The Consumer’s Motivation to Participate
in a Brand Community
Corien van den Brandeler 10544909
First supervisor: Drs. Ing. A.C.J. Meulemans
Second supervisor: Prof. Dr. J.H.J.P. Tettero
This thesis contributes to more knowledge about the underlying
psychological processes of the consumer’s participation in a
brand community. An improved knowledge of these processes
may lead to a more practical and effective approach on how to
use and/or change the community activities of a brand.
Verklaring eigen werk
Hierbij verklaar ik, Corien van den Brandeler, dat ik deze scriptie zelf geschreven heb en dat ik de volledige verantwoordelijkheid op me neem voor de inhoud ervan. Ik bevestig dat de tekst en het werk dat in deze scriptie gepresenteerd wordt origineel is en dat ik geen gebruik heb gemaakt van andere bronnen dan die welke in de tekst en in de referenties worden genoemd.
De Faculteit Economie en Bedrijfskunde is alleen verantwoordelijk voor de begeleiding tot het inleveren van de scriptie, niet voor de inhoud.
Statement of ownership
Hereby I declare that I, Corien van den Brandeler, have written this thesis and that I am fully responsible for the content of this thesis.
I acknowledge that the text and work that is presented is original and I did not make use of other sources than those that are named in the references.
The Faculty of Economic and Business is only responsible for the support and not for the content.
Index
A Abstract ... 3
1 Introduction ... 4
2 Literature Review ... 6
2.1 Brands and Psychological Processes ... 6
2.2 Brand Communities ... 9
2.3 Motivation of Participation ... 10
2.3.1 The empirical drive theory ... 10
2.3.2 Theories about needs and affects ... 11
2.3.3 The path-goal theory ... 12
2.3.4 External and internal motivational paths ... 13
2.4 Brand Category ... 14
2.5 Consumer Personality Characteristics ... 15
2.6 The Study ... 16
3 Method ... 18
3.1 Research Design and Conceptual Model ... 18
3.1.1 Conceptual Model ... 18
3.1.2 Hypotheses ... 19
3.1.3 Sample Description ... 21
3.2 Procedure ... 21
3.3 Application of Criteria ... 22
3.3.1 Participants personality variable ... 22
3.3.2 Brand community category variable ... 22
3.3.3 Motivation variable ... 23
4 Analysis and Results ... 24
4.1 Analytical Strategy ... 24
4.1.1 Demographic information ... 24
4.1.2 Personality Characteristics ... 26
4.1.3 Types of Brand Communities ... 28
4.1.4 Motivation to Participate in a Brand Community ... 30
4.2 Results ... 31
4.2.1 Correlations ... 31
4.2.2 Crosstabs and chi2 ... 33
4.2.3 Regression analyses ... 36
4.2.4 Testing the hypotheses 1,2 and 3 ... 38
4.2.5 Testing the hypotheses 4,5,6 and 7 ... 40
5 5 Conclusions ... 46
5.1 Reliability of Measurement ... 46
5.2 Correlations and Relations ... 47
5.3 Hypothesis and Conceptual Model ... 47
6 Discussion ... 50
R References ... 54
Abstract
Currently more and more businesses are making use of brand communities or are interested in the use of brand communities. This is a relatively recent development. However I found gab in the literature on this topic of brand communities. Especially with regard to consumers perception and the underlying psychological constructs of the participants in a brand community. Therefore this study investigates the relationship between motivation of participation in a brand community and the type of brand. And if so, whether personality’s characteristics of a consumer influence this relationship.
The results show that there is a positive relation between the type of brand community and the motivation to participate. Participants in a symbolic brand community showed a significant higher score on motivation. Nevertheless, the results did not prove that the personality characteristics of the participants, function as a moderator of the relationship between the type of brand community and the motivation to participate in a brand community. The implications of these findings will be discussed in the conclusion of this thesis.
1
Introduction
Over the past decades the marketing concept as we know it has shifted from product-centred to customer-centred thinking (Lemon, Rust & Zeithaml, 2004). In business and brands we see this phenomenon reflected in the increase of the organization of community activities. This increase led to a major change in business practices. Since the nineties communities are being perceived from a consumer’s point of view. Moreover, as the Internet grew in scope and scale, so did the opportunities for virtual communities all over the world. This development has led to the success of consumer communities (Zaglia, 2013).
Brand communities are important in business and are therefore very interesting to be studied since they have numerous connections to different equities, for example to brand equity. Furthermore brand communities are increasingly important in the underlying decision making processes of consumers (Rust, Lemon & Zeithaml, 2004).
Nowadays the consumer does not only seek functional benefits, but also has a need for benefits in image, status, personality, lifestyle, success and other factors that are strongly related to him or her (Aziz and Yasin, 2010). That is why in branding and in business relationships the term “engagement” is used more frequently. Consumer engagement is an important tool in strategy and future business performance depends on it (Brodie, Illic, Juric & Hollebeek, 2013). Consumer engagement however, can be viewed as a psychological process as well. For example brand communities are linked to social and individual identity theories (Brodie, Illic, Juric & Hollebeek, 2013). The interest in consumer psychological processes has increased during the shift in the above-mentioned marketing concept. The consumer psychology of brands focuses on our knowledge about the underlying processes in the consumer’s mind and it deals with brand-related topics (Schmitt, 2011). Simultaneously the interest in the underlying psychological process of a consumer’s mind and in brand communities has increased. On the other hand there is little to be found in scientific literature about the influence of consumer personality’s characteristics and their motivation in participating in different kinds of brand communities.
This study aims to investigate whether there is a relationship between the motivation of participating in a brand community and the type of brand community and whether personality characteristics of a consumer influence a relationship.
This study’s objective is to examine and elaborate on the underlying psychological processes of a consumer’s participation in a brand community. The results of this research
the community activities of a brand.
The next chapter is a literature review and clarifies some definitions and relationships. It also contains the research question and the hypothesis. The third chapter explains the methodology used in this research and shows the research design. The results of this analysis will be followed by the conclusions and the ensuing discussion.
2
Literature Review
As we previously mentioned in the introduction there is a growing focus on creating value for the customer (Hoeffler and Keller, 2003). Terms we already used are consumer centred thinking and consumer engagement. Furthermore we wrote that consumer engagement is an important tool in strategy and that it determines future business performance. In the article of Brodie, Illic, Juric and Hollebeek (2013) consumer’s engagement is described as “the cognitive and affective commitment to an active relationship with the brand as personified by the website or other computer-mediated entities designed to communicate brand value”. According to Lemon, Rust and Zeithaml (2004) this description is related to customer equity. Furthermore they say that customer equity stands in fact for the creation of value for a customer. There are three elements that determine customer equity. Value equity is the objective assessment of the utility of a brand. Brand equity is the subjective assessment of a brand, for example image and meaning. And relationship equity is the glue that makes the customer stick to the brand. Relationship equity has a tendency for the consumer to stick to the brand above and beyond the objective and subjective assessments (Lemon, Rust & Zeithaml, 2004). Although studies suggest that today’s consumer is more interested in the subjective assessments, for instance image and meaning, there is literature describing that companies on the contrary are looking for ways to increase relationship equity (Lemon, Rust & Zeithaml, 2004).
2.1 Brands and Psychological Processes
The theories about identity and social identity and their perspective on the consumer-brand relationship have become important in marketing research (Lam, Aherne & Schillewaert, 2011). Not only branding relationships and associations are becoming increasingly important, but communication environments play a role as well. Jevons, Gabbott and Chernatony (2005) wrote that because of the increasing richness of the communication environment, it is becoming more and more important to close the perceptual gap between the brands and customers, especially for managers.
In order to close this perceptual gap, the consumers have to be connected to the brands. Connecting the consumer to a brand is one of the five psychological processes that are involved when understanding brands (Schmitt, 2011). The model of Schmitt (2011) describes these five processes. Each process contains three levels. These levels are: the
object-centred, self-centred and social engagement. Apart from this process we call connecting there are the identifying, experiencing, integrating and signifying processes (Schmitt, 2011).
The process of identifying consists of the search, exposure and collection of information of the brand; of the brand category and other related brands, for example sub-brands. This process mainly concerns categorization, association and inter-brand relations, depending on the level of engagement. The brand categorization has the task to link a brand to a product category. To purchase a brand, a consumer must know the category. When the connection is very clear between the category and the brand, categorization can lead to a direct choice. In this connection, brand-awareness, a memory-based categorization task, plays an important role, in which a consumer recalls a specific brand name when presented with the category (Schmitt, 2011).
Brand associations are the links that a consumer makes in his or her mind to a brand. The activation of these associations is usually automatic (Schmitt, 2011). Inter-brand relations are there to identify the brand on a social level. There are many different forms, for example brand portfolios or co-branding (Schmitt, 2011).
Figure 1: Schmitt’s Consumer psychology model of brands (Schmitt, 2011)
Multi-sensory perception, brand affect and participation are involved in the experience process of a consumer. Furthermore brand affect is the feeling that a brand generates to in a consumer. This feeling can be positive, negative or it can be a mixture of both.
A part from feelings a consumer experiences emotions when they are involved with a brand. Emotions are essential in the process but are also very complicated to deal with. Schmitt (2011) claims that when consumers are engaged with a brand in an object-centred way, the stimuli of a brand will be picked up. As seen above a consumer can be ambivalent and feel both positive and negative about a brand. By participating in and interacting with a brand consumers are becoming socially engaged. Social media play increasingly a role in brand participation. Online crowd sourcing platforms form a place for consumers where they can contribute to new ideas for products and services. It is a place where consumers can feel that they are more involved with the brand (Schmitt, 2011).
Brand information combined with either the overall brand concept; the personality of the brand or the relationship with the brand is what we call the integrating process. In other words, the brand concept is the integrated information associated with a product brand or else a corporate brand. Brand personalities are relatively stable over time but can vary in different consumption settings. Consumers may also interact with brands; they can even have a relationship with a brand (Schmitt, 2011). Aaker (1997, in Keller & Lehmann, 2006) found five main clusters for the attributes of brand personalities. He wrote that the different personality dimensions affected different types of people in different settings of consumption. A brand may act as an informational cue, but it is also a signal or cultural symbol, depending on the engagement of the consumer. Examples of informational cues are the price and quality of a brand.
Brands may even be used to define one’s personality. Self-brand identity is the part of someone’s identity that is defined by brands. So consumers can use brands to express themselves and they can even use brands to understand themselves better.
2.2 Brand Communities
Apart from using a brand in order to determine one’s identity, it can equally be used as a tool to represent a group or a culture (Schmitt, 2011). The example of the use of the Harley Davidson brand by the members of the Hells Angels demonstrates this phenomenon clearly. This type of group or culture as described by Schmitt (2011), can be called a brand community. Although branding communities have become relevant to marketing, a community as such is a topic that has not been paid much attention to in terms of consumer behaviour in the past (Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001). According to the article of Muniz & O’Guinn (2001) sociology literature has revealed three core elements of community. Gusfield (1978, in Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001) describes the most important element as the consciousness of kind. This is the intrinsic feeling of connection of members towards one another, but also the differentiation to non-members. It is very important that members have awareness that they belong to a group or community (Weber, 1922, in Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001). A second element or indicator of a community according to Muniz and O’Guinn (2001) is the presence of shared rituals and traditions. As a third element of community these authors mention the sense of moral responsibility. They wrote that this moral responsibility is the feeling that members have of a duty or obligation. Moreover they argue that this last element plays an important role in collective action when the community is threatened.
Communities can be expressed by way of consumption. In communities that are defined by consumption, subculture is more common than the communities of brands. But brand communities do have an active interpretive function and they differ from subcultures. In subcultures a stand in opposition is used. Subcultures are indifferent to the accepted views of the majority. This is different in brand communities, which embrace the surrounding culture’s ideology (Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001). Brand communities were made to serve the customer and maintain a one-on-one relationship between a brand and the consumer (Laroche, Habibi, Richard & Sankaranarayanan, 2012). According to these authors a brand community represents a structured group of people that admire a brand, that have social relationships among one another and that show some kind of association in terms of consumption concerning the product of the brand. Brands are social by nature, they are social objects and they are socially constructed (Muniz & O’Guinn, 2011).
Two dimensions can be distinguished in the context of brand resonance and the relationship that consumers have with a brand. These dimensions are intensity and activity. Intensity
measures the strength of the attitudinal attachment and the sense of community. Activity deals with the frequency of the consumer buying and using the brand (Keller, 2013 p. 122). Brand communities affect all four components of brand equity. Those components are: perceived quality, brand loyalty, brand awareness and brand associations (Aaker, 1991, in Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001). Brand communities are important to business, because a strong brand community may to lead to an increase of customer loyalty. Muniz and O’Guinn (2001) even argue that a brand with a powerful sense of community has a more significant value for a marketer than a brand with a weak sense of community.
Today communities are not bound to a geographical place. Mass media and especially social media made this possible. The rise of mass media and social media made the concept of a community more than just a place (Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001). This also goes for brand communities. Brand communities are linked to the Internet. Specifically social media play a roll. Their popularity among members as well as among companies has increased with the fast growing use of social media and with innovations (Laroche, Habibi, Richard & Sankaranarayanan, 2012).
2.3 Motivation of Participation
In order to participate in a brand community, motivation is essential. Research pays a great deal of attention to the motivation to participate in a team; participation in sports activities is a well-known example.
