Intern. J.

of Research in Marketing 23 (2006) 45 – 61

www.elsevier.com/locate/ijresmar

Antecedents and purchase consequences of customer participation in small

group brand communities
Richard P. Bagozzi a,⁎, Utpal M. Dholakia b
a
University of Michigan, Ross School of Business, 701 Tappan St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1234, USA
b
Rice University, Jesse H. Jones Graduate School of Management, Houston, TX 77005, USA

Abstract

This paper investigates behavior and determinants of the behavior of small group brand community participants. A small group brand
community is a friendship group of consumers with a shared enthusiasm for the brand and a well-developed social identity, whose members
engage jointly in group actions to accomplish collective goals and/or to express mutual sentiments and commitments. Group activities centered on
the brand intermingle with other social activities in these brand communities. A comprehensive model is proposed based on a broadening and
deepening of the theory of planned behavior to incorporate social intentions, three aspects of social identity (cognitive self-awareness of
membership in the brand community, affective commitment, and evaluative significance of membership), anticipated positive and negative
emotions toward achieving or failing to achieve group participation goals, and desire as a transformative mechanism translating reasons for acting
into social intentions to do so. The proposed theoretical framework is tested on a sample of 154 members of Harley-Davidson Motorcycle small
group brand communities and another sample of 255 members of motorcycle riding groups not organized around specific brands.
© 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Brand communities; Consumer behavior; Social influence; We-intentions

1. Introduction
“The small group tends to restore, structurally, the symbolic
power. Step by step, one can see a mystical network being
built, carefully yet solidly connected, leading one to speak
of a cultural resurgence in social life. This is the lesson
taught by these eras of the masses—eras based mainly on
the concatenation of groups with splintered but exacting
intentionalities” (Maffesoli, 1996, p. 83, emphasis added).
Amidst the increasing media clutter and growing resistance
of consumers to traditional marketing programs, marketers'
interest in novel means of engaging consumers continues to
grow. One approach that has received attention recently is that
of organizing and nurturing brand communities of customers
(Algesheimer, Dholakia, & Herrmann, 2005; McAlexander,
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 713 647 6435; fax: +1 734 936 8715.
E-mail addresses: bagozzi@umich.edu (R.P. Bagozzi), dholakia@rice.edu
(U.M. Dholakia).
0167-8116/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2006.01.005
Schouten, & Koenig, 2002; Muniz & O'Guinn, 2001). Brand
communities are defined as “specialized, non-geographically
bound communit(ies), based on a structured set of social
relationships among admirers of a brand”. Examples of
successful brand communities include the Harley-Davidson
Motorcycles' Harley Owners Groups (HOGs), Apple Compu-
ter's MacIntosh user groups (e.g., Belk & Tumbat, 2002),
Volkswagen drivers (Brown, Kozinets, & Sherry, 2003) and Sun
Micosystems' Java center community (Williams & Cothrel,
2000).
To many marketers, brand community building appears as an
effective marketing program for at least two reasons. First,
brand communities are not subject to many of the problems
increasingly associated with traditional marketing approaches
such as fragmentation of media and the accompanying clutter
faced by mass advertising campaigns, and the resistance of
consumers to receiving marketing communications faced by
direct marketing campaigns. In contrast, brand communities are
venues where intense brand loyalty is expressed and fostered,
and emotional connections with the brand forged in customers.
Second, brand communities coincide with the increasingly
46 R.P. Bagozzi, U.M. Dholakia / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 23 (2006) 45–61
popular movement of ‘consumer empowerment’ (Prahalad &
Ramaswamy, 2000) which encourages firms to treat their
customers as partners, cede control over information gathering
and decision making to them to a significant degree, and ‘co-
opt’ their competence in ways that are mutually beneficial and
profitable. Underlying the prevalent views of the effectiveness
of brand communities is the assumption that forming relation-
ships with other like-minded consumers who share one's interest
in the brand will be credible and impactful in persuading and
bonding customers to the brand, leading them to make more
purchase behaviors and be more loyal.
While recent marketing studies of brand communities
(Algesheimer et al., 2005; Muniz & O'Guinn, 2001; McAlex-
ander et al., 2002) have provided some support for this
assumption, what is missing from these extant analyses is a
detailed understanding of the social and psychological variables
that lead a firm's customers to participate in collective action
within the brand communities. Furthermore, these studies have
also not distinguished clearly between brand communities that
are mainly comprised of small friendship groups and other types
of community influences on consumers such as those from sub-
cultures (e.g., Schouten & McAlexander, 1995) and networks
(e.g., Muniz & O'Guinn, 2001).
Our goals in this research are to address these issues. In
particular, we elaborate on the concept of small group brand
communities using the example of Harley-Davidson's HOG
members to do so. We then investigate the social and
psychological antecedents of group- and brand-related beha-
viors of two consumer communities, small group brand
communities organized around the Harley-Davidson brand
and a comparison group of motorcycle riders not organized
around any particular brand. Our analyses provide an in-depth
conceptualization of the variables leading to collective customer
behaviors in small group brand communities.
2. The concept of small group brand community
In the published research, Harley-Davidson's HOGs are
advanced as the prototypical example of a brand community
(e.g., Fournier, McAlexander, Schouten, & Sensiper, 2000;
Schouten & McAlexander, 1995; Yates, 1999). It is worth
noting that even though HOG chapters are organized by
geography and often comprise hundreds of registered members,
for most active members, a majority of the social interactions
occur with a small group of friends. We call these, small group
brand communities, which are comprised of clusters of Harley
riders, typically fewer than ten or so riders plus a few
passengers, that have close friendships with one another and
engage in regular and frequent face-to-face interactions. For
such communities, the demarcation blurs in that brand-related
activities intermingle with the group's social activities. This is in
contrast to network-based brand communities, which Muniz
and O'Guinn (2001, p. 415) characterize as “explicitly
commercial”, where brand-related activities predominate, and
social relationships are tenuous and based on narrow individ-
ualistic motives, and interactions occur exclusively through
virtual media and in firm-orchestrated venues such as internet
bulletin-boards or chat-rooms (Dholakia, Bagozzi, & Pearo,
2004).
For Harley riders belonging to small group brand commu-
nities, social interactions occur through group rides for purely
recreational purposes or for more formal goals such as fund-
raising (e.g., a rally for raising funds for the Asian Tsunami
victims), competitions, political protests (e.g., anti-helmet law
rallies), or community service. Even more frequently, small
group members come together to meet at a pub or restaurant or
to mutually examine the latest bikes and accessories at a nearby
dealership. The latter activities for the groups we studied occur
not only weekly but frequently at multiple times during any
particular week, making this type of small group brand
community one of high personal and social involvement for
consumers. In comparison to consumer networks, the interper-
sonal relationships among community members are stronger
and multi-faceted, going beyond brand-related interactions.
Small groups are members of the local HOG chapter, which
is usually funded by the Harley-Davidson Motorcycle company,
and the local Harley dealership(s). Indeed, such organized
support — through funding, through organizing various events,
by providing a place to meet, through providing a variety of
ancillary products and services, etc. — from the firm and its
dealers, is critical in sustaining small group brand communities
At the same time, the forces that seem to energize these
communities are the on-going sentiments and sensuality that
occur in fellowship as members relive past happenings, share
current concerns, and plan for future outings together. There is
an aesthetic component to these forces as well. Consequently,
small group brand communities are strongly sociocentric, with
members exuding a strong identity with their group as well as a
strong identification with the brand.
Another aspect of small group brand communities is that
they correspond to Maffesoli's (1996) concept of “affectual
tribes,” in the sense that they lack formal hierarchies. Informal
hierarchies within them tend to be limited to the infrequent
occurrences when new members join the group (as in initiation-
like rites), or in defacto ways, where one or a few members take
the lead in suggesting and organizing the next joint activity, or
when one or two members exert their (implicit) status to head a
group riding formation. Women sometimes are subtly accorded
lower status, such as during group rides where men, who
typically drive more powerful bikes and exhibit less caution,
often speed away from women members. However, it would be
misleading to overemphasize the informal hierarchies in the
Harley small group brand communities, for most tend to be
egalitarian collectivities that are horizontally organized by
friendship ties.1
1
A good example of this, witnessed in the qualitative phase of the study, was
the reaction of one woman rider who let it be known in no uncertain terms that
the group would not be a group anymore if the men were to once again so
“thoughtlessly and selfishly” pull away from the pack. Efforts to create status
differences tended to be subtly and not so subtly counteracted by such reactions
in the small group brand communities we studied. Most members of these
communities were what are known in the marketing literature as “Mom-and-
Pop” bikers, plus a few “rich urban bikers” (see Schouten & McAlexander,
1995, p. 49).
 R.P. Bagozzi, U.M. Dholakia / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 23 (2006) 45–61
To recap, small group brand communities are highly
involving, sustained social groups. The affectual bonds and
social communion in such customer communities might be
termed “tribalism plus linking value” (Cova, 1997). Impor-
tantly, the magic and mystique of owning and riding a Harley
motorcycle and its associated positive connotations provide the
glue binding members together and are visible in both the
foreground and background of social life in these brand
communities.
3. Theoretical framework and research hypotheses
In this research, we attempt to develop an in-depth
understanding of the social and psychological processes that
lead small group brand communities to influence consumers
and encourage collective participation. To do so, we begin with
a discussion of a well-known approach in social psychology: the
theory of planned behavior (TPB, Ajzen, 1991). The TPB is
frequently employed in contemporary research and has been
used successfully in hundreds of applied studies (e.g., Armitage
& Conner, 2001; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). It maintains that
behavior is directly influenced by one's decision to act (i.e.,
intention) and the control one perceives one has over the
behavior; intention to act, in turn, is dependent on attitudes
toward the act, subjective normative pressure to act, and
perceived behavioral control. While the variables and processes
under the TPB seem relevant to certain aspects of small group
brand communities, it fails to capture important social
processes, emotional behavior, and goal-directed features of
participation in them. As a consequence, we endeavor to both
Fig. 1. Proposed model for explaining antecedents and consequences of participation in small group brand communities.
47
broaden and deepen the TPB, to derive an approach more
explanatory of brand community participation than is afforded
by the predominantly individualistic TPB. The TPB will be
broadened by adding a number of new antecedents; it will be
deepened by introducing a mediator between the antecedents
and intentions, which better explains how and why the
antecedents influence the intentions to participate in collective
actions in small group brand communities.
Note that while previous studies have suggested various
enhancements to the TPB in many different and non-brand
contexts such as weight loss, eating at restaurants, blood
donation, etc. (e.g., Armitage & Conner, 2001; Bagozzi & Lee,
2002; Perugini & Conner, 2000), our intended contribution is to
propose and test a coherent and integrated framework that
provides insights and helps explain collective consumer
participation in small group brand communities. No study to
date has integrated the personal and social aspects of behavior
we introduce in modification and expansion of the TPB, and no
study has used the TPB or modifications thereof in the study of
brand communities. From a practical standpoint, we suggest
that in addition to cognitive (e.g., evaluations of product
performance), and motivational (e.g., commitment to the brand)
variables, brand loyalty can also be influenced by firms through
encouraging interactions with small groups of other enthusiastic
customers in a setting that is controlled and managed more-or-
less by the customers themselves. Our presentation begins first
with a discussion of social processes added to the TPB. Next,
we consider new emotional and goal-directed (psychological)
content to be introduced into the theory. Fig. 1 summarizes the
proposed model developed below.
48 R.P. Bagozzi, U.M. Dholakia / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 23 (2006) 45–61
3.1. Social processes
Intentions under the TPB, and indeed in virtually every
approach taken to date in attitude theory, have been construed in
a strictly individual sense. For example, Eagly and Chaiken
(1993, p. 168) interpret an intention as a “person's motivation in
the sense of his or her conscious plan to exert effort to carry out
a behavior” by him or herself. We might term this an “I-
intention”; an example would be, “I intend to ride my
motorcycle this afternoon”. The TPB and contemporary models
of attitude explain I-intentions by individual-level reasons for
performing a personal act (i.e., attitude toward the personal act;
perceived behavioral control over the personal act) and
perceived interpersonal pressure to perform the personal act
(i.e., subjective norms). This is also how most consumer
behavior models predicting purchase, loyalty, etc. are
formulated.
Such a formulation raises three questions. First, is it
meaningful for consumers to form intentions to perform
something other than personal acts? Second, can the referents
or objects of reasons for acting constitute group acts? Third,
how can social reasons for acting be better formulated than
found in subjective norms? Note that these questions have
considerable relevance not only for the present case of
collective participation in small group brand communities, but
also for other important marketing issues such as selling
products which are consumed jointly with others, formulating
community-based marketing programs, devising effective
strategies to influence socially conscious consumers, etc.
With regard to the content of the consumer's intentions, it
seems possible that intentions can be in some sense social. For
example, a consumer in a relationship might speak about “our
intention to see a Broadway play”; a soccer player might
mention “the team's plan to attend an end of season party at a
local restaurant”, and an executive editor might announce
“Consumer Reports' decision to purchase and test hybrid
vehicles”. These examples—referring respectively to a two
person dyad, a small group, and an organization—illustrate that
people often use social notions of intentions in ordinary speech,
whether designating informal or formal groups.
Social scientists have generally not treated social intentions
of the sort illustrated above, but philosophers have considered
the logical foundations of such intentions (for an analysis and
review, see Bagozzi, 2000). Bratman (1997) calls this kind of
intention a ‘shared intention’ and expresses it in the form, “I
intend that we act”. In a somewhat similar manner, Tuomela
(1995, p. 2) defines a ‘we-intention’ as “a commitment of an
individual to participate in joint action and involves an implicit
or explicit agreement between the participants to engage in that
joint action”.
Using these definitions, a social intention might be termed as
a consumer's shared intention to perform a group act. This can
take the form, “We intend to rally for Tsunami relief next
month”. Here a person plans to participate in a joint activity, but
conceives of the activity, not so much as individuals performing
personal acts that atomistically accumulate and contribute to a
group performance, but rather as a group action where one is a
member of the group. It can also be of the form, “I intend that
we (my three friends and I) play bridge this weekend.” It is
noteworthy that in these formulations of social intentions, the
activity (and the intention) only has meaning if the group acts in
concert. Individual action by oneself is not enough to attain
one's goal in either case.
Therefore, when formulating a social intention, the consumer
acts as an agent of, or an agent with, the group, in coordination
and cooperation with its other members. Social intentions form
the basis of participation in small group brand communities,
since the actions sustaining the community are by the group as a
whole. It is worth pointing out that social intentions concep-
tualized this way are equally significant for marketers of
products that are usually purchased and consumed jointly by
friendship and/or family groups such as new homes, package
tours, online games, etc.
In our theoretical framework, it is these social intentions that
constitute group decisions and explain group behavior, where
the latter is defined as activities engaged in by the consumer
with the group of members self-designated as Harley-Davidson
club friends that one regularly meets together with (see Fig. 1).
These activities include such joint behaviors as recreational
rides, sponsored rides, attending club meetings, mutual fund
raising efforts, gathering for meals in a restaurant, socializing in
pubs or at picnics, and sharing in shopping trips or other special
events.
The TPB only allows for one type of social determinant of
intentions and behavior: namely, subjective norms. Subjective
norms reflect the impact of expectations from other people,
which are largely based on the need for approval. Kelman
(1974) termed this mode of social influence, compliance.
However, this is only one type of social influence that is
relevant for consumer participation in small group brand
communities. As Terry and Hogg (1996, p. 778) point out,
the operation of subjective norms in many situations “may be
problematic because it describes norms in terms of the context
to which people perceive that others want them to perform the
behavior”, yet “for behaviors that do not influence other people
or behaviors that are not so directly associated with [impactful]
…outcomes, such pressures may be latent and may not be
perceived”. Eagly and Chaiken (1993, p. 683) note further that
“features embedded in certain types of role relationships”, rather
than compliance-targeted “stimuli or cues”, need to be
considered when investigating the social context of action.
A different and more subtle aspect of social influence needs
to be considered than found in subjective norms, if we are to
capture the ‘consciousness of kind’ aspect of brand community
that Muniz and O'Guinn (2001) identified. One way to deepen
and elaborate this aspect is to assemble together three notions
from social identity theory and social categorization theory
(e.g., Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel, 1978). Tajfel (1978)
suggested that a person achieves a social identity through self-
awareness of one's membership in a group and the emotional
and evaluative significance of this membership. Building on
these insights, Ellemers, Kortekaas, and Ouwerkerk (1999,
p. 372) recently proposed that three components comprise
one's social identity: “a cognitive component (a cognitive
 R.P. Bagozzi, U.M. Dholakia / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 23 (2006) 45–61
awareness of one's membership in a social group—self-
categorization), an evaluative component (a positive and
negative value connotation attached to this group member-
ship—group self-esteem), and an emotional component (a
sense of emotional involvement with the group—affective
commitment)”. Construct and nomological validity for
measures of these components have been demonstrated by
Bergami and Bagozzi (2000) and Bagozzi and Lee (2002).
Social identities prescribe and instigate behaviors for the
benefit of group members. Ellemers et al. (1999) studied
experimentally formed groups and found that aspects of social
identity influenced in-group favoritism (in terms of evaluative
ratings and outcome allocations). Similarly, Bergami and
Bagozzi (2000) found in an investigation of food service
employees that social identity influenced organization citizen-
ship behaviors (a form of in-group favoritism). In the study by
Algesheimer et al. (2005), identification with the car club led to
involvement and engagement in group initiatives among
members.
For small group brand communities, social identity is
expected to influence social intentions to participate with
group members in collective activities. Similar to the rationale
for the effects of group identity on in-group favoritism (e.g.,
Ellemers et al., 1999), and cooperation and organizational
altruism (e.g., Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000), one reason for this is
the self-enhancement that the person receives as a consequence
of group membership and group participation. Self-enhance-
ment is thought to arise through a boost in personal self-esteem
(Tajfel & Turner, 1986) as well as collective self-esteem
(Crocker, Luhtanen, Blaine, & Broadnax, 1994).
Social identity with one's brand community is also expected
to impact the consumer's brand identification. Brand identifi-
cation is the extent to which the consumer sees his or her own
self-image as overlapping with the brand's image. As one's
social identity with the brand community increases and
participation in group activities is fostered, a greater involve-
ment with the brand occurs, which should promote the
assimilation of the brand's images into one's identity. This
hypothesized path is also supported by Escalas and Bettman
(2003) who show that an important set of brand associations is
that regarding reference groups, and such associations influence
brand equity to the extent that the consumer belongs to the
group. Note also that such a path is different from the study by
Algesheimer et al. (2005) where a positive relationship with the
brand preceded, and led to, identification with the car club. Our
prediction follows from our focus on small group brand
communities, whereas they studied European car clubs of all
sizes, comprised of consumer networks as well, where members
tended to join only after forming a relationship with one's
vehicle brand. In contrast, we predict that on-going activities
within the small group brand community will impact the
consumer's bond with the brand, affirming and strengthening it.
From a practical standpoint, we note that this hypothesized path
is important in placing small group brand community marketing
programs on a comparable footing with other established
marketing approaches such as image advertising that also seek
to strengthen the consumer's identification with the brand.
49
3.2. Psychological processes
Social intentions, group behavior, and social identity are
social processes not addressed by the TPB. Instead, the TPB is
primarily a model of individual decision making and focuses on
two psychological variables (in addition to subjective norms):
attitudes and perceived behavioral control. Attitudes are
evaluative (cognitive) reactions to an action and are thought
to reflect predispositions to respond in a favorable or
unfavorable manner (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Attitudes are
believed also to arise through learning, whereby a person
acquires a reaction to an action over a period of time. Once
learned, the attitude can be triggered automatically when one is
exposed to the action or thinks about it (Fazio, 1995). Perceived
behavioral control refers to a decision maker's judgment that he
or she can perform an act (e.g., how easy or difficult the act is to
do) and is thought to help account for behavior not fully under
volitional control (Ajzen, 1991). Although attitudes and
perceived behavioral control have been shown to be important
antecedents to I-intentions (e.g., Armitage & Conner, 2001), a
number of shortcomings can be pointed out that we try to
overcome in the present research.
An important limitation of the TPB is its failure to take into
account emotional reactions to a contemplated action (note also
that the emotional reactions we introduced above–affective
commitment–are with respect to one's felt social identity, not
behavior). Early attempts to incorporate emotion into the TPB
were limited to the emotion of regret and at the same time
exhibit problems noted below (e.g., Richard, van der Pligt, & de
Vries, 1995).
A comprehensive approach to the role of emotion in decision
making was proposed by Bagozzi, Baumgartner, and Pieters
(1998) who argued that people, when considering whether or
not to act in goal-directed situations, take into account the
emotional consequences of both achieving and not achieving a
sought after goal. In both cases, the processes are believed to be
predicated upon a type of thought process analogous to
counterfactual thinking, but perhaps better termed “prefactual
appraisals” (Gleicher et al., 1995), whereby a decision maker
imagines the affective consequences of goal attainment and goal
failure before deciding to form an intention and act. In our
analysis of small group brand community members, and based
on the emotion literature, we include a total of 21 emotions (9
positive, 12 negative; see Methodological considerations
below).
Anticipated positive and negative emotions differ from
attitudes in three ways, namely the referents, underlying
theoretical processes, and manner of measurement (e.g.,
Perugini & Bagozzi 2001; for other distinctions, see Bagozzi,
2006). First, attitudes toward the act under the TPB focus upon
what one does or can do, whereas anticipated emotions focus
not upon action, but rather upon the attainment and failure to
attain a goal. Under the TPB, all antecedents have action as their
referents, and indeed, Ajzen and Fishbein have made a point to
explicitly exclude objects or goals from their formulations (e.g.,
Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980, pp. 29–30). This perspective fits the
theoretical stance of attitude theory (see below), but to the
50 R.P. Bagozzi, U.M. Dholakia / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 23 (2006) 45–61
extent that decisions and behavior are goal-directed, it likely
provides an incomplete explanation of action, in particular
many consumer actions which are goal-directed (Bagozzi &
Dholakia, 1999). Thus, the incorporation of anticipated
emotions in the sense presented above introduces goal criteria
into consumer decision making as proximal determinants of
volitional processes.
A second difference between attitudes and anticipated
emotions concerns the theoretical processes underlying the
effects of the two classes of variables. Attitudes are presumed to
be relatively stable, learned predispositions that are retrieved or
activated to influence decisions or behavior (Eagly & Chaiken,
1993; Fazio, 1995). Attitudes are typically constant over
reasonable periods of time and are not formulated as responses
contingent on the occurrence or possible occurrence of
happenings to be appraised. Rather than active deliberations,
attitudes are passive reactions. By contrast, the processes behind
the functioning of anticipated emotions are dynamic and entail
self-regulation in anticipation of achievement and failure of
particular consumption goals (Carver & Scheier, 1998). That is,
one has a consumption-related goal, appraisals are made of
expected consequences of attaining and not attaining the goal in
a particular situation to be appraised, and positive emotions
arising as a result of anticipated goal attainment (e.g., joy) and
negative emotions as a result of anticipated goal failure (e.g.,
disappointment) motivate one to act so as to promote goal
achievement and avoid goal failure. An implicit comparison is
made between one's goal as a standard or reference value and
achieving and failing to achieve the goal under specific
situational contingencies.
The third distinction between attitudes and anticipated
emotions occurs at the level of measurement and its implica-
tions for how the variables form and exist in human memory.
When people are asked to express their attitudes, they are forced
to make a choice of favorability or unfavorability. This is a
consequence of the common practice of using bipolar items to
indicate the respondent's attitudes. In contrast, anticipated
emotions are measured with unipolar items (e.g., the experience
of excitement is indicated along a “not at all” to “very much”
continuum to capture the extent to which one feels this positive
emotion). Attitude items in effect assume that attitudes are
positive or negative by definition, whereas emotion items
permit respondents to reveal whatever they are feeling, which
can expose independence or novel associations between
positive and negative emotions (e.g., Bagozzi, Wong, & Yi,
1999). Previous research has found that both positive and
negative anticipated emotions influence decision making and
are positively correlated, yet clearly distinct emotions (e.g.,
ϕ = .50 in Bagozzi et al., 1998). This is a consequence of the
prefactual processes where respondents are asked to consider
how negatively they would feel if they failed to achieve their
goal. The more negative the expressed feeling, the more
motivated respondents were to put forth effort and hence the
positive association between positive and negative anticipated
emotions (see Bagozzi et al., 1998).
A second broad limitation of the TPB in a psychological
sense that we wish to overcome in the present study with respect
to psychological processes is the following. It has been argued
that the TPB fails to consider how intentions become
energized (Bagozzi, 2006; Calder & Ross, 1973, p. 7; Fazio,
1995, pp. 271–272). The antecedents in the TPB provide
rational reasons for acting, it is claimed, and may be
significantly correlated with intentions, but do not incorporate
explicit motivational content needed to induce an intention to
act. A consumer, for example, may value or be attracted to a
luxury automobile (i.e., have a positive attitude toward it), and
may have the means to acquire it, but may not want the
automobile and therefore not form an intention to buy it.
Consumers often have favorable attitudes, feel normative
pressure, and have the wherewithal to make a purchase, but
these “reasons for acting” are not necessarily “owned by
them” so to speak and may lack motivational impact. In other
words, a consumer may not be committed to or have
conviction in his/her rational reasons for acting.
Similar to Gollwitzer's designation for wants and wishes
with regard to goals in his action phases model (Gollwitzer,
Heckhausen, & Stellar, 1990, p. 1119), Bagozzi (1992, pp. 184–
186) proposed that desires provide the motivational impetus for
intentions to act and suggested that attitudes and other
antecedents in decision making work through desires enroute
to influencing intentions. This happens in one or both of two
ways, depending on the context and person. One, with volitive
desires, reasons for acting are taken into account to form a self-
commitment to act. Some philosophers maintain that desires
have a particular kind of relationship to intentions in the sense
that, once one is aware of and accepts his or her desire to act,
this will motivate him or her to form an intention to act. Davis
(1984a, p. 53) calls this the “connection condition” for
intentions.
Two, with appetitive desires (Davis, 1984b), reasons for
acting serve as catalysts to release or free-up a hidden or latent
desire related to such biological needs as food, sex, or safety, in
contrast to their arousing function for volitive desires. Desires,
then, transform reasons for acting into self-regulated motives to
act which, in turn, are the proximal causes of intentions. Recent
research demonstrates that volitive desires are distinct from
intentions and attitudes (Perugini & Bagozzi, 2004), and has
shown appetitive desires to play an important role in a variety of
consumer behaviors (Belk, Ger, & Askegaard, 2003).
To recap, the main dependent variables in our framework of
small group brand community participation are the frequency of
engagement in shared activities with one's brand community
(group behavior) and also brand behavior, which is defined as
the frequency of on-going purchase of Harley-Davidson
motorcycle accessories, the amount of money spent on these
accessories, and the number of shopping trips to dealers selling
accessories (see Fig. 1).2 To explain these behaviors of the
consumer, we began with the TPB but found the need to refer to
2
It is important to point out that such a conceptualization of brand behavior is
different from past behavior. Rather, we conceptualize (and operationalize)
brand behavior as ongoing behavior of the customer regarding the brand. Note
that such a view is hypothesized to account for the specific social influence of
the small group brand community on the individual member's personal actions.
 R.P. Bagozzi, U.M. Dholakia / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 23 (2006) 45–61
social intentions and to introduce social identity (cognitive self-
awareness of group membership, affective commitment, and
evaluative significance) as a key antecedent. Anticipated
positive and negative emotions were also imported to better
account for the affective implications of achieving and failing to
achieve one's group participation goals. Finally, desires were
added to the TPB as key mediators between the reasons for
acting and social intentions to act. Taken together, our proposed
framework provides an in-depth description of the social and
psychological processes that lead to participation in the joint
activities of small group brand communities.
3.3. Methodological considerations
This study is a survey, and to address challenges to validity
we took a number of precautions. First, rather than just testing a
saturated model where ‘everything is related to everything,’ we
performed formal tests of mediation wherever appropriate. For
example, in our framework, attitudes are expected to influence
social intentions but only through desires. To test this
hypothesis, we compared the model shown in Fig. 1 to the
model where a direct path from attitude to social intentions was
added. The comparison was done with a χ2-difference test and
implements a procedure essentially equivalent to the one
recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986) for mediation
under multiple regression models. In all, given the hypothesized
model, there are a total of 11 such rival hypotheses to test in each
consumer community, for a total of 22 formal tests of mediation.
Second, we tested the generalizability of the measurement
models for two consumer community samples, one conforming
to our definition of a small group brand community, and a second
sample of consumers belonging to riding clubs not organized
around any particular brand. This ascertains whether or not the
correspondence between latent variables and their hypothesized
measurements are invariant across the two samples, which is a
test of the generalizability of the psychometric properties of the
measures. Third, given a satisfactory test of measure invariance,
we test boundary conditions between the models. If the social
and psychological processes proposed above are valid, then we
would expect stronger relationships among the paths shown in
Fig. 1 for the small group brand communities organized around
the Harley brand than non-brand-specific small group consumer
communities. This is a test of moderation or interaction and thus
explores boundary conditions. The effects proposed in Fig. 1 are
expected to be contingent on the nature of the consumer
community under study, as specified above. This aspect of our
study constitutes a form of quasi-experimentation. To summa-
rize, we bolster the survey findings in this research by testing for
rival hypotheses, measurement generalizability, and interaction
effects.
4. Empirical study
4.1. Participants and procedures (Harley group)
Extensive interviews were conducted with three members of
a local HOG chapter, including one member active with
51
leadership and administrative tasks, one highly involved as a
participant, and one low to moderately involved. Notes taken
from these interviews were used to adapt existing scales and to
develop new items for the questionnaire. We re-contacted the
first two members on a number of occasions to clarify issues and
get feedback. The interviewees also gave feedback on an early
draft of the questionnaire. After securing permission from the
board of this HOG chapter, a questionnaire with an accompa-
nying cover letter was sent to all its members. Although the
chapter had nearly 600 members on its roster at the time of
mailing, it is estimated that only 180 or so were active and
belonged to small group brand communities.3 Of these, 161
members returned questionnaires, and 154 filled out all items.
Early in the questionnaire, respondents were asked, “Imagine
that you are participating in a club activity, such as riding
together. You have a number of club friends that you regularly
engage in activities together with. Please picture briefly in your
mind each of these club friends. Then write your first name, and
their first names in the table below. Please be sure to include
only club friends that are part of the group that engages in
activities together with you now and then:”
The table contained 11 rows, corresponding to the respondent's
own name and 10 “Riding Club Friend X's name”, plus next to
each name was a space asking for the first name of a “Passenger”,
if any. Thus, respondents could write up to 21 names, which
permitted us to capture most small groups, as preliminary
interviews with club members indicated that the largest riding
groups typically contained 11 drivers or less, plus a few
passengers. Respondents were assured that their “responses will
be kept strictly anonymous and confidential”. As an incentive, the
cover letter from the researchers indicated that a check for $500
would be donated to their HOG chapter “to use in any way it sees
fit”. Table 1 provides the measures used in the study.
Sample characteristics of this group were as follows. One
hundred and fourteen were men (74%), and 40 were women
(26%). Ages of respondents ranged from 23 to 73 (mean = 47.5,
S.D. = 9.5). Riding experience ranged from 1 to 45 years
(mean = 18.3, S.D. = 13.4). Respondents had on average been
members of the local HOG chapter for 4.7 years (S.D. = 3.8).
Fifty-two percent of respondents had a spouse who was also a
member. On average, respondents rode with 6.1 other bikers
(S.D. = 3.5) plus 3.0 passengers (S.D. = 2.2), resulting in an
average small group size of approximately 9 people.
4.2. Participants and procedures (non-Harley group)
These participants were members of the Southern Cruisers
Riding Club (SCRC), a motorcycle club for riders of any
3
This estimate is based on personal communication with Mrs. Janet
Nightingale, editor of the local HOG chapter monthly newsletter. The
remaining (inactive) members contain a number of first-time members who
receive a one-year complimentary membership as a result of purchasing a
Harley Davidson motorcycle, but who fail to attend meetings or join small
riding groups during the first year. A large number of other members either are
loners, belong to other non-Harley groups where they spend most of their
recreation time, or for whatever reason are not engaged with the HOG chapter
or a riding group.
52 R.P. Bagozzi, U.M. Dholakia / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 23 (2006) 45–61

