Collectivism and Individualism in Online Brand Communities:
A Cross-Cultural Analysis on the Motives for Participation in Online Brand CommunitiesMaster Thesis
Name: Lisa Wu – 12234486 Supervisor: Dr. S.C. de Bakker
Master' s Programme Communication Science Corporate Communication Track
Abstract
The present study aims to analyze how the variances of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions collectivism and individualism affect people’s motives for participation in online brand communities. With the explosion of social networking sites, companies start to establish their brand communities since social interactions between community members profoundly influence customers’ relationship with and attitude towards the brand. As social media have global reach potential, people around the world can access the online communities within it. For companies operating globally, it is important to understand how diverse cultures may affect people’s motivations to participate in online brand communities and, in particular, how these impacts help them to operate successfully in global markets. To find out this relationship, the researcher focused on Hofstede's cultural dimensions of collectivism and individualism, since these two dimensions have been widely recognized as one key dimension for understanding cross-cultural differences in attitude and behavior.
Results showed that the more people display a higher level of collectivism or individualism, the more they have stronger interpersonal connection, purposive value, self-discovery, and social enhancement. On the whole, results highlighted the importance of a company to understand where the members of online brand communities are headed and then pursue the direction that would strengthen the community more.
Introduction
Nowadays, competition in the global market is guiding companies to search for new strategies to improve business. The Internet boom culminated in the shift from real business places (companies, shops, etc.) to virtual locations, creating new forms of competition for those companies that are able to take advantage of this opportunity (Brogi, 2014). Among them, one of the most promising is the online brand community, born from the merger of traditional (physical) brand communities and Web 2.0 technologies (Fernandez, 2010). One of the first brand community to be investigated as a new business managerial strategy was Harley-Davidson’s Harley Owners Group (HOG) (Schouten & McAlexander, 1995). Since that time, diverse marketing approaches have been used to analyze online brand communities. For instance, car brand as Audi and Volkswagen Golf innovated their online brand community for the development of new products (Fuller, Bartl, Ernst, & Muhlbacher, 2006; Fuller, Matzler, & Hoppe, 2008). Over the past decade, the rise of social networking sites (SNS) (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram) has provided a great opportunity for company to cultivate their relationships with customers. In particular, SNS became a common communication tool for companies because of the advantages of synchronous interaction and connectivity with others and without geographical barriers (Kaur, Dhir, & Rajala, 2016). According to Statista (2015), as the number of social media active users per month is estimated to reach 3.02 billion by 2021, significant growth of brand communities on SNS will be expected.
By definition, an online brand community is a specialized, non-geographically bound community, based on a structured set of social relations among admirers of a brand (Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001). An online brand community (OBC) is a brand community that takes place in a virtual setting in which the members’ interaction is primarily internet-mediated (F ̈uller, Jawecki, & M ̈uhlbacher, 2007). In general, consumers participating in an OBC share their interest in a particular brand, sharing information and knowledge or simply expressing their enthusiasm, and these social interactions affect customers’ relationships with the brand (McAlexander, Schouten, & Koenig, 2002). As such, an OBC differs from traditional communities because of their commercial nature and members’ shared interest, admiration, respect, and affection for a brand (Albert, Merunka, & Valette-Florence, 2008).
OBCs are becoming a more and more effective arena for influencing the customer’s purchasing behavior (Adjei, Noble, & Noble, 2010) and for increasing the ability of a firm to understand their customers’ decisions through monitoring the information exchanged (Williams & Cothrel, 2000; Kozinets, 2007). Cova and Pace (2006) also considered an OBC as a tool for consumer empowerment. Customer empowerment means that a company lets its customers take over aspects of the brand that have traditionally been pre-determined by marketers. Similarly, Schau, Muniz & Arnould (2009)
encourage companies to take action to build Online Brand Communities and to enhance collaborative creation of value together with the consumers. Thus, in order to improve their business, learning more about online brand communities caught researchers and marketers’ interest, since these communities are perceived to bring many benefits to firms (Laroche, Habibi, Richard & Sankaranarayanan 2012). Previous researchers investigated the impacts of online brand communities on brand trust and brand loyalty (Laroche et al., 2012; Laroche, Habibi, & Richard, 2013), and on consumers’ purchase attitude and decision (Algesheimer, Dholakia, & Herrmann, 2005; Wang, Yu, & Wei, 2012).
Since social media have global reach potential (Okazaki & Taylor, 2013), people around the world can access the online communities within it. For companies operating globally, it is important to understand how diverse cultures affect people’s decisions participating in online brand communities and, in particular, how these impacts help them to operate successfully in global markets. As a broad concept, culture consists of cumulative societal values, beliefs, and norms (Hofstede, 1980). Culture is based on a shared meaning of a particular society, and over time the members learn this shared meaning (Hoecklin, 1995). Hofstede (1983, p. 21) defines culture as “the collective programming of the human mind that distinguishes the members of one human group from those of another”. Luna and Gupta (2001, p. 45) observed that similar marketing in diverse cultures may have different reaction for consumer, they also noted that a coherent view of cross-cultural consumer behavior research resulted difficult to come up with, since “existing models of the impact of culture on consumer behavior do not provide a context within which literature can be adequately incorporated”. Therefore, for this reason, it would be interesting to have a cross-cultural comparison of consumers in online brand communities, considering the fact that researchers recognized the importance of cultural factors in affecting consumers' online behavior (Chu & Choi, 2011; Tsai & Men, 2014). Heeding the gap in the research for cross-cultural comparative insights in relation to online brand communities, the current thesis fills the void by making a comparison between two culturally different countries – China and Italy. Specifically, Hofstede’s theory (1980) on cultural dimensions has been the most widely used framework for comparative studies between cultures (Chu & Choi, 2011; Huh, DeLorme, & Reid, 2012; Huh, DeLorme, Reid, & Kim, 2013). Among Hofstede’s five cultural dimensions (individualism vs. collectivism, low vs. high distance from power, masculinity vs. femininity, avoidance of uncertainty, and long-term orientation), collectivism and individualism are particularly pertinent to this research since a number of cognitive-behavioral dimensions correlate with individualism and collectivism; these two dimensions have been widely regarded as one key dimension for understanding cross-cultural attitude and behavioral differences (Azevedo, Drost, & Mullen, 2002). Moreover, individualism and collectivism are often applied to the creation of cross-cultural models where there are a comparison between Asian and Western countries (Straughan &
Albers-Miller, 2001). As such, the differences between an Asian country (China) and a Western country (Italy) in collectivism and individualism, render those two countries optimal for cross-cultural comparison.
Hence, the present thesis aims to analyze the variances of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions collectivism and individualism within online brand communities by answering the following research question:
How do collectivism and individualism affect people’s motives to participate in online brand communities?
In the following, the theoretical background will be outlined. Then, the discussion will be followed by the research method, the results of the study, and finally, the discussion of the results with some limitations of the study and considerations regarding further research.
Theoretical Framework
In this section, the previous researches on online brand communities, and the conceptual framework of the study will be presented. First, the key concept regarding the subject will be laid out; second, the literature regarding the online brand communities and cultural variation will be discussed. Then, the theoretical framework will conclude by proposing hypotheses in order to answer the research question.
Community
Before concentrating on the concept of online brand communities, it is important to understand the concept of community. Brand community researchers (e.g., Muniz & O’Guinn 2001, Meister 2012) refer to Ferdinand Tönnies’s work, Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft, from 1887 as one of the earliest definitions of the concept of community. According to Tönnies, ‘Gemeinschaft’ is a small-scale community based on kinship and a neighborhood of primitive and agrarian societies.
Then, Bell and Newby (1975) established the notion of a community as a social interaction based on geographic area, self-sufficiency, life and procession of common goals, norms, and means. Forward through time, McMillan and Chavis (1986) introduced four different main elements that constitute the “sense of community”: fulfillment of needs, membership, influence, and shared emotional connection. 1) Fulfillment of needs indicates as motivation reinforcement for the community; 2)
membership determines the sense of belonging with the group; 3) influence is when members in a community can influence each other; 4) shared emotional connection is the element when members have interactions, they share the emotions.
Online Community
Since the introduction of the internet in the early 1990s, many of the traditional elements of a community defined by McMillan and Chavis (1986), have formed online. All four elements can be seen in how people interact with others who live around the world though using social networks, in how they interact with others who live around the world, and are able to receive information almost instantly (Armstrong & Hagel, 2000). Williams and Cothrel (2000) defined online communities as groups of people who engage in many interactions online and form wherever people with common interests are able to interact. In online communities, people create social networks, which are unrestricted in time and space and based on similar interests. Those community members start to participate voluntarily, and the satisfaction of their needs is the main driving force of an online community (Andrews, 2002; Butler, 2001).
Online Brand Community
Pertaining to the structural dimensions of Community and Online Community, Muniz and O’Guinn (2001) and Bagozzi and Dholakia (2002) have defined in their studies the general characteristics of online brand communities.
Firstly, in 2001 the general definition of a brand community was introduced by Muniz and O’Guinn (2001). According to the authors, a brand community is a specialized, non-geographically bound community that is based on a defined set of social relationships among brand’s admirers.
Brand communities are specialized because at its center is a branded good or service (Muniz and O’Guinn, 2001). Muniz and O’Guinn (2001) identified three core elements of an online brand community: consciousness of kind, rituals and traditions, and sense of moral responsibility.
Consciousness of kind refers to the connection the community members feel towards each other, is the shared feeling that creates a fundamental connection between members. The second feature, Rituals and traditions refers to the community’s shared history and culture, the brand community members celebrate the history of the brand, as it keeps the community strong and strengthens its culture. The third element of brand communities that Muniz and O’Guinn (2001) list is the Sense of
moral responsibility that refers to obligations that brand community members feel to other members as individuals and as a group.
Then Bagozzi and Dholakia (2002) outlined in their research five dimensions that an online brand community should provide: 1) The community should be organized around an interest that may refer to a particular product or a specific topic. 2) Members must feel a sense of connection between themselves. 3) Online communities may follow distinctive norms of interaction, contain rituals. 4) It is the members who generate the content through active participation in the form of sharing content or discussion. 5) The members have freedom of expression, this mainly because virtual communities are relying on textual communication (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2002, p. 5).
According to all these brand characteristics defined by the researchers, relationship between brand community members and the brand is considered as the center of the community, and community members feel a stronger connection with other members of the community (Wiegandt, 2009).
Successful dimensions of OBCs
OBCs have numerous features related to the general interaction between their members. Corporate executives should recognize them as they are able to reach a desirable outcome by leveraging the opportunities involved (Brogi, 2014). Several key factors fundamental to the success of OBCs have been identified in the literature. The first is the level of participation and interaction of members in the community (Casaló, Flavian, & Guinalíu, 2010). The second is the sense of belonging, the extent to which a consumer feels himself as a part of the community, acknowledging similarities to other members of the community (Algesheimer, Dholakia & Herrmann, 2005; Casaló et al., 2010). The third is the level of quality of relationships within the community, and it is expressed in terms of satisfaction and perceived enjoyment, which is an aggregate measure of participation made by a consumer and therefore benefits received (Adjei, Noble & Noble, 2010; Casaló et al. , 2010). Participation. Sociability and usability of the website have been linked to the success of communities (Preece, 2001). Woisetschläger, Hartleb, and Blut (2008) argued that participation and sense of belonging contribute to the long term success of online brand communities (OBCs).
Casaló et al. (2010) supported this view outlining in their studies how the interactive nature and ongoing participation of OBCs are fundamental for the success of OBCs. Also, Koh and Kim (2004) in their research highlighted the importance of participation in communities.
In a similar vein to Koh and Kim’s (2004) research, Royo-Vela and Casamassima (2011) found out that active participation generates higher levels of affective community participation than no- participatory community members. According to Casaló et al. (2010), a higher level of participation
in OBCs affects positively on committed members’ feeling towards the because of the level of trust they build and earn from other community members. The more posts members contribute to online discussions, and the faster they react, the more they and the community as a whole are trusted (Ridings, Gefen & Arinze, 2002; McWilliam, 2000).
In opposition to these studies, Algesheimer et al. (2005) found that active participation in communities leads to normative pressure and the necessity to adhere to its traditions and rituals, which can make member’s identification with the community in a too difficult way. Despite Algesheimer et al.’s (2005) research, there is a general agreement in the literature that the level of participation is a pivotal factor to OBCs success (Casaló et al., 2010; Koh & Kim, 2004; Royo-Vela & Casamassima, 2011; Woisetschläger et al., 2008). The more members have communication with each other in an online environment, the more they display connection with the community (Koh & Kim, 2004), memberships conversations are predominantly about common interests-related topics. Therefore, participation unify more members to the community (Algesheimer et al., 2010; Casaló et al., 2010). Sense of belonging. Zhang, Shabbir, Pitsaphol, & Hassan (2015) observed that in an OBC, in order to make an online brand community successful, both emotional connection and relationships are necessary elements. Member’s attachment to the community refers to as a sense of belonging, feeling of personal identification with the community. This characteristic is associated with OBCs success (Lu, Phang & Yu, 2011). In fact, according to Lu et al. (2011), people in OBCs who believe their membership is important within the community, and can identify with their fellow members, are more likely to participate. Successful OBCs will, therefore, rely more on the nature of their group rather than their members, and providing members with positive features with a strong association with OBCs is fundamental (Lin, 2008).
Li (2011) found out that the sense of belonging can be aligned with consciousness of kind, one of the fundamental characteristics of an online brand community, in relation to the connection each members share within the community. Consumers are not committed to a brand only for its benefits, it also stands for who they are and what they value (Liaw, 2011).
Satisfaction. Hsu and Lu (2011) outlined in their research that OBC members have less tendency to participate when their level of satisfaction is weak, leading one to assume that members choose to participate because they have interest towards the brand, yet stay because they enjoy community involvement (Amine & Sitz, 2004). If members of an OBC are satisfied with their participation in an online community and recognize themselves with other members, they develop a strong sense of community belonging (Lin, 2008).
Also, members' satisfaction depends on 1) the influence of information quality and 2) the system quality within the OBC. Members in an online environment perceive the quality of information as
the degree to which the given information adheres to their expectations and satisfies their criteria of the specific activity in which they are involved (Eppler, 2006).
Online brand communities that provide rich information support customers obtain individual benefits (Gorla, Somers & Wong, 2010). Therefore, customers are largely expected to engage in such communities.
System efficiency reflects user expectations of ease of use, navigation, user-friendliness (Barreda, Bilgihan, Nusair & Okumus, 2015). The quality of a system gives to its users the first impression of reacting favorably to the noticeable elements of the brand and provides customer satisfaction (Shin, Chung, Oh & Lee, 2013; Barreda et al., 2015). As a result, members that perceive a system to be of high quality, enjoy more being involved with the community.
As the current thesis aimed to analyze the motives of participation in online brand communities, the researcher will only concentrate on the dimension of participation. This choice leads to the fact that according to literature, participation in online brand community results an important factor for the development and sustainability of communities (Casaló, Flavián & Guinalíu, 2007). In this sense, it is through participation that the community maintains and develops itself since it promotes members' interaction increasing the exchange of information and experiences among members (Casaló, Flavián & Guinalíu, 2007).
Motives for Participation in OBC
There are many publications focusing on online brand communities that research the motives that bring individuals participating in online brand communities. In particular, four crucial motives for participation in online brand communities have been identified in the literature: interpersonal connection, purposive value, self-discovery, and social enhancement (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 2002; De Valck, 2005; Dholakia, Bagozzi, & Klein Pearo, 2004; Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner, Walsh, & Gremler, 2004).
Interpersonal Connection. Maintaining interpersonal connection refers to the social benefits of establishing and maintaining interaction with others. Dholakia et al. (2004) argue that maintaining interpersonal connection offers social benefits that encourage participation. Interacting with others is one of the main reasons that bring users to participate in online brand communities (Brodie, Ilic, Juric, & Hollebeek, 2013). Interpersonal connection, in the form of discussion, happens through people posting messages, participating in contests organized by the brand community, responding to other members’ queries, and sharing information about the brand and their consumption experiences with other members. studies have shown that many members join the community, mainly with a view
to alleviate their isolation, to meet like-minded people, receive support, and companionship (Wellman & Gulia, 1999).
Purposive Value. Purposive value refers to a predetermined instrumental purpose, like giving or receiving information. Consumers fulfill information needs that they could not find without participating in an online brand community. Through posting questions and reading other members’ posts, consumers will be able to learn information about the brand. Members can also share their information with other members that are contributing to the exchange of information. Flanagin and Metzger (2001) demonstrated in their study that individuals are often looking for media in a purposive driven fashion to fulfill a set of motivations. Giving information is posting messages in order to response to requests for information from other members or posting messages to inform the community members. Members also provide information, clarify some topics to other members in order to respond to their needs. Conversely, receiving information refers to members searching information on online brand community page, reading other members’ posts, or posting messages to other members to receive specific information from other members (Dholakia et al., 2004).
Self-discovery. Self-discovery involves understanding and deepening salient aspects of one’s self through social interactions. These interactions can help one to shape, determine, and elaborate on one’s own preferences and values. People are always attempting to create positive impressions in others’ eyes (Leary & Kowalski, 1990). Self-discovery is the awareness of the self, the tendency to think about the self from an in-group perspective. As such, self-discovery plays a pivotal role in participation in online brand communities because it may influence members' interactions and motivations though the practice for a member to discover his/her own interests, behaviors, and perceptions within the community (Zhang, Fang, Wei & Chen, 2010). One aspect of self-discovery is communication with others in order to obtain access to social resources and promote the fulfillment of one’s potential goals (McKenna & Bargh, 1999).
Social Enhancement. Social enhancement is the value the members gaining from the recognition and appreciation of the other members (Baumeister, 1998). Motivations that give value to the participants are social status and improvement on a social level, as participants gain acceptance from the community members. Individuals participate in online brand communities because they display the feeling of belonging to the community and to the ideas shared with its members. Social enhancement may involve other members who recognize the names of members or may involve members who obtain self-recognition through their posts and involvement in the community activities (Blanchard & Markus 2004).
Cultural Dimensions
The aspects of individualism versus collectivism among Hofstede’s five cultural dimensions (individualism vs. collectivism, low vs. high distance from power, masculinity vs. femininity, avoidance of uncertainty, and long-term orientation) have additional importance within the current research because it claims to analyze the cultural differences in the motives for participation in online brand communities (OBCs), by comparing a collectivistic country (China) and an individualistic country (Italy).
Individualism. Individualism is the degree to which members are integrated into groups within a society. In individualistic cultures, people are supposed to considering only themselves and their immediate family only instead of other social members. Individualistic people give more importance to their personal goals, and they make decisions more autonomously (Hofstede, 1980). They tend to find their sense of value and meaning through self-realization in order to develop to his or her fullest (Triandis, Leung, Villareal & Clack, 1985). Individualism is correlated to self-reliance and strives towards satisfying individual needs and interests (Ho & Chiu, 1994).
Collectivism. The opposite of Individualism is Collectivism. In collectivistic cultures, people seek cooperation, pursue harmonious relationships, and prefer to stay friendly with others (Hui,1988). People in collectivistic cultures are concerned with a relationship (Ohbuchi, Fukushima, and Tedeschi, 1999). People in collectivistic cultures desire to adapt to group norms rather than being different, and there is powerful reciprocity among group members, and the self cannot be isolated from the group. Collectivistic cultures behave less favorably towards individuals outside their group, they give less importance to out-group members’ views and have less dependence on them (Sia, Lim, Leung, Lee, Huang & Benbasat, 2009).
Vertical and Horizonal varieties of individualism and collectivism. Triandis (1995) identified on Hoftede’s two dimensions, four types of varieties of individualism and collectivism: Horizontal Individualism, where people want to do “their own thing”, they want to be unique; Vertical Individualism, where people want to be “the best” in everything they do; Horizontal Collectivism, where people unite themselves with their group; and Vertical Collectivism, people are willing to sacrifice themselves for their group.
Cultural Differences in Motives for Participation in OBC
People in collectivistic cultures, tend to be eager and willing to share ideas with their members of their in-group. Members of collectivistic cultures freely contribute to group activities without thinking about if other members will contribute to the group (Hofstede, 1980). They tend to be incorporated into large groups and have interdependent, relationship-defined self-concepts. Conversely, in individualistic cultures, people see themselves as independent and prefer their ideas and ambitions. In fact, when they fear their commitments to collective action are going to be ignored, they increase self-gain by depending on others' activities and focus more on efforts to pursue personal success (Nelson, Brunel, Supphellen & Manchanda, 2006).
Hui and Triandis (1986), found in their research that members in collectivistic culture when they participate in in-group activities, they emphasize harmony, share both good and bad outcomes, they feel they are a part of their in-group. Also, according to Sinha and Verma (1987), in collectivistic culture in in-group activities, members meet the expectations of other group members, they help each other, tolerate each other, and minimize conflict. On the other hand, Triandis (1994) noted that individualistic people when participating in in-group activities they are less willing to confront members of the group, they feel personally responsible for their success and failure, they experience some degree of distance from the other member. Thus, based on these arguments, it can be assumed that in in-group activities such as participation in online brand communities, members of collectivistic cultures display a greater need for interpersonal connection than people in individualistic cultured, which may are less involved in building relationships. Therefore, the following hypothesis is presented:
H1: Members of collectivistic cultures are more likely to have interpersonal connection in online brand communities (OBC) than members of individualistic cultures.
Members of collectivistic cultures could be different from members of individualistic culture in providing knowledge or sharing information (purposive value) with other members when they participate in in-group activities (Walsham 2001). In a collectivistic society, people view themselves as part of a group where all members contribute to the greater good (Hsu, Tien, Lin & Chang, 2015; Moustafa, Van Scotter & Pakdil, 2009). As this dimension will influence the user goal orientation, collectivistic cultures are oriented towards collaborative information sharing/seeking solutions than individuals ones. In fact, collectivistic members prefer to share more information and to seek information from others more than individualistic people (Komlodi & Carlin, 2004).
Because individualistic people perceive individual needs, goals as superior to the needs and goals of the group (Gudykunst, 1997; Hofstede, 1984; Leonard et al., 2009), we tend to assume that individualistic cultures members are less inclined to share information to the other group members when participating in in-group activities. Hence, based on these arguments, the following hypothesis is presented:
H2: Members of collectivistic cultures are more likely to have purposive value in online brand communities (OBCs) than members of individualistic cultures.
In an individualistic society, member discovers the self-value only from the personal attributes of the individual, that reflect the essence of the individual. On the other hand, for members of collectivistic cultures, the self-value is embedded in a social group and can be discovered only in relation to the members of that particular group (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Individualistic members seek to self-discovery through inner search. In contrast, collectivistic members seek to know himself/herself through getting in contact with other members and obtaining the evaluation from them (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Hofstede, 1980; Triandis, 1995). On the base of these arguments, it is expected that members of collectivistic culture will show more interest in discovering themselves. Therefore, the third hypothesis has been illustrated:
H3: Members of collectivistic cultures are more likely to have self-discovery value in online brand communities (OBCs) than members of individualistic cultures.
In an individualistic society, members feel the social enhancement in association with individual achievement derived from the independent self (Gorodnichenko & Roland, 2010). They see in these achievements a confirmation of their personality, and they need to be admired by other members of the group about their personal achievements. In fact, individualistic people are egocentric and self-contained (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). Conversely, the direction towards individual achievement is less strong in a collectivistic culture where conformity occupies an important role in in-group activities, and members are more interested in group achievements rather than obtaining self-achievements (Ho & Chiu, 1994; Hui & Triandis, 1986; Triandis, 1990). Based on the above arguments, the following hypothesis is advanced:
H4: Members of individualistic cultures are more likely to have social enhancement in online brand communities (OBC) than members of collectivistic cultures.
Method
In this section, the description for the methodology part will be outlined. In order to analyze if the motives in online brand communities differ for collectivistic and individualistic countries, an online survey has been created on Qualtrics. The advantages of a survey method such as large sample size results in generalization, ability to distinguish small differences and use of advanced statistical analysis, are deemed to be appropriate for the present study (Shiu, Hair, Bush & Ortinau, 2009).
Sample and Data Collection
In the current research, convenience sampling has been considered. The main reason to choose convenience sampling is due to the time frame, resource availability, and primary data collection feasibility. Due to the quantitative nature of the survey, selected sampling methods, and targeted population, the approximate sample size of N = 200 respondents are considered appropriate as a representation of a broader group of community members and relevant to perform statistical analysis. Participants were asked to fill the informed and request consent before starting to complete the survey. A total of 361 respondents participated in the survey, but only 190 of the 361 respondents completed the questionnaire. After discarding respondents from the dataset as they were under 18 years old (3 participants), and excluded 5 participants that refused to take part in the questionnaire; 11 participants from other countries were not taken into consideration because of the small representative sample. Therefore, analyses were conducted over a final sample N = 171 participants, most of them being from China 37.4% (n = 136) and Italy 9.7% (n = 35).
Responses to standard demographic questions indicated that the majority of the participants (40.6%) were female. The participants were on average 34 years (M = 34.48, SD = 12.23), as the youngest participant is 18 years old and the oldest 71.
Language of the questionnaire
Due to the purpose of the current research, English, Chinese, and Italian have been chosen as languages available for the survey. To allow the reader to identify differences between English, Chinese, and Italian questionnaires, and to build their own impression on them, all the versions of the questionnaires have been provided in the Appendix. Moreover, taking into account the fact that the study is written in English, and all the questionnaires are equal, all the data collected in Chinese and Italian have been combined with data collected in English and presented in our research.
Assessing the Measures
China and Italy. According to Hofstede, Hofstede J., and Minkov., (2010), China is a strongly collectivist culture (score 20 in individualism) in which people act in the group's interests and not necessarily alone. In-group considerations are given preference for promotions of closer in-groups (such as family). While relationships with colleagues are friendly for in-groups, they are cold or perhaps aggressive to out-groups. On the contrary, at a score of 76, Italy is an individualistic culture centered on "me," particularly in the big and rich northern cities where people can feel alone even in the midst of a large and busy crowd. Therefore, family and friends become an essential cure for this feeling. Keeping into consideration the differences in collectivism/individualism of these two countries, we tend to expect variations in the motives for participation in online brand communities (OBCs).
Collectivism and Individualism. Measures for Collectivism and Individualism were obtained from the Cultural Orientation Scale (Triandis & Gelfland, 1998). A 16-item scale designed to measure four dimensions of collectivism and individualism:
1) Vertical Collectivism – to see the self as a part of a collective and to recognize dominance and inequality. Item measuring Vertical Collectivism, for instance, is: “It is important to me that I respect the decisions made by my groups”. Reliability of the scale is good, Cronbach’s alpha = .894. 2) Vertical Individualism – to see the self as independent, but knowing that there will be disparity among individuals and that accepting this inequality. Items measuring Vertical Individualism is: “Winning is everything”. Reliability of the scale is good, Cronbach’s alpha = .864.
3) Horizontal Collectivism – to see the self as part of a collective but consider all the members collective as equal. Example of an item measuring Horizontal Collectivism: “I feel good when I cooperate with others”. Reliability of the scale is good, Cronbach’s alpha = .878.
4) Horizontal Individualism –to see the self as fully autonomous, and believing the ideal is the equality between individuals. Example of an item measuring Horizontal Individualism is:“ I’d rather depend on myself than others”. Reliability of the scale is good, Cronbach’s alpha = .838.
All items are answered on an adapted 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1= Strongly Disagree to 7= Strongly Agree.
Interpersonal Connection. The degree to which community members demonstrate interesting in having conversation about the brand with people similar to themselves. Measures for Interpersonal connection were obtained from Baldus, Voorhees, and Calantone (2015). Items measuring interpersonal connectivity are “I look forward to discussing my opinions about the brand with others who share the same interest as me” or “ I enjoy conversing with people similar to myself in this brand
community.” Reliability of the scale is good, Cronbach’s alpha = .935. All items are answered on an adapted 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1= Strongly Disagree to 7= Strongly Agree.
Purposive Value. The degree to which a community member wants to receive/give their knowledge, experience to/from fellow community members. Measures for Purposive Value were obtained from Baldus, Voorhees, and Calantone (2015). Items measuring Purposive Value are “I like participating in the brand community because I can use my experience to help other people” or “ I like to share my experience and knowledge with others in this brand community to help them be more educated about the brand”. Reliability of the scale is good, Cronbach’s alpha = .972. All items are answered on an adapted 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1= Strongly Disagree to 7= Strongly Agree.
Self-Discovery. The degree to which a community member feels that the community provides them an arena where they can express their feelings, interests and opinions. Measures for Self-Discovery were obtained from Baldus, Voorhees, and Calantone (2015). Items measuring Self-discovery are, for instance, “I feel that I can freely share my interests in the brand community” or “ I would express any opinion or idea I had about this brand in this brand community.” Reliability of the scale is good, Cronbach’s alpha = .940. All items are answered on an adapted 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1= Strongly Disagree to 7= Strongly Agree.
Social Enhancement. The degree to which a community member’s feelings (opinions, ideas, and interests) are considered important by other community members. Measures for Social enhancement were obtained from Baldus, Voorhees, and Calantone (2015). Items measuring social enhancement are “Receiving more affirmation of the value of my comments, makes me want to participate more in the brand community” Or “I feel good about myself when other community members share my ideas”. Reliability of the scale is good, Cronbach’s alpha = .953. All items are answered on an adapted 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1= Strongly Disagree to 7= Strongly Agree.
Results
An independent sample t-test was performed using SPSS to compare collectivism in China and Italy conditions. There was a slight difference in the score for China (M = 5.63, SD = 1.21) and Italy (M = 5.31, SD = 0.65) conditions; Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances has not met the conditions, t(100.81) = 2.14, p = .035. Another independent sample t-test was performed to compare individualism in China and Italy conditions. There was also a difference in the score for China (M = 5.52, SD = 1.21) and Italy (M = 4.64, SD = 0.72) conditions; Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances has met the conditions, t(168) = 4.06, p < .001.
Figure 1. Level of Collectivism and Individualism in China and Italy.
Firstly, from the analysis, it can be seen that there is no difference between China and Italy in terms of collectivism. Secondly, it can be observed that there is also no difference between the two countries in terms of individualism. These results were unexpected as China seems to be both collectivistic and individualistic, while Italy results more collectivistic than individualistic.
According to literature (Hofstede, Hofstede J., & Minkov, 2010), the researcher expected the level of collectivism in Italy to be drastically lower than the level of collectivism in China, and additionally, the level of individualism in China to be lower than the Italian one. Since from the sample results that China cannot be measured as a collectivistic country and Italy an individualistic country, in order to test the hypotheses, some adjustments have been implemented. Firstly, instead of considering the overall level of collectivism and individualism, the researcher has divided the participants into different categories: those displaying low and high levels of collectivism and those with low and high levels of individualism.
Then, the researcher analyzed how these diverse categories affect people’s motives for participation in online brand communities.
To measure these relationships, 8 t-test were conducted.
Interpersonal connection. An independent sample t-test was performed using SPSS to compare interpersonal connection for people with low and individualism. There was a slight difference in the score for low (M = 4.90, SD =1.33) and high (M = 6.00, SD = 0.85) individualism; Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances has not met the conditions, t(180) = -6.60, p < .001. Another independent sample t-test was performed to compare interpersonal connection for people with high and low collectivism. There was also a slight difference in the score for low (M = 4.85, SD = 1.21) and high
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Collectivism Individualism
Collectivism and Individualism
China vs. Italy
(M = 6.03, SD = 0.98) collectivism; Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances has met the conditions, t(180) = -7.20, p = .014. H1 is partly supported.
Purposive value. To test the effects of purposive value for people with high and low individualism, an independent sample t-test was conducted. There was a slight difference in the score for low (M = 5.05, SD = 1.37) and high (M = 5.90, SD = 0.87) individualism; Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances has not met the conditions, t(178) = -4.92, p < .001. Another independent sample t-test was performed to compare purposive value for people with high and low collectivism. There was also a slight difference in the score low (M = 4.92, SD = 1.28) and for high (M = 6.01, SD = 0.88) collectivism; Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances has met the conditions, t(178) = -6.69, p = .009. H2 is partly supported.
Self-discovery. An independent sample t-test was conducted to test the level of self-discovery for people with high and low individualism. There was a slight difference in the score for low (M = 4.83, SD = 1.34) and high (M = 5.92, SD = 0.87) individualism; Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances has not met the conditions, t(174) = -6.37, p = .003. Another independent sample t-test was performed to compare self-discovery value for people with high and low collectivism. There was also a slight difference in the score for low (M = 4.76, SD = 1.27) high (M = 5.97, SD = 0.91) collectivism; Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances has met the conditions, t(174) = -7.26, p = .017. H3 is partly supported.
Social enhancement. To test the effects of social enhancement in people with low and high individualism, an independent sample t-test was performed. There was a slight difference in the score for low (M = 5.08, SD = 1.35) and high (M = 6.01, SD = 0.85) individualism; Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances has not met the conditions, t(171) = -5.41, p < .001 Another independent sample t-test was performed to compare social enhancement value for people with high and low collectivism. There was also a slight difference in the score for low (M = 5.06, SD = 1.33) and high (M = 6.00, SD = 0.90) collectivism; Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances has met the conditions, t(171) = -5.48, p = .002. H4 is not supported.
Figure 2. Motives of participation in online brand communities for people with low/high levels of collectivism and people with low/high levels of individualism.
Discussion
The aim of this study was to investigate how cultural dimensions of collectivism in China and individualism in Italy impact people’s motives differently for participation in online brand communities. Results presented in the segment before demonstrated that overall, the two countries’ cultural dimensions do not reflect the way Hofstede, Hofstede J., & Minkov (2010) theorized. In particular, according to Hofstede, Hofstede J., & Minkov (2010), with a score of 20, China is considered a highly collectivist culture. On the contrary, with a score of 76, Italy is a highly individualistic country. However, from the sample, it resulted that China is collectivistic and individualistic at the same time, while Italy presents a higher level of collectivism than individualism. Firstly, this incongruity could be explained by the fact that Hofstede, Hofstede J., & Minkov’s (2010) research on the collectivism-individualism dimensions for Chinese and Italian national cultures may be outdated. With the rise of globalization, national cultures have experienced some transformations in terms of cultural dimensions. Secondly, it is important to understand that cultural dimensions are based on certain behavioral characteristics. People’s behaviors sometimes do not reflect exactly the way theories expected they should be. Human beings are malleable, they change their behaviors continuously, the manner to do things, or to answer questions. People from different cultures or even
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Interpersonal Connection Purposive Value Self-Discovery Social Enhancement
Collectivism vs Individualism
from the same culture could respond to Likert scales in a diverse way (Heine, Lehman, Peng, & Greenholtz, 2002).
Third, the incongruity could be justified by the fact that the sample size gathered from the researcher is very limited (N = 171) and not equal (Chinese n = 136, Italians n = 35), due to the convenience sample choice for the questionnaire. As a result, the sample size cannot represent the Chinese and Italian populations properly. Hence, for testing the hypotheses, some adjustments have been implemented. Since China does not results collectivistic and Italy seems to not be individualistic, instead of considering the overall level of collectivism and individualism of a country, the researcher has divided the participants into different categories: those displaying low and high levels of collectivism and those with low and high levels of individualism.
The first three hypotheses proposed that interpersonal connection, purposive value, and self-discovery will be stronger for people belonging to collectivistic culture for participation in online brand communities compared to individualistic culture. Conversely, according to the last hypothesis, for members belonging to individualistic culture, the social enhancement motive for participation in online brand communities will be higher if compared to collectivistic culture. Results have shown that people independently belonging to a collectivistic or individualistic culture, their motives for participation in online brand communities are effectively in line with Bagozzi and Dholakia’s (2002) research that explained which are the main reasons that bring people participating in online brand communities. Specifically, results partially supported the first three hypotheses, showing that the more people display a high level of collectivism, the more they participate in online brand communities for interpersonal connection, purposive value, and self-discovery.
In particular, the results of the first hypothesis have been supported by Hui and Triandis (1986) and Sinha and Verma's (1987) theory, which observed that people in collectivistic cultures prefer to participate in group activities and are more inclined to be involved in building relationship. Despite from the analysis resulted that people with high collectivism have more interpersonal connection than people with high individualism (M = 6.03 > M = 6.00), it can be seen that the latter group, also display a strong interpersonal connection. The differences between the two groups are not strong. This unexpected result could be explained by the fact that sometimes people’s choice to have interpersonal connection with others within a virtual environment do not depend on cultural dimensions. It may depend on individuals’ character, for instance, or simply because individuals within the environment of an online brand community, enjoy having interpersonal relations with other members that share the same love and interests towards the brand.
In addition, the second hypothesis confirms the fact that collectivistic members have more preference in sharing information and seeking information from other individuals than people belonging to
individualistic culture, as Komlodi and Carlin's (2004) theory affirmed. Again in this hypothesis, it resulted from the analysis that, on one hand, people with high collectivism have more purposive value than people with high individualism (M = 6.01 > M = 5.90), on the other hand, high individualistic people also display a strong purposive value. An explanation for this result could be that unlike the work environment, where everyone is in competition with other, where every exchange of information could affect individual’s work position; in an online brand community, every members are united by the fact that they appreciate and like the sharing and gathering information process with and from other members of the community because they simply love to do so, they share the same interests.
Also, results for the third hypothesis support Markus and Kitayama’s (1991) findings according to which people in collectivistic culture discover themselves by contacting and obtaining opinions from other individuals. However, also in this hypothesis, it can be seen that people with high collectivism have more self-discovery than people with high individualism (M = 5.97 > M = 5.92) and that the latter group, also display strong self-discovery value. Self-discovering by contacting other individuals do not depend on the culture a person belongs to. This could be justified by the fact that nowadays, as social media are the most popular channels of communication, and online brand communities are on social networking sites; the spread of these new technology has attenuated among the members of online brand communities their differences in terms of individualism and collectivism.
Contrary to expectations, in the last hypothesis, the social enhancement motive was not stronger for people with high individualism compared to those with high collectivism. As such, this last hypothesis has been rejected and could not be supported by Hui and Chiu's (1994) study, which observed that collectivistic people are less inclined towards individual achievements in order to confirm their social enhancement. Moreover, an interesting result could be outlined from the analysis: the differences between the two groups (high individualism vs. high collectivism) for social enhancement do not present huge differences (M = 6.01, M = 6.00). An explanation for this unexpected result could be clarified by the fact that social enhancement does not depend on cultural dimensions, but it could be influenced by other factors such as the individual’s character. Individuals, independently from which cultures they belong to, in social media environments, through posting messages, liking posts, participating in the community events, by obtaining responses from other members, they feel accomplished that their participation in the community has value and has recognition from other members.