2.3.1 The empirical drive theory
One of the many theories about motivation is the empirical drive theory by Hull (1943, in Deci & Ryan, 1985 page 21). According to Hull all behaviour is based on the four primary drives: hunger, thirst, sex and the avoidance of pain.
For example when someone is hungry, they will be stimulated to participate in the process of acquiring and consuming food. So the energy for behaviour stems from these drives. Associative bonds that develop between drive stimuli and behaviours through the process of drive reduction proved to determine the direction for behaviour. In this theory all behaviour was either a direct or derivative function of drive energies.
However none of the four drives of Hull could explain the seemingly spontaneous, curious, exploratory or manipulative behaviours. For this reason the drive theory of Freud
and exploration. When primary needs such as food and sex are satisfied, one will be more likely to seek out stimuli to increase arousal (Deci & Ryan, 1985, page 21). Interesting is the argument of Kagan (1972, in Deci & Ryan, 1985, page 22), that many behaviours are motivated by the human need to reduce uncertainty. He furthermore suggests that uncertainty can be characterized as incongruity between cognitive structures or between a cognitive structure and some incoming stimulus.
2.3.2 Theories about needs and affects
People often behave in a way to reduce uncertainty, however apart from this they have intrinsic motivation that goes far beyond the reduction of uncertainty (Deci & Ryan, 1985, page 23). Berlyne (1963,1966, in Deci & Ryan, 1985, page 25) had a different view on motivation. He argued that people were information-processing systems that use environment information and memory to make decisions. But he could not explain the energy and direction of intrinsically motivated behaviours and processes. Therefore multiple theories arose about needs and affects. White (1959, in Deci & Ryan, 1985, page 27) proposed a need for effect as a basic motivational propensity that energizes a wide range of non-drive-based behaviours. So he argues that there is inherent satisfaction in exercising and extending one’s capabilities. He named the energy behind this activity, effectance motivation. The term competence he used to connote the structures through which effectance motivation operates. Competence refers to someone’s interactions with the environment, someone’s explanation of one’s perception, learning, and adaptation. The need for competence provides the energy for learning, but effectance motivation is more than only learning. The reward for competency-motivated behaviour is the inherent feeling of competence that results from effective functioning, but the motivation is such that the feeling seems to occur only when there is some continual stretching of one’s capacities (White, 1959 in Deci & Ryan, 1985, page 27). Deci (1975, in Deci & Ryan, 1985, page 28) suggested that the need for competence leads people to seek and conquer challenges that are optimal for their capabilities, and that competence acquisition results from interacting with stimuli that are challenging.
2.3.3 The path-goal theory
Another theory about motivation is the path-goal theory, written by Evans (1974). In this theory he points out the differences between the external and internal subjects. Internal subjects who perceive their environment as meaningful and consistent and who feel able to control it are more likely to be rational decision makers in the sense proposed by economists and game theorists. In the goal theory the behaviour is very much related to how success is perceived and how competence is evaluated. Papaionannou and Theodorakis (1996, in Cetinkalp &Turksoy, 2011) wrote that individuals who are more task-orientated have more of relation to intrinsic motivational patterns. This is in contrast with individuals who are more ego-oriented and who have more relation to extrinsic motivational patterns (White & Duda, 1994, in Cetinkalp & Turksoy, 2011). For the participation of teams such as sport teams there is a significant difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivational patterns. Extrinsic motives are very much linked to status and recognition and are a good predictor for participation in sports activities. The intrinsic motivations are more about skill development and enjoyment (Cetinkalp & Turksoy, 2011). The goal orientation and self-efficacy of individuals are taking an important place in this, explaining the motivation of participation in a team. But a brand community is very different from such teams, and has less relation to success and competition than for example a soccer team. However Wells, Ward, Feinberg and Alexander (2008) wrote that people are more motivated to participate in events, and do more, when they believe that they can personally influence events and if their contribution is appreciated. According to these authors leadership styles are having an important impact on the motivation of participation.
What these theories and studies all contain is the importance of recognition and personal influence. This may also be interesting in the context of brand communities.
2.3.4 External and internal motivational paths
The study of Troung and McColl (2011) showed that the two motivational paths i.e. extrinsic and intrinsic are also relevant in the purchasing process of a luxury good. Their results in this context demonstrate that intrinsic motivation and especially self-esteem are strongly related to the consumption of luxury goods. They suggest that an individual can maintain or boost self-esteem, and thereby their intrinsic motivation, by purchasing luxury goods. So intrinsic motivation can be very influence able, and therefore it can be an important tool to get people more motivated in participating in events and in brand communities.
Intrinsic motivation is described by Deci and Ryan (1985, page 11) as the energy source that is central to the active nature of the organism. These authors wrote that internal motivation recognizes that not all behaviours are driven-based, nor that all behaviour is functional of externally controlled. These authors also suggest that intrinsic motivation would be operative when action is experienced as autonomous, and it is unlikely to function under conditions where controls or reinforcements are the experienced cause of action. They also argue that self-determination or freedom from control is necessary for intrinsic motivation to be operative. The need for control refers to the contingency between one’s behaviour and the outcomes one receives. Self-determination refers to the experience of freedom in initiating one’s behaviour. The concept of need for self-determination can be used to explain the fact that people need to feel free from dependence on outcomes over which they have control, and the fact that sometimes they prefer not to control outcome.
The needs for competence and self-determination can keep involving people in seeking and conquering optimal challenges. Challenges require the ability to try something new.
Emotions are an integral part of intrinsic motivation. To measure the individual differences in strength of needs, such as the need for achievement the Thematic Apperception Test can be used (TAT; Murray, 1943 in Tuerlincks, De Boeck & Lens, 2003 & in Hermans, 1970). The TAT measures the individual motives by having the participants describe pictures that they are being shown, because experience teaches that subjects find it easier to project their needs, feelings and experiences. The TAT has been used a great deal for testing motivation of participants in all kinds of researches. The reliability of the scoring system is usually sufficiently high, but the measurement over the years has been viewed as problematic. Moreover the length of the test makes it difficult to use.
Deci and Ryan found another measurement for motivation, The Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI; Deci & Ryan, 1982, in Tsigilis & Theodosiou, 2003). This measurement has frequently been used to measure internal motivation in the context of physical performance but also in various other settings. The reliability of the IMI is high and the theoretical framework of the IMI lies in the Cognitive Evaluation Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, in Tsigilis & Theodosiou, 2003). In this theory the intrinsic motivation stems from the individual needs for competence and autonomy. Studies have shown that perceived competence is positively associated with intrinsic motivation. The IMI assessed intrinsic motivation as an additive function of four factors: interest or enjoyment, perceived competence, effort or importance and pressure or tension. Additionally it is easy to change the items within the IMI, which makes the IMI well suited for relative activity.
2.4 Brand Category
As written in Schmitt (2011), the category of a brand should not be underestimated. As we addressed earlier, categorization has an important task of linking the brand to a product category (Schmitt, 2011). This is important because if a consumer wants to make a decision to purchase a product he or she must know the category. So if the consumer doesn’t know the category, he or she doesn’t understand what the product is about and what it can do for him or her. A brand category can have influence on the consumers’ values and lifestyle. There are many different categories in branding. Brand categories have just like brands themselves also different personalities. The categories on the other hand are susceptible to attack their own type of personality (Batra, Lenk & Wendel, 2010). For instance the tea category is more “feminine ” than the coffee category.
The authors Batra, Lenk and Wendel (2010) were able to separate different kinds of brand categories by using the think-versus-feel dimensions of Ratchford’s (1987, in Batra, Lenk & Wendel, 2010). These two dimensions provide utilitarian, symbolic and emotional or hedonic benefits. A high score on the utilitarian benefits means that the products and brand are very useful, practical and beneficial for the consumer. A high score on the symbolic benefits reveals the consumer and shows self-image (Batra, Lenk & Wendel, 2010). It is worthwhile to address these two benefits separately en distinguish between the categories luxury and non-luxury goods, as Truong and McColl did in their study (2011). Since intrinsic motivation and especially self-esteem influences the purchasing decision of a
category. The utilitarian benefits on the contrary play a less important role in the luxury good category. According to (Keller, 2013, p-114) luxury brands are the best and purest examples of branding. Branding and image are very important in the luxury brand category. They are key to the competitive advantage of luxury brands. The article of Truong & McColl (2011) showed that luxury goods were related to self-esteem, self-image, which is also part of the symbolic think-versus-feel dimensions of Ratchford’s (1987, in Batra, Lenk & Wendel, 2010). With this knowledge we can use the symbolic and utilitarian distinction of the think-versus-feel dimensions measurement. The think-versus-feel dimensions measurement is a frequently used, mostly in the context of purchasing decisions. It therefore has a high reliability.
2.5 Consumer Personality Characteristics
As written earlier, understanding the underlying processes in the behaviour of consumers is important in many respects. This varies for every consumer individually as well. From business perspective it is important to realize that every consumer has his or her own personality. A great deal of scientific literature can be found on personality characteristics. One of the most famous theories is the Big Five personality trait (Laverdière, Morin and St-Hilaire 2013). In the Big Five personality trait, there are five areas indicating someone’s personality characteristics (Germeijs & Verschueren, 2011). Major, Turner and Fletcher (2006), describe the five dimensions or factors of the Big Five. These dimensions or factors include, Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness.
Neuroticism is the tendency to experience negative affects. For example fear, sadness or guilt (Major, Turner & Fletcher, 2006). It has associations with insecurity, and instability of emotions (Clark & Schroth, 2010) Extraversion is the tendency to like people and to prefer being in a group (Major, Turner & Fletcher, 2006). It is characterized by sociability and adventurousness (Clark & Schroth, 2010). The opposite of extravert is called introvert. People, who are extrovert, are for example very active and talkative. Openness is the area that measures the tendency to have an active imagination, ethical sensitivity, intellectual curiosity and attentiveness to feelings. Agreeableness measures how much a person is altruistic, cooperative and trusting (Major, Turner & Fletcher, 2006). And it is linked to honesty, courtesy, and kindness (Clark & Schroth, 2010). The conscientiousness dimension is the tendency to be purposeful, organized, reliable, determined and ambitious (Major, Turner & Fletcher, 2006).
In the past multiple studies have been conducted on the effect of personality characteristics on motivation. This was mostly in the educative or work field. For example the study of Vaiman, Lemmergaard and Azevedo (2011) shows the influence of personality characteristic on motivation in the context of employment arrangement. In this study the Big Five Personality Dimensions was used to measure the Personality Characteristics of consultants.
These studies found that conscientiousness is the only factor that is linked to this type of motivation, learning motivation (Major, Turner & Fletcher, 2006). Major, Turner and Fletcher (2006) also link proactive characteristics to career success and innovation. It captures the willingness and determination to pursue a course of action, characteristics that are central to models of self-development (Antonacopoulou, 2000, in, Major, Turner & Fletcher, 2006). In the literature the link between proactive characteristics and the Big Five has been made. Findings show that proactive characteristics are positively related to conscientiousness, extraversion and openness, and negatively related to neuroticism (Major, Turner & Fletcher, 2006).
2.6 The Study
Research in branding entails many topics. In the past decades more and more attention has been brought to the key psychological factors underlying brand effects. Interesting are the areas in branding that have changed because of the development in technologies and media. The article of Lam, Ahearne and Schillewaert (2011) argues that the shorter product life cycles and innovation speed, pioneer marketers are continually introducing new product features. This makes it more difficult for consumers to compare brands, or build a relationship with a brand.
Brand communities are important in marketing and business. They are a social concept and are connected to both brand equity and relation equity. Over the past decade their influence has grown substantially. In literature little attention is being paid to the relationship between a brand and a consumer when becoming part of a brand community (Schmitt, 2011). There appears to be a gap in literature between the motivational processes of participating in a brand community and the brand category of the brand communities. And even less can be found about the influence of personality characteristics of consumers in this respect. Literature about the influence of personality characteristics on motivation
This thesis has the goal to make a contribution to the literature concerning brand community topic. It aims to acquire more knowledge about the motivation of a consumer’s participation in a brand community and the relationship between this motivation and the type of brand category, Symbolic or Utilitarian.
My research questions are: Is there a relation between the type of motivation (low vs. high and extrinsic vs. intrinsic) of a consumer’s participation in a brand community and the brand category (Symbolic and Utilitarian)? If so do the personality characteristics of members (Big Five) have an influence on this relation?
3
Method
This study investigates if there is a relationship between motivation of participation in a brand community and the type of brand. And if so whether personality’s characteristics of a consumer influence this relationship.
3.1 Research Design and Conceptual Model
The research questions I formulated were: Is there a relation between the type of motivation (low vs. high and extrinsic vs. intrinsic) of a consumer’s participation in a brand community and the brand category (Symbolic and Utilitarian)? If so do the personality characteristics of members (Big Five) have an influence on this relation?
In order to answer these questions I set up a research design with the independent variables are the personality’s characteristics of the participants (Neuroticism vs. Extraversion vs. Openness vs. Agreeableness vs. Continuousness), and the brand community category (Symbolic brand community vs. Utilitarian brand community). The dependent variable in this context is the type of motivation (high extrinsic vs. low extrinsic vs. high intrinsic vs. low intrinsic).
3.1.1 Conceptual Model
Given the research question and the design of the study, the following concept model was constructed.
The conceptual model Figure 2: The Conceptual Model
Motivation to participate in a
brand community
• Intrinsic • Extrinsic
Category Brand community
• Utilitarian • Symbolic
Personality’s Characteristics
• Extraversion (+) • Continuousness (+) • Neuroticism (-‐) • Openness (+)describes three important variables. The first one we call the category brand community. There are two relevant conditions: a symbolic brand community, a utilitarian brand community.
The second variable is motivation to participate in a brand community. This variable describes the drives to participate in a brand community. It provides insight in the drive’s strengths and it separates the two motivational paths for participation of a brand community, extrinsic or intrinsic.
The last variable, the personality’s characteristics of the participant is a moderator. If there is a relationship between the first two variables this moderator is there to see weather personality’s characteristics influence this relationship.
3.1.2 Hypotheses
Research shows that consumers of brands with more symbolic benefits have a higher intrinsic level of motivation in consuming and purchasing the brands products, than consumers of utilitarian brands. Consumers of utilitarian brands have a high extrinsic motivation (Truong & McColl, 2011). Presupposition is therefore that the participants of symbolic brand communities will have a high intrinsic motivation. And the participants of utilitarian brand communities will have a high extrinsic motivation. This information leads to the following hypotheses:
H1: Participants in a brand community have a higher intrinsic motivation to participate in this brand community compared with their extrinsic motivation to participate in this brand community.
H2: Participants who have a high score on symbolic brand community will have a higher intrinsic motivation to participate in this brand community than participants who have a high score on the utilitarian brand community.
H3: Participants who have a high score on the utilitarian brand community will have a higher extrinsic motivation than participants who have a high score on the symbolic brand community.
A second determining factor is that personality’s characteristics play an important role as far as motivation is concerned. Another result of research shows that the trait of conscientiousness (Big Five) is linked to motivation (Major, Turner & Fletcher, 2006). Motivation in its turn is positively related to proactive characteristics such as extraversion and openness. Proactive characteristics result frequently in the tendency to innovate and success. Proactive characteristics are negatively related to neuroticism (Major, Turner & Fletcher, 2006). Unknown is what the influence of the trait agreeableness is on motivation.
The above-mentioned results of these studies suggest that participants with a high score on the conscientiousness, extraversion and openness traits of the Big Five will have a high motivation for participating in a brand community. Moreover the results suggest that participants with a high score on the neuroticism trait of the Big Five will have a low motivation for participating in a brand community.
H4: Participants with high a score on the Extraversion trait of the Big Five will have a higher motivation for participating in a brand community than participants with a low score on the Extraversion trait.
H5: Participants with a high score on the Conscientious trait of the Big Five will have a higher motivation for participating in a brand community than participants who have a low score on the Conscientious trait.
H6: Participants with a high score on the Openness trait of the Big Five will have a higher motivation for participating in a brand community than participants with a low score on the Openness trait.
H7: Participants with a high score on the Neuroticism trait of the Big Five will have a lower motivation for participating in a brand community than the participants with a low score on the Neuroticism trait.
3.1.3 Sample Description
The participants for this study were addressed according to their measure of or lack of participation in a brand community. That is to say either a symbolic brand community or a utilitarian brand community. Their motivation on their participation in the brand community was measured.
The participants could not be addressed randomly as to one of the three conditions in the brand community category variable. The dependent variable was the motivation to participate in a brand community (high extrinsic vs. low extrinsic vs. high intrinsic vs. low intrinsic) and independent variable was the brand community category (symbolic brand community vs. utilitarian brand community). The moderator was an independent variable as well, the personality’s characteristics of the participant (Neuroticism vs. Extraversion vs. Openness vs. Agreeableness vs. Continuousness). An excepted point of view here is that the personality’s characteristics influence the relationship between brand category and the type of motivation to participate in a brand community.
3.2 Procedure
I put together an online survey in order to do this study. My research questions are:
Is there a relation between the type of motivation (low vs. high and extrinsic vs. intrinsic) of a consumer’s participation in a brand community and the brand category (Symbolic and Utilitarian)? If so do the personality characteristics of members (Big Five) have an influence on this relation?
In order to put together this online survey, I used the programme Qualtrics made available by the University of Amsterdam. In the introduction of the survey I explained my motivation to do this study, and I elaborated on the relevance of the research for society in general and in the academic context in particular. Participants were found through social media and by email. Eighty-nine respondents were found fifty-six of whom actually completed the survey. Part of the procedure was the offer to provide the participants with the results. Furthermore the respondents could stop the survey whenever they wanted to. Finally apart from anonymity participants were assured that any information they produced would only be used for this particular research and not for any other purpose.
3.3 Application of Criteria
For this research numerous questionnaires were used to measure the multiple variables.
3.3.1 Participants personality variable
The first questionnaire contained the personality measurement, with the Big Five.
Applied here was the Five Factor Inventory of Costa and McCrae (1992, in Komarraju & Karau, 2004).
The reliability of the Big Five measurement on personality characteristics is very high because it is a frequently applied measurement and previously used on numerous occasions. The Five Factor Inventory of Costa and McCrae contain sixty items that measure the five personality traits. But for this study a shorter version has been used. This shorter version, of thirty items covers nonetheless all five traits. Number of (counter) indicative items was ten, two for each trait. The response format was a 7-point likert scale.
3.3.2 Brand community category variable
As a source for the brand community category, symbolic brand community vs. utilitarian brand community, a measurement has been used with the think-versus-feel dimensions of Ratchford’s (1987, in Batra, Lenk & Wendel, 2010). Based on the distinction between utilitarian and symbolic benefit dimensions, a score on both the dimension was allotted to the brand communities.
The article of Truong & McColl (2011) showed that luxury goods were related to self-esteem, self-image, which is also part of the symbolic dimension of the think-versus-feel dimensions of Ratchford’s (1987, in Batra, Lenk & Wendel, 2010). It is a frequently used measurement mostly in the context of purchasing decisions. It therefore has a high reliability. In this questionnaire contains fifteen items, all with a 5-point likert scale, (strongly agree- strongly disagree).
An example item of the above mentioned is: Please indicate to what extent you disagree or agree with the statements concerning your participation in the brand community: Up-To-date.
3.3.3 Motivation variable
Another questionnaire dealt with measuring the two motivational paths for participation of a brand community, i.e. extrinsic and intrinsic. This questionnaire, the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) was created by Deci and Ryan (1982, in Tsigilis & Theodosiou, 2003). It was frequently used to gauge internal motivation in the context of physical performance but also in various other settings. The reliability of the IMI is high and the theoretical framework of the IMI lies in the Cognitive Evaluation Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, in Tsigilis & Theodosiou, 2003). In this theory the intrinsic motivation stems from the individual needs for competence and autonomy. Studies have shown that perceived competence is positively associated with intrinsic motivation. The IMI has 45 items and assessed intrinsic motivation as an additive function of seven factors: interest/enjoyment, perceived competence, effort/importance and pressure/tension, perceived choice, value/usefulness and relatedness. Number of (counter) indicative items was sixteen. All items had a 7-point Likert scale (1=not at all true, 2= not true, 3= not quite true, 4= neutral, 5= somewhat true, 6= true 7= very true).
Another reason why I chose to use the IMI is the flexibility to rearrange the items, which makes the IMI suitable concerning the respective specific activities.
An example of the above mentioned: “ I believe I will enjoy participation in this brand community”.
4 Analysis and Results
4.1 Analytical Strategy
The data for the analysis of these studies’ results were gathered by putting together an online survey. The survey has been available online offering the Qualtrics programme for the period of 3 months. The participants completed the online survey on a voluntary basis. In order to perform the statistical analysis, the Statistical software package for Social Sciences (SPSS) was used. Since the data were not used previously in some other research all items were if necessary recoded and/or reversed. This study measured the motivation to participate in a brand community, personality characteristics of the participants and the type of brand community (symbolic or utilitarian). This first paragraph explains the analytical strategy realized to explore the data and to prepare them for testing the hypothesis and the conceptual model. The explanatory data were also analysed since they might influence my results. These data were indeed directly related to the hypothesis and the conceptual model. 4.1.1 Demographic information
This first section attempts to analyse data and is meant to be exploratory and is not necessarily directly related to the hypothesis.
For the research 89 participants filled in the online survey made with Qualtrics. In SPSS I first ran a frequency on gender, age and education. All three the variables were on scale base. The data of these three variables were not directly related to the hypothesis and conceptual model.
For gender, number one was “male” and number two was “female”. For the variable age, the first category was “under five years old”. Two was respectively the category “six to ten years old”. Three was the category “eleven to fifteen years old” and so on to category nineteen “90 years or older”. In order to determine education, the first category was “no schooling completed” and the last category was number fourteen a “Doctorate degree”. The frequency on gender showed that this research had 24 male participants, 57 female participants and there were eight participants who did not fill in their gender. The item concerning age showed that there were three participants in the category of “15 to 19 years old”, 45 participants in the category of “20 to 24 years old”, 17 participants in the category of “25 to 29 years old” and finally 11 participants in the category of “30 to 34 years old”.
39 years old” another one fell in the category of “40 to 44 years old”, and again one participant fell in the category of “50 to 54 years old”. There was even one participant in the category of “55 to 59 years old”. A part from this, nine participants did not fill in their age, as illustrated in a boxplot and histogram in the appendix graphics 1 and 2.
Within the variable of education degrees, two participants were categorized in “no degree”. Two participants fell in the category of “HAVO degree*1”, nine participants fell in the category of “VWO degree*2”. Eight participants fell in the category of “HBO degree*3”, 25 participants fell in the category of “Bachelor’s degree” (BSc) and 35
participants fell in the category of “Master’s degree” (MSc), as illustrated in a boxplot and histogram in graphics 3 and 4 of the appendix. For an overview of the statistics and frequencies of gender, age and education I would like to revere to the appendix tables 1 to 6. Before continuing the analysis the data, I decided to delete the nine participants who did not sufficiently complete the survey. All the other missing values ware labelled 99999997. The total number of participants became 80 (self reported age on a scale base M = 5.68, SD= 1.31). With this information we can conclude that the majority of the participants were female (71%) and the average age fell in the category “20 and 30 years old” (SD=1.31). This is in all probability an influential factor concerning the results and it is a result of the fact that respondents were recruited mainly among students and recently graduated young professionals. During the recruiting process of this study the problem of the lengthiness of the survey proved to be a major obstacle (it took a full 30 minutes to complete). For your information a complete survey is added at end of the appendix.
This is also an influential factor regarding the low respondents rate that was a direct result of this problem. Overall the data of age showed a positive skewness (Kurtis = 9,268) and the education showed a normal deviation (Kurtis < 3). See appendix tables 118 and 119.
1 High school high level 2 High school scientific level
4.1.2 Personality Characteristic In this section these data were related to the hypothesis and the conceptual model.
In order to measure the personality characteristics of the respondents I used a well-known and very reliable measurement, the five factor analysis also well-known as the Big Five measurement. I recoded the items into the five different traits: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness.
First some items needed to be reversed; “I’m not known for my generosity”, “ Aesthetic and artistic concerns aren’t very important to me”, “I follow the same route when I go someplace” and “I believe letting students hear controversial speakers can only confuse and mislead them”. The scores of the new value were turned around. Since it was a five-point scale, number 5 in the scale became 1, number 4 in the scale became 2, number 3 in the scale stayed the same, number 4 in the scale became 2 and number 5 in the scale became 1. The variable extraversion was computed as the mean of the items; “I’m known as a warm and friendly person”, “I like to have a lot of people around me”, “I am dominant forceful and assertive”, “I am a very active person”, “I like to be where the action is” and “I laugh easily”.
The variable agreeableness was computed as the mean of the items; “My first reaction is to trust people”, “I couldn’t deceive anyone even if I wanted to”, the recoded version of “I’m not known for my generosity”, “I would rather co-operate with others than compete with them” I try to be humble” and “I have sympathy for others less fortunate than me”.
To compute the variable conscientiousness the mean was taken of the items; “I keep myself informed and usually make intelligent decisions”, “ I like to keep everything in its place so I known just where it is”, “I try to perform all the tasks assigned to me conscientiously”, “I work hard to accomplish my goals”, “I have a lot of self-discipline” and “I always consider the consequences before I take action”.
The neuroticism variable was computed by the mean of the items; “I often worry about things that might go wrong”, “I often get angry at the way people treat me”, “I have a low opinion of myself”, “At times I have been so ashamed I just wanted to hide” “Sometimes I do things on impulse that I later regret” and “I often feel helpless and want someone else to solve my problems”.
The last variable of the five, openness was computed with the mean of the items; “I have an active fantasy life”, “I experience a wide range of emotions or feelings”, “ I have a lot of intellectual curiosity” and the reversed version of the items “Aesthetic and artistic concerns aren’t very important to me”, “I follow the same route when I go someplace”,“ I believe letting students hear controversial speakers can only confuse and mislead them”.
To test the reliability of these five new variables, the big five factors, I computed a reliability analysis. Considering the rule of thumb for an acceptable α (α ≥ 0.60), found was that only Neuroticism (α = 0,685, M= 2,785, SD= 0,597) was reliable. Table 1 as seen below, illustrates the five traits and the reliability analysis’ results.
The neuroticism trait showed not only reliability but also a normal deviation (Kurtosis < 3); see table 11 and the histogram of neuroticism illustrated in graphics 13 of the appendix. Moreover table 1 showed that the other traits were not reliable (α < 0,60), not even if you deleted any of the items. For the inter-item correlations of the personality characteristics individually I may perhaps revere to the appendix tables 7 to 11 of the appendix, for a summary of the personality characteristics to table 12 and for the item-total statistics for each personality characteristic to tables 13 to 17.
Table 1: Reliability Statistics of the Personality Characteristics
Personality
characteristic Cronbach's Alpha
Cronbach's Alpha Based on
Standardized Items N of Items
Extraversion 0,368 0,357 6
Agreeableness 0,561 0,568 6
Conscientiousness 0,520 0,564 5
Neuroticism 0,680 0,685 6
The traits were computed into different variables. For each trait we computed a different variable based on the mean of the items related to them. Since the only trait that was reliable was neuroticism, we can only use this variable.
4.1.3 Types of Brand Communities
In this section this data were related to the hypothesis and to the conceptual model.
In order to distinguish the brand communities, I tested the characteristics of the brand communities, using the think-versus-feel dimensions of Ratchford’s (1987, in Batra, Lenk & Wendel, 2010). In this model the characteristics for the two factors were both utilitarian and symbolic. The reliabilities of these two factors were tested and the factor symbolic brand showed to be just under the acceptable level of reliability (α= 0,549 N= 8 M= 0,135). Upon removal of the item “Up-to-date”, however this factor became reliable (α= 0,623 N= 7 M= 0,194). Table 2 below showed that the symbolic brand community could improve its reliability factor by merely deleting the item “Tough”.
Table 2: Item-Total Statistics Symbolic brand community characteristic after deleting the item Up To Date Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item-Total Correlation Squared Multiple Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted Daring 24,33 24,936 0,426 0,199 0,559 Upper Class 25,28 23,007 0,452 0,248 0,544 Charming 24,80 25,228 0,455 0,263 0,554 Outdoorsy 25,61 25,710 0,294 0,203 0,600 Tough 25,26 31,575 -0,070 0,030 0,706 Spirited 24,33 23,736 0,466 0,429 0,542 Imaginative 24,52 23,988 0,404 0,346 0,562
The factor utilitarian brand community showed to be reliable (α= 0,619 N= 7 M= 0,157), without removing any items. Table 3 below illustrates an overview of the statistical results of the reliability analysis of the utilitarian brand community.
With these two factors, utilitarian brand community and symbolic brand community being reliable, I was able to compute these variables based on the means of those items belonging to them. So the Utilitarian brand community was computed based on the mean of the items: “Down-to-earth”, “Reliable”, “Honest”, “Wholesome”, “Successful”, “Intelligent” and “cheerful”. The Symbolic brand community was computed based on the mean of the items: “Daring”, “Upper-class”, “Charming”, “ Outdoorsy”, “Tough”, “Spirited” and “Imaginative”. Because of the reliability results I excluded the item “Up-to-date”.
mean test showed a higher average for the symbolic type of brand community (N= 46, M= 4,640, SD = 0,735) than the utilitarian type of brand community (N= 46, M= 4,146, SD= 0,816), as shown in the table 46 of the appendix. A One-Sample T-test showed a significant mean difference for both symbolic type of brand community (t (46)= 42,809, p= 0,000, df =45) and utilitarian type of brand community t (46)= 34,474, p= 0,000, df= 45), see table 47 of the appendix. The symbolic brand community and utilitarian brand community both showed a normal deviation (Kurtosis < 3), see appendix tables 121,122 and graphics 11 and 12.
Table 3: Item-Total Statistics Utilitarian brand community characteristic
Scale Mean if Item Deleted Scale Variance if Item Deleted Corrected Item-Total Correlation Cronbach's Alpha if Item Deleted Down To Earth 28,630 22,460 0,156 0,640 Reliable 28,150 14,887 0,615 0,452 Honest 28,670 15,069 0,684 0,425 Wholesome 28,540 20,565 0,469 0,546 Successful 26,370 27,171 -0,161 0,689 Intelligent 27,130 21,760 0,322 0,586 Cheerful 27,370 22,905 0,216 0,614
4.1.4 Motivation to Participate in a Brand Community In this section this data was related to the hypothesis and the conceptual model.
To test the motivation to participate and to separate the two kinds of motivational paths, I used the Intrinsic Motivational Instrument (IMI) of Deci and Ryan (1982, in Tsigilis & Theodosiou, 2003). According to the IMI instrument the variable motivation to participate in a brand community has two main factors: intrinsic and extrinsic. Each of these factors consists of four components. To check if the data showed these similar results the reliability of these two factors were tested. Both intrinsic motivation to participate in a brand community (α=0,942 N= 27 M= 4,705) and extrinsic motivation to participate in a brand community (α=0,870 N=18 M= 0,270) as a factor showed a very high reliability; for the overview please see appendix tables 25 and 36.
A factor analysis on the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory was completed and showed that there were nine components. However this can be explained by the eight factors: Interest/Enjoyment, Perceived Competence, Effort/Importance, Pressure/Tension, Perceived Choice, Value/Usefulness and Relatedness. According to the IMI instrument, the factors Interest/Enjoyment, Effort/Importance, Perceived Choice and Relatedness were conceived to measure the intrinsic motivation. The factors Perceived Competence, Pressure/Tension, Value/Usefulness were conceived to measure the extrinsic motivation. For an overview of the factor analyses please see appendix table 43 and for the variance explained by both have these factors please see table 44. The table shows that the first seven items have a high score on the first component, the Interest/Enjoyment subgroup.
According to the reliability results I computed the new variables of each factor of Motivation to participate in a brand community: Intrinsic Motivation and Extrinsic Motivation based on the means of the Items belonging to their specific factors. A mean test showed that the factor Intrinsic Motivation (N= 36, M= 4,564 SD= 0,796), to participate in a brand community has a higher average score than the factor Extrinsic Motivation to participate in a brand community (N= 36, M= 4,058, SD= 0,684). A One-Sample T-test showed that both the factor Intrinsic Motivation t (36)= 34,416, p= 0,000, df= 35) and the factor Extrinsic Motivation t (36) = 35,587 (p= 0,000, df= 35) had both a significant mean difference, see table 4 below.
Furthermore the intrinsic motivation to participate in a brand community and the extrinsic motivation to participate showed both a normal deviation (Kurtosis < 3), see appendix table 124 and graphics 5 to 8.
To be able to test the motivation to participate a brand community in general, the motivation variable was computed as the mean of both the factors extrinsic and intrinsic motivation (N=45, M= 4,311, SD= 0,623). Overall the Intrinsic Motivation Instrument showed to be very reliable (α= 0,949, N= 45, M= 4,311), see table 97 of the appendix. Moreover the motivation to participate in a brand community also showed a normal deviation (Kurtosis < 3), see in the appendix table 123 and the boxplot and histogram in graphics 9 and 10.
4.2 Results
In this paragraph I will further investigate the data, interpreting the correlations, regressions.
4.2.1 Correlations
Because of the low response rate of the completed surveys (N= 36), I checked both types of correlation tests the Spearman’s rang correlation and the Pearson’s correlation. The results of the Spearman’s rang correlation showed that for both the factors of personality characteristics of a brand community, symbolic and utilitarian and for both the factors of the motivation to participate in a brand community variable, intrinsic and extrinsic, all the Spearman’s rang correlation coefficients (rho’s) were positive and between zero and one.
The symbolic brand community factor had on both the factors of the motivation to participate in a brand community, intrinsic (rho (36)= 0,371, p< 0,05) and extrinsic (rho (36)= 0,572, p< 0,01) variable a significant correlation. The factor utilitarian brand community had only on the intrinsic factor (rho (36)= 0,582, p< 0,01) of the motivation to participate in a brand community variable a significant correlation. The correlation between
Table 4: One-Sample Test Motivation to Participate in a Brand Community
Test Value = 0 t df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper Extrinsic Motivation 35,587 35 0 4,05821 3,8267 4,2897 Intrinsic Motivation 34,416 35 0 4,56389 4,2947 4,8331
the utilitarian brand community factor and the extrinsic motivation to participate was not significant (rho (36)= 0,310, p= 0,066). For an overview of the Spearman’s rang correlation matrix see appendix table 48.
The results of the Pearson’s correlation are similar with the Spearman’s correlation results, for both the personality characteristics variable factors, symbolic and utilitarian, and the both the factors of the motivation to participate in a brand community variable, intrinsic and extrinsic, showed that all the Pearson’s correlation coefficients were positive and are not zero or above one. Furthermore all the correlations were significant except the correlation between extrinsic motivation and utilitarian brand community, (r (36) = 0,311 p> 0,05). However the correlation between extrinsic motivation and symbolic brand community (r (36) = 0,425, p< 0,01) was significant. And both the correlations between the intrinsic motivation and the symbolic brand community (r (36)= 0,580, p< 0,01) or the utilitarian brand community (r (36)= 0,568, p< 0.01) were significant. For an overview of the Pearson’s correlation matrix see appendix table 49.
The similar results of Spearman and Pearson make the positive correlations between the intrinsic motivation to participate in a brand community and both the factors of types of brand communities and the positive correlation between extrinsic motivation to participate in a brand community and the symbolic brand community, solid even though the response rate is low. Moreover it could be that in research with more participants there a significant positive correlation between the utilitarian brand community factor and the extrinsic motivation to participate in a brand community will be found.
The Pearsons and Spearman’s correlations did both not show any correlations between neuroticism and intrinsic motivation (R= 0,224, p>0.05 N= 36) (rho= 0,169, p>0,05 N= 36) and neither between neuroticism and extrinsic motivation (R= 0,148, p>0.05 N= 36) (rho= -0,024, p>0,05 N= 36). Also there were not significant correlations between neuroticism and the factors symbolic (R= -0,123, p>0.05 N= 46) (rho= -0,149, p>0,05 N= 46) and utilitarian brand (R= -0,109, p>0.05 N= 46) (rho= -0,150, p>0,05 N= 46) communities. See appendix tables 62 to 65 for an overview of these correlations.
For conscientiousness, both the Pearsons and Spearman’s correlations did not show any correlations between intrinsic (R= 0,076, p>0.05 N= 36) (rho= 0,0368, p>0,05 N= 36) and extrinsic motivation (R= 0,296, p>0.05 N= 36) (rho= 0,252, p>0,05 N= 36). Also there were not significant correlations between conscientiousness and the factors symbolic (R=
0,118, p>0.05 N= 46) (rho= 0,142, p>0,05 N= 46) and utilitarian brand (R= -0,061, p>0.05 N= 46) (rho= -0,046, p>0,05 N= 46) communities. See appendix tables 58 to 61 for an overview of these correlations.
The Pearsons and Spearman’s correlations for the extraversion factor of the personality characteristic variable did both not show any correlations between both, intrinsic (R= 0,152, p>0.05 N= 36) (rho= 0,190, p>0,05 N= 36) and extrinsic motivation (R= 0,096, p>0.05 N= 36) (rho= 0,066, p>0,05 N= 36). Also there were not significant correlations between extraversion and the factors symbolic (R= 0,019, p>0.05 N= 46) (rho= -0,022, p>0,05 N= 46) and utilitarian brand (R= 0,088, p>0.05 N= 46) (rho= 0,075, p>0,05 N= 46) communities. See appendix tables 50 to for an overview of these correlations.
The correlation test of both Pearsons and Spearman’s correlations for the openness factor of the personality characteristic variable did not show any correlations between both, intrinsic (R= -0,121, p>0.05 N= 36) (rho= -0,021, p>0,05 N= 36) and extrinsic motivation (R= 0,165, p>0.05 N= 36) (rho= 0,059, p>0,05 N= 36). Also there were not significant correlations between openness and the factors symbolic (R= -0,021 p>0.05 N= 46) (rho= 0,025, p>0,05 N= 46) and utilitarian brand (R= -0,047, p>0.05 N= 46) (rho= -0,041, p>0,05 N= 46) communities. At last both the Pearsons and Spearman’s correlations for the agreeableness factor of the personality characteristic variable did not show any significant correlations between intrinsic (R= 0,073, p>0.05 N= 36) (rho= 0,026, p>0,05 N= 36) and extrinsic motivation (R= 0,221, p>0.05 N= 36) (rho= 0,160, p>0,05 N= 36). See appendix tables 54 to 57. Finally there were as well no significant correlations between openness and the factors symbolic (R= 0,1119 p>0.05 N= 46) (rho= 0,06, p>0,05 N= 46) and utilitarian brand (R= -0,119, p>0.05 N= 46) (rho= -0,140, p>0,05 N= 46) communities. See appendix tables 66 to 69.
4.2.2 Crosstabs and chi2
For the crosstabs between the factors of the variable type of brand community and the factors of the variable motivation to participate in a brand community, we recoded the factors into three categories. For intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to participate in a brand community the categories became low, neutral and high intrinsic or extrinsic motivated. Respectively these were the scores on, from lowest to 4, 4 and from highest to 4. For the symbolic and utilitarian brand community the categories of the factors became: low, neutral and high score on the symbolic or utilitarian type of brand community. Respectively these