Table 1 Table 1 (continued)

Details of measures in the study
Constructs and measures
Constructs and measures
Evaluative social identity (two measures)
Attitudes (four measures) ➢“I am a valuable member of the group I indicated above” (7-point “does not
“On the following scales, please express your attitude toward participating in describe me at all–describes me very well” scale)
activities such as riding or meeting together with the group of club friends ➢“I am an important member of the group I indicated above” (7-point scale;
you identified above sometime during the next one month.” (7-point scales) same as first measure)
➢Foolish–wise
➢Harmful–beneficial Desires (three measures)
➢Bad–Good ➢“I desire to participate in activities such as riding or meeting together with
➢Punishing–Rewarding the group of my club friends I mentioned above during the next one month”
(7 point “agree–disagree” scale)
Positive anticipated emotions (nine measures) ➢“My desire for participating in activities such as riding or meeting with the
“If I am able to participate in activities such as riding or meeting together with group of my club friends I mentioned above during the next one month can
the group of club friends I identified above during the next month, I will be described as…” (7-point “very weak desire–very strong desire” scale)
feel…” (7-point “not at all–very much” scales) ➢“I want to participate in activities such as riding or meeting together with
➢Excited ➢Delighted ➢Happy the group of my club friends I mentioned above during the next month” (7-
➢Glad ➢Satisfied ➢Proud point “does not describe me at all–describes me very much” scale)
➢Self-assured ➢Relief ➢Contentment
Social intentions (two measures)
Negative anticipated emotions (twelve measures) ➢“I intend that our group [i.e., the group of club friends you identified above]
“If I am unable to participate in activities such as riding or meeting together participate in activities such as riding or meeting together sometime during
with the group of club friends I identified above during the next month, I will the next one month” (5-point “strongly agree–strongly disagree” scale)
feel…” (7-point “not at all–very much” scales) ➢“We [i.e., the group of club friends identified above] intend to participate in
➢Angry ➢Frustrated ➢Guilty activities such as riding or meeting together sometime during the next one
➢Ashamed ➢Sad ➢Disappointed month” (5-point “strongly agree–strongly disagree” scale)
➢Depressed ➢Worried ➢Uncomfortable
➢Anxious ➢Agitated ➢Nervous Brand identification (single measure)
➢“How would you express the degree of overlap between your own personal
Subjective norms (two measures) identity and the identity of ‘Harley-Davidson’ as you interpret it?” (8-point
“Please express how strongly most people who are important to you feel you graphical “not at all–very much” scale)
should or should not participate in activities such as riding or meeting
together with the group of club friends you normally ride with…” (7-point Group behavior (two measures)1
scales) ➢“About how many outings do you think you will participate in with the
➢“Most people who are important in my life think I (circle appropriate group of club friends you mentioned above in the next month?” (Open-
number): should 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: should not ride or meet with my club ended response scale)
friends sometime during the next one month”. ➢“About how many outings do you think you will participate in next year in
➢“Most people who are important to me would (circle appropriate number): a typical month?” (Open-ended response scale)
approve 1: 2: 3: 4: 5: 6: 7: disapprove of me participating in activities such
as riding or meeting together with my club friends sometime during the Brand-related behavior (three measures)1, 2
next one month” ➢“How often do you purchase motorcycle accessories for your Harley?”
(Seven-item “once a year–seven or more times a year” scale)
Perceived behavioral control (two measures) ➢“About how much money do you spend per year on motorcycle accessories
➢“How much control do you have over participating in activities such as for your Harley?” (Open-ended response scale)
riding or meeting together with the group of club friends you identified ➢“About how often do you visit Harley bike dealer showrooms in a year?”
above during the next one month?” (7-point “no control–total control” (Open-ended response scale)
scale) 1
To improve distributional properties, natural log transformations of these
➢“For me to participate in activities such as riding or meeting together with
measures were used in the analysis; 2For the non-brand-specific rider sample, the
the group of club friends I mentioned above during the next month is…” (7-
word ‘Harley’ was replaced with ‘motorcycle.’
point “difficult–easy” scale)

Cognitive social identity (two measures)
➢How would you express the degree of overlap between your personal
identity and the identity of the group of club friends you mentioned above
when you are actually part of your group of club friends and engaging in
group activities such as riding, meeting together, etc.? (8-point graphical
“not at all–very much” scale)
➢Please indicate to what degree your self-image overlaps with the identity of
the group of your club friends as you perceive it (7-point “not at all–very
much” scale)
Affective social identity (two measures)
➢How attached are you to the group you mentioned above? (7-point “not at
all attached–attached very much” scale)
➢How strong would you say your feelings of belongingness are toward the
group you indicated above? (7-point “not at all strong–very strong” scale)
motorcycle brand. The SCRC currently has over 12,000 active
members with chapters all over the United States, and a strong
history of using the Internet to organize club activities.4 The
questionnaire was similar in content and format to the one sent
to the Harley group and sought information regarding
respondents' rider groups. It was placed on the SCRC web
site (www.southerncruisers.net). Members were requested to
participate in the survey “to help club officers to better
understand members' needs, wishes, and ideas” regarding the
4
The SCRC's founder credits its web-site as playing a very important role in
increasing its popularity and the rapid multiplication of SCRC chapters
throughout the United States (see http://www.southerncruisers.net/history.htm
for details).
 R.P. Bagozzi, U.M. Dholakia / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 23 (2006) 45–61 53

