Advertisement

A Brand Foci Model to Explain Achievement Needs: A Contradictory Explanation: An Abstract

  • Jeremy J. Sierra
  • Harry A. Taute
  • Byung-Kwan Lee
Conference paper
Part of the Developments in Marketing Science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science book series (DMSPAMS)

Abstract

While the union between consumers and their adored brands has been typified as brand communities (McAlexander, Schouten, & Koenig, 2002) and brand tribes (the focus of this research) (e.g., Cova & Cova, 2001), researchers have gone beyond the nature of the consumer brand relationship to delve into its outcomes. Thus, understanding consumers’ attitudes and behaviors associated with brand tribe membership is a valuable investigative domain for marketing researchers (e.g., Gruner, Homburg, & Lukas, 2014). The purpose of this research is to examine the anthropological perspective of brand tribalism in an Eastern culture.

This research proposes a sequential model of brand tribalism (i.e., segmentary lineage [LINEAGE], social structure [SOCIAL], defense of the tribe [DEFENSE], and sense of community [COMMUN]) on brand pride (PRIDE), to brand attitude (AB), to purchase intent (PIB). Also, consumers’ need for achievement (NACHIEVE) is modeled as an outcome of PIB. Students attending a university in Seoul, South Korea, served as respondents (N = 272); they were asked to indicate their favorite smartphone and how long it has been their favorite and, subsequently, to respond to the rating-scaled statements regarding this handheld device. Their mean age is 23.93 years (SD = 3.88), with men (61%) outnumbering women. The ethnic background of the sample is entirely Asian. In terms of favorite smartphone, Android (63%) and iPhone (37%) comprise the responses.

Estimation of the measurement model (39 items, 8 scales) confirms convergent and discriminant validity. The relationships were tested using SEM (LISREL 9.20). A COV matrix and MLE were used to estimate model parameters. Model estimation produced the following GOF statistics: χ2(688df) = 2526.92 (P = 0.00), (CFI) = 0.95, (GFI) = 0.68, and (RMSEA) = 0.099. The t statistic associated with four of the seven path coefficients is significant at the P < 0.05 level or better. Specifically, COMMUN (H4; PC = 0.53, t = 1.97) relates positively, while LINEAGE (H1; PC = −0.04, t = −0.23), SOCIAL (H2; PC = 0.23, t = 1.79), and DEFENSE (H3; PC = 0.02, t = 0.08) are unrelated to PRIDE. In turn, PRIDE relates positively to AB (H5; PC = 0.38, t = 6.14), AB relates positively to PIB (H6; PC = 0.80, t = 14.71), and PIB relates positively to NACHIEVE (H7; PC = 0.27, t = 4.32).

The use of pooled, multi-brand data from Eastern consumers suggests that only the sense of community brand tribe component significantly influences brand pride. This finding contradicts existing brand tribalism research (e.g., Badrinarayanan, Sierra, & Taute, 2014; Taute & Sierra, 2014), which suggests that defense of the tribe (a negatively charged emotion) is a more robust explanatory dimension of brand tribalism than positive emotional-laden tribe components, such as sense of community. The data source may help explain this opposing result (Zhang, van Doorn, & Leeflang, 2014).

Copyright information

© Academy of Marketing Science 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeremy J. Sierra
    • 1
  • Harry A. Taute
    • 2
  • Byung-Kwan Lee
    • 3
  1. 1.Texas State UniversitySan MarcosUSA
  2. 2.Utah Valley UniversityOremUSA
  3. 3.Kwangwoon UniversitySeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations