambisan and Baron(2007)showed that consumers’active par-ticipation in brand communities is motivated by four types of potential bene?ts(learning,social,personal,and hedonic)that can be obtained from participation in community activities.Hur et al.(2011)showed that consumers’commitment to online brand communities positively affects their WOM behavior and brand loy-alty.This positive association between brand community commit-ment and brand loyalty is also supported by other studies,such as Jang et al.(2008).
Prior research has suggested that existing members actively participate in online brand communities,whereas prospective members lurk and then grow into loyal community members through emotional support and increasing involvement in commu-nity actions(Hung&Li,2007).Members with a higher level of commitment to a community have an increased propensity to advocate for the community and to transmit information outside of the community.For example,Muniz and Schau(2005)suggested that strong commitment to a brand community may lead to advo-cacy behavior both within and outside of the community,which predicts brand loyalty(Casaló,Flavián,&Guinalíu,2010;Koh& Kim,2004).Therefore,community promotion is considered to be a behavioral outcome of individuals’commitment to a brand com-munity(Chu&Kim,2011;Kang et al.,2007).Prior studies support this point by showing that consumers’online brand community commitment is an antecedent of community promotion behavior and signals that they are positively associated with the brand com-munity(Casaló,Flavián,&Guinalíu,2008).Thus,the degree of commitment an individual feels to a brand community and the level of motivation to participate in the community are related to the likelihood of promoting the brand community outside of the community.Against this backdrop,we posit that brand community commitment has a positive indirect relationship with brand loy-alty,such that the effects of commitment on loyalty are engen-dered through community promotion behavior:
H1.Brand community commitment is positively associated with community promotion behavior(H1a)and brand loyalty(H1b).
2.3.Attitudinal loyalty,repurchase intention and WOM
A well-managed brand community fosters different types of brand loyalty,such as attitudinal loyalty(Chaudhuri&Holbrook, 2001),repurchase intention(Algesheimer et al.,2005)and WOM (Hur et al.,2011).Thus,brand loyalty consists of both attitudinal and behavioral aspects(Oliver,1999).Attitudinal loyalty refers to a customer’s overall attachment and commitment to a brand (Dick&Basu,1994),which predicts behavioral loyalty(Oliver, 1999).Repurchase intention is de?ned as a measure of brand loy-alty intention(Algesheimer et al.,2005)and purchase loyalty (Chaudhuri&Holbrook,2001).Our meaning here is that positive WOM communication is an outcome of attitudinal loyalty(De Matos&Rossi,2008;Oliver,1999)and repurchase intention (Dick&Basu,1994;Mazzarol et al.,2007).Prior research has sug-gested that commitment to an online brand community is posi-tively associated with brand loyalty(Casalóet al.,2007;Jang
J.Munnukka et al./Computers in Human Behavior51(2015)429–439431
et al.,2008;Muniz&O’Guinn,2001).Casalóet al.(2008)posited that commitment precedes brand loyalty and leads to positive WOM communication.Hur et al.(2011)showed that community commitment positively affects repurchase intentions and WOM communication.Prior research has also indicated several other antecedents of WOM,including brand community commitment and satisfaction(Brown et al.,2005;Royo-Vela&Casamassima, 2011)and writing intensity(Casalóet al.,2007).As the intention to spread information and community promotion are considered behavioral outcomes of brand community commitment(Muniz& Schau,2005),we postulate that these constructs predict and are positively associated with attitudinal loyalty,repurchase intention and WOM(Chu&Kim,2011;Hur et al.,2011;Koh&Kim,2004). Based on the aforementioned evidence,the following hypotheses are proposed:
H2a–https://www.sodocs.net/doc/6418315022.html,munity promotion behavior is positively associated with attitudinal loyalty(H2a),repurchase intention(H2b)and WOM(H2c).
2.4.Control variables
Gender and age have been associated with the outcome vari-ables in our study.For example,Ahrens,Coyle,and Strahilevitz (2013)indicated that both gender and age may in?uence con-sumers’WOM behavior.Although research has not found that per-sonal characteristics have a signi?cant effect on WOM behavior, these characteristics do affect individuals’areas of interest and their choice of websites to visit(Brown et al.,2007).Thus,previous research is consistent regarding the effects of gender and age on consumers’social exchange behaviors,although there is limited empirical evidence from the online brand community perspective. Based on the discussion above,we expect that individuals with similar characteristics will be more likely to share similar attitudes and interests,as re?ected in their WOM behavior.
User activity in online brand communities has positive effects on brand value and attitudes(Jang et al.,2008)as well as loyalty to the associated brand(Shang et al.,2006).Research has also indi-cated that the consequences of participation activity may depend on the form of participation.For example,Shang et al.(2006)found that the frequency of visits to online brand communities positively affects brand loyalty,whereas participation in discussions within the community had no effect on brand loyalty.In addition, Royo-Vela and Casamassima(2011)found that participation fre-quency had mixed effects that varied from a slightly positive effect to no effect.On this basis,we believe that it is important to control for user activity in the model.
3.Research method and measurements
3.1.Data collection and sample
To test our hypotheses,an online questionnaire was developed to collect data from social media users.Data were collected in February2013and in March2013from users of two Finnish con-sumer products?rms,a?rm engaged in the home décor industry and a shoemaking?rm,respectively.The home décor?rm offers prestigious home décor and kitchen products,with net sales of approximately EUR300million and1500employees.The Facebook community of the?rm is built around the company’s brand and has attracted more than70,000community members. Content for the community primarily comes from the company, with only a small amount of content generated by community members.The shoe?rm offers shoes for running and performing activities on slippery winter surfaces(many of their shoes are equipped with unique rubber compound and smart studs,which assist in adapting to slippery winter surfaces).The net sales of the shoe brand in Finland total approximately EUR2million.Its national Facebook community has more than13,000community members.Content for this community is equally generated by the company and by community members.
