Anzeige
Erschienen in:
2018 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel
A Brand Foci Model to Explain Achievement Needs: A Contradictory Explanation: An Abstract
verfasst von : Jeremy J. Sierra, Harry A. Taute, Byung-Kwan Lee
Erschienen in: Back to the Future: Using Marketing Basics to Provide Customer Value
Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.
Wählen Sie Textabschnitte aus um mit Künstlicher Intelligenz passenden Patente zu finden. powered by
Markieren Sie Textabschnitte, um KI-gestützt weitere passende Inhalte zu finden. powered by
Abstract
While the union between consumers and their adored brands has been typified as brand communities (McAlexander, Schouten, & Koenig, 2002) and brand tribes (the focus of this research) (e.g., Cova & Cova, 2001), researchers have gone beyond the nature of the consumer brand relationship to delve into its outcomes. Thus, understanding consumers’ attitudes and behaviors associated with brand tribe membership is a valuable investigative domain for marketing researchers (e.g., Gruner, Homburg, & Lukas, 2014). The purpose of this research is to examine the anthropological perspective of brand tribalism in an Eastern culture.
This research proposes a sequential model of brand tribalism (i.e., segmentary lineage [LINEAGE], social structure [SOCIAL], defense of the tribe [DEFENSE], and sense of community [COMMUN]) on brand pride (PRIDE), to brand attitude (AB), to purchase intent (PIB). Also, consumers’ need for achievement (NACHIEVE) is modeled as an outcome of PIB. Students attending a university in Seoul, South Korea, served as respondents (N = 272); they were asked to indicate their favorite smartphone and how long it has been their favorite and, subsequently, to respond to the rating-scaled statements regarding this handheld device. Their mean age is 23.93 years (SD = 3.88), with men (61%) outnumbering women. The ethnic background of the sample is entirely Asian. In terms of favorite smartphone, Android (63%) and iPhone (37%) comprise the responses.
Estimation of the measurement model (39 items, 8 scales) confirms convergent and discriminant validity. The relationships were tested using SEM (LISREL 9.20). A COV matrix and MLE were used to estimate model parameters. Model estimation produced the following GOF statistics: χ2(688df) = 2526.92 (P = 0.00), (CFI) = 0.95, (GFI) = 0.68, and (RMSEA) = 0.099. The t statistic associated with four of the seven path coefficients is significant at the P < 0.05 level or better. Specifically, COMMUN (H4; P
C = 0.53, t = 1.97) relates positively, while LINEAGE (H1; P
C = −0.04, t = −0.23), SOCIAL (H2; P
C = 0.23, t = 1.79), and DEFENSE (H3; P
C = 0.02, t = 0.08) are unrelated to P
RIDE. In turn, PRIDE relates positively to AB (H5; P
C = 0.38, t = 6.14), AB relates positively to PIB (H6; P
C = 0.80, t = 14.71), and PIB relates positively to NACHIEVE (H7; P
C = 0.27, t = 4.32).
The use of pooled, multi-brand data from Eastern consumers suggests that only the sense of community brand tribe component significantly influences brand pride. This finding contradicts existing brand tribalism research (e.g., Badrinarayanan, Sierra, & Taute, 2014; Taute & Sierra, 2014), which suggests that defense of the tribe (a negatively charged emotion) is a more robust explanatory dimension of brand tribalism than positive emotional-laden tribe components, such as sense of community. The data source may help explain this opposing result (Zhang, van Doorn, & Leeflang, 2014).