How Do Different Types of Community Commitment Influence Brand Commitment? The Mediation of Brand Attachment (2024)

The direct relationship between brand community commitment and brand commitment

Several studies have noted that member behavior in communities is driven by members' desire to receive a range of informational and social benefits.¹⁵ Members with high continuance CC may believe that the social and economic costs of leaving a community are high, particularly if they have invested considerable effort in the community, seeking to establish an identity there and to learn the specific mores of the community. This investment, in turn, enhances the community members' commitment or loyalty to the related brand.

H1a: Continuance CC positively influences brand commitment.

Some brand community members may develop feelings of attachment to and identification with a community,²¹ and thus may feel a sense of belonging.²² Members with high affective CC desire to continue their relationship with the community in the future, and their participation and their interactions with other members help to strengthen their brand experience and value, leading to enhanced brand commitment or loyalty.

H2a: Affective CC positively influences brand commitment.

When individuals are committed to a community, they become vested in its successes and failures²³ and develop positive attitudes and behavior toward the products and brands favored by that community.²⁴ For members with high normative CC, “the right thing to do” is to purchase consistently the products of the brand around which the community is centered.¹¹ Consequently, purchasing products made by a competing brand likely leads to cognitive dissonance and undermines the individual's relationships with other community members.²⁵

H3a: Normative CC positively influences brand commitment.

See Also

Tenable host Warwick Davis explains why ex-Corrie star has replaced him on showPros and Cons of Tenable Vulnerability Management 2024Tenable Core and Appliance DocumentationAgents

The mediating effects of brand attachment

Brand attachment is the strength of the bond that connects a specific brand with the identity of the consumer.²⁶ This bond includes a rich and accessible memory network of thoughts and feelings about the brand and the brand's relationship to the self. Brand attachment is affected by two critical factors: the brand–self connection and brand prominence. The brand–self connection is a core component of attachment as the bond that connects a person with a brand. Brand prominence, in turn, is the “strength” of the bond that connects the brand with the consumer.^26,27 Thomson et al.²⁸ found that consumers' emotional attachments to a brand predict their commitment to the brand (e.g., brand loyalty).

H4: Brand attachment positively influences brand commitment.

Some research has found that the relationships between brand communities and brands may be bidirectional.¹¹ However, given our research purpose and the meaning of the term “brand community,” we study only the influence of brand communities on brands.

Members with high continuance CC commit to a brand community because of sunk or switching costs or because there are no attractive alternatives to the established relationship.¹⁷ In a long-term relationship with a brand community, consumers continuously interact with other members and draw value and utility from consuming the same brand.¹³ Over time, this sharing generates more brand value, resulting in closer consumer relationships within the community, which in turn help members form bonds with the brand (i.e., to experience brand attachment).

H5: Continuance CC positively influences brand attachment.

Some community members may develop affective bonds with the community,¹⁵ which allows them to develop feelings of attachment to and identification with the community.²¹ Because of their sense of attachment and belonging, individuals with strong affective CC are more apt to invest their time and effort in helping others within the community. Consequently, their identification with and emotional ties to the brand around which the community is centered may increase.¹¹

H6: Affective CC positively influences brand attachment.

Because the community is a platform that consumers can use to share their brand experiences and the value that they draw from the brand, “the right thing” for community members to do is not only to sustain and even strengthen the community²⁹ but also to purchase the brand's products consistently.¹¹ Self-verification theory suggests that community members seek experiences that affirm their sense of self and avoid experiences that threaten their sense of self.³⁰ Therefore, members with high normative CC are likely to possess a sense of obligation to the community and the brand. Thus, they engage in behaviors that protect and enhance the community and form attachments to brands.

H7: Normative CC positively influences brand attachment.

H5, H6, and H7, together with H4, suggest that brand attachment plays a positive mediating role in the relationships between continuance CC and brand commitment, between affective CC and brand commitment, and between normative CC and brand commitment, respectively. Based on this reasoning, this study formulates the following hypotheses:

H1b: Brand attachment mediates the positive influence of continuance CC on brand commitment.

H2b: Brand attachment mediates the positive influence of affective CC on brand commitment.

H3b: Brand attachment mediates the positive influence of normative CC positive on brand commitment.

Sample

This research tested the model using data collected from Sojump (www.sojump.com), a popular online survey platform in China. A filtering question was used to identify all available respondents who were members of online mobile phone brand communities. A total of 404 questionnaires were selected for the final empirical test. Table 1 provides the demographic characteristics of the usable sample.

Measures

Scales from prior research were adapted or combined to measure all the constructs included in the conceptual model (see Table 2). Because Chinese participants have a tendency to select the neutral point on a 5- or 7-point Likert scale, all of the measurement scales were 6-point Likert scales (1=“strongly disagree,” 6=“strongly agree”). Items from English were translated into Chinese and given to 12 marketing professors who were proficient in both languages. We then carefully considered all controversial translations.

Continuance, affective, and normative CC indicate members' desire to maintain their relationships with a brand community because of switching costs, emotional attachment, and obligation, respectively. The items that were used to measure these factors were adopted from prior research.¹⁵ Brand attachment is the bond that connects the brand with the self. This study uses a 4-item scale that we adapted from previous research to measure this construct, including the two first-order dimensions of brand–self connection and brand prominence.²⁶ Brand commitment is consumers' desire to maintain their relationships with the brand in question. Three items were adapted from the literature to measure this construct.^31,32

Method of data analysis

Partial least squares (PLS) is a useful multivariate causal modeling tool that can be used to analyze the relationships between several dependent and independent latent constructs.³³ That is, PLS considers the relationships among all variables at the same time but does not require multivariate normality.³³ We thus used SmartPLS 2.0 to test the hypotheses.³⁴

Measurement model

The internal consistency of the data was tested using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Cronbach's alpha (see Table 2). The results indicate that all 19 items have relatively significant standardized factor loadings (SFL>0.759). The test extracted five factors, as expected, and the Cronbach's alpha values of these factors are all above 0.810 (α>0.70), which indicates the high internal consistency of the items.³⁵ The composite reliabilities (CR) of all of the constructs exceed 0.845 (CR>0.70), suggesting that the measurement items have adequate reliability.

CFA and average variance extracted (AVE) were used to test convergent and discriminate validity. As shown in Table 2, the overall model fit indices are fairly satisfactory. All of the SFLs (>0.759) and AVEs (>0.729) are greater than 0.50, and the square root of each construct's AVE exceeds the coefficients of the relationships between the measure and other constructs.³⁶ Therefore, the items possess adequate convergent and discriminate validity.

Tests of hypotheses

In an effort to test the mediation effects, this study uses two models.³⁷ Model 1, which includes four variables (continuance CC, affective CC, normative CC, and brand commitment), tests the total effects. Brand attachment is also added to model 2 to test for mediation effects. Figure 1 provides the empirical results for model 2.

Before we proceed further, we should clarify the relationship between indirect effects and mediated effects. The conclusion that a mediation effect is present implies that the total effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable is initially present.³⁸ However, the assessment of indirect effects makes no such assumption.^37,38 Therefore, model 2 tests the indirect or mediation effects.

Total effects

Model 1 describes the total effects. According to the results, the positive effect of continuance CC on brand commitment is not significant (β=0.048, t=1.133, p>0.05), which invalidates H1a. Therefore, in model 2, there is no mediation effect on the relationship between continuance CC and brand commitment, so we must reject H1b. The influence of affective CC on brand commitment is positive (β=0.409, t=4.316, p<0.001), which supports H2a. There may be a mediation effect that influences the relationship between affective CC and brand commitment in model 2. Finally, no positive relationship exists between normative CC and brand commitment (β=0.115, t=1.558, p>0.05), and thus, we must reject H3a. Therefore, there is no mediation effect that influences the relationship between normative CC and brand commitment in model 2, and we must reject H3b.

Indirect effects and mediated effects

When we include brand attachment in model 2, the relationship between continuance CC (the independent variable) and brand attachment (the mediator) becomes significant (β=0.138, t=2.132, p<0.05), which supports H5. The mediating effect of brand attachment effect on brand commitment (the dependent variable) is also significant (β=0.290, t=3.948, p<0.01), which supports H4. Therefore, continuance CC affects brand commitment indirectly though brand attachment. Similarly, the relationship between normative CC (the independent variable) and brand attachment (the mediator) becomes significant (β=0.369, t=4.366, p<0.05), which supports H7. Therefore, normative CC affects brand commitment indirectly though brand attachment.

In addition, once brand attachment is included in model 2, the relationship between affective CC (independent variable) and brand attachment (mediator) becomes significant (β=0.313, t=3.370, p<0.05), which supports H6. However, the effect of affective CC’ (independent variable) on brand commitment (dependent variable) decreases substantially (model 1: β=0.409, t=4.316, p<0.001; model 2: β=0.324, t=3.367, p<0.05). Therefore, brand attachment plays a partial mediating role in the relationship between affective CC and brand commitment, which supports H2b.

Theoretical implications

Building and maintaining online brand communities is an effective means of improving customers' brand attitudes, loyalty, and brand attachment. This study explores the intermediate mechanism in the relationship between brand community commitment and brand commitment. First, consumers' commitment to a brand community may be based on different psychological bonds, such as need, affect, and/or obligation, and the intermediate mechanisms at work may vary across these bonds. Second, when consumers are committed to a brand community based on need or obligation, this commitment to the community does not automatically translate into brand commitment. If a brand community does not cultivate consumer emotion or encourage brand attachment, community members may not necessarily become committed or loyal to the brand. Third, affective CC, which arises from strong emotional attachment to the community, affects brand commitment both directly and indirectly. One explanation for these findings may be that the effect of community commitment on brand commitment rests on the development of consumer emotion or attachment to the brand community or the brand.

Managerial implications

Given the increasing prevalence of online brand communities, it is important to know how brand communities influence brands. The results of this study have several managerial implications. First, to manage the relationship between brand community and brands effectively, companies must cultivate brand community commitment. The study results suggest that brand community commitment, which includes continuance, affective, and normative CC, leads to brand attachment and brand commitment. Companies may nurture brand community commitment by encouraging different psychological bonds; for example by providing valued information, making a specialized logo, or fostering member identification by promoting activities. Second, companies should pay special attention to cultivating consumer affect in promoting the brand community and the brand. Members want to share their brand experiences and establish intimate relationships with others online. In doing so, they may develop feelings of attachment to and identification with the community, and they may develop a sense of belonging. Therefore, companies should not only provide material assistance but also deliver value and utility through the brand community.

Limitations and further research

Several study limitations suggest directions for further research. First, the quantitative data for the study were collected using self-reporting, which may generate common method bias. Alternative techniques may be used to decrease the bias. Second, although the sample was highly representative, it does not mirror the variation across different industries. Therefore, product categories could be integrated into the model to determine the importance of direct or indirect determinants of purchase intention. Third, according to Algesheimer et al.,¹¹ the relationships between brand communities and brands may be bidirectional. Further researchers should use longitudinal studies to capture the dynamics of brand communities and their relationship to brands.

1. Kuo HM. Application of quality function deployment to improve the quality of Internet shopping website interface design. International Journal of Innovative Computing, Information & Control. 2011;7:253–68. [Google Scholar]

2. Kuo HM. A study of merchandise information and interface design on B2C websites. Journal of Marine Science & Technology. 2011;19:15–25. [Google Scholar]

3. Kuo HM. A novel viewpoint on information and interface design for auction web sites. Human Factors & Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries. 2012;22:287–95. [Google Scholar]

4. Kuo HM. A behavioral model of the elderly Internet consumer: a case study. International Journal of Innovative Computing, Information & Control. 2010;6:3507–18. [Google Scholar]

5. Kuo HM. A study of B2C supporting interface design system for the elderly. Human Factors & Ergonomics in Manufacturing & Service Industries. 2012;22:528–40. [Google Scholar]

6. Adjei MT. Noble SM. Noble CH. The influence of C2C communications in online brand communities on customer purchase behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 2009;38:634–53. [Google Scholar]

7. Sung Y. Kim Y. Kwon O, et al. An explorative study of Korean copsumer Participation in virtual brand communities in social network sites. Journal of Global Marketing. 2010;23:1–16. [Google Scholar]

8. Thompson S. Sinha RK. Brand communities and new product adoption: the influence and limits of oppositional loyalty. Journal of Marketing. 2008;72:65–80. [Google Scholar]

9. Casalo LV. Flavian C. Guinaliu M. Promoting consumers' participation in virtual brand communities: a new paradigm in branding strategy. Journal of Marketing Communications. 2008;14:19–36. [Google Scholar]

