Promoting Consumers Participation in Virtual Brand Communities

Promoting Consumer’s Participation inVirtual Brand Communities: A NewParadigm in Branding Strategy

LUIS V. CASALO, CARLOS FLAVIAN & MIGUEL GUINALIU

Faculty of Economics and Business Studies, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain

ABSTRACT Virtual brand communities have become a powerful tool for marketers since thesecommunities may help to understand consumer needs and to promote brand loyalty andinvolvement. In this respect, this work analyses the effect of participation in a virtual communityon consumer commitment and tries to explore how consumers can be motivated in order to takepart of a virtual community. To be precise, we analyse the role of trust, satisfaction with previousinteractions and communication in the member’s intentions to participate in a virtual community.The data (obtained through an online survey made to members of several virtual brandcommunities) show first that participation in a virtual community has a positive influence onconsumer commitment to the brand around which the community is centred. Second, we foundthat trust in a virtual community had a positive and significant effect on members’ participation inthe virtual community activities and, finally, satisfaction with previous interactions and the levelof communication significantly increased the level of trust in a virtual community.

KEY WORDS: Virtual brand communities, participation, commitment, trust, satisfaction,communication

Introduction

The increasing competition and the high costs every company has to face in order to

win new customers make it increasingly necessary to establish long-term oriented

relationships with customers. Thus, relationship marketing has been proposed to be the

leading marketing strategy in the future (Morgan and Hunt, 1994; Andersen, 2005).

According to Andersen (2005), communication with consumers is one of the

crucial aspects of relationship marketing. In this context, the Internet has come out

as a new medium that favours the communication among consumers and

organizations (Pitta and Fowler, 2005). Indeed, more and more firms are starting

Correspondence Address: Carlos Flavian Blanco, Faculty of Economics and Business Studies, University

of Zaragoza, Gran Vıa 2, 50005 Zaragoza, Spain. Tel: +34 976762719; Fax: +34 976761667; Email:

[email protected]

Journal of Marketing Communications

Vol. 14, No. 1, 19–36, February 2008

1352-7266 Print/1466-4445 Online/08/010019–18 # 2008 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/13527260701535236

to use several online tools (e.g. chats, forums, etc.) to contact their consumers and to

allow interaction among them. These online relationships have motivated the

creation of social groups in the Internet that have been traditionally called virtual

brand communities. Thus, it is clear that these communities represent a useful tool in

order to involve consumers in a marketing dialogue, which is a key factor in order to

achieve brand involvement and loyalty (Andersen, 2005). In addition, the

importance of virtual communities for marketers is continuously increasing since

they also allow the obtaining of valuable information. For instance, these online

communities provide a great opportunity to understand the members likes, dislikes,

needs, behaviours or concerns (Ridings et al., 2002; Pitta and Fowler, 2005).

However, there is still a lack of studies that analyse empirically which are the

major drivers of consumer’s participation in these virtual communities and which is

the effect of this participation on consumer behaviour. In fact, although the concept

of virtual community is almost as old as the concept of Internet (Flavian and

Guinalıu, 2005), little is known about what motivations induce people to participate

in virtual communities (Ridings et al., 2002). Therefore, this study is designed to

move on this topic by: (1) analysing the relationship between participation in a

virtual community and consumer commitment to the brand around which the

community is centred, and (2) identifying some of the factors that influence the

members’ intentions to participate in a virtual community. More specifically,

following the trust-commitment theory (Morgan and Hunt, 1994), we first consider

that to participate actively in a virtual community, an individual will need to trust

first in that virtual community and in its members. Second, we also consider that a

general satisfaction in the previous interactions with the virtual community and a

higher quality in the community communication may increase the level of trust

placed in a virtual community.

Taking into account the previous considerations, this work is structured as

follows. First, we carry out an in-depth review of the relevant literature concerning

the concept of virtual community and the variables included in the study. Second, we

formalize the hypotheses. Third, we explain the process of data collection and the

methodology employed. Fourth, the main conclusions of the work are discussed and

the future research is presented.

Literature Review

The Virtual Community

Many definitions on the concept of the virtual community have appeared in the

literature but, traditionally, this concept has been defined from a social point of view

(Li, 2004). In line with this perspective, the concept of virtual community is first

defined by Rheingold (1993) as a social group that is originated in the Internet when

people discuss in this communication channel. Similarly, Ridings et al. (2002) expose

that a virtual community is a group of people with a common interest that interact

regularly in an organized way over the Internet.

Thus, one of the major qualities of virtual communities is that, due to the Internet,

it is possible to overcome the space and time barriers to interaction that exist in

traditional communities (Andersen, 2005). Indeed, the Internet provides the

20 L. V. Casalo et al.

infrastructure for enhancing social interaction and, consequently, the development

of these communities may be fostered. In addition, the justification to the

exponential expansion of virtual communities is also found in the advantages

generated by these communities. In this respect, Hagel and Armstrong (1997) point

out that virtual communities can help to satisfy four types of consumer needs:

sharing resources, establishing relationships, trading and living fantasies.Among all the typologies of virtual communities, this work focuses on virtual

brand communities. To be precise, a brand community is a set of individuals who

voluntarily relate to each other for their interest in some brand or product (Muniz

and O’Guinn, 2001). Furthermore, these authors point out that a brand community

is characterized by three core components:

N Consciousness of kind. It refers to the feeling that binds every individual to the

other community members and the community brand (e.g. the passion for driving

a Porsche) and it is determined by two factors: (1) legitimization, the process of

establishing a difference between true and false members, that is, those who have

opportunist behaviours and those who do not; and (2) opposition to other brands.

N Rituals and traditions. These are processes carried out by community memberswho help to reproduce and transmit the community meaning in and out of the

community. Members relate to each other with the memory of major events in the

history of the brand and they usually share a common set of values and certain

behaviours, such as a specific language or way of dressing.

N Sense of moral responsibility. This reflects the feelings that create moral

commitment among the community members. As a result of moral responsibility,

there are two types of fundamental actions: (1) integration and retention of

members, which guarantees the community survival, (e.g. by spreading badexperiences suffered by those individuals who chose a different brand); and (2)

support in the correct use of the brand (e.g. by sharing information about product

properties). Thus, these communities provide consumer support with the ongoing

use of the brand products (Pitta and Fowler, 2005).

More specifically, we focus attention on virtual brand communities since these

communities have a great relevance for marketers. The reason behind this interest is

threefold. First, virtual brand communities can affect their members’ behaviour

(Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001) since individuals and organizations can use these

communities to inform and influence fellow consumers about products and brands

(Kozinets, 2002). Second, virtual brand communities may help to identify the needs

and desires of particular individuals or groups of people (Kozinets, 2002). Third,

active participation in virtual brand communities may favour higher levels ofindividuals’ loyalty to the brand around which the community is developed (Koh

and Kim, 2004) since a key aspect of membership and participation in these

communities is the ongoing purchase and use of the brand products (Algesheimer

et al., 2005).

Active Participation

Member’s participation in a virtual community is a key factor in order to assure thesuccess of the community. Furthermore, participation in a virtual community is a

Promoting Consumer’s Participation in Virtual Brand Communities 21

crucial element to guarantee the community survival (Koh and Kim, 2004). To be

precise, the level of participation is a key factor to perpetuate the brand community

(Algesheimer et al., 2005) since higher participation means a higher level of

involvement with the community. Indeed, due to the participation in the activities

carried out in the virtual community, members can share information and

experiences, which are key aspects in order to develop the group cohesion. In

addition, it is important to note that some authors (e.g. Algesheimer et al., 2005)

state that participation in the virtual community activities also promotes the

members’ identification with the community and, consequently, the value of the

community is increased. MyCoke (http://www.mycoke.com) or Youtube (http://

youtube.com), where millions of people participate frequently, are clear instances of

how virtual communities may be developed thanks to community participation, in

terms of interactions among members and contributions to the community.

Finally, it is important to note that participation in the virtual community

activities may also influence their members’ behaviour (e.g. Andersen, 2005; Muniz

and O’Guinn, 2001). In this respect, some authors propose that consumers’

participation in a virtual community may increase their loyalty to the brand around

which the community is centred (e.g. Andersen, 2005; Benyoussef et al., 2006). This

is explained by the development of emotional ties with the brand around which the

community is centred that appear because of the interactions with other community

members, which are usually based on topics related to the brand products.

In this work, according to the recommendations of Koh and Kim (2004), we

consider the following factors to measure the individual’s participation in a virtual

community:

N The effort to stimulate the virtual community;

N The value of the comments posted in order to help other community members;

and

N The excitement and motivation with which an individual posts messages and

responses in the community.

Consequences of Participation in a Virtual Community

Affective Commitment

Commitment may be defined as the enduring desire to maintain a relationship that is

considered important and valuable (Moorman et al., 1992). Therefore, a party

committed to a relationship is motivated to maintain it and will work for that

purpose (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). More specifically, the importance of commit-

ment relies in the fact that it may also influence buyer behaviour (Morgan and Hunt,

1994). Indeed, commitment may favour the development of brand loyalty (Morgan

and Hunt, 1994), which is a major objective for most of the organizations

(Andreassen, 1999).

The concept of commitment is complex but it is possible to identify several

typologies or dimensions involved (Gundlanch and Murphy, 1995). In general, we

can distinguish between calculative and affective commitment (Geyskens et al., 1996;

Gustafsson et al., 2005):


N Calculative commitment: is caused by the existence of sunk and switching costs

(e.g. Anderson and Weitz, 1992). In this case, an individual will be committed to

the relationship due to the fact that the value of the resources invested in the

relationship would be substantially decreased if the individual chose to finish the

relationship and start another one. Calculative commitment can also arise when

there are no attractive alternatives to the established relationship (Gustafssonet al., 2005; Anderson and Weitz, 1992).

N Affective commitment: emerges because of the emotions and closeness between the

parties (e.g. Meyer et al., 1993). More specifically, affective commitment assumes

that both parties involved in a relationship will be interested in continuing it in the

long-term (Anderson and Weitz, 1992). Indeed, some authors propose that

affective commitment determines the consumer’s desire to continue with the

relationship in the future (e.g. Roberts et al., 2003). According to Stern (1997),

affective commitment is developed through time, because of the fact thatconsumers get used to positive emotional responses and consequently, more

security is generated in the relationship.

Following Roberts et al. (2003), we only consider affective components in thedefinition of commitment since affective commitment is the factor that favours

consumer’s identification with a company and the establishment of long-term

relationships between them (Johnson et al., 2006).

Antecedents of Participation in a Virtual Community

Trust

The concept of trust has often been associated with the achievement of long lasting

and profitable relationships (e.g. Anderson and Narus, 1990; Dwyer et al., 1987).

Indeed, this is the consequence of the role of trust in decreasing the uncertainty of a

relationship. Thus, the importance of trust in the context of virtual communities is

even greater since individuals perceived a higher risk in online relationships (Harrisand Goode, 2004). In this respect, Ridings et al. (2002) state that trust may help to

decrease the uncertainty of the relationships between the individual and the other

community members. More specifically, the importance of trust in this context is

based on some special characteristics of virtual communities (Ridings et al., 2002).

For instance, the lack of face-to-face contact in virtual communities increases the

perceived risk of the relationship between the individual and the community

members. In addition, there is no guarantee that the other members will behave as

they are expected to, (e.g. they can provide other members email addresses toexternal organizations without permission). Therefore, trust serves to decrease the

perceived risk of relationships in a virtual community and its management must be a

crucial aspect for the organization that creates the virtual community.

Traditionally, trust has been analysed from two different perspectives (e.g. Kumar

et al., 1995; Geyskens et al., 1996). On the one hand, trust has been considered as a

behavioural component, which is associated with the willingness or desire to rely on

the partner (e.g. Kumar et al., 1995; Geyskens et al., 1996). On the other hand, trust

may be analysed as a cognitive component, which reflects the result of the assessmentthat one party makes of the credibility and goodwill of the other party, (e.g. Doney


and Canon, 1997; Mayer et al., 1995). However, the literature reflects a more

habitual use of the cognitive component. In fact, Morgan and Hunt (1994) note that

the inclusion of the behavioural component may be redundant as it is a consequence

of the cognitive component.

Considering trust as a cognitive component, it has been usually suggested that

trust may be defined by three types of beliefs, which refer to the levels of competence,honesty and benevolence, as perceived by the individual, (e.g. Mayer et al., 1995). In

the context of virtual communities, which are always centred on a specific mutual

concern, competence refers to the ability of the community members with respect to

that mutual interest (Ridings et al., 2002). In turn, honesty is the belief that the

second party (the other community members) will keep their word, fulfil their

promises and be sincere (Gundlach and Murphy, 1993; Doney and Canon, 1997).

Finally, benevolence reflects the belief that one of the parties is interested in the well-

being of the other. Thus, in the context of virtual communities, benevolence refers tothe expectation that community members will have the intention and the desire to

help, support and care of the other members of the virtual community (Ridings et al.,

2002). Taking into account the previous considerations, we propose that the concept

of trust in a virtual community may be considered as a multidimensional construct

formed by three different dimensions: honesty, benevolence and competence in the

virtual community.

Satisfaction

Satisfaction can be defined as an affective condition that results from a global

evaluation of all the aspects that make up a relationship (Severt, 2002). More

specifically, satisfaction can be divided into two distinct perspectives (Geyskens et al.,

1999). On the one hand, the first perspective considers satisfaction as an affective

predisposition sustained by economic conditions. On the other hand, the second

perspective, known as non-economic satisfaction, considers the concept using more

psychological factors, such as a partner fulfilling promises or the ease ofrelationships with the aforementioned partner.

In this project, we will concentrate on the psychological perspective of satisfaction

(Shankar et al., 2003). From this point of view, satisfaction is considered as a global

evaluation or attitude made by the individual about the behaviour of the other

virtual community members resulting from the interactions produced by both parties

in the relationship. Therefore, satisfaction is not the result of a specific interaction,

but that of a global evaluation of the relationship history between the parties. With

each new interaction, the individual’s perception is fed by new information, which isthe information that determines the level of satisfaction at any given time.

Communication

In general, communication can be defined as the formal and informal distribution of

significant and updated information (Anderson and Narus, 1990). Furthermore,

communication between the parties has been considered as a key element in the

existence of a relationship (e.g. Bendapudi and Berry, 1997; Crosby and Stephens,1987). Indeed, Duncan and Moriarty (1998) propose that communication is a human


activity that joins people and generates relationships. In addition, several authors

have noted that quality of communication is more important than quantity and,

consequently, effective communication implies that both parties must be committed

to the communication processes (Chiou et al., 2004).

In the context of virtual communities, communication is especially relevant since

the existence of a virtual community is directly based on postings and their responsesmade by the community members (Ridings et al., 2002). More specifically, according

to these authors, the speed and frequency of response when an individual posts a

message can be considered as key elements of the communication in the community

since they allow the creation of conversation. However, communication must be also

effective; that is, responses must be valuable for the individual that posts a message.

If responses have no value, the individual will not be motivated to participate in that

virtual community.

Formulation of Hypotheses

Although the relationship between satisfaction and trust in a virtual community has

not been analysed yet, some authors have considered that satisfaction has a positive

effect on trust in the context of business to consumer relationships through the

Internet, (e.g. Bauer, 2002). In addition, as suggested by the Disconfirmation of

Expectations Model, (e.g. Spreng and Chiou, 2000), satisfaction reflects the degree to

which expectations generated on previous occasions have been met. If we focusattention on how satisfaction with a virtual community has been generated, we can

see that the first phase consists of individuals having certain expectations with regard

to the trustworthiness of the other virtual community members. Then, they perceive

whether the expectations are met or not. If they are met, individuals will feel satisfied

and more confident, since they will feel that the other community members are

trustworthy and capable of meeting its commitments. Following the previous

considerations, we propose our first hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Greater user satisfaction is related directly and positively to

greater trust in a virtual community.

Traditionally, communication has been considered as a major antecedent of trust

and proximity feelings between the parties in a relationship, (e.g. Morgan and Hunt,

1994; Anderson and Narus, 1990). Indeed, Morgan and Hunt (1994) state that

communication helps to solve conflicts between the parties, which favours the

development of affective reactions such as trust (Kumar et al., 1995). Morespecifically, communication promotes trust since it improves the environment by

aligning perceptions and expectancies (e.g. Anderson and Weitz, 1992; Morgan and

Hunt, 1994).

In the online context, many researchers have proposed that a higher quality in the

communication between the parties produces higher degrees of trust (McIvor et al.,

2002). In a similar way, the perceived level of communication in a community, which

is represented by the repeated interactions over time between the community

members, may increase the levels of trust placed in that virtual community. In thisway, trust in a virtual community is built thanks to these repeated interactions


among the virtual community members. Therefore, if an individual posts several

messages and there are no responses, trust in other community members will not

arise and consequently, following the trust transfer process in the online context

(Stewart, 2003), trust in the whole community will not be developed either.

Therefore, we propose our second hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: A higher level of communication in a virtual community is

related directly and positively to greater levels of trust placed in that

community.

Traditionally, several authors have considered that trust determines the nature of

a relationship (e.g. Gefen, 2000). Indeed, following the trust-commitment theory

(Morgan and Hunt, 1994), a relationship in which both parties trust each other

generates enough value so that the parties will be committed to the relationship (e.g.Garbarino and Johnson, 1999). This greater value generated by trust is the

consequence of the role of trust in decreasing the uncertainty of a relationship. In

fact, trust means that one of the parties involved in a relationship will think that the

other party will not exploit its vulnerabilities (Corritore et al., 2003). Therefore, the

decrease of the perceived risk in either a transaction or a relationship is an important

result derived from the process of trust building (Mitchell, 1999). In this way,

individuals’ commitment and participation in a relationship will only be possible if

they trust the other party.In addition, if we focus attention on virtual communities, trust may also help to

favour integration of members and to increase interactions among them (Ridings

et al., 2002). Indeed, trust is a crucial factor when individuals face relationships

without having complete information regarding the other party (Hawes et al., 1989),

as it may be the case of virtual communities since an individual does not usually have

much information about all the other community members (Ridings et al., 2002). In

these cases, trust serves to decrease the degree of information asymmetry that exists

between partners (Batt, 2003). Thus, bearing in mind all these considerations, it isreasonable to think that trust in a virtual community and in its members may be a

major precursor of the individuals’ intentions to participate in a virtual community.

Thus, we propose our third hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: Greater levels of trust placed in a virtual community are related

directly and positively to greater levels of participation in that virtual

community.

Traditionally, it has been considered that participation in a brand community

helps to develop the relationship between the brand and its consumers (Andersen,

2005; McAlexander et al.; 2002). Indeed, some authors have also suggested that

participation in these communities may foster consumer loyalty to the brand around

which the community is developed (Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001; Benyoussef et al.,

2006), since a crucial outcome of participation in these communities is the intention

to purchase and use the brand products in the future (e.g. Algesheimer et al., 2005).

More specifically, once consumers participate actively in a brand community, theiridentification and emotional ties with the brand around which the virtual community


is centred may increase (Algesheimer et al., 2005). These emotional ties emerge

because of the interactions with other community members, which are usually based

on topics related to that brand (e.g. discussions about the correct use of the brand

products or their properties, etc.). Finally, all of these may favour higher levels of

consumer affective commitment to the brand around which the virtual community is

developed. Therefore, taking into account these considerations, we propose our last

hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4: Greater participation in a virtual community is related directly

and positively to greater affective commitment to the brand around which the

community is developed.

Data Collection

Data were collected thanks to a web survey using Spanish-speaking members of

several virtual communities. To obtain the responses, several posts were included on

heavy traffic websites, email distribution lists and well-known electronic forums. The

selection of the websites to promote the research was founded on: (1) the level of

awareness among the Spanish-speaking community, (2) traffic level and (3)

availability. This method of collecting the data, which is consistent with the recent

practice in the online context research, (e.g. Bagozzi and Dholakia, 2006; Steenkamp

and Geyskens, 2006), generated 215 valid questionnaires (atypical cases, repeated

responses and incomplete questionnaires were controlled).

Besides, it is important to note that subjects were allowed to choose the virtual

community to analyse, as the objective of this project was to understand the

behaviour of the virtual community members, regardless the product around which

the community was developed. However, it was a pre-requisite that the subject was

registered as a member of that virtual community. More specifically, subjects had to

respond to several questions about their levels of satisfaction, participation and trust

in the virtual community they had selected, about the perceived level of

communication that exists in that virtual community as well as about their affective

commitment to the brand around which the community was developed. All

questions were measured on a seven-point Likert scale.

Finally, to guarantee that of our sample was representative, we compared the

sociodemographical characteristics of the sample with other studies on virtual

communities (Bagozzi and Dholakia, 2006) and results were very similar (see

Table 1).

Measures Validation

The process of validation included the following stages:

Content and Face Validity

Scale development was based on the review of the most relevant literature on

relationship marketing and the recent advances in e-marketing (see Table 2).


From the literature review, an initial set of items was proposed but, due to the lack

of valid scales adapted to the context of virtual communities, it was necessary to

adapt the initial scales. This adaptation had the objective of guaranteeing the face

validity of the measurement instruments. Face validity is defined as the degree that

respondents judge that the items are appropriate to the targeted construct and is

habitually confused with content validity. Nevertheless, content validity is the degree

to which items correctly represent the theoretical content of the construct and it is

guaranteed by the in-depth literature review undertaken. Face validity was tested

through a variation of the Zaichkowsky method (1985), whereby each item is

qualified by a panel of experts as ‘‘clearly representative’’, ‘‘somewhat representa-

tive’’ or ‘‘not representative’’ of the construct of interest. In line with Lichtenstein

et al. (1990), an item was retained if a high level of consensus was observed among

the experts.

Exploratory Analysis of Reliability and Dimensionality

The process of measuring validation started with an initial exploratory analysis of

reliability and dimensionality (Churchill, 1979; Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). The

Cronbach alpha indicator was used to assess the initial reliability of the scales,

considering a minimum value of 0.7 (Cronbach, 1970; Nunnally, 1978). The item-

total correlation was used to improve the levels of the Cronbach alpha, considering a

minimum value of 0.3 (Nurosis, 1993). All items were adjusted to the required levels.

We proceeded to evaluate the unidimensionality of the proposed scales by carrying

out a principal components analysis. Factor extraction was based on the existence of

eigenvalues higher than 1. In addition, it was required that factorial loadings were

Table 1. Representative nature of the data collected

Present researchBagozzi and

Dholakia (2006)

n 215 402Age Mean 32.2 31.1

Range 16–70 18–73Gender Male 89% 88.10%Average experience (years) 3.84 4.62

Table 2. Content validity

Variable Adapted from

Commitment Moorman et al. (1992); Anderson and Weitz (1992); Kumar et al. (1995)Participation Koh and Kim (2004); Algesheimer et al. (2005)Trust Kumar et al. (1995); Siguaw et al. (1998); Doney and Canon (1997);

Verhoef et al. (2002); Roy et al. (2001)Communication McMillan et al. (2005); Chiou et al. (2004)Satisfaction Brockman (1998); Severt (2002); Smith and Barclay (1997)


higher than 0.5 points and a significant total explained variance. Only one factor was

extracted from each scale: satisfaction, communication, benevolence, honesty,

competence, participation and commitment.

Confirmatory Analysis of Dimensionality

With the aim of confirming the dimensional structure of the scales and to allow for a

rigorous test of convergent and discriminatory validity, we used the Confirmatory

Factor Analysis (Steenkamp and Geyskens, 2006). That is, we included all

individual-level constructs in a single confirmatory factor model. More specifically,

we employed the statistical software EQS version 6.1, and we chose Robust

Maximum Likelihood as the estimation method, since it affords more security in

samples which might not present multivariate normality. In addition, we followed

the criteria proposed by Joreskog and Sorbom (1993):

N The weak convergence criterion means eliminating indicators that do not show

significant factor regression coefficients (t student.2.58; P50.01).

N The strong convergence criterion involves eliminating non-substantial indicators;that is, those indicators whose standardized coefficients are lower than 0.5.

N Finally, we also eliminated the indicators that least contribute to the explanation

of the model, taking R2,0.3 as a cut-off point.

These recommendations allow us to obtain acceptable levels of convergence, R2

and model fit: Chi-square5384.894, 160 d.f., P,.001; Bentler-Bonett Normed Fit

Index50.857; Bentler-Bonett Non-normed Fit Index50.914; Comparative Fit Index

(CFI)50.927; Bollen (IFI) Fit Index50.929; Root Mean Sq. Error of App.

(RMESA, Root Mean-Square Error of Approximation)50.063; 90% confidence

interval of RMESA (0.052, 0.074).

Finally, in order to confirm the existence of multidimensionality in trust, we

developed a Rival Models Strategy (Hair et al., 1999; Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). In

this strategy, we compared a second order model in which the construct is measured byvarious dimensions with a first order model in which all the items formed only one

factor. Results showed that the second order model fits much better than the first. This

implies that trust placed in a virtual community is a multidimensional construct

formed by three dimensions: honesty, benevolence and competence.

Composite Reliability

Although the Cronbach alpha indicator is the most frequent test to assess reliability,some authors consider that it underestimates reliability (e.g. Smith, 1974).

Consequently, the use of composite reliability has been suggested (Joreskog,

1971), using a cut-off value of 0.65 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Steenkamp and Geyskens,

2006). The results were satisfactory.

Construct Validity

Construct validity was assessed by considering two types of criteria: convergent anddiscriminatory validity:


N Convergent validity. This shows if the items that compose a determined scale

converge on only one construct. This was tested by checking that the factor

loadings of the confirmatory model were statistically significant (level of 0.01) and

higher than 0.5 points (Sanzo et al., 2003). Results showed that all the indicators

loaded significantly (P,0.001) and substantively (all factor loadings went beyond

0.5) on their proposed constructs, providing evidence of convergent validity of the

measures (Steenkamp and Geyskens, 2006).

N Discriminatory validity. This verifies if a determined construct is significantly

distinct from other constructs that are not theoretically related to it. We tested

discriminatory validity in two ways: First, we checked that the correlations

between the variables in the confirmatory model were not higher than 0.8 points

(Bagozzi, 1994). Second, we checked that the value 1 did not appear in the

confidence interval of the correlations between the different variables. Results

showed an acceptable level of discrimination (see Table 3) since all pairs of

constructs satisfied both criteria.

Results

To test the hypotheses we develop a structural equation model. Fig. 1 shows the

results corresponding to hypotheses 1 to 4. Results reveal the acceptance of these

hypotheses to a level of 0.01. Similarly, the model fit also showed acceptable values

(Chi-square5475.307, 163 d.f., P,0.001; Bentler-Bonett Normed Fit Index5.833;

Table 3. Discriminatory validity

PAIR of constructs Correlation 95% Confidence interval

COMMU-SAT 0.301* 0.164 0.438COMMU-HON 0.285* 0.136 0.434COMMU-BENEV 0.365* 0.218 0.512COMMU-COMP 0.589* 0.450 0.728COMMU-PARTI 0.202* 0.055 0.349COMMU-AFFCOMM 0.144* 0.007 0.281SAT-HON 0.619* 0.476 0.762SAT-BENEV 0.499* 0.340 0.658SAT-COMP 0.113 –0.048 0.274SAT-PARTI 0.420* 0.285 0.555SAT-AFFCOMM 0.442* 0.289 0.595HON-BENEV 0.713* 0.617 0.809HON-COMP 0.338* 0.193 0.483HON-PARTI 0.224* 0.065 0.383HON-AFFCOMM 0.632* 0.520 0.744BENEV-COMP 0.289* 0.146 0.432BENEV-PARTI 0.271* 0.112 0.430BENEV-AFFCOMM 0.567* 0.430 0.704COMP-PARTI 0.172 –0.014 0.358COMP-AFFCOMM 0.104 –0.033 0.241PARTI-AFFCOMM 0.436* 0.314 0.558

*Expresses that coefficients are significant at the level of 0.01.


Bentler-Bonett Non-normed Fit Index50.886; Comparative Fit Index (CFI)50.902;

Bollen (IFI) Fit Index50.904; Root Mean Sq. Error of App. (RMESA)50.073; 90%

Confidence Interval of RMESA (0.062, 0.083); normed Chi-square52.9159).

It was also notable that consumer trust in a virtual community could be explained

at a very high level (R250.503) by the direct effects of only two variables: satisfaction

with previous interactions and the level of communication in the community. In

addition, this model also allow us to partially explain the members’ intentions to

participate in a virtual community (R250.15) and their affective commitment to the

brand around which the community is developed (R250.212).

Conclusions and Managerial Implications

From a marketing point of view, the importance of virtual brand communities is

continuously increasing since these communities may help to understand the needs

and desires of consumers (Ridings et al., 2002; Kozinets, 2002). Participation in a

virtual brand community may foster consumer loyalty to the brand around which

the community is developed (Andersen, 2005; Algesheimer et al., 2005; Muniz and

O’Guinn, 2001). Therefore, the analysis of these communities is especially relevant.

Figure 1. The structural equation model. Note: *expresses that coefficients are significant atthe level of 0.01


However, most of the works on virtual communities have been conducted at the

conceptual level (Koh and Kim, 2004) and, as a result; there is still a lack of studies

that empirically analyse which are the drivers and outcomes of participation in a

virtual community. Thus, with the aim of moving on this topic, this study

investigates some of the antecedents of individuals’ participation in a virtual

community and the effect of this participation on consumer commitment to the

brand around which the community is developed.

First, results have shown that trust placed in a virtual community may increase the

levels of participation in that community. Therefore, trust may be a crucial aspect to

guarantee the virtual community survival since it favours individuals’ participation

and, consequently, both group cohesion and consciousness of kind can be enhanced.

In addition, we have also found positive and significant effects of satisfaction in the

previous interactions with the virtual community and the perceived level of

communication in the community on the trust placed by a consumer in a virtual

community. These results have allowed us to clearly explain the concept of trust

placed in a virtual community (R250.503).

Second, we have found a positive effect of consumers’ participation in a virtual

community on their affective commitment to the brand around which it is developed.

This result is especially relevant for managers since the high costs every company has

to face in order to win new customers make it increasingly necessary to reinforce the

ties established with current customers. Therefore, virtual communities emerge as a

powerful tool to strengthen these ties. Indeed, this study offers some alternatives in

order to increase consumers’ commitment by promoting their participation in a

virtual brand community. More specifically, to foster consumers’ participation in

virtual communities, firms should:

N Promote communication and group cohesion in the community in order to

encourage interactions among community members. To do that, firms that

develop virtual communities should carry out actions that may increase the

consumers’ commitment to the community. For instance, it would be a good idea

to organize virtual meetings among the community members in order to ask them

for possible suggestions and recommendations about the brand products.

N Satisfy in the virtual community some of the consumers’ needs, (e.g. making

special offers to virtual community members, etc.). Indeed, the virtual brand

community should be created according to its members’ needs, and not with those

of the company, which promotes it (Flavian and Guinalıu, 2005). Thus,

individuals will perceive that they can satisfy their needs and demands in the

virtual community and, consequently, they will be motivated to participate in the

community.

N Guarantee the sustainability of the virtual community in the long-term. To do

that, firms should constantly analyse the evolution of its members’ needs and

interests (Wang et al., 2002).

Following these recommendations, trust between consumers and the virtual

community will be built and therefore, it will be easier to turn community visitors

into members, members into contributors, and contributors into evangelists of the

community and the brand around which the community is developed. As a


consequence, consumers will develop greater emotional feelings and commitment to

that brand.

Future research

First, it is important to note that the survey was answered exclusively by Spanish-

speaking members of virtual communities. Thus, to generalize the results of this

research, we should repeat the study using a wider sample of consumers. Specifically,

the sample should represent a greater diversity of nationalities.

Second, an interesting route to extend this research would be to analyse other

effects on consumer behaviour associated to the consumers’ participation in virtual

communities, since most of the studies focused on the virtual communities outcomes

have been carried out from a conceptual point of view. More specifically, it would be

useful to carry out a quantitative assessment of the impact of virtual communities in

consumer trust and loyalty to the brand around which the community is developed,

due to the fact that loyalty is a key goal for many organizations (Andreassen, 1999)

and trust is a key factor in order to establish successful long-term oriented

relationships (Morgan and Hunt, 1994).

Third, it would be also a good idea to analyse in more detail the precursors of

participation in a virtual community in order to explain this variable to a greater

extent. In fact, perceived control, privacy, familiarity or identification with the

community may also influence the level of consumers’ participation in a virtual

community.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful for the financial support received from the Spanish Ministry

of Science and Technology (SEC2005-4972; PM34; AP2005-2823) and the Aragon

Government (S-46).

References

Algesheimer, R. et al. (2005) The social influence of brand communities: evidence from European car

clubs, Journal of Marketing, 59(3), pp. 19–34.

Andersen, P. H. (2005) Relationship marketing and brand involvement of professionals through web-

enhanced brand communities: the case of Coloplast, Industrial Marketing Management, 34(1), pp.

39–51.

Anderson, J. & Gerbing, D. (1988) Structural modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step

approach, Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), pp. 411–423.

Anderson, J. C. & Narus, J. A. (1990) A model of distribution firm and manufacturer firm working

partnerships, Journal of Marketing, 54(1), pp. 42–58.

Anderson, E. & Weitz, B. (1992) The use of pledges to build and sustain commitment in distribution

channels, Journal of Marketing Research, 29(1), pp. 18–34.

Andreassen, T. W. (1999) What drives customer loyalty with complaint resolution?, Journal of Service

Research, 1(4), pp. 324–332.

Bagozzi, R. P. & Yi, Y. (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models, Journal of the Academy of

Marketing Science, 16(1), pp. 74–94.

Bagozzi, R. (1994) Structural equation model in marketing research. Basic principles, in: R.P. Bagozzi

(Ed.) Principles of Marketing Research, pp. 317–385 (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers).


Bagozzi, R. P. & Dholakia, U. M. (2006) Open source software communities: a study of participation in

Linux user groups, Management Science, 52(7), pp. 1099–1115.

Batt, P. J. (2003) Building trust between growers and market agents, Supply Chain Management: An

International Journal, 8(1), pp. 65–78.

Bauer, H. H. et al. (2002) Building customer relations over the Internet, Industrial Marketing Management,

31(2), pp. 155–163.

Bendapudi, N. & Berry, L. L. (1997) Customer’s motivations for maintaining relationships with service

providers, Journal of Retailing, 73(1), pp. 15–35.

Benyoussef, H. et al. (2006) The relational antecedents of loyalty: the case of proprietary software users vs.

Libre software users, in: Proceedings of the 35th EMAC Conference, Athens, 23–26 May 2006.

Brockman, B. (1998) The influence of affective state on satisfaction ratings, Journal of Consumer

Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 11, pp. 40–50.

Chiou, J. S. et al. (2004) The effect of franchisors’ communication, service assistance, and competitive

advantage on franchisees’ intentions to remain in the franchise system, Journal of Small Business

Management, 42(1), pp. 19–36.

Churchill, G. A. (1979) A paradigm for developing better measures for marketing constructs, Journal of

Marketing Research, 16(1), pp. 64–73.

Corritore, C. L. et al. (2003) On-line trust: concepts, evolving themes, a model, International Journal of

Human-Computer Studies, 58(6), pp. 737–758.

Cronbach, L. J. (1970) Essentials of Psychological Testing (New York: Harper and Row).

Crosby, L. & Stephen, N. (1987) Effects of relationship marketing on satisfaction, retention, and prices in

the insurance industry, Journal of Marketing Research, 24(4), pp. 404–411.

Doney, P. & Canon, J. (1997) An examination of the nature of trust in the buyer-seller relationship,

Journal of Marketing, 61(2), pp. 35–51.

Duncan, T. & Moriarty, S. (1998) A communication-based marketing model for managing relationships,


Dwyer, F. R. et al. (1987) Developing buying-seller relationships, Journal of Marketing, 51(2), pp. 11–27.

Flavian, C. & Guinalıu, M. (2005) The influence of virtual communities on distribution strategies in the

Internet, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 33(6), pp. 405–425.

Garbarino, E. & Johnson, M. S. (1999) The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in

customer relationships, Journal of Marketing, 63(2), pp. 70–87.

Gefen, D. (2000) E-commerce: the role of familiarity and trust, OMEGA: The International Journal of

Management Science, 28(6), pp. 725–737.

Geyskens, I. et al. (1996) The effects of trust and interdependence on relationship commitment. A trans-

Atlantic study, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(4), pp. 303–317.

Geyskens, I. et al. (1999) A meta-analysis of satisfaction in marketing channel relationships, Journal of

Marketing Research, 36(2), pp. 223–238.

Gundlach, G. T. & Murphy, P. E. (1993) Ethical and legal foundations of relational marketing exchanges,


Gundlach, G. & Murphy, P. E. (1993) Ethical and legal foundations of relational marketing exchanges,


Gustafsson, A. et al. (2005) The effects of consumer satisfaction, relationship commitment dimensions,

and triggers on consumer retention, Journal of Marketing, 69(4), pp. 210–218.

Hagel, J. III. & Armstrong, A. G. (1997) Net Gain: Expanding Markets through Virtual Communities

(Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press).

Hair, J. F. Jr. et al. (1999) Multivariate Data Analysis (Madrid: Prentice Hall).

Harris, L. C. & Goode, M. M. H. (2004) The four levels of loyalty and the pivotal role of trust: a study of

online service dynamics, Journal of Retailing, 80(2), pp. 139–158.

Hawes, J. M. et al. (1989) Trust earning perceptions of sellers and buyers, Journal of Personal Selling and

Sales Management, 9(Spring), pp. 1–8.

Johnson, M. D. et al. (2006) The evolution of loyalty intentions, Journal of Marketing, 70(2), pp. 122–32.

Joreskog, K. (1971) Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests, Psychometrika, 36(2), pp. 109–133.

Joreskog, K. & Sorbom, D. (1993) LISREL 8 Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command

Language (Chicago-Illinois: Scientific Software International).

Koh, J. & Kim, D. (2004) Knowledge sharing in virtual communities: an e-business perspective, Expert

Systems with Applications, 26(2), pp. 155–166.


Kozinets, R. V. (2002) The field behind the screen: using netnography for marketing research in online

communities, Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1), pp. 61–72.

Kumar, N. et al. (1995) The effects of supplier fairness on vulnerable resellers, Journal of Marketing

Research, 32(1), pp. 42–53.

Li, H. (2004) Virtual community studies: a literature review, synthesis and future research, in: Proceedings

of the Americas Conference on Information Systems, August 2004 (New York).

Lichtenstein, D. R. et al. (1990) Distinguishing coupon proneness from value consciousness: an acquisition

– transaction utility theory perspective, Journal of Marketing, 54(3), pp. 54–67.

Mayer, R. et al. (1995) An integrative model of organizational trust, Academy Of Management Review,

20(3), pp. 709–734.

McAlexander, J. H. et al. (2002) Building brand community, Journal of Marketing, 66(1), pp. 38–54.

McIvor, R. et al. (2002) Internet technologies: supporting transparency in the public sector, The

International Journal of Public Sector Management, 15(3), pp. 170–187.

McMillan, K. et al. (2005) Relationship marketing in the not-for-profit sector: an extension and

application of the commitment-trust theory, Journal of Business Research, 58(6), pp. 806–818.

Meyer, J. P. et al. (1993) Commitment to organizations and occupations: extension and test of a three-

component conceptualization, Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), pp. 538–551.

Mitchell, V. (1999) Consumer perceived risk: conceptualisations and models, European Journal of

Marketing, 33(1–2), pp. 163–195.

Moorman, C. et al. (1992) Relationships between providers and users of market research: the dynamics of

trust within and between organizations, Journal of Marketing Research, 29(3), pp. 314–328.

Morgan, R. & Hunt, S. (1994) The commitment – trust theory of relationship marketing, Journal of

Marketing, 58(3), pp. 20–38.

Muniz, A. & O’Guinn, T. C. (2001) Brand communities, Journal of consumer research, 27(March), pp.

412–432.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978) Psychometric Theory, 2nd edn (New York: McGraw-Hill).

Nurosis, M. J. (1993) SPSS. Statistical Data Analysis (SPSS Inc.).

Pitta, D. A. & Fowler, D. (2005) Online consumer communities and their value to new product developers,

Journal of Product & Brand Management, 14(5), pp. 283–291.

Rheingold, H. (1993) The Virtual Community: Homestanding on the Electronic Frontier (New York:

Addison-Wesley).

Ridings, C. M. et al. (2002) Some antecedents and effects of trust in virtual communities, Journal of

Strategic Information Systems, 11(3–4), pp. 271–295.

Roberts, K. et al. (2003) Measuring the quality of relationships in consumer services: an empirical study,

European Journal of Marketing, 37(1–2), pp. 169–196.

Roy, M. et al. (2001) The impact of interface usability on trust in web retailers, Internet Research:

Electronic Networking Applications and Policy, 11(5), pp. 388–398.

Sanzo, M. et al. (2003) The effect of market orientation on buyer-seller relationship satisfaction, Industrial

Marketing Management, 32(4), pp. 327–345.

Severt, E. (2002) The Customer’s Path to loyalty: A Partial Test of the Relationships of Prior Experience,

Justice, and Customer Satisfaction, Doctoral Thesis, Faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and

State University (EEUU), 2002.

Shankar, V. et al. (2003) Customer satisfaction and loyalty in online and offline environments,

International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20(2), pp. 153–175.

Siguaw, J. et al. (1998) Effects of supplier market orientation on distributor market orientation and the

channel relationship: the distributor perspective, Journal of Marketing, 62(3), pp. 99–111.

Smith, K. W. (1974) On estimating the reliability of composite indexes through factor analysis,

Sociological Methods & Research, 2(4), pp. 485–510.

Smith, J. & Barclay, D. (1997) The effects of organizational differences and trust on the effectiveness of

selling partner relationships, Journal of Marketing, 61(1), pp. 3–21.

Spreng, R. A. & Chiou, J. (2002) A cross-cultural assessment of the satisfaction formation process,

European Journal of Marketing, 36(7–8), pp. 829–839.

Steenkamp, J. B. E. M. & Geyskens, I. (2006) How country characteristics affect the perceived value of a

website, Journal of Marketing, 70(3), pp. 136–150.

Stern, B. B. (1997) Advertising intimacy: relationship marketing and the services consumer, Journal of

Advertising, 26(4), pp. 7–19.


Stewart, K. J. (2003) Trust transfer on the World Wide Web, Organization Science, 14(1), pp. 5–17.

Verhoef, P. C. et al. (2002) The effects of relational constructs on customer referrals and number of

services purchased from a multiservice provider: does age of relationship matter?, Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, 30(3), pp. 202–216.

Wang, Y. et al. (2002) Defining the virtual tourist community: implications for tourism marketing,

Tourism Management, 23(4), pp. 407–417.

Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985) Measuring the involvement construct, Journal of Consumer Research, 12(4), pp.

341–352.

Notes on Contributors

Luis V. Casalo is Assistant Professor at the University of Zaragoza (Spain). His mainresearch line is focused in the analysis of online consumer behaviour in the context of

virtual communities. His work has been presented in national and international

conferences, and has been published in several journals, such as Journal of Marketing

Communications, and books, such as Mobile Government: An Emerging Direction in

E-Government and Encyclopedia Of Networked And Virtual Organizations.

Carlos Flavian holds a Ph.D. in Business Administration and is Professor of

Marketing in the Faculty of Economics and Business Studies at the University ofZaragoza (Spain). His research has been published in several academic journals,

specialized in marketing (European Journal of Marketing, Journal of Consumer

Marketing, Journal of Strategic Marketing, International Journal of Market

Research, etc.) and new technologies (Information & Management, Industrial

Management and Data Systems, Internet Research, etc.).

Miguel Guinalıu holds a Ph.D. in Business Administration and is assistant professor

in the Faculty of Economics and Business Studies (University of Zaragoza, Spain).Previously, he worked as an e-business consultant. His main research line is online

consumer behaviour, particularly the analysis of online consumer trust and virtual

communities. His work has been presented in national and international conferences,

and it has been published in several journals, such as Journal of Marketing

Communications, Information & Management, Industrial Management & Data

Systems, Internet Research, Journal of Retailing & Consumer Services, International

Journal of Bank Marketing or International Journal of Retail & Distribution

Management, and books, such as Advances in Electronic Marketing, Mobile

Government: An Emerging Direction in E-Government, Encyclopedia Of Networked

And Virtual Organizations and Encyclopedia of E-Commerce, E-Government and

Mobile Commerce.


Promoting Consumers Participation in Virtual Brand Communities

Documents

Transcript of Promoting Consumers Participation in Virtual Brand Communities