Practical Implications
The current study stressed the importance for brand managers of considering cultural differences when creating a brand community online. Results highlighted that for online brand communities both for collectivistic and individualistic cultures, company should create more opportunity for social interaction in online websites. In this way, the brand can induce members visit the community constantly and create a higher level of participation. As a suggestion, managers operating in global markets, should engage in instituting mechanism that provide more information to the community members.
Scientifically, the study has shown that Hofstede’s (1980) cultural dimensions of collectivism and individualism may not have much influence on people’s motives for participation in online brand communities. However, findings did show that people in both collectivistic and individualistic cultures display strong levels of all the four motives for participation in online brand communities.
Limitation and Future Research Directions
The present study has some limitations. The first limitation must be the sample size. Due to the convenience sample choice, the sample size gathered was not equally distributed and cannot consistently represent the population of the two countries taken into consideration for this research. This affected the main consideration of the cultural aspect of a country, creating an incongruence between what Hofstede, Hofstede J., & Minkov (2010) affirmed in their study and what emerged from the results. Moreover, Hofstede, Hofstede J., & Minkov’s (2010) research on national cultures dates back to over 10 years ago. The world has changed under the spread of globalization during this last 10 years.
Secondly, the study analyzed the motives for participation in online brand communities in a broad way, without specifying for which sectors these motives could be applicable.
This study also suggests diverse directions for future research. In further research, it would be interesting to see an analysis of which purposes an online brand community of a specific sector is used for by its members.
Finally, a content analysis should be an interesting proposal for analyzing the arguments discussed by the members in an online brand community and investigating how these topics could bring positive value to the company.
References
Adjei, M., Noble, S., & Noble, C. (2010). The Influence of C2C Communications in Online Brand Communities on Customer Purchase Behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 38(5), 634-653.
Albert, N., Merunka, D., & Valette-Florence, P. (2008). When Consumers Love Their Brands: Exploring the Concept and its Dimensions. Journal of Business Research, 61(10), 1062–1075. Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U. M., & Herrmann, A. (2005). The Social Influence of Brand
Community: Evidence from European Car Clubs. Journal of Marketing, 69 (4), 19–34.
Amine, A., & Sitz, L. (2004). How Does a Virtual Brand Community Emerge? Some Implications for Marketing Research.
Andrews, D. C. (2002). Audience-Specific Online Community Design. Communications of the ACM, 45(4), 64-68.
Armstrong, A., & Hagel III., J. (2000). The Real Value of Online Communities. In E. L. Lesser, M. A. Fontaine, and J. A. Slusher, Knowledge and Communities. (pp.85-98).
Azevedo, A., Drost, E. and Mullen, M. (2002), "Individualism and collectivism: toward a strategy for testing measurement equivalence across culturally diverse groups", Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 9 (1), pp. 19-29.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. M. (2002). Intentional Social Action in Virtual Communities. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16(2), 2-21.
Baldus, B. J., Voorhees, C. & Calantone, C. (2015). Online Brand Community Engagement: Scale Development and Validation.
Barreda, A. A., Bilgihan, A., Nusair, K., & Okumus, F. (2015). Generating Brand Awareness in Online Social Networks. Comput. Hum. Behav. 50 (1), 600–609.
Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The self. In D. T. Gilbert, S. R. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology, pp. 680-740.
Bell, C., Newby, H. (1975). Sociology of Community. Routledge https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203043110.
Blanchard, A. L., Markus, M. L. (2004). The Experiences ‘Sense’ of Virtual Community: Characteristics and Processes. ACM SIGMIS Database 35(1), 64-79.
Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). "Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: An exploratory analysis," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, 66(1), 105-114. Brogi, S. (2014). Online Brand Communities: A Literature Review. (2014). Procedia – Social and
Butler, B. S. (2001). Membership Size, Communication Activity, and Sustainability: a Resource-based Model of Online Social Structures. Information Systems Research, 12(4), 346-362. Casaló, , L. V., Flavián, C., & Guinalíu, M. (2007). The impact of participation in virtual brand
communities on consumer trust and loyalty: The case of free software. Online Information Review, 31(6), 775-792.
Casaló, L. V., Flavián, C., & Guinalíu, M. (2010). Relationship Quality, Community Promotion and Brand Loyalty in Virtual Communities: Evidence from Free Software Communities. International Journal of Information Management, 30, 357–367.
Chu, S. C. & Choi, S. M. (2011). Electronic Word-of-Mouth in Social Networking Sites: A Cross Cultural Study of the United States and China.” Journal of Global Marketing 24(3): 263-281. Cova, B., & Pace, S. (2006). Brand Community of Convenience Products: New Forms of Customer
Empowerment – The case “my Nutella The Community”. European Journal of Marketing, 40(9/10).
De Valck, K. (2005). Virtual Communities of Consumption: Networks of Consumer Knowledge and Companionship (No. 50).
Dholakia, U. M., Bagozzi, R. P. & Pearo, L. (2004). A Social Influence Model of Consumer Participation in Network- and Small-Group-Based Virtual Communities. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3).
Eppler, M. J. (2006). Managing Information Quality: Increasing the Value of Information in Knowledge-Intensive Products and Processes. Springer Science & Business Media.
Fernandez A. (2010). Etnografia di una Comunità di Marca Online. Professional Dreamers-working paper no.3.
Flanagin, A. J., & Metzger, M. J. (2001). Internet Use in the Contemporary Media Environment. Human Communication Research, 27(1), 153-181.
Fuller, J., Barti, M., Ernst, H., & Muhlbacher, H. (2006). Community Based Innovation: How to Integrate Members of Virtual Communities into New Product Development. Electronic Commerce Research, 6 (1), 57-73.
Fuller, J., Jawecki, G., & Muhlbacher, H. (2007). Innovation Creation by Online Basket-ball Communities. Journal of Business Research, 60 (1), 60–71.
Füller, J., Matzler, K., & Hoppe, M. (2008). Brand community members as a source of innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(6), 608-619.
Gorla, N., Somers, T.M., Wong, B. (2010). Organizational Impact of System Quality, Information Quality, and Service Quality. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 19(3), 207– 228.
Gorodnichenko, Y., Roland, G. (2010). Which Dimensions of Culture Matter for Long-Run Growth? American Economic Review, 101(3), 492-98.
Gudykunst, W. B. (1997). Cultural Variability in Communication. Communication Research (24), 327-348.
Heine, S. J., Lehman, D. R., Peng, K., & Greenholtz, J. (2002). What's wrong with cross-cultural comparisons of subjective Likert scales?: The reference-group effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 903–918.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G., & 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, 18(1), 38-52.
Ho, D. Y. F. & Chiu, C. Y. (1994). Component Ideas of Individualism, Collectivism, and Social Organization: An Application in the Study of Chinese Culture.
Hoecklin, L. A. (1995). Managing Cultural Differences: Strategies for Competitive Advantage. Addison Wesley Longman.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Hofstede, G. (1983). The Cultural Relativity of Organizational Practices and Theories. Journal of
International Business Studies, 14(2), 75-89.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M., (2010). Cultures and Organizations, Software of the Mind, Third edition: Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival. New York; London: McGraw-Hill.
Hsu, M. H., Tien, S. W., Lin, H. C., & Chang, C. M. (2015). Understanding the Roles of Cultural Differences and Socio-economic Status in Social Media Continuance Intention. Information Technology & People 28(1).
Huh, J., Delorme, D. E., & Reid, L. N. (2012). Sceptiscism towards DTC Advertising: A Comparative Study of Korean and Caucasian Americans. International Journal of Advertising, 31(1), 147-168.
Huh, J., DeLorme, D. E., Reid, L. N., & Kim, J. (2013). Korean Americans' Prescription Drug Information Seeking and Evaluation and Use of Different Information Sources. Journal of Health Communication, 18(5), 498–526.
Hui, C. H., & Triandis, H. C. (1986). Individualism-Collectivism: A Study of Cross-cultural Researchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 17(2), 225–248.
Hui, C. H. (1988). Measurement of Individualism-Collectivism. Journal of Research in Personality 22(1), 17-36.
Kaur, P., Dhir, A., & Rajala, R. (2016). Assessing flow experience in social networking site based brand communities. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 217-225.
Koh, J. & Kim, D. (2004). Knowledge Sharing in Virtual Communities: an E-business Perspective. Expert Systems with Application (26), pp. 155-66.
Komlodi, A., & Carlin, M. (2004). Identify Cultural Variables in Information-Seeking. AMCIS 2004 Proceedings, 68.
Kozinets, R. V. (2007). Brandthroposophy—on Marketing, Media, and Technoculture.
Laroche, M., Habibi, M. R., Richard, M. O. & Sankaranarayanan, R. (2012). The Effects of Social Media Based Brand Communities on Brand Community Markers, Value Creation Practices, Brand Trust and Brand Loyalty. Computers in Human Behavior 28(5).
Laroche, M., Habibi, M. R., & Richard, M. O. (2013). To Be or Not to Be in Social Media: How Brand Loyalty is Affected by Social Media? International Journal of Information Management 33(2013) 76–82.
Luna, D., & Gupta, S.F. (2001). An Investigative Framework for Cross-Cultural Consumer Behavior. International Marketing Review 18 (1):45-69.
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R.M. (1990). Impression management: a literature review and two-component model Psychol. Bull., 107 (1), 34-47.
Lin, H. F. (2008). Antecedents of virtual community satisfaction and loyalty: An empirical test of competing theories. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(2): 138-144.
Liaw, G. (2011) A study on the influence of consumer’s participation in a bran community on purchase intension. J Int Manage Studies 6(1).
Lu, X. H., Yu, J., & Phang, C. W. (2011). Encouraging participation in virtual communities through usability and sociability development: An empirical investigation. ACM SIGMIS Database 42(3), 96-114.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.
McAlexander, J. H., Schouten, J. W., & Koenig, H. F. (2002). Building brand community. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 38–54.
McKenna, K. Y. A., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). Causes and consequences of social interaction on the internet: A conceptual framework. Media Psychology, (1), 249-269.
McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. (1986). Sense of Community: A Definition and Theory. Journal of Community Psychology 14(1), 6-23.
Meister, S. (2012). Brand Communities for Fast Moving Consumer Goods: An Empirical Study of Members ‘Behavior and the Economic Relevance for the Marketer. Springer Science & Business Media.
Moustafa, L. K., Van Scotter, J. R., & Pakdil, F. (2009). Culture and communication: Cultural variations and media effectiveness. Administration & Society, 41(7), 850–877.
Muniz, A. M., & O'Guinn, T. C. (2001). Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research, 27 (4), 412–432.
Nelson, M. R., Brunel, F. F., Supphellen, M., & Manchanda, R. V. (2006). Effects of Culture, Gender, and Moral Obligations on Responses to Charity Advertising Across Masculine and Feminine Cultures. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16(1), 45–56.
Ohbuchi, K.-I., Fukushima, O., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1999). Cultural values in conflict management: Goal orientation, goal attainment, and tactical decision. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(1), 51–71.
Okazaki, S., & Taylor, C. R. (2013). Social media and international advertising: Theoretical challenges and future directions. International Marketing Review 30(1).
Preece, J. (2001). Sociability and usability in online communities: determining and measuring success. Behaviour & Information Technology, 20(5), 347-356.
Royo-Vela, M., & Casamassima, P. (2011). The influence of belonging virtual brand communities on consumers’ affective commitment, satisfaction and word-of-mouth advertising the ZARA case. Online Information Review 35(4).
Schau, H. J, Muniz, A. M. & Arnould, E. J. (2009). How Brand Community Practices Create Value. Journal of Marketing 73(5).
Schouten, J. W., & McAlexander, J. H. (1995). Subcultures of consumption: An ethnography of the new bikers. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(1), 43–61.
Shin, J. I., Chung, K. H., Oh, J. S., Lee, C.W. (2013). The effect of site quality on repurchase intention in internet shopping through mediating variables: the case of university students in South Korea. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 33(3), 453–463.
Shiu, E., Hair, J., Bush, R., & Ortinau, D. (2009). Marketing Research.
Sia, C. L., Lim, K. H., Leun. K., Lee, M. K. O., Huang, W. W. & Benbasat, I. (2009). Web
strategies to promote internet shopping: is cultural-customization needed. Mis Quarterly, 491-512.
Sinha, J. B. P., & Verma, J. (1987). Structure of collectivism. Growth and progress in cross-cultural psychology (p. 123–129).
Statista, “Most popular types of online brand interactions according to global internet users as of 3rd quarter 2014”, 2015, Retrieved from http://www.statista.com/statistics/376078/online-brand- interactions/.
Straughan, R. and Albers‐Miller, N. (2001), "An international investigation of cultural and demographic effects on domestic retail loyalty", International Marketing Review, 18( 5), pp. 521-541.
Thurau, T. H., Gwinner, K. P., Walsh, G. & 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 18(1), 38-52.
Triandis, H. C., Leung, K., Villareal, M., & Clack, F. L. (1985). Allocentric vs. idiocentric tendencies: Convergent and discriminant validation. Journal of Research in Personality, (19), 395-415.