10. Muniz AM. O'Guinn TC. Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research. 2001;27:412–32. [Google Scholar]

11. Algesheimer R. Dholakia UM. Herrmenn A. The social influence of brand community: evidence from European car clubs. Journal of Marketing. 2005;69:19–34. [Google Scholar]

12. Fournier S. Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research. 1998;24:343–73. [Google Scholar]

13. Zhou Z. Zhang Q. Su C. Zhou N. How do brand communities generate brand relationships? Intermediate mechanisms. Journal of Business Research. 2012;65:890–5. [Google Scholar]

14. Meyer JP. Stanley DJ. Herscovitch L, et al. Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2002;61:20–52. [Google Scholar]

15. Bateman PJ. Gray PH. Butler BS. The impact of community commitment on participation in online communities. Information Systems Research. 2011;22:841–54. [Google Scholar]

16. Meyer JP. Allen NJ. A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review. 1991;1:61–89. [Google Scholar]

17. Anderson E. Weitz B. The use of pledges to build and sustain commitment in distribution channels. Journal of Marketing Research. 1992;29:18–34. [Google Scholar]

18. Johnson HD. Herrmann A. Huber F. The evolution of loyalty intentions. Journal of Marketing. 2006;70:122–32. [Google Scholar]

19. Wiener Y. Commitment in organizations: a normative view. Academy of Management Review. 1982;7:418–28. [Google Scholar]

20. Ashforth BE. Saks AM. Lee RT. Socialization and newcomer adjustment: the role of organizational context. Human Relations. 1998;51:897–926. [Google Scholar]

21. Blanchard A L. Markus ML. The experienced “sense” of a virtual community: characteristics and processes. Data Base for Advances in Information Systems. 2004;35:64–79. [Google Scholar]

22. Markus ML. Manville B. Agres C. What makes a virtual organization work? Sloan Management Review. 2000;42:13–26. [Google Scholar]

23. Ashforth BE. Mael F. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Journal. 1989;14:20–39. [Google Scholar]

24. Kim JW. Choi J. Qualls W, et al. It takes a marketplace community to raise brand commitment: the role of online communities. Journal of Marketing Management. 2008;24:409–31. [Google Scholar]

25. Scarpi D. Does size matter? An examination of small and large web-based brand communities. Journal of Interactive Marketing. 2010;24:14–21. [Google Scholar]

26. Park CW. MacInnis DJ. Priester J, et al. Brand attachment and brand attitude strength: conceptual and empirical differentiation of two critical brand equity drivers. Journal of Marketing. 2010;74:1–17. [Google Scholar]

27. Han YJ. Nunes JC. Drèze X. Signaling status with luxury goods: the role of brand prominence. Journal of Marketing. 2011;74:15–30. [Google Scholar]

28. Thomson M. MacInnis DJ. Park CW. The ties that bind: the strength of consumers' emotional attachments to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology. 2005;15:77–91. [Google Scholar]

29. Wasko MM. Faraj S. Social capital and knowledge contribution. MIS Quarterly. 2005;29:35–57. [Google Scholar]

30. Swann WB. Social psychological perspectives on the self. Vol. 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1993. Self-verification: bringing social reality into harmony with the self; pp. 33–66. [Google Scholar]

31. Ahluwalia R. Rohini H. RaoUnnava, et al. The moderating role of commitment on the spillover effect of marketing communications. Journal of Marketing Research. 2001;38:458–70. [Google Scholar]

32. Raju S. Unnava RH. Montgomery NV. The effect of brand commitment on the evaluation of nonpreferred brands: a disconfirmation process. Journal of Consumer Research. 2009;35:851–63. [Google Scholar]

33. Mathwick C. Wiertz C. de Ruyter K. Social capital production in a virtual P3 community. Journal of Consumer Research. 2008;34:832–49. [Google Scholar]

34. Ringle CM. Wende S. Will S. Smart PLS 2.0 (M3) Beta. Hamburg. 2005. [Nov.2011 ]. www.smartpls.de

35. Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978. [Google Scholar]

36. Fornell C. Larker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research. 1981;18:39–50. [Google Scholar]

37. Baron RM. Kenny DA. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. 1986;51:1173–82. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

38. Preacher KJ. Hayes AF. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers. 2004;36:717–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

39. Borke H. Interpersonal perception of young children: egocentrism or empathy? Developmental Psychology. 1971;5:263–69. [Google Scholar]