Table 2
Means, standard deviations, and reliabilities of scales
Scale Harley small group community Non-Harley rider communities
Mean Standard deviation Reliability1 Mean Standard deviation Reliability
Attitudes 5.31 1.15 .94 5.59 1.05 .88
Subjective norms 5.76 1.50 .87 5.77 1.45 .80
Positive anticipated emotion 4.59 1.59 .95 4.97 1.39 .91
Negative anticipated emotion 1.82 1.08 .95 2.24 1.19 .90
Desires 5.19 1.43 .93 6.07 1.03 .85
Cognitive social identity 4.14 1.71 .90 4.21 1.62 .88
Affective social identity 4.61 1.64 .91 4.88 1.57 .87
Evaluative social identity 4.30 1.89 .96 4.74 1.92 .94
Perceived behavioral control 4.71 1.64 .57 4.86 1.48 .62
Brand identification 4.79 2.04 – –2 – –
Social intention 3.86 .93 .90 4.32 .90 .82
Group behavior 1.02 .73 .74 .95 .60 .51
Brand-related behavior 2.15 .66 .62 2.01 .63 .55
1
Note that reliabilities are calculated based on all the measures used in the study. As an example, the reliability of attitudes is based on its four measures (see Table 1). In
cases where the construct has two measures, Pearson rs are reported instead of Cronbach's αs. 2Brand identification was not measured for the non-Harley rider
communities.

club's functioning. In addition, the club's national membership
director sent e-mails to all chapter officers requesting them to
encourage their members to participate in the survey. The
survey, using the measures in Table 1, was available on the
SCRC web-site for a period of two weeks. Participation was
voluntary and no monetary incentives were given to respon-
dents. As a token of appreciation, the researchers developed a
detailed marketing research report for the SCRC leadership and
helped them in the creation of a marketing program to attract
new members.
Characteristics of this sample were as follows. Of the 298
completed surveys received, 249 (83.6%) were men, while
49 (16.4%) were women. Ages of respondents ranged from
20 to 67 (mean = 43.2 years, S.D. = 9.4). Riding experience
ranged from 1 to 51 years (mean = 16.6 years, S.D. = 13.4).
Respondents had been members of SCRC for an average of
1.4 years (S.D. = 1.1). Forty one percent of respondents had a
spouse who was also a member. On average, respondents
rode with 6.5 other riders (S.D. = 3.4) resulting in a group
size of approximately eight members. Details regarding
passengers were not collected from this group. Forty-three
(14.4%) respondents owned a Harley-Davidson, 112 (37.6%)
owned a Honda, 44 (14.8%) owned a Kawasaki, and 70
(23.5%) owned a Yamaha motorcycle. Other brands
mentioned less frequently included BMW, Triumph, Guzzi,
and Indian. Harley owners were removed from the SCRC
sample prior to analysis.5
4.3. Test of hypotheses
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Structural Equation
Models (SEM) were used to test our proposed theoretical
5
Note that this was done to prevent the possibility that the SCRC Harley
riders could concurrently belong to Harley small group brand communities, and
their survey responses could be colored by any such membership. Our results
do not differ materially whether or not we include this sub-sample in the
analysis.
framework. The LISREL 8.54 program was employed for this
purpose (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1999). The goodness-of-fit of the
estimated models was assessed with χ2 tests, the root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA), the non-normed fit
index (NNFI), and the comparative fit index (CFI). Discussions
of these indices may be found in Bentler (1990), Browne and
Cudeck (1993), and Marsh, Balla, and Hau (1996). Satisfactory
model fits are indicated by non-significant χ2 tests, RMSEA
values less than or equal to .08, and NNFI and CFI values greater
than or equal to .90. Tests of mediation were performed with χ2-
difference tests. Two indicators were used to operationalize each
latent variable, except for brand identification where only one
item was available. For latent variables with more than two
items, these were combined to produce two indicators, using the
so-called partial disaggregation model (Bagozzi & Heatherton,
1994). Item parcels were created by averaging multiple
measures (e.g., the first five measures of positive anticipated
emotions were averaged to form the first indicator, and the
remaining four measures were used to form the second
indicator). This approach yielded models with less parameters
to estimate and reasonable ratios of cases to parameters, while
smoothing out measurement error to a certain extent. All
analyses were performed on covariance matrices (Cudeck,
1989).
4.4. Results
4.4.1. Reliability
Table 2 summarizes the means, standard deviations, and
reliabilities for the 11 scales with multiple measures separately
for the Harley small group brand communities and the non-
brand-specific riding groups. In most cases, the reliabilities are
much above the minimum of 0.70 recommended in the literature
(Nunnally, 1978). Exceptions occur for perceived behavioral
control (r = .57 for Harley and r = .62 for non-Harley group
members), brand-related behavior (α = .62 for Harley and α = .55
for non-Harley group members) and group behavior (r = .51 for
non-Harley group members).
54 R.P. Bagozzi, U.M. Dholakia / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 23 (2006) 45–61

4.4.2. Discriminant validity
For the Harley and the non-Harley samples, we separately
evaluated discriminant validity using two different approaches.
First, CFA models were built for each sample in LISREL. The
Harley brand community sample had 13 latent constructs and 25
measures, whereas the non-Harley group had 12 constructs and
24 measures (brand identification was not available for this
group). Results, as interpreted by the goodness-of-fit measures,
showed that the models fit the data well in both cases. For the
Harley brand community sample, the goodness-of-fit measures
were as follows: χ2(198) = 238.65, p ≈ .02, RMSEA = .03,
SRMR = .04, NNFI = .99, CFI = .99. For the non-Harley group,
the goodness-of-fit measures were: χ2(186) = 245.80, p ≈ .00,
RMSEA = .03, SRMR = .04, NNFI = .98, CFI = .99. The ϕ-
matrices (correlations between constructs, corrected for atten-
uation) for the two samples are provided in Table 3.
As a first test of discriminant validity, we checked whether
the correlations among the latent constructs were significantly
less than one. Since none of the confidence intervals of the ϕ-
values (± two standard errors) included the value of one, this test
provides evidence of discriminant validity.
Second, for each pair of factors, we compared the χ2-value
for a measurement model constraining their correlation to equal
one to a baseline measurement model without this constraint. A
χ2-difference test was performed for each pair of factors (a total
of 76 tests in all for each sample), and in every case resulted in a
significant difference, again suggesting that all measures of
constructs in the measurement model achieve discriminant
validity.
4.4.3. Path model for Harley small group brand community
sample
Fig. 2 presents the findings for the path model for the Harley
Brand Community Groups (HBCGs). This model fits the data
well: χ2(272) = 507.06, p ≃ .00, RMSEA = .069, NNFI = .91, and
CFI = .93. It can be seen, as hypothesized, that desire to
participate in the small group brand community is significantly
influenced by attitude (γ1 = .13, p b .05), positive anticipated
emotions (γ2 = .23, p b .01), negative anticipated emotions
(γ3 = .10, p b .05), subjective norms (γ4 = .24, p b .001), and
social identity (γ7 = .43, p b .001). We have presented standard-
ized parameter estimates for ease of interpretation, where it can
be seen that social identity has the strongest impact and is about
1.8 times more powerful than the next largest determinants of
participation desire (i.e., positive anticipated emotions and
subjective norms). Attitudes and negative anticipated emotions
have the smallest effects on participation desire, showing
roughly half the impact of positive anticipated emotions and
subjective norms and about one quarter the impact of social
identity on participation desire, respectively. Reflecting the

Table 3
ϕ-matrix of latent constructs for Harley small group brand community sample
GRPB BRNB SINT DES BRNI CSI ASI ESI ATT PAE NAE SN PBC
GRPB 1
BRNB .31⁎ 1
SINT .52⁎ .16⁎ 1
DES .40⁎ .14⁎ .81⁎ 1
BRNI .12⁎ .39⁎ .21⁎ .27⁎ 1
CSI .23⁎ .20⁎ .53⁎ .68⁎ .48⁎ 1
ASI .44⁎ .19⁎ .64⁎ .76⁎ .30⁎ .72⁎ 1
ESI .50⁎ .15⁎ .63⁎ .66⁎ .16⁎ .59⁎ .84⁎ 1
ATT .13⁎ .06⁎ .49⁎ .57⁎ .30⁎ .40⁎ .45⁎ .37⁎ 1
PAE .28⁎ − .02⁎ .54⁎ .72⁎ .27⁎ .55⁎ .59⁎ .57⁎ .46⁎ 1
NAE .21⁎ .02⁎ .32⁎ .37⁎ .08⁎ .18⁎ .27⁎ .21⁎ .27⁎ .42⁎ 1
SN .22⁎ .12⁎ .49⁎ .64⁎ .17⁎ .55⁎ .52⁎ .48⁎ .34⁎ .45⁎ .18⁎ 1
PBC .34⁎ − .01⁎ .45⁎ .36⁎ .01⁎ .23⁎ .32⁎ .46⁎ .28⁎ .14⁎ .08⁎ .23⁎ 1

