Online Brand Community

(1)

_______________________________________________________________

Report Information from ProQuest

March 19 2015 08:56

(2)

Abstract: Purpose - Brand communities now play a significant role in building brand loyalty. Past researches focus on how brand community facilitates brand loyalty under normal market situations. Yet, limited research examines consumer responses to negative events within the brand community context. Drawing from social identity theory and the theory of involvement, the present study aims to reveal the role that group eWOM plays in influencing brand community members' evaluation on negative brand decisions.

Design/methodology/approach - By using an experimental study, the current research adopts far brand extension as the empirical testing ground. Findings - This research illustrates that group eWOM's influence on brand community member's attitude toward the negative brand information is affected by member's level of brand community identification and brand involvement. When the group eWOM opposes far extension, high brand community identified members are driven by social creativity to resist negative impacts to the brand. However, when the group eWOM supports far extension, high brand involved members are strengthened by group eWOM to promote favorable brand evaluations and attenuate negative impacts to the brand. Practical implications - Firms should leverage the ingrained associations between brand community identification, brand involvement and group eWOM in affecting brand community's responses to insulate brand community from the impacts of negative events. Originality/value - The present study extends prior research on customer loyalty from an individual perspective to reveal the significance of group dynamics in influencing brand community's response to negative events.

Full text: 1. Introduction

Brand community as a social aggregate has drawn the attention of brand fans and has become increasingly prevalent. Marketers who recognize the value of brand community have begun to either build or facilitate developing offline brand communities and online brand communities (OBC) to encourage customer

engagement and foster greater brand loyalty. Previous research on brand community has primarily focussed on how brand community facilitates brand loyalty under a normal market situation ([53] McAlexander et al. , 2002; [70] Schouten et al. , 2007), yet limited research investigated the influence of community on member brand attitude under negative events. However, as the business environment becomes more competitive, firms have greater chances to become exposed to negative events that may threaten customer-brand relationship. Crisis management has become increasingly challenging because the internet-facilitated word-of-mouth (eWOM) allows consumers to obtain information from widely dispersed groups of people ([52] Lee et al. , 2006; [65] Ratchford et al. , 2001). This easily accessible information could greatly affect consumer consumption decisions and brand attitudes.

Whereas the power of eWOM is heavily studied, most researchers focus on eWOM from anonymous sources, in which the connection among senders and receivers are nonexistent ([31] Godes and Mayzlin, 2004; [71] Shang et al. , 2006; [29] Duan et al. , 2008), with limited research investigating the influence of eWOM

generated from OBC, in which the relationships can be developed over time ([21] Brown et al. , 2007). Previous studies have asserted that the strength of relationship within OBC create a profound influence on the

persuasion value of information ([74] Steffes and Burgee, 2009; [22] Brown and Reingen, 1987). However, OBC member response to group-generated eWOM is not well understood, thus a knowledge gap exists.

This study attempts to contribute to the eWOM marketing literature by explaining the effect of group-generated eWOM on consumer decisions. Past research indicated that with a lack of social ties, consumers evaluate the persuasiveness of eWOM primarily on content characteristics ([80] Walther, 1996). We suggest that consumer

(4)

response to group-generated eWOM is affected by both group-level factors and individual-level factors. The rationale is as follows. Consumers join a brand community for the purpose of not only accessing information about the brand, but also enjoying the communal relationship with other brand admirers ([10] Bagozzi and Dholakia, 2006). As [24] Carlson et al. (2008) contend that consumers who join a brand community may "feel a sense of community as a result of identifying with the desirable characteristics of a particular brand and/or the characteristics of other consumers who purchase the brand." Therefore, consumers may develop two types of identification through brand community, one at the group level, which is identification with the community and the other at individual level which is identification with the brand. Brand community identification (BCI) marks the strength of the social relationship within the community. In addition, members develop a psychological sense of brand community, even when no social interaction exists between brand users ([24] Carlson et al. , 2008). The brand, and not the communal relations among brand users, is the key to facilitating consumers' sense of community, and brand involvement (BI) marks the strength of this type of identification. Because a group exerts social influence on members by providing various functions such as perceived risk reduction, expertise

reference, and provision of individual need for approval ([14] Bearden and Etzel, 1982), we propose that OBC member attitude toward brands is affected by group generated eWOM, and this influence varies with the level of BCI and BI. Drawing from social identity theory ([77] Tajfel and Turner, 1979; [76] Tajfel, 1982) and the theory of involvement ([63] Park and Mittal, 1985), the objective of this research is aimed to contribute in revealing both group-level factors and individual-level factors that influence group eWOM within OBC on individual response to negative brand events.

This research adopts far brand extension as the empirical testing ground because as competition intensifies in the marketplace, brand extensions are increasingly used as an important strategy for firms to gain growth ([3] Aaker, 1997). Brand extension occurs when a firm uses an established brand name to enter a completely different product class ([2] Aaker and Keller, 1990). For example, Oral-B extends from toothbrush to toothpaste. For brands with strong loyalty, the temptation is to exploit that loyalty by stretching the brand to other product categories. Brand extension entering a product category that fits lowly with the original product classes are mostly considered far extensions ([13] Barone et al. , 2000; [87] Zhang and Sood, 2002). Far brand extensions (e.g. Harley Davidson Perfume) may generate a negative image that can damage evaluations of the brand extension and parent brand ([4] Ahluwalia, 2008; [27] DelVecchio and Smith, 2005). [1] Aaker (2002) also contended that the introduction of extensions far from the core business makes the parent brand lose credibility. The relevance of the scenario makes it an ideal testing ground; we thus propose that the implications of an OBC response to far brand extension be examined to shed light on the dynamics of group eWOM.

2. Literature review

To address our research questions, we review the relevant literature. We first summarize the extant research related to the brand community, laying out the functions of online and offline brand community. Then we survey the research on BCI and BI, the two key constructs in our investigation of consumer's responses to the

communication within the OBC. Following is the literature review about the recipient's responses to negative eWOM, which highlights major impacts on consumer's decision making.

2.1 OBC

Online community is defined as an aggregation of self-selected people who share a common interest and communicate through computer-mediated mechanism ([71] Shang et al. , 2006; [36] Hennig-Thurau et al. , 2004). Common interests such as brands drive the social interaction among online community members ([81] Wang et al. , 2012), resulting in booming of OBC. [60] Nambisan and Baron (2010) contended that the difference between an online forum and an offline brand community may differ in the mode and frequency of customer-company interaction. Social interactions in offline brand communities are face to face, whereas social interactions in an OBC are mediated by electronic devices. Although OBC takes the social network of brand community onto the internet platform, the nature of OBC and offline brand community is similar; that is, "they

(5)

are both groups of consumers with a shared enthusiasm for the brand and a well-developed social identity, with members who engage jointly in group actions to accomplish collective goals and/or express mutual sentiments and commitments" ([10] Bagozzi and Dholakia, 2006, p. 45). Thus, brand communities, irrespective of whether they are found in offline or online environments, both demonstrate the principles of community: shared

consciousness, rituals and traditions, and a sense of moral responsibility ([59] Muniz and O'Guinn, 2001). [62] Peris et al. , (2002) indicated that online relationships complement face-to-face relationships, but they do not substitute them. Therefore, marketers recognizing the power of shared customer experiences ([53]

McAlexander et al. , 2002) often leverage event-marketing activities (e.g. jeep camps) to foster relationships in an offline brand community. Because OBC enjoys the superiority of the internet platform to interactive

communication, it is an effective tool for strengthening relationships and fostering brand loyalty ([69] Schau et al. , 2009). [88] Zhou (2011) and [54] McWilliam (2000) also find that OBC plays a greater role in helping firms build brand loyalty, increase market penetration, and create positive word-of-mouth.

2.2 BCI

BCI signals the strength of consumer connection with the brand community and represents the individual construes himself or herself to be a member (i.e. "belonging" to the brand community; [7] Algesheimer et al. , 2005). Identification with a brand community induces consumers to agree with the norms, tradition, rituals, and objectives, and promotes its well-being ([18] Bhattacharya et al. , 1995). OBC identification indicates the strength of perceived closeness and emotional involvement with the OBC. Identification with OBC can be established through community engagement practices such as consumers retelling and sharing milestone memories of the brand and grooming practices dictating the appropriate way to care for the brand ([69] Schau et al. , 2009). The sharing of meaningful consumption experience strengthens interpersonal ties and enhances mutual appreciation for the brand; thus, virtual ties become real ties, and weak ties become stronger. Nutella is a good example, in which passionate personal consumption experience is shared through the symbols and rituals related to the brand, thereby strengthening the connectedness between Nutella lovers and reinforcing identification with the OBC ([26] Cova and Pace, 2006).

Social identity theory ([77] Tajfel and Turner, 1979) shed light on how BCI is formed. The theory asserts that people define their self-concept using their connections with social groups. Group members distinguish between themselves and those who do not share such affiliations through a categorization process, whereby the

consumer formulates and maintains a self-awareness of his or her membership within the community, emphasizing the perceived similarities with other community members and dissimilarities with nonmembers. This captures the consciousness-of-kind aspect of brand communities ([59] Muniz and O'Guinn, 2001).

According to social identity theory, people exhibit need for positive social identity and tend to enhance the group superiority, therefore, in-group bias may thus occur; which is defined as situations that go beyond the objective evidence of the situation to show biased in-group favoritism over the out-group that is unjustifiable ([19] Brewer, 1979; [20] Brown, 2000).

When social identity is threatened (i.e. negatively perceived), in-group members are likely react with three strategies: individual mobility - involves members leaving or dissociating themselves from their group; social creativity - involves altering one's perceptions rather than taking direct action; and social competition - refers to engagement in social action to promote changes in the status quo ([75] Tajfel, 1978; [78] Tajfel and Turner, 1986). The two most crucial factors that affect people's choices among strategies are the strength of group identification and their perceptions of the likelihood of individual mobility ([77] Tajfel and Turner, 1979; [83] Wright et al. , 1990). If people are highly identified with a group, they tend to adopt social creativity or social competition and tend not to use individual mobility ([73] Smith and Mackie, 2007, p. 223). Because high identifiers have their self-concept largely more embedded in the group than low identifiers, the barrier to leave one's group for high identifiers is stronger than for low community-identifiers ([77] Tajfel and Turner, 1979, p. 44). [77] Tajfel and Turner (1979) indicate social competition occurs

(6)

when group members hold a belief system of social change. Social competition occurs only when absolutely no mobility is possible ([73] Smith and Mackie, 2007, p. 223). The impossibility of getting out on one's own as an individual indicates the high impermeability between groups, and such example could be seen in between racial groups ([77] Tajfel and Turner, 1979). An OBC usually does not set limits for members to leave; hence, social competition is less likely to occur in our research context. Furthermore, social competition involves collective action such as strikes and protest marches from group members ([45] Kelly and Kelly, 1994). It may cost members high if they initiate group activity to fight against the brand's decision. As in the case of Nutella, many members suffer high emotional distress when Nutella prohibits members' action to set up online communities. A long fight between community members and the brand continues before the brand allows members to set up OBCs ([26] Cova and Pace, 2006). This example indicates that if members adopt social competition, it may cost them much effort and resources. Therefore, a social competition strategy is less likely to occur in our research context. Compared to social competition, social creativity is more likely to be adopted when individual mobility is not possible because the cost is relatively lower ([73] Smith and Mackie, 2007). For members with high BCI, changing thoughts incurs less cost than initiating collective action to fight brand decision. Based on the

aforementioned discussion, we think social creativity is the most probable strategy used by members with high BCI to confront the identity threat resulting from the negative brand event.

2.3 BI

Involvement is defined as a person's perceived relevance of the object based on intrinsic needs, values, and interests ([48] Krugman, 1966). [42] Johnson and Eagly (1989) defined involvement as a motivational state induced by an association between an activated attitude and a self-concept. BI indicates the consumer's

perceived relevancy of a brand ([3] Aaker, 1997). Consumer involvement with an object (product or brand) is the consequence of multiple factors such as risk perception, importance of the object to consumers, and its

capability to improve their lifestyle and self-image ([72] Sirgy, 1982). Thus, BI may also relate to brand identification, as [17] Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) postulated by stating that brand identification exists when consumers identify with and associate themselves with brands that reflect and reinforce their self-identities. High brand-involved consumers are more difficult to persuade to modify their enduring brand values ([42] Johnson and Eagly, 1989). Thus, high BI is accompanied by high brand commitment and brand loyalty ([50] Lastovicka and Gardner, 1979; [85] Zaichkowsky, 1985). Under low BI, consumers lack particular preference to a brand, perceive similarity among different brands, and see low personal relevance with the brand.

2.4 Negative eWOM

An eWOM communication refers to any positive or negative statement made by potential, actual, or previous customers about a product or company, which is made accessible to an assembly of people and institutions through the internet ([36] Hennig-Thurau et al. , 2004). Past studies on eWOM have indicated that WOM influence is asymmetrical because a negative WOM has a stronger effect than a positive WOM on the brand evaluations of consumers ([9] Arndt, 1967; [58] Mizerski, 1982; [6] Ahluwalia et al. , 2000). Compared to positive information, negative information is perceived to provide more diagnostic information in assisting judgments ([5] Ahluwalia and Shiv, 2002), and it is perceived as more provocative ([68] Rozin and Royzman, 2001).

Furthermore, evidence shows that dissatisfied consumers are involved in considerably more WOM behavior than satisfied consumers ([35] Halstead, 2002). As the amount of negative online consumer reviews increases, the product attitude becomes less favorable; in addition, high-quality negative online consumer reviews

influence consumers more than low-quality negative online consumer reviews ([51] Lee et al. , 2008). The negative eWOM effect is also found on purchase intentions ([22] Brown and Reingen, 1987; [82] Weinberger et al. , 1981).

3. Research hypotheses

Group members develop a sense of moral responsibility ([59] Muniz and O'Guinn, 2001), which induces members to help each other and promote group well-being. When the brand adopts a far extension, which is a

(7)

potentially negative event due to difficulty in transfer of the original advantage to the new category ([43] Keller, 2008), the results may damage the brand equity and the status of the OBC. Thus, group members may perceive negative social identity. To cope with identity threat, they may act social creativity to avoid the derogation of OBC. The high brand community identified members (high community-identifiers hereafter), having strong connection with the OBC, are especially prone to react with social creativity, that is, they distort information to respond in favor of the brand to support brand decision. In contrast, low community-identifiers perceive less threat and are unlikely to induce social creativity. We therefore propose H1 as follows: H1. In far brand extension situations, the extension evaluations of high community-identifiers are higher than those of low community-identifiers.

People often follow group opinions when members of the group endorse these opinions. The phenomenon that members act in conformance to group opinion demonstrates group identity. Group compliance becomes embedded through socialization because new group members find benefit in observing the group norm ([12] Bandura, 1977). Adhering to such group consensus not only provides legitimacy in proper actions, but also makes people feel respected by others whose opinions they value. When the brand adopts a far extension that is likely to damage the brand image, yet if this decision receives support from the group, the group opinion insulates the negative effects to OBC members. Because the brand is the center of OBC, members basically hold a positive attitude toward the brand; thus, when they perceive a group consensus (in the form of eWOM) supporting a brand move, their reactions are likely to be similar - to support the brand. In this situation, the perceived identity threat caused by the negative event for members is likely to be lower. Both high community-identifiers and low community-community-identifiers are likely to act congruently. In contrast, when group consensus is against the brand far extension, the higher community-identifiers are prone to conform to the group decision and agree with the group, thus have an even lower brand extension evaluation than the lower community-identifiers. We thus propose H2a and H2b :

H2a. When group eWOM supports far brand extension, the extension evaluations of high community-identifiers are non-significantly different from those of low community-identifiers.

H2b. When group eWOM opposes far brand extension, the extension evaluations of high community-identifiers are significantly lower than those of low community-identifiers.

BI indicates the consumer-perceived relevancy of a brand ([3] Aaker, 1997). Consumers are highly involved when they sense that the attitude is highly associated with their self-concepts ([42] Johnson and Eagly, 1989). Self-enhancement theory ([66] Rogers, 1961) asserts that people are motivated in enhancing self-esteem and increasing their feelings of personal worth. This motive becomes especially prominent in situations that threaten one's self-esteem. For high brand-involved members, because the brand is a part of their self-concept, they tend to evaluate the brand in a more positive manner than low brand-involved members. We therefore propose H3 :

H3. In far brand extension situations, the extension evaluations of high brand-involved members are higher than those of low brand-involved members.

Based on the heuristic-systematic model, people employ two types of information processing: heuristic processing and systematic processing ([23] Chaiken, 1980). Heuristic processing consumes little effort and infers or judges by relying on accessible information. Systematic processing expends comprehensive, effortful consideration to a wide range of information relevant to judgments. Systematic processing requires motivation and ability. Only highly involved people are motivated to undertake systematic processing ([23] Chaiken, 1980; [32] Griffin et al. , 2002). Mainstream thinking, which is represented by group eWOM, is likely to be processed systematically by highly involved members; thus, group eWOM exerts considerable influence over highly involved members. Therefore, when group eWOM supports brand extension strategy, the brand evaluation of highly involved members is likely to be upheld by group eWOM opinion and may take a positive attitude toward far brand extension. In group eWOM-opposing situations they are likely to be influenced by the group to adopt a

(8)

negative attitude toward far brand extension. Consequently, the evaluations of high-involvement members show a significant difference between the two situations. In contrast, low-involvement members who do not perceive self-relevance to the brand are less likely to process group eWOM systematically, and may even pay little attention to group opinion because BI in OBC is more related to the brand instead of to the group ([24] Carlson et al. , 2008). Therefore, we hypothesize that their brand extension evaluations under the two group opinion situations have no significant difference:

H4a. High brand-involved member evaluations of the far extension are significantly higher in group eWOM-support brand situation than in a group eWOM-opposing brand situation.

H4b. Low brand-involved member evaluations of the far extension are non-significantly different in both group eWOM-support and opposing situations.

4. Methodology

4.1 Design and measurements

The experimental design of this research adopts far brand extension as the empirical testing ground because brand extensions are used as an important strategy for firms to obtain growth ([3] Aaker, 1997). We conducted an experimental study using a 2 (group eWOM: support, not support)×2 (product fit: low fit, moderate fit)×2 (BCI: high, low)×2 (BI: high, low) between-subjects design. We manipulated group eWOM and far brand extensions. BCI and BI are measured independent variables. The measured dependent variable is the

extension evaluation. Perceived fit was measured for manipulation check purposes. All constructs were mostly adopted from previous research; the reference sources and items are listed in Tables I and II [Figure omitted. See Article Image.], respectively. All items were measured using seven-point scales.

4.2 Stimuli

A pretest was conducted to select poor brand extensions from Starbucks. After a discussion with two brand researchers, ten potential brand extensions were selected. In all 62 valid questionnaires were obtained from undergraduate students in a Taiwan university responding to the perceived fit of the ten potential brand

extensions. The result of the pretest indicated that perceived fit was the lowest for shampoo ( M =1.84, S =0.95) and moderate for watch (M =3.12, S =1.38). Therefore, shampoo was selected as the low fit extension

experimental stimulus and watch as the moderate low fit extension experimental stimulus. The reasons to use two levels of low fit extension are for the replications (more than one low fit condition) and exploration purpose-to see if there is difference of responses and hypotheses test results in two situations.

4.3 Subject

OBCs of Starbucks in Taiwan were selected because of their numerous members, frequent interactions among members, and long membership duration. There are two major Starbucks OBCs in Taiwan, by using the coffee board of the biggest bulletin board system in Taiwan (PTT) to recruit participants we were able to reach members belonging to Starbucks' two OBCs (i.e. Starbucks BBS and Starbucks Fans Club Facebook). In total, 273 members participated in this study and had the opportunity to win cash gifts worth NT$100, NT$300, and NT$500. Nonmembers and incomplete questionnaires were dropped from the sample, and 263 usable questionnaires were obtained. For membership duration, more than half of the members belonged to the community for more than six months (60.8 percent). For frequency of visiting a community, more than half of the members came to the community over seven times in a month (57.8 percent). The sampling characteristics were as follows: 68.1 percent of members were women, 79.4 percent were from 20 to 40 years of age, and 81 percent of members were less than or equal to college age. The demographic statistics of respondents is shown in Table III [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]. There are 194 members in the Starbucks BBS and 69 members in Starbucks Fans Club Facebook. A series of χ2_{-tests were conducted to determine if associations between}

the type of OBC and demographic variables exist. The results indicated that the type of OBC has no significant association with all demographic variables (p -values >0.10), except education (p <0.04). Members in the Starbucks BBS tend to be less educated than those in Starbucks Fans Club Facebook.

(9)

4.4 Procedure

The survey was posted online on the discussion forum. We implemented a device that forbade multiple submissions from a single IP address to reduce the likelihood of a single respondent participating multiple times. The entire procedure took approximately 20 minutes to complete. Participants were invited to offer opinions concerning "new products from Starbucks." Participants were randomly directed to one of four web pages describing the questionnaire and contract. Qualified participant members were asked the following questions: the name of OBC, membership duration, monthly visiting frequency, BI, BCI, and demographic statistics. The second part of the questionnaire included the experimental stimuli introducing new Starbucks products (shampoo/watch). Participants were told that Starbucks will introduce a brand extension and were shown a print ad of the new product (Figure 1 [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]). Below the advertisement, a few sentences described group eWOM of OBC on the brand decision (support/nonsupport). Participants were then asked to evaluate the brand extension, print ad, and the perceived fit of the extension and parent brand. In the end, participants were told that the study was fictitious.

5. Results

5.1 Reliability and validity

Reliability analyses were conducted for all constructs, as shown in Table I [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]. The results indicated reliability coefficients from 0.85 to 0.94, and they were acceptable (>0.7; [61] Nunnally, 1994). To ensure measurement validity, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted for the main research constructs: BCI, BI, brand extension evaluation, and perceived fit. The model fit was acceptable (CFI=0.92, NNFI=0.92, NFI=0.90, all >0.90; SRMR=0.07 <0.08; [15] Bentler and Bonnet, 1980; [28]

Diamantopoulos and Siguaw, 2000; [39] Hu and Bentler, 1999), and convergent validity and discriminant validity were also achieved. Convergent validity is achieved if all the factor loadings (reflecting the correlation between measurement items and their corresponding constructs) are significantly different from zero (all p -values <0.001), as shown in Table II [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]. Discriminant validity is achieved if the 95 percent confidence interval of the population correlation for all pairs of constructs does not include 1, as indicated in Table IV [Figure omitted. See Article Image.] ([11] Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; [34] Hair et al. , 2010). 5.2 Manipulation checks

Manipulation checks were conducted. For product fit, the results indicate that both shampoo and watch were perceived as negative (far) extensions because the perceived fit for both is significantly different from the midpoint of the scale at 4 (M_shampoo =2.25, t (123)=-15.83, p <0.001; M_watch =2.57, t (138)=-14.09, p <0.001). The perceived fit for shampoo is lower than that for watch (M_shampoo =2.25, M_watch =2.57, t (138)=-2, p <0.04),

indicating that the product fit for the shampoo is low, and that for the watch is moderately low. The

attractiveness of the print ads also showed no significant difference for the two products (M_shampoo =2.72, M_watch =2.74; t (261)=-0.16, p >0.10). For group eWOM, the perceived attitude toward negative extension from other members was more supportive in the group-support condition than in the non-support condition (M_support =5.12, M_nonsupport =2.64; t (261)=12.84, p <.001), indicating that the manipulation of group eWOM was successful. In both conditions, the perceived attitude from other members differed from the midpoint of the scale at 4 (t_support (129)=7.71, p <0.001, t_nonsupport (132)=-10.65, p <0.001), indicating that the group-support condition is perceived as supportive and that the group-nonsupport condition is perceived as opposing.

5.3 Analytical results

We conducted 2 (group eWOM: support, not support)×2 (product fit: low fit, moderate fit)×2 (BCI: high, low)×2 (BI: high, low) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to validate the hypotheses. Demographic variables and the attractiveness of the printed ad are the covariates. Prior to the analysis, scores on BCI and BI were triply divided. Only the first 33 percent and the last 33 percent were included in the subsequent analyses. This step enhances the clarity of the division of measured variables. Three models were used for hypothesis testing: the one-way ANCOVA model for BCI (for H1 ), the one-way ANCOVA model for BI (for H3 ), and four-way

(10)

ANCOVA full models (for H2 and H4 ). We used separate models to examine H1 and H3 because these two hypotheses have a firm theoretical basis. None of the demographic covariates were statistically significant, and they were dropped in the subsequent analyses (p- values >0.10). The attractiveness of the printed ad

significantly influenced brand extension evaluation in all three models (p -values <0.001). Subsequent analyses were performed after controlling for the attractiveness of the printed ad in the model.

The results for the one-way ANCOVA models are as follows: the main effect of BCI is significant, F (1, 185)=7.22, p <0.01; that is, the mean of high community-identifier evaluations is higher than that of low

community-identifier evaluations (M_H =3.52, M_L =3.17), supporting H1 . The main effect of BI is significant F (1, 190)=12.22, p <0.001. High brand-involved members show higher evaluations than low brand-involved

members (M_H =3.56, M_L =3.13), supporting H3 . The result for the four-way ANCOVA model indicates only two significant interaction effects: group eWOM×BCI, F (1, 128)=6.63, p <0.01, and group eWOM×BI, F (1,

128)=10.42, p <.002; refer to Table V [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]. Hence, the analysis moves to simple tests for the two significant two-way interactions ([16] Berenson et al. , 1983; [67] Rosenthal and Rosnow, 1985). Specifically, one factor is fixed at each level, and the main effect of the other factor is examined. If the number of factor levels is 2, the result for the main effect F -test is parallel to that for the two-sample

independent t -test. The t -test can indicate the significant difference between the means of two groups and the direction of difference as well. Because the covariate has significant effect in our model, group means are adjusted for the effects of the covariate before the t -test is conducted. We obtained the estimated marginal means and standard errors for all group means using SPSS. Specifically, in SPSS, the estimated marginal means adjust for the covariate by reporting the means of Y for each level of the factor at the mean value of the covariate ([40] IBM, 2011). The t -test results support H2a (M_H =3.59, M_L =3.46; t (90)=0.64, p >0.50), indicating that when group eWOM supports far brand extension, the extension evaluations of high community-identifiers are similar to those of low community-identifiers. H2b is not supported (M_H =3.43, M_L =2.92; t (92)=2.84, p <0.01), showing that when group eWOM opposes far brand extension, high community-identifiers have better evaluations and give more support to the brand decisions than low community-identifiers. The result is contradicting to our hypothesis, indicating group members do not always follow group opinions, which is consistent with the findings of [38] Hornsey et al. (2003). This result may be explained by an issue of loyalty conflict when group members find that the group consensus seems not adjusted to a threatening intergroup context ([41] Jetten et al. , 1997). [30] Falomir-Pichastor et al. (2009) examined group behaviors under a similar situation and found that high community-identifiers face a loyalty conflict on whether they should conform to the group consensus. [30] Falomir-Pichastor et al. (2009) found that in this situation, high community-identifiers are likely to distance themselves from the in-group consensus to protect the group. An example used to illustrate this situation in [30] Falomir-Pichastor's (2009) study was that of a Swiss citizen who recognizes that the majority of Swiss citizens have a positive attitude toward foreigners, but he also realizes that these out-group foreigners are simultaneously posing a threat to in-group privileges because citizen resources are being shared among more people. [30] Falomir-Pichastor's (2009) study indicated that when facing two contradicting

motivations, high community-identifiers are likely to disagree with the consensus to protect the interests of the country. Our study finds similar result that high community-identifiers in OBC lend more support to brand decision than low community-identifiers when the group consensus opposes brand strategy.

In addition, high brand-involved members have a better evaluation in a group eWOM support situation than in a group eWOM opposing situation (M_support =3.90, M_nonsupport =3.48; t (90)=2.16, p <0.05), supporting H4a , whereas low brand-involved member evaluations of far extension are similar in both eWOM support and opposing situations, supporting H4b (M_support =2.97, M_nonsupport =3.04; t (97)=0.44, p >0.60). The details of the ANCOVA models are shown in Table V [Figure omitted. See Article Image.].

6. Discussion

(11)

among OBCs; thus, modern firms have greater opportunities to face negative eWOM, which may threaten customer-brand relationships. The inputs from group eWOM have a significant influence on the purchase decisions and brand attitude of individual OBC members. Therefore, it is critical to examine the mechanism that drives people in OBC to sustain brand loyalty in face of negative events. Our study is set to advance our understanding on this important topic.

Our investigation differs from those of past studies on the effect of negative WOM in two important ways. First, past studies assumed that homogeneous people respond similarly to negative WOM, and their discussion was focussed on the asymmetrical effect of negative WOM and positive WOM ([58] Mizerski, 1982) or on suggesting that negative information provides more diagnostic information in assisting judgments than positive information ([5] Ahluwalia and Shiv, 2002). The differences between people are largely neglected. Thus, unlike past studies, we distinguish ours by considering that heterogeneity exists among people in OBC, in which people with varying levels of BCI and BI moderate the effect of a group consensus. Second, we examined the study in an OBC context, where a group eWOM consensus may agree or not agree with brand decisions. Thus, group eWOM may function as a supportive or unsupportive force to the brand. We examined individual responses in the two conditions.

From a theoretical perspective, this study contributes academically by adopting a social identity perspective to examine eWOM research. First, the study reveals that group eWOM in OBC exerts differential effects on members with distinctive levels of BCI. When group eWOM supports far brand extension, the extension

evaluations of high BCI members are similar to those of low community-identifiers. This is because when group eWOM supports brand decisions, the group opinion shields members from negative effects, thus reducing the perceived identity threat of high community-identifiers. Hence, high community-identifiers are likely to act congruently with the group and react similarly with low community-identifiers. However, when group eWOM opposes far brand extension, the extension evaluations of high community-identifiers are significantly higher than those of low-community-identifiers. This finding demonstrates the influence of brand seems to be greater than that of brand community for high community-identifiers. The concern for the brand itself is stronger than conformity to the community for the high community-identifiers. In essence, brand is the center of OBC. This phenomenon can also be found in Toyota's recall crisis in 2009. When Toyota faced major defects in their best-selling vehicles, Toyota was forced to announce a recall of their vehicles, and they found their solid reputation for quality under a serious crisis ([8] Andrews et al. , 2011). However in the midst of severe allegations, many Toyota owners shared their experiences of the vehicles and went so far as to establish brand community web sites to share their positive experiences with others ([79] van Doorn et al. , 2010). These high brand community-identifiers took actions to support Toyota to prevent an ample breakdown of Toyota's brand image. This

demonstrates that when the majority opposes brand decisions where high community-identifiers perceive a serious threat to the overall brand image, and may eventually deteriorate the position of the brand community, they are likely to adopt social creativity to sustain brand well-being instead of following the opinions of the majority. However, low community-identifiers do not feel the urge to protect group interests; thus, they are not likely to feel the conflict. They tend to adopt individual mobility by following mainstream thought - that the far extension is a failure, and they evaluate the brand more negatively. This finding also resonates with the study by [49] Lam et al. (2010), in attesting that brand identification, which establishes psychological bonding, provides greater resistance to brand switching. Our study shows that high brand community-identifiers tend to perceive negative social identity severely, thereby eliciting brand-defensive actions.

Second, this study extends our understanding by showing that group eWOM imposes diverse group influence on members with differing levels of BI. The evaluation of far brand extension in high brand-involved members is significantly higher in group eWOM support situation than in group eWOM opposing situation. This confirms that the brand evaluations of highly involved members strengthened by the group-supporting opinion promotes favorable brand evaluation, attenuates negative effects to the brand, and are thus not derogated significantly in

(12)

far brand extension. This finding is in agreement with a prior study that suggested that brand attitudes held with high certainty (because of more thoughts engaged or social consensus of related others) tend to "insulate" brands, even when negative publicity matches the basis of brand attitudes ([64] Pullig et al. , 2006). However, evaluations of far extension in low brand-involved members are similar in both group eWOM support and opposing situations, demonstrating that low brand-involved members who perceive low brand self-relevancy are under less influence of group eWOM in both brand support and opposing situations. This finding is in agreement with the suggestion by [55] Maoz and Tybout (2002), that when involvement level is low, consumers do not engage in elaboration, and thus, the incongruity of moderate extension does not incur negative response. More broadly, our findings show the deeply ingrained association between BI and group opinion in affecting OBC responses.

In sum, comparing Figures 2 and 3 [Figure omitted. See Article Image.], the findings reveal differential effects of group eWOM on BCI and BI on OBC members. First, group eWOM has limited effect on low BI members in both group support and opposing situations. Second, the brand supporting group eWOM strengthens the evaluation of high BI members due to their more engaged thoughts in processing the group opinions. However, in group opposing situations, the group opinion also exerts effect on high BI members to attenuate their

evaluation of the brand. Third, high brand community-identifiers and low brand community-identifiers's evaluation to far brand extension are similar in group supporting eWOM situation, indicating the vital effect of group influence on upholding the brand in face of negative brand information. This group influence effect is also manifested on low community-identifers in group opposing situation as their brand evaluations are dropped accordingly. However, this group influence was not displayed accordingly on high community-identifers in group opposing situation; this is because social creativity played a critical role to sustain brand well-being instead of following the group eWOM. These findings shed light on the importance of group opinion and high brand community-identifiers in insulating the brand from negative eWOM.

6.1 Managerial implications

This study has important managerial implications because it shows that building a strong OBC can insulate brands from negative events. We specifically verify that when group eWOM opposes far extension evaluation, high brand community-identifiers are driven by in-group favoritism to resist negative brand effects. Accordingly, managers should cultivate a strong brand identification to establish a solid consumer-brand relationship.

Whereas customers can attain social need satisfaction through building and maintaining relationships, the brand benefits from the loyalty and advocacy of such customers to defend the brand in the face of negative

information. The findings show that when group eWOM supports far brand extension, the evaluations of highly involved members, strengthened by positive group eWOM, promote favorable brand evaluations, and attenuate negative brand effects. Building on these findings, marketers should adopt branding strategies to enhance brand image and brand engagement. This is particularly important because members who exhibit high BI may not interact with other OBC members, and thus, brand engagement activity that reinforces brand-customer interaction is important. Because group eWOM plays a prominent role in influencing high brand-involved members, marketers should leverage positive group eWOM to influence high brand-involved members. 6.2 Limitations and future research

This study focussed on the role of group eWOM in influencing OBC response to negative events. Considering the controlled environment in which the experiment was conducted, caution should be exercised in generalizing the results. The main limitation factor is the product selection because we used one brand (Starbucks) as the empirical testing ground for far brand extensions. The characteristics of hedonic products (coffee) and functional products differ, and could affect consumer perceptions and association with OBC. Therefore, future research should investigate other product categories to obtain understanding on the effects of group dynamics and how these factors may contribute to OBC member response under negative events.

(13)

of extremity of the negative event and group eWOM interact to influence OBC response. Future research could also explore group eWOM effect as it evolves over time to influence OBC response to negative events because group development that occurs over time also affects group behavior outcomes ([25] Chidambaram et al. , 1990/1991). In the face of a brand negative event, obtaining an understanding of the differences between newly established OBC response and a long established OBC is critical. Researchers taking a longitudinal study are able to secure a greater understanding on this issue. Finally, because people with collectivistic cultural backgrounds are associated with higher uniformity-seeking tendencies, compared to those of individualistic cultural backgrounds ([84] Yoon et al. , 2011), investigation into the cultural influence on OBC conformity to group opinion manifested by group eWOM should be of considerable interest to both practitioners and academics. In this study, group eWOM is manipulated by giving respondents a summary of information about other OBC members's opposing or supporting evaluations. However, in the real world, OBC members obtain information of other member's brand evaluation through individual postings. Hence, subsequent studies can manipulate group eWOM by varying the supporting and opposing evaluations through postings that may increase the realism of the study.

This research was partially supported by grant NSC 99-2410-H-004-109- from the National Science Council of Taiwan, R.O.C. The authors thank National Science Council for the financial support of this research. They also express thanks for the valuable contributions from anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. References

1. Aaker, D.A. (2002), Brand Portfolio Strategy, The Free Press, New York, NY.

2. Aaker, D.A. and Keller, K.L. (1990), "Consumer evaluations of brand extension", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 27-41.

3. Aaker, J. (1997), "Dimensions of brand personality", Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 347-356.

4. Ahluwalia, R. (2008), "How far can a brand stretch? Understanding the role of self-construal", Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 337-350.

5. Ahluwalia, R. and Shiv, B. (2002), "How prevalent is the negativity effect in consumer environments", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 270-280.

6. Ahluwalia, R., Burnkrant, R.E. and Unnava, H.R. (2000), "Consumer response to negative publicity: the moderating role of commitment", Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 203-214.

7. Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U.M. and Herrmann, A. (2005), "The social influence of brand community: evidence from European car clubs", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 19-34.

8. Andrews, A.P., Simon, J., Tian, F. and Zhao, J. (2011), "The Toyota crisis: an economic, operational and strategic analysis of the massive recall", Management Research Review, Vol. 34 No 10, pp. 1064-1077. 9. Arndt, J. (1967), "Role of product-related conversations in the diffusion of a new product", Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 291-295.

10. Bagozzi, R.P. and Dholakia, U.M. (2006), "Antecedents and purchase consequences of customer

participation in small group brand communities", International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 45-61.

11. Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), "On the evaluation of structural equation models", Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94.

12. Bandura, A. (1977), "Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change", Psychological Review, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 191-215.

13. Barone, M.J., Miniard, P. and Romeo, J.B. (2000), "The influence of positive mood on brand extension evaluations", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 386-400.

14. Bearden, W.O. and Etzel, M.J. (1982), "Reference group influence on product and brand purchase decisions", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 183-194.

(14)

15. Bentler, P.M. and Bonnet, D.C. (1980), "Significance tests and goodness of it in the analysis of covariance structures", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 588-606.

16. Berenson, M.L., Levine, D.M. and Goldstein, M. (1983), Intermediate Statistical Methods and Applications, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

17. Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2003), "Consumer-company identification: a framework for understanding consumers' relationships with companies", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 76-88.

18. Bhattacharya, C.B., Rao, H. and Glynn, M. (1995), "Understanding the bond of identification: an

investigation of its correlates among art museum members", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 46-57. 19. Brewer, M.B. (1979), "Ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup situation: a cognitive motivational analysis", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 475-482.

20. Brown, R. (2000), "Social identity theory: past achievements, current problems and future challenges", European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 745-778.

21. Brown, J., Broderick, A.J. and Lee, N. (2007), "Word of mouth communication within online communities: conceptualizing the online social network", Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 2-20.

22. Brown, J.J. and Reingen, P.H. (1987), "Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 350-362.

23. Chaiken, S. (1980), "Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 752-766. 24. Carlson, B.D., Suter, T.A. and Brown, T.J. (2008), "Social versus psychological brand community: the role of psychological sense of brand community", Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 284-291.

25. Chidambaram, L., Bostrom, R.P. and Wynne, B.E. (1990/1991), "A longitudinal study of the impact of group decision support systems on group development", Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 7-25.

26. Cova, B. and Pace, S. (2006), "Brand community of convenience products: new forms of customer empowerment - the case my Nutella the community", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 9/10, pp. 1087-1105.

27. DelVecchio, D. and Smith, D.C. (2005), "Brand-extension price premiums: the effect of perceived fit and extension product category risk", Journal of the Academy of Management Science, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 184-196. 28. Diamantopoulos, A. and Siguaw, J.A. (2000), Introducing LISREL, Sage Publications, London.

29. Duan, W., Gu, B. and Whinston, A.B. (2008), "The dynamics of online word-of-mouth and product sales: an empirical examination of the movie industry", Journal of Retailing, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 233-242.

30. Falomir-Pichastor, J.M., Gabarrot, F. and Mugny, G. (2009), "Group motives in threatening contexts: when a loyalty conflict paradoxically reduces the influence of an anti-discrimination ingroup norm", European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 196-206.

31. Godes, D. and Mayzlin, D. (2004), "Using online conversations to study word-of-mouth communication", Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 545-560.

32. Griffin, R.J., Neuwirth, K., Giese, J. and Dunwoody, S. (2002), "Linking the heuristic-systematic model and depth of processing", Communication Research, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 705-732.

34. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

35. Halstead, D. (2002), "Negative word of mouth: substitute for or supplement to consumer complaints?", Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and Complaining Behavior, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-12. 36. Hennig-Thurau, T., Qwinner, K.P., Walsh, G. and Gremler, D.D. (2004), "Electronic word-of-mouth via consumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the Internet?", Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 38-52.

(15)

non-conformity and counter-non-conformity to group norms", British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 319-335.

39. Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), "Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structural analysis", Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.

40. IBM (2011), "SPSS Advanced Statistics 20 Manual", available at:

http://public.dhe.ibm.com/software/analytics/spss/documentation/statistics/20.0/en/client/Manuals/IBM_SPSS_A dvanced_Statistics.pdf (accessed June 29, 2013).

41. Jetten, J., Spears, R. and Manstead, A.S.R. (1997), "Strength of identification and intergroup differentiation: the influence of group norms", European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 603-609.

42. Johnson, B.T. and Eagly, A. (1989), "Effects of involvement on persuasion: a meta-analysis", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 106 No. 2, pp. 290-314.

43. Keller, K.L. (2008), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, Managing Brand Equity, 3rd ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

44. Keller, K.L. and Aaker, D.A. (1992), "The effects of sequential introduction of brand extensions", Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 35-51.

45. Kelly, C. and Kelly, J. (1994), "Who gets involved in collective action? Social psychological determinants of individual participation in trade unions", Human Relations, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 63-88.

48. Krugman, H.E. (1966), "Measurement of advertisement involvement", Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 583-598.

49. Lam, S.K., Ahearne, M., Hu, Y. and Schillewaert, N. (2010), "Resistance to brand switching when a radically new brand is introduced: a social identity theory perspective", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74 No. 6, pp. 128-146. 50. Lastovicka, J.L. and Gardner, D.M. (1979), "Components of involvement", in Maloney, J.C. and Silverman, B. (Eds), Attitude Research Plays for High Stakes, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 53-73. 51. Lee, J., Park, D.H. and Han, I. (2008), "The effect of negative online consumer reviews on product attitude: an information processing view", Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 341-352. 52. Lee, M.K.O., Cheung, C.M.K., Lim, K.H. and Sia, C.L. (2006), "Understanding customer knowledge sharing in web-based discussion boards: an exploratory study", Internet Research, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 289-303. 53. McAlexander, J.H., Schouten, J.W. and Koenig, H.F. (2002), "Building brand community", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 38-54.

54. McWilliam, G. (2000), "Building stronger brands through online communities", Sloan Management Review, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 43-54.

55. Maoz, E. and Tybout, A.M. (2002), "The moderating role of involvement and differentiation in the evaluation of brand extensions", Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 119-131.

56. Martínez, E. and Pina, J.M. (2010), "Consumer responses to brand extensions: a comprehensive model", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44 Nos 7/8, pp. 1182-1205.

58. Mizerski, R.W. (1982), "An attributional explanation of the disproportionate influence of unfavorable information", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 301-310.

59. Muniz, A.M. Jr and O'Guinn, T.C. (2001), "Brand community", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 412-432.

60. Nambisan, S. and Baron, R.A. (2010), "Different roles, different strokes: organizing virtual customer environments to promote two types of customer contributions", Organization Science, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 554-572.

61. Nunnally, J.C. (1994), Psychometric theory, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

62. Peris, R., Gimeno, M.A., Pinazo, D., Ortet, G., Carrero, V., Sanchiz, M. and Ibáñez, I. (2002), "Online chat rooms: virtual spaces of interaction for socially oriented people", CyberPsychology and Behavior, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 43-51.

(16)

63. Park, C.W. and Mittal, B. (1985), "A theory of involvement in consumer behavior: problems and issues", in Sheth, J.N. (Ed.), Research in Consumer Behavior, Vol. 1, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 201-232.

64. Pullig, C., Netemeyer, R.G. and Biswas, A. (2006), "Attitude basis, certainty, and challenge alignment: a case of negative brand publicity", Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 528-542. 65. Ratchford, B.T., Talukdar, D. and Lee, M.S. (2001), "A model of consumer choice of the internet as an information source", International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 7-21.

66. Rogers, C.R. (1961), On Becoming a Person: A Therapists' View of Psychotherapy, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.

67. Rosenthal, R. and Rosnow, R.L. (1985), Contrast Analysis: Focused Comparisons in the Analysis of Variance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

68. Rozin, P. and Royzman, E.B. (2001), "Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion", Personality and Social Psychology Review, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 296-320.

69. Schau, H.J., Muñiz, A. and Arnould, E.J. (2009), "How brand community practices create value", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 5, pp. 30-51.

70. Schouten, J.W., McAlexander, J.H. and Koenig, H.F. (2007), "Transcendent customer experience and brand community", Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 357-368.

71. Shang, R.A., Chen, Y.C. and Liao, H.J. (2006), "The value of participation in virtual consumer communities on brand loyalty", Internet Research, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 398-418.

72. Sirgy, M.J. (1982), "Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical review", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 287-299.

73. Smith, E.R. and Mackie, D.M. (2007), Social Psychology, 3rd ed., Psychology Press, New York, NY. 74. Steffes, E.M. and Burgee, L.E. (2009), "Social ties and online word of mouth", Internet Research, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 42-59.

75. Tajfel, H. (1978), Differentiation Between Social Groups, Academic Press, London.

76. Tajfel, H. (1982), "Social psychology of intergroup relations", Annual Review of Social Psychology, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 1-39.

77. Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1979), "An integrative theory of intergroup conflict", in Austin, W.G. and Worchel, S. (Eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Nelson-Hall, Chicago, IL, pp. 33-47.

78. Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986), "The social identity theory of intergroup behavior", in Worchel, S. and Austin, W. (Eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relation, Nelson Hall, Chicago, IL, pp. 7-24.

79. van Doorn, J., Lemon, K.N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P. and Verhoef, P.C. (2010), "Customer engagement behavior: theoretical foundations and research directions", Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 253-266.

80. Walther, J.B. (1996), "Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction", Communication Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 3-43.

81. Wang, E.S., Chen, L.S. and Tsai, B. (2012), "Investigating member commitment to virtual communities using an integrated perspective", Internet Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 199-210.

82. Weinberger, M.G., Allen, C.T. and Dillon, W.R. (1981), "Negative information: perspectives and research directions", Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 398-404.

83. Wright, S.C., Taylor, D.M. and Moghaddam, F.M. (1990), "The relationship of perceptions and emotions to behavior in the face of collective inequality", Social Justice Research, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 229-250.

84. Yoon, S.S., Lee, K. and Eun, S.P. (2011), "To seek variety or uniformity: the role of culture in consumers' choice in a group setting", Marketing Letters, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 49-64.

85. Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985), "Measuring the involvement construct", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 341-352.

(17)

advertising", Journal of Advertising, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 59-70.

87. Zhang, S. and Sood, S. (2002), "Deep and surface cues: brand extension evaluations by children and adults", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 129-141.

88. Zhou, T. (2011), "Understanding online community user participation: a social influence perspective", Internet Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 67-81.

Bibliography

Citation style: Harvard - British Standard

CHANG, A., HSIEH, S.H. and TSENG, T.H., 2013. Online brand community response to negative brand events: the role of group eWOM. Internet Research, 23(4), pp. 486-506.

_______________________________________________________________

Contact ProQuest

Online Brand Community

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Report Information from ProQuest

March 19 2015 08:56

Table of contents

Bibliography

_______________________________________________________________