A link to the online survey was placed on both companies’Facebook pages.Participation was encouraged by a prize drawing for gift vouchers for each?rm’s products.The original survey items were?rst translated from English to Finnish.To ensure validity, back translation was used.The wording of some items was modi-?ed to adapt the items to the study context.In addition to the study constructs,the questionnaire consisted of items related to demographics and community activities.
In both studies,data were collected over a two-week period.In the décor study,the survey was opened3580times,with1936 responses gathered,resulting in an effective response rate of
432J.Munnukka et al./Computers in Human Behavior51(2015)429–439
54.1%.In the shoe study,the effective response rate was47.8% (opened2867times,with1369responses).To test for possible non-response bias,early respondents(N=300)were compared to late respondents(N=300)in terms of the construct items and background questions(Armstrong&Overton,1977).The results of the mean comparisons revealed no signi?cant differences(at p<0.05)between these two groups.Thus,non-response bias is not likely to affect our results.
Table1presents the sample group pro?le for both studies.For the home décor study,our sample is female dominated(93.6%), which is consistent with the general population of home décor online communities.In terms of the respondents’ages,the sample is well balanced,as all age groups are present to some extent. However,perhaps as expected,the two oldest age groups account for only9.2%of the total sample.Consistent with the age of online community members in general,most respondents(63.8%)were between18and41years of age.More than half of the respondents had obtained either a bachelor’s(40.0%)or a master’s degree (19.1%).A majority of respondents had been members of the Facebook community for a year or more(61.5%);only8.1%had been members for less than a month.Approximately one-third (36.2%)visited the online community at least once a week, whereas more than half(63.8%)visited two to three times per month or less.A total of41.6%reported sometimes‘‘liking’’the content of the community,whereas nearly one-third(29.8%) reported‘‘liking’’the content regularly(8.4%)or often(21.4%). Only6.4%stated that they never clicked the Like button on the community page.Finally,only1.6%reported writing comments regularly,and2.4%reported that they did so often.A majority (81.1%)either never wrote comments(46.1%)or wrote them very rarely(35%).This?nding is consistent with the90-9-11principle of content creation in collaborative websites such as online commu-nities(McConnell&Huba,2006).
The pro?le of the respondents in the shoe study is also female dominated(87.9%),which is consistent with the general popula-tion of the shoe brand’s Facebook community.The average age of the respondents is slightly higher than in the home décor study: more than half of the respondents were between36and53years old(59.5%).In terms of education,the shoe study sample is quite similar to the home décor study sample.Given that this Facebook community has been active only since autumn2013, all the respondents had been members of the Facebook community for fewer than six months.The frequency of visiting the shoe?rm’s
community was slightly less than that of the home décor study. Approximately one-?fth(20.2%)visited the online community at least once a week,whereas the majority(80.8%)visited two to three times per month or less.There were no notable differences from the home décor study concerning how often the respondents ‘‘liked’’the content.Only4.8%stated that they never‘‘liked’’con-tent,approximately one-?fth(19.7%)‘‘liked’’content rarely,nearly half(47.2%)‘‘liked’’content sometimes,and slightly over one-fourth(28.3%)‘‘liked’’content regularly(19.0%)or often (9.3%).Commenting occurred slightly more regularly in the shoe study,as2%reported writing comments regularly, 2.7%com-mented often,and17.5%commented occasionally.The majority never wrote comments(38.9%)or wrote them only very rarely (38.9%).
3.2.Measurement
The items used in this study can be found in the Appendix A.For the model constructs,?ve-point Likert scales anchored by strongly disagree(1)and strongly agree(5)were used.All scales measuring the model constructs were operationalized with multi-item re?ec-tive scales.Brand community commitment was measured using items adapted from Hur et al.(2011).Community promotion behavior was measured using items adapted from Koh and Kim (2004).In measuring attitudinal loyalty to the brands,four items were adapted from Chaudhuri and Holbrook(2001)and Laroche et al.(2012).To measure repurchase intention,three items from Algesheimer et al.(2005)and Chaudhuri and Holbrook(2001)were used.WOM was measured using items adapted from Hur et al. (2011).
Five control variables were used.Age was measured using an eight-point https://www.sodocs.net/doc/6418315022.html,er activity in the community was collected using single-item measures.The items were adapted from Gummerus et al.(2012).These three items focused on measuring user activity in terms of the frequency of visiting,the frequency of‘‘liking’’Facebook content,and the frequency of writing com-ments.In measuring the frequency of visiting,we asked the ques-tion‘‘How often do you visit the community?’’,and the answer was measured on a?ve-point scale,including the following items:‘‘once a month or less’’(1),‘‘2–3times per month’’(2),‘‘1–3times per week’’(3),‘‘4–6times per week’’(4),and‘‘Daily’’(5).The fre-quency of‘‘liking’’was operationalized with the question‘‘How Table1
Pro?le of the respondents.
Décor Shoes
N%N% Gender
Female181293.6120387.9 Male124 6.416612.1 Total19361001369100 Age
18–2322911.828 2.1 24–2934517.881 5.9 30–3535218.217112.5 36–4130916.027119.8 42–4728714.831122.7 48–5323612.223317.0 54–59122 6.313810.1 60or older56 2.91369.9 Total19361001369100 Education
Comprehensive school68 3.586 6.3 Lower secondary school40020.740029.2 Upper secondary school32416.722816.7 Bachelor’s degree77540.047734.8 Master’s degree or higher36919.117813.0 Total19361001369100 Frequency of visiting
Once a month or less often63032.580758.9 2–3times a month60631.330021.9 1–3times a week36618.91017.4 4–6times a week1397.235 2.6 Daily19510.11269.2 Total19361001369100 Frequency of‘‘Liking’’
Never123 6.466 4.8 Very seldom43022.227019.7 Sometimes80641.664647.2 Often41521.426019.0 Regularly1628.41279.3 Total19361001369100 Frequency of commenting
Never89246.153238.9 Very seldom67735.053338.9 Sometimes28914.924017.5 Often47 2.437 2.7 Regularly31 1.627 2.0 Total89246.153238.9
1According to this principle,90%of the participants of a community only view
content,whereas9%edit content,and1%actively create content.
J.Munnukka et al./Computers in Human Behavior51(2015)429–439433
often do you‘like’the content of the community?’’The?nal question elicited responses regarding the frequency of writing comments by asking the following question:‘‘How often do you write comments?’’The scale for these two controls included‘‘Never’’(1),‘‘Very sel-dom’’(2),‘‘Sometimes’’(3),‘‘Often’’(4),and‘‘Regularly’’(5).
4.Results
4.1.Validation of measures
All measures were subjected to con?rmatory factor analysis using partial least squares(PLS)and SmartPLS(Ringle,Wende,& Will,2005).In general,the construct measures showed high inter-nal reliability,as the composite reliabilities were all equal to or greater than0.826,and Cronbach’s alphas were larger than0.70. Discriminant validity was achieved using the Fornell–Larcker criterion(1981),which is based on the premise that a latent vari-able should better explain the variance of its own indicators than the variance of other latent variables.Table2shows the cross-correlation matrix in which the square root of the AVE is compared with the correlations between the latent variable and all other latent constructs.In addition,Table2shows the mean scores for the constructs and their standard deviations.
https://www.sodocs.net/doc/6418315022.html,mon method bias
The likelihood of common method bias tainting the results was mitigated by following the procedure recommended by Podsakoff, MacKenzie,Lee,and Podsakoff(2003).The items were mixed in the questionnaire,the level of item ambiguity was reduced,and the respondents’identities were con?dential.Two statistical analyses were performed to test for possible common method bias in the ?nal data.First,the one-factor test from Harman(1967)showed the presence of measurement model factors rather than a general factor.The largest factor accounted for24.4%(décor)and23.5% (shoes)of the total variance of the factors.Second,a model with a common method factor was run in SmartPLS(see Liang,Saraf, Hu,&Xue,2007).The results showed the average method-based variance to be low(à0.001for décor andà0.003for shoes)com-pared with the average variance explained by the indicators (0.838for decoration and0.833for shoes).These tests provide evi-dence that common method bias is not a concern in our dataset.
4.3.Analysis and results
To test our hypotheses,we?rst examined the direct effects fol-lowed by an analysis of the mediation test,including an assess-ment of the indirect and total effects.In assessing the direct paths,a path-weighting scheme with a maximum iteration set to 300and an abort criterion set to1.0Eà5was employed.The signif-icance of the paths was assessed using bootstrapping with5000 re-samples(Hair,Hult,Ringle,&Sarstedt,2014,p.132).The results of the PLS estimation for the direct effects are presented in Table3.
Overall,both models explained more than40%of the R2of repurchase intention and WOM.The Q2values were large(>0.35) in three out of four cases,as the Q2value in the shoe study for repurchase intentions was medium-large(0.15 As shown in Table3,brand community commitment has strong positive associations with community promotion behavior (décor/shoes:b=0.633/0.730,p<0.01),which provides support for H1a.With respect to H2a–c,all the relationships are supported in the décor data.In the shoe study,only the positive relationship between brand community promotion and attitudinal loyalty (H2a)is supported,whereas community promotion was not found to be related to repurchase intention(H2b)or WOM(H2c). Furthermore,the models con?rm the positive paths between atti-tudinal loyalty and repurchase intention,attitudinal loyalty and WOM and the path between repurchase intention and WOM.The path coef?cients between the two groups were signi?cantly differ-ent in strength in many cases(see Table3).Of the control variables, gender had a signi?cant association in both samples with repur-chase intention and in the décor sample with WOM.This?nding implies that women have slightly stronger repurchase intention in both studies and are slightly more willing to provide positive WOM about the brand in the décor study.Age was found to be neg-atively associated with repurchase intention in the décor sample, indicating that younger customers have stronger repurchase inten-tion.The frequency of visiting had no effect on repurchase inten-tion but had a positive relationship with WOM in the shoe study. The frequency of liking was not associated with WOM but had a positive effect on repurchase intention in the shoe study.Finally, the frequency of commenting on posts had no effect on the out-come variables. 4.4.Total effects The results of the total effects(Table4)con?rm H1b by showing that brand community commitment has a signi?cant positive asso-ciation with brand loyalty in both studies.In the décor study,its effect is the strongest on WOM.In the shoe study,the total effect is the strongest on attitudinal loyalty and the weakest on WOM. In both samples,community promotion behavior has a positive total effect on repurchase intention and on WOM,and its effect is larger on repurchase intention in the shoe study and on WOM in the décor study.Most of the total effects differed signi?cantly (p<0.05)between the two groups(see Table4).Finally,the total effect of attitudinal loyalty on WOM was strong and signi?cant in both studies. 4.5.Indirect effects and mediation Although not hypothesized,we further examined how the effects of brand community promotion behavior on WOM are mediated by attitudinal loyalty and repurchase intention.To assess these relationships,indirect and mediating effects were assessed by calculating the signi?cance of the indirect effects by bootstrap-ping the sampling distribution(5000bootstrap samples,no sign changes)and calculating the Variance Accounted For(VAF)value. Bootstrapping is considered a far more robust test for assessing mediation than the Baron and Kenny(1986)approach or the Sobel(1982)test(Hair et al.,2014,p.223;Preacher&Hayes, 2008).Table5presents the results of this analysis. The results show that the effects of brand community behavior on WOM are partially(VAF=0.390)mediated through attitudinal loyalty and repurchase intention in the décor study.In this equa-tion,attitudinal loyalty is a stronger mediator of the effects of com-munity promotion on WOM.In the shoe study,the total indirect effect was larger than the total effect,which suggests inconsistent mediation(MacKinnon,Fairchild,&Fritz,2007).In such cases,the VAF value cannot be assessed.An explanation for this result is that the positive indirect effect(0.254???)is cancelled out by the nega-tive direct effect(b=à0.012ns).With respect to the speci?c indi-rect effects,we?nd that the effects of community promotion behavior on WOM are fully mediated by attitudinal loyalty. Consequently,we can conclude that in the shoe study,the effect of brand community promotion behavior on WOM is inconsis-tently mediated by attitudinal loyalty and repurchase intentions. In summary,the positive relationship between brand community promotion behavior and WOM is only indirect(via attitudinal loy-alty)in the shoe study. 434J.Munnukka et al./Computers in Human Behavior51(2015)429–439 J.Munnukka et al./Computers in Human Behavior51(2015)429–439435 Table2 Average Variance Extracted(AVE),Reliabilities,Construct Correlations,Square Root of AVE(on the diagonal),Means and Standard Deviations. Décor AVE CR a(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10) BCC b(1)0.5450.8260.738 CPB c(2)0.8540.9460.6340.924 ATTL d(3)0.6850.8970.3150.2420.828 RI e(4)0.6880.8690.3030.2240.7160.829 WOM f(5)0.8590.717k0.3910.3960.6230.6220.927 FV g(6)n/a j n/a0.020à0.012à0.016à0.0060.010n/a FL h(7)n/a n/aà0.017à0.0290.0150.0170.0210.455n/a FC i(8)n/a n/aà0.018à0.021à0.020à0.017à0.0140.5560.566n/a Gender(9)n/a n/a0.0530.0360.024à0.018à0.0190.0290.012à0.029n/a Age(10)n/a n/a0.0700.190à0.112à0.110à0.027à0.015à0.0310.001à0.032n/a Mean–– 2.63 1.81 3.59 3.93 3.60 2.31 3.03 1.79n/a n/a s.d.–– 1.060.98 1.020.92 1.06 1.27 1.010.90n/a n/a Shoes BCC b(1)0.6260.8670.791 CPB c(2)0.7940.9210.7300.891 ATTL d(3)0.6460.8790.4400.4070.804 RI e(4)0.6390.8410.3100.2640.6470.799 WOM f(5)0.8480.696k0.2360.2320.6080.6750.921 FV g(6)n/a j n/a0.3970.3710.1200.0370.005n/a FL h(7)n/a n/a0.4830.4240.2330.1730.1530.447n/a FC i(8)n/a n/a0.5060.4440.2050.0960.0950.5800.531n/a Gender(9)n/a n/a0.0690.040à0.044à0.133à0.1100.0700.0290.041n/a Age(10)n/a n/a0.0770.1900.0400.0230.0320.1300.1370.146à0.022n/a Mean–– 2.59 2.04 2.97 3.95 4.13 1.81 3.08 1.90n/a n/a s.d.–– 1.11 1.08 1.220.99 1.09 1.250.970.92n/a n/a a CR=Composite reliability. b BCC–Brand community commitment. c CPB–Community promotion behavior. d ATTL–Attitudinal loyalty to th e brand. e RI–Repurchase intention. f WOM=Word of mouth.; g FV–Frequency of visiting. h FL–Frequency of‘‘liking’’. i FC–Frequency of commenting. j Not applicable.Construct measured through a single indicator;composite reliability and AVE cannot be computed. k Correlation coef?cient(construct calculated with two indicators);composite reliability cannot be computed. Table3 The direct effect model. b f2q2 Décor Shoes Décor Shoes Décor Shoes a H1:BCC?CPB0.633***0.730***n/a n/a n/a n/a a H2a:CPB?ATTL0.242***0.407***n/a n/a n/a n/a a H2b:CPB?RI0.066***0.019(ns)0.006à0.0040.000à0.007 a H2c:CPB?WOM0.245***à0.012(ns)0.108à0.0040.081à0.002 a ATTL?RI0.695***0.635***0.9110.5830.4650.283 ATTL?WOM0.313***0.301***0.1040.0940.0780.070 a RI?WOM0.332***0.475***0.1040.2530.0800.186 a Gender?RIà0.039**à0.103***0.0020.0180.0020.007 Gender?WOMà0.031**à0.030(ns)0.0020.0020.0040.002 Age?RIà0.046***à0.005(ns)0.0040.0000.000à0.004 Age?WOMà0.001(ns)0.013(ns)0.0000.0000.0020.002 FV?RI0.009(ns)à0.038(ns)0.0000.0000.0000.000 FV?WOM0.024(ns)0.066***0.0000.0060.0020.004 FL?RI0.012(ns)0.064**0.0000.0040.0000.001 FL?WOM0.019(ns)0.025(ns)0.0000.0000.0020.002 FC?RIà0.014(ns)à0.050(ns)0.0000.0020.0000.000 FC?WOMà0.021(ns)0.017(ns)0.0000.0000.0020.002 R2Q2 Repurchase intention0.5180.4340.3520.273 WOM0.5090.5100.4350.430 Notes: ns–not signi?cant;n/a–not applicable. ***p<0.01. **p<0.05. a The path coef?cients between the two groups are signi?cantly different(p<0.01). 4.6.General discussion This work is among the?rst studies to investigate the manner in which online brand community commitment and community promotion behavior within a Facebook brand community affect consumers’attitudinal loyalty to a brand,repurchase intention and positive WOM behavior with respect to the brand.Our?ndings make an important contribution to the discussion regarding online consumer brand communities from the perspective of brand com-munity dynamics and brand loyalty,and our work has several implications for online brand community management. 4.7.Summary of?ndings and theoretical implications Online brand communities are considered effective tools for customer relationship management,because they foster interactiv-ity between a company and its customers and thus lead to more positive brand perceptions,stronger purchase intentions and WOM activity(Reichelt,Sievert,&Jacob,2014).Although the prior literature has tested the effect of several antecedents of WOM in the brand community context,no prior study has examined the direct and indirect effects of brand community commitment and community promotion behavior on the speci?c aspects of brand loyalty–namely attitudinal loyalty,repurchase intention and WOM behavior.We extend the prior literature by offering a theo-retically grounded conceptual model and testing it empirically with two large samples of online community members.Our key empirical?ndings provide insight into the relationship between Facebook brand communities and purchasing behavior in three aspects:(a)brand community commitment has a signi?cant direct effect on community promotion behavior and a signi?cant indirect effect on all three outcome constructs,i.e.,attitudinal loyalty, repurchase intention and WOM;(b)community promotion behav-ior affects attitudinal loyalty,repurchase intention and WOM in the décor study,whereas in the shoe study,this behavior affected only attitudinal loyalty;and(c)attitudinal loyalty to the brands exhibited strong associations with both repurchase intention and WOM. Our study contributes to the literature by presenting the speci-?c in?uence of Facebook brand community membership mecha-nisms on individuals’loyalty behaviors.We show that brand community commitment has strong associations with community promotion behavior and brand loyalty.These?ndings are consis-tent with our expectations and prior research,which has identi?ed a positive relationship between brand community commitment and community promotion behavior(Chu&Kim,2011;Kang et al.,2007)as well as between community commitment and atti-tudinal loyalty,repurchase intention(Casalóet al.,2007;Jang et al., 2008;Muniz&O’Guinn,2001)and WOM(Hur et al.,2011).This study adds to current knowledge regarding brand loyalty,particu-larly WOM,by showing that brand community members’commu-nity promotion behavior is a strong predictor of three aspects of brand loyalty–namely attitudinal loyalty,repurchase intentions and WOM behavior.This extends the literature on the brand com-munity commitment and brand loyalty relationship by Casalóet al. (2008)and Hur et al.(2011)and on the brand community commit-ment and community promotion connection by Muniz and Schau (2005).The?ndings revealed that although community promotion behavior is closely linked to all types of brand loyalty in terms of total effects,its effects on repurchase intention and WOM are not always direct.These?ndings partly support the view that brand community membership predicts consumers’intentions and behaviors both within and outside of such communities (Algesheimer et al.,2005). Finally,the results concerning the impact of the control vari-ables on the conceptual model also provide new insights to our knowledge.Controlling for user activity indicated that a positive effect on the outcome variables exists but differs between product categories as well as activity types.This was manifested in our study by the differing results between the two samples–the décor community and shoes community.One possible reason for the dif-ferences is that the shoe community is seasonal because it concen-trates on the winter season,and our study was conducted during Table4 Total effects. Attitudinal loyalty Repurchase intention WOM Décor Shoes Décor Shoes Décor Shoes H1b:BCC a0.153***0.297***c10.148***0.203***c20.254***0.178***c1 Community promotion behavior b b0.234***0.278***0.402***0.243***c1 Attitudinal loyalty––b b0.558***0.603*** Notes: ??p<0.05;ns–not signi?cant. c The total effects between the two groups are signi?cantly different c1(p<0.01);c2(p<0.05). ***p<0.01; a BCC–Brand community commitment. b Same as the direct effect. Table5 Mediation analysis. Décor Indirect effects Total effects VAF Mediation a CPB c?WOM d(through ATTLOY and RI) 0.157***0.402***0.390Partial b CPB?ATTLOY e?WOM0.079***0.324***0.244Partial b CPB?RI f?WOM0.022***0.267***0.082Almost no b CPB?ATTLOY?RI?WOM0.056***0.301***0.186Almost no Shoes a CPB c?WOM d(through ATTLOY and RI) 0.254***0.243***n/a h n/a h b CPB?ATTLOY e?WOM0.121***0.135***0.911Full b CPB?RI f?WOM0.009(ns)à0.003 (ns) n/a g,h No b CPB?ATTLOY?RI?WOM0.123***0.111***n/a h n/a h Notes: ??p<0.05,ns–not signi?cant. ***p<0.01. a The total indirect effect was calculated(see Preacher&Hayes,2008for the procedure). b Speci? c indirect effects. c CPB–Community promotion behavior. d WOM–Word of mouth. e ATTLOY–Attitudinal loyalty. f RI–Repurchase intention. g n/a–not applicable.Mediation does not exist because the indirect effect is not signi?cant. h n/a–not applicable.The indirect effects are larger than the total effect(thus, the VAF values exceed1). 436J.Munnukka et al./Computers in Human Behavior51(2015)429–439 the busy season.During this time,the members of the community were more active compared with the décor community,which is more steadily active throughout the entire year.On the differences between the types of community behavior we found that fre-quency of visiting had no effect on repurchase intention but had a positive relationship with WOM in the shoe study.The frequency of liking content was not associated with WOM but had a positive effect on repurchase intentions in the shoe study.Finally,the fre-quency of commenting had no effect on the outcome variables. These results ad to the research of Jang et al.(2008),Royo-Vela and Casamassima(2011)and Shang et al.(2006)by presenting a more detailed picture of how different types of behaviors in online brand communities drives the community members’brand loyalty. Of the other control variables,the prior studies have not shown direct relationships between individuals’personal characteristics and WOM behavior in the online brand community context. However,the previous research indicates that consumers with similar gender and age pro?les are likely to share similar attitudes and areas of interest(Brown et al.,2007)and may also be similar in their WOM behavior(Ahrens et al.,2013).Our?ndings contribute to this literature by,?rst,showing that gender is signi?cantly asso-ciated with repurchase intention in both samples and with WOM in the décor sample.Women had slightly stronger repurchase intention in both studies and were slightly more willing to provide positive WOM about the brand in the décor study.Second,age was found to have a negative association with repurchase intention in the décor sample,which indicates that younger customers have stronger repurchase intentions. 4.8.Managerial Implications The?ndings of the current research offer three managerial implications for those who build and maintain online brand com-munities,particularly on Facebook.Both samples showed that Facebook attracts older generations.Thus,our managerial advice is not restricted in terms of age,as the tested theories appear to be valid in the context of both younger and older segments in online brand communities. First,our results con?rm a positive relationship between Facebook brand community membership and brand loyalty. However,the effect strength of brand community commitment on brand loyalty differed between the two product types around which the brand communities were built.Therefore,we advise managers to study on the company’s brand community and how the members’community participation is linked to their brand loy-alty.This provides the company the means of assessing the value of the brand community and the size of investments on the commu-nity that is justi?able based on the community’s expected value. This study also shows that attitudinal loyalty is the main driver of positive WOM,and it outweighs the importance of Facebook brand community commitment or community promotion behav-ior.This leads to another practical contribution.The companies should design the brand communities to consist of features and content that effectively in?uences the members’emotions toward the brand.This would the most effectively improve the brand com-munities’ability to drive the members’repurchase intentions and brand related WOM behavior outside the community.Thus,formu-lating an online brand community appears to be a viable way to become closer to consumers and to foster stronger brand loyalty. Third,we advise managers to create strategies that foster par-ticipation and interaction in the brand community.For example, encouraging community members to spread positive news about their brand and products online will in?uence the awareness and pique the interest of consumers.Thus,positive brand-related dis-cussions are also likely to affect buying behavior over time (Casalóet al.,2007;Hur et al.,2011).Prior studies also stated that loyalty and commitment to a brand might be enhanced by encour-aging community members to interact with one another because such interaction reinforces identi?cation with and a sense of belonging to a community(Bagozzi&Dholakia,2006).This objec-tive typically requires companies to generate discussions around their brands and products by creating content that is interesting and relevant to the audience and by interacting with the audience (e.g.,by asking questions,collecting ideas and gathering feedback, having people vote on products,and answering customer queries). An online brand community may be a valuable asset for a company by providing a focus group to guide new product development,the design of customer surveys,and customer service and marketing communications.In closed communities such as Facebook,compa-nies also acquire detailed information about who their community members are,where they live,how old they are,what other com-panies and products they‘‘like’’,and other groups or communities to which they belong.Content that is designed to focus on relevant ideas and interaction with customers is likely to be more in?uen-tial than content that is designed only to boost the business of the community holder.However,in the Facebook brand commu-nity,such a focus might be challenging(Gummerus et al.,2012). 4.9.Limitations and future research We have identi?ed three main limitations of the current study. First,the empirical data informing the study were obtained from the members of only two Facebook brand communities,and their participation was voluntary;thus,both samples were convenience samples,which limit the generalizability of the results.Although non-response bias was not observed,various age groups and edu-cational backgrounds were well represented in the sample,which mirrors the population of community members in terms of gender (female-dominated communities).It cannot be presumed that the views obtained from these female-dominated communities repre-sent the views of members of all other online brand communities. Future research should therefore be conducted in other communi-ties,possibly outside of Facebook,and in different types of commu-nities.In addition,it might be interesting to undertake a comparative study of members of a Facebook brand community and another type of online brand community.Such a study might illuminate the real motives for belonging to a speci?c brand com-munity.The present data do not consider a possible distinction between the perceptions and behavior of community members and non-members.Thus,future research might compare the mem-bers of a certain community with non-members,particularly in terms of how members differ from non-members in their brand community commitment and brand loyalty.Such a study might shed new light onto the value of fostering online brand communi-ties for organizations.Furthermore,this study concentrated only on the outcomes of community commitment and thus did not explain how social behavior affects members’commitment to a community and how this behavior creates value for members and for companies(see Schau et al.,2009).Further studies should be conducted to examine how individuals’brand community behavior and perceptions of the value of a community affect their brand loyalty through brand community commitment.In the future,it may also be worthwhile to investigate online brand com-munities operating in different languages or managed from differ-ent countries by examining the effects of geographical areas. Another possible source of bias in the responses may occur as a result of the devices that individuals use to access an online brand community,which was not controlled for in the present study. Therefore,future research could examine our constructs and the proposed relationships by considering the device used to access the community.As around85%of Facebook page downloads are currently performed via a smartphone or tablet PC(Facebook, J.Munnukka et al./Computers in Human Behavior51(2015)429–439437 2015),a study examining the effect of the chosen user device might provide additional valuable insights to complement our research framework. Second,given the short history of Facebook and its brand com-munities,membership in these types of communities may not always be a sign of true interest in a brand or of loyalty.As our research did not inquire about the motives for participating in the community in great detail,one promising future research area would be to examine what motivates Facebook brand community membership.This study could be either experimental or qualita-tive and might be conducted by interviewing the members of an online brand community.Another suitable method would be netnography,which is a branch of ethnography that focuses on analyzing online behaviors.In addition,the use of these methods might be valuable in conducting an in-depth investigation of why users spread WOM of?ine and/or online or why users promote a particular community. Finally,as with any single-survey study,the possible effect of common method variance cannot be completely eliminated with-out collecting data from various sources or using a longitudinal study design.During the survey studies,special care was taken to minimize common method bias,and the tests conducted indi-cated that this issue should not jeopardize the validity of our study. In addition,studies that test relationships between constructs are based on theory rather than mathematical formulae,and thus, claims of causality must be interpreted with caution.All the rela-tionships established by the current research were based on earlier research,and causality is therefore based on the theories relating to online brand communities.However,to fully validate the causality of the relationships,an experimental design would be necessary. Appendix A See Table6. References Adjei,M.,Noble,S.,&Noble,C.(2010).The in?uence of C2C communications in online brand communities on customer purchase behavior.Journal of the Academic Marketing Science,38(5),634–653. Ahrens,J.,Coyle,J.,&Strahilevitz,M.(2013).Electronic word of mouth:The effects of incentives on e-referrals by senders and receivers.European Journal of Marketing,47(7),1034–1051. Algesheimer,R.,Dholakia,U.,&Herrmann,A.(2005).The social in?uence of brand community:Evidence from European car clubs.Journal of Marketing,69(3), 19–34. Armstrong,J.S.,&Overton,T.S.(1977).Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys.Journal of Marketing Research,14,396–402.August. Bagozzi,R.,&Dholakia,U.(2006).Antecedents and purchase consequences of customer participation in small group brand communities.International Journal of Research in Marketing,23(1),45–61. Baron,R.M.,&Kenny,D.A.(1986).The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research:Conceptual,strategic and statistical considerations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,51(6),1173–1182. Brown,T.,Barry,T.,Dacin,P.,&Gunst,R.(2005).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,33(2),123–138. Brown,J.,Broderick,A.J.,&Lee,N.(2007).Word of mouth communication within online communities:Conceptualizing the online social network.Journal of Interactive Marketing,21(3),2–20. Carlson, B.,Suter,T.,&Brown,T.(2008).Social versus psychological brand community:The role of psychological sense of brand community.Journal of Business Research,61(4),284–291. Casaló,L.,Flavián,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. Casaló,L.,Flavián,C.,&Guinalíu,M.(2008).Promoting consumer’s participation in virtual brand communities:A new paradigm in branding strategy.Journal of Marketing Communications,14(1),19–36. Casaló,L.,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(4), 357–367. Chaudhuri,A.,&Holbrook,M.(2001).The chain of effects from brand trust and brand affect to brand performance:The role of brand loyalty.Journal of Marketing,65(2),81–93. Cheung,C.,&Lee,M.(2012).What drives consumers to spread electronic word of mouth in online consumer-opinion platforms.Decision Support Systems,53(1), 218–225. Chu,S.,&Kim,Y.(2011).Determinants of consumer engagement in electronic word-of-mouth(eWOM)in social networking sites.International Journal of Advertising,30(1),47–75. De Matos, C. A.,&Rossi, C. A.(2008).Word-of-mouth communications in marketing:A meta-analytic review of the antecedents and moderators. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,36(4),578–596. Dick,P.,&Basu,K.(1994).Customer loyalty:Toward an integrated conceptual framework.Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,22(2),99–113. European Communication Monitor(2012).Challenges and competencies for strategic communication.Results from empirical survey in42countries. zerfass.de/ecm/ECM2012-Results-ChartVersion.pdf>Retrieved15.08.13. Facebook(2015).Company info. Fornell,C.,&Larcker,D.F.(1981).Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error.Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1),39–50. Gamboa, A.M.,&Gon?alves,H.M.(2014).Customer loyalty through social networks:Lessons from Zara on Facebook.Business Horizons,57,709–717. Gummerus,J.,Liljander,V.,Weman, E.,&Pihlstr?m,M.(2012).Customer engagement in a Facebook brand community.Management Research Review, 35(9),857–877. Table6 Measurement scales. Constructs and items Factor loadings Brand community commitment a Décor Shoes In general,I’m very motivated to participate actively in the virtual community activities 0.7600.792 I feel a sense of belonging in this brand community0.7750.805 I will exchange information and opinions with the members of this brand community 0.7870.804 I will collect information through this brand community0.6300.761 Community promotion behavior b I invite my close acquaintances to join our Facebook community 0.8940.889 I often talk to people about the bene?ts of this Facebook community 0.9390.876 I often introduce my peers or friends to this Facebook community 0.9390.908 Attitudinal loyalty to the brand c I consider myself to be loyal to brand X0.8970.861 I am willing to pay more for(X)products0.7980.783 I am committed to this brand0.8390.854 I would be willing to pay a higher price for this brand than for other brands 0.7720.707 Repurchase intention d I will buy Organization X’s products the next time I buy(X) items 0.8390.833 I intend to keep purchasing Organization X’s products0.8340.829 I would actively search for this brand to buy it0.8140.732 Word of mouth e I often tell others about Organization X0.9260.917 I recommend Organization X’s products to others0.9270.925 Frequency of visiting f How often do you visit the community?n/a Frequency of‘‘liking’’g How often do you‘like’the content of the community?n/a Frequency of commenting h How often do you write comments?n/a Scale sources: a Brand community commitment–Hur et al.(2011). b Community promotion behavior–Koh and Kim(2004). c Attitudinal loyalty to the brand–adapte d from Chaudhuri and Holbrook(2001) and Laroche et al.(2012). d Repurchas e intention–Algesheimer et al.(2005)and Chaudhuri and Holbrook (2001). e Word o f mouth–Hur et al.(2011). f Frequency of visiting. g Frequency of‘‘liking’’. h Frequency of commenting–Gummerus et al.(2012). 438J.Munnukka et al./Computers in Human Behavior51(2015)429–439 Habibi,M.R.,Laroche,M.,&Richard,M.-O.(2014).Brand communities based in social media:How unique are they?Evidence from two exemplary brand communities.International Journal of Information Management,34(2),123–132. Hair,J.F.,Jr.,Hult,G.T.M.,Ringle,C.M.,&Sarstedt,M.(2014).A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling(PLS-SEM).Los Angeles:Sage. Harman,H.H.(1967).Modern factor analysis.Chicago:University of Chicago Press. Hung,K.,&Li,S.(2007).The in?uence of eWOM on virtual consumer communities: Social capital,consumer learning,and behavioral outcomes.Journal of Advertising Research,47(4),485–495. Hur,W.,Ahn,K.,&Kim,M.(2011).Building brand loyalty through managing brand community commitment.Management Decision,49(7),1194–1213. Jang,H.,Olfman,L.,Ko,I.,Koh,J.,&Kim,K.(2008).The in?uence of on-line brand community characteristics on community commitment and brand loyalty. International Journal of Electronic Commerce,12(3),57–80. Kang,I.,Lee,K.,Lee,S.,&Choi,J.(2007).Investigation of online community voluntary behavior using cognitive https://www.sodocs.net/doc/6418315022.html,puters in Human Behavior,23(1), 111–126. Kim,A.,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. Koh,J.,&Kim,Y.(2004).Knowledge sharing in virtual communities:An ebusiness perspective.Expert Systems with Applications,26(2),155–166. Laroche,M.,Habibi,M.R.,&Richard,M.-O.(2013).To be or not to be in social media:How brand loyalty is affected by social media?International Journal of Information Management,33(1),76–82. Laroche,M.,Habibi,M.,Richard,M.-O.,&Sankaranarayanan,R.(2012).The effects of social media based brand communities on brand community markers,value creation practices,brand trust and brand https://www.sodocs.net/doc/6418315022.html,puters in Human Behavior, 28(5),1755–1767. Liang,H.,Saraf,N.,Hu,Q.,&Xue,Y.(2007).Assimilation of enterprise systems:The effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management.MIS Quarterly,31(1),59–87. MacKinnon,D.P.,Fairchild,A.J.,&Fritz,M.S.(2007).Mediation analysis.Annual Review of Psychology,58,593–614. 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. Mazzarol,T.,Sweeney,J.,&Soutar,G.(2007).Conceptualizing word-of-mouth activity,triggers and conditions:An exploratory study.European Journal of Marketing,41(11),1475–1494. McConnell,B.,&Huba,J.(2006).The1%rule:Charting citizen participation. Retrieved03.10.13. Muniz,A.M.,&O’Guinn,T.(2001).Brand community.Journal of Consumer Research, 27(4),412–432.Muniz,A.,&Schau,H.(2005).Religiosity in the abandoned Apple Newton brand community.Journal of Consumer Research,31(4),737–747. Nambisan,S.,&Baron,R.(2007).Interactions in virtual customer environments: Implications for product support and customer relationship management. Journal of Interactive Marketing,21(2),42–62. Oestreicher-Singer,G.,&Zalmanson,L.(2013).Content or community?A digital business strategy for content providers in the social age.MIS Quarterly,37(2), 591–616. Oliver,R.L.(1999).Whence customer loyalty.Journal of Marketing,63,33–44. 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. Preacher,K.J.,&Hayes,A.F.(2008).Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models.Behavior Research Methods,40(3),879–891. Reichelt,J.,Sievert,J.,&Jacob,F.(2014).How credibility affects eWOM reading:The in?uences of expertise,trustworthiness,and similarity on utilitarian social functions.Journal of Marketing Communications,20(1–2),65–81. Reichheld,F.(2003).The one number you need to grow.Harvard Business Review,81, 46–54.December. Ringle,C.,Wende,S.,&Will,A.(2005).SmartPLS:Release2.0(beta). smartpls.de>Retrieved03.06.12. Royo-Vela,M.,&Casamassima,P.(2011).The in?uence of belonging to virtual brand communities on consumers’affective commitment,satisfaction and word-of-mouth advertising:The ZARA case.Online Information Review,35(4), 517–542. Ruiz-Mafe,C.,Martí-Parre?o,J.,&Sanz-Blas,S.(2014).Key drivers of consumer loyalty to Facebook fan pages.Online Information Review,38(3),362–380. Schau,H.,Mu?iz,A.,&Arnould,E.(2009).How brand community practices create value.Journal of Marketing,73(5),30–51. Shang,R.,Chen,Y.,&Liao,H.(2006).The value of participation in virtual consumer communities on brand loyalty.Internet Research,16(4),398–418. Sirdeshmukh,D.,Singh,J.,&Sabol,B.(2002).Consumer trust,value,and loyalty in relational exchanges.Journal of Marketing,66(1),15–37. Sobel,M.E.(1982).Asymptotic con?dence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models.Sociological Methodology,13,290–312. Statistics Finland(2013).Yhteis?palvelut istuvat suomalaiseen sosiaalisuuteen. 02.10.13. Yeh,Y.,&Choi,S.(2011).MINI-lovers,maxi-mouths:An investigation of antecedents to eWOM intention among brand community members.Journal of Marketing Communications,17(3),145–162. Zaglia,M.(2013).Brand communities embedded in social networks.Journal of Business Research,66(2),216–223. J.Munnukka et al./Computers in Human Behavior51(2015)429–439439