ϕ-matrix of latent constructs for non-Harley rider community sample

GRPB BRNB SINT DES CSI ASI ESI ATT PAE NAE SN PBC
GRPB 1
BRNB .42⁎ 1
SINT .17 .42⁎ 1
DES .28⁎ .34⁎ .63⁎ 1
CSI .30⁎ .39⁎ .16⁎ .22⁎ 1
ASI .25⁎ .40⁎ .43⁎ .66⁎ .47⁎ 1
ESI .23⁎ .44⁎ .39⁎ .51⁎ .40⁎ .80⁎ 1
ATT .15⁎ .14⁎ .38⁎ .43⁎ .01⁎ .29⁎ .25⁎ 1
PAE .10 .30⁎ .27⁎ .56⁎ .32⁎ .48⁎ .40⁎ .34⁎ 1
NAE .05 .22⁎ .23⁎ .33⁎ .08 .30⁎ .22⁎ .35⁎ .44⁎ 1
SN .08 .11 .27⁎ .22⁎ .10 .20⁎ .18⁎ .05 .07 .02 1
PBC .31⁎ .33⁎ .51⁎ .45⁎ .05 .46⁎ .52⁎ .20⁎ .22⁎ .06 .39⁎ 1
GRPB = Group behavior, BRNB = Brand behavior, SINT = Social intentions, DES = Desire, BRNI=Brand identification CSI = Cognitive SI, ASI = Affective SI, ESI=
Evaluative SI, ATT = Attitude, PAE = Positive anticipated emotions, NAE = Negative anticipated emotions, SN = Subjective norms, PBC = Perceived behavioral
control. ⁎Significant at α = .05 level. Note: All correlations are significantly less than 1.0.
 R.P. Bagozzi, U.M. Dholakia / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 23 (2006) 45–61
Fig. 2. Findings for structural equation model: Harley riding group (N = 154). (Parameter estimates presented for structural model only for simplicity.)
effects of five significant antecedents, quite a bit of explained
variance results for desire (R2 = .80).
Also as hypothesized, desire had a strong influence on social
intentions (β1 = .78, p b .001), social intentions had a strong
effect on group behavior (β2 = .47, p b .001), and group behavior
had a moderate effect on brand behavior (β3 = .32, p b .01). The
respective explained variances for these endogenous variables
were .64, .22, and .10, respectively. In addition, as hypothe-
sized, social identity had a significant impact on brand
identification (γ8 = .24, p b .01). However, only 6% of the
variance in brand identification was accounted for by social
identity. This could be because, as Algesheimer et al. (2005)
showed in their study, the consumer's relationship with the
brand is often a function of a host of individualistic factors
concerning the functional and symbolic value derived from its
use. Our finding is that in addition to such factors, brand
community identification also contributes to increasing the
brand's value for the consumer through increasing the overlap
between one's own image and the brand's image.
Three hypothesized paths failed to reach statistical
significance. Perceived behavioral control neither predicted
desire (γ5 = .05, ns) nor social intentions (γ6 = .10, ns)
significantly.6 Likewise, brand identification did not signifi-
cantly affect brand behavior (β4 = .01, ns).
6
Following a reviewer's suggestion, we also considered the possibility that
perceived behavioral control functions as a moderator between attitudes or
desires on the one hand and social intentions on the other. Regression models
revealed the coefficients of interaction terms to be insignificant, suggesting this
was not the case. Details of this analysis are available upon request.
55
All three components of social identity loaded at high levels
on the second-order social identity factor. These loadings
roughly provide an indication of the relative contributions of the
components to overall social identity. It can be seen that the
affective component is the strongest component (and by
implication contributes the most to desire, γ10 = .95, p b .001),
while the evaluative component is somewhat less strong
(γ11 = .88, p b .001), and the cognitive component the least
strong (γ9 = .65, p b .001). Nevertheless, all three components of
social identity are of consequence.
4.4.4. Tests of mediation for the HBCGs
Table 4 shows the results for the formal tests of mediation
implied by the hypotheses and the model in Fig. 1. The first row
in the table displays the goodness-of-fit findings for the model
as pictured in Fig. 2. This model serves as a baseline for χ2-
difference tests of direct paths from antecedents to conse-
quences, one and two steps removed. For example, the second
row in Table 4 presents the χ2-values for the model of Fig. 2
with a direct path from social identity to social intentions added.
The difference in χ2-values between the baseline model and this
model (χd2(1) = .66), with one degree of freedom, is a test of the
significance of the added path. As this difference is not
significant (p N .30), we may conclude that the direct path from
social identity to social intentions is insignificant, and therefore
desire mediates all the effects of social identity on social
intentions, as hypothesized.
Row 3 in Table 3 reveals that the direct path from attitude to
social intentions is non-significant (χd2(1) = .13, p N .70), and row
56 R.P. Bagozzi, U.M. Dholakia / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 23 (2006) 45–61

Table 4 that neither subjective norms (χd2 (1) = .67, p N .30) nor
Summary of findings for Harley small group brand community sample perceived behavioral control (χd2(1) = .34, p N .57) significantly
Model Goodness-of-fit Tests of hypotheses affect group behavior. Thus, as anticipated, social intentions
1. Baseline model: χ2(272) = 507.06 – fully mediate the effects of subjective norms on group
hypothesized paths (Fig. 1) p ≃ .00 behavior (perceived behavioral control failed to predict either
RMSEA = .069 desire or social intentions and therefore there is nothing to
NNFI = .91
mediate here).
CFI = .93
2. Social χ2(271) = 506.40 M1 − M2:
identity → intentions (χ2d(1) = .66, p N .30) 4.4.5. Path model for non-Harley rider group members
3. Attitude → intentions χ2(271) = 506.93 M3 − M1: Fig. 3 presents the findings for the path model for the non-
(χ2d(1) = .13, p N .70) Harley Rider Groups (NHRGs). This model fits the data well:
4. Positive anticipated χ2(271) = 506.90 M4 − M1:
χ2 (225) = 366.60, p ≃ .00, RMSEA = .046, NNFI = .94, and
emotions → intentions (χ2d(1) = .16, p N .68)
5. Negative anticipated χ2(271) = 506.51 M5 − M1: CFI = .95. It can be seen, as hypothesized, that desire is
emotions → intentions (χ2d(1) = .55, p N .46) significantly influenced by attitude (γ1 = .24, p b .001), positive
6. Subjective χ2(271) = 506.58 M6 − M1: anticipated emotions (γ2 = .28, p b .001), subjective norms
norm → intentions (χ2d(1) = .48, p N .49) (γ4 = .11, p b .05), and social identity (γ7 = .39, p b .001). As
7. Social identity → group χ2(271) = 503.68 M7 − M1:
with the HBCGs, social identity is the strongest determinant of
behavior (χ2d(1) = 3.38, p N .07)
8. Attitude → group behavior χ2(271) = 506.58 M8 − M1: desire, where it is approximately half again as impactful as
(χ2d(1) = .48, p N .49) attitude and positive anticipated emotions and four times as
9. Positive anticipated χ2(271) = 506.83 M9 − M1: impactful as subjective norms. Contrary to hypotheses, neither
emotions → group (χ2d(1) = .23, p N .66) negative anticipated emotions (γ3 = .01, ns) nor perceived
behavior
behavioral control (γ5 = .07, ns) significantly influenced desire
10. Negative anticipated χ2(271) = 506.90 M10 − M1:
emotions → group (χ2d(1) = .16, p N .68) for the NHRGs.
behavior As forecast, social intentions were significantly affected by
11. Subjective norm → group χ2(271) = 506.39 M11 − M1: desire (β1 = .78, p b .001) and perceived behavioral control
behavior (χ2d(1) = .67, p N .30) (γ6 = .14, p b .01), group behavior was significantly influenced
12. Perceived behavioral χ2(271) = 506.72 M12 − M1:
by social intentions (β2 = .37, p b .001), brand behavior was
control → group behavior (χ2d(1) = .34, p N .57)
significantly determined by group behavior (β3 = .33, p b .01),
and brand behavior was significantly affected by social identity
4 shows that the direct path from positive anticipated emotions (γ8 = .17, p b .05).
is likewise non-significant (χd2(1) = .16, p N .68). Thus, desire The amounts of explained variance in desire, social
mediates all the effects of attitude and positive anticipated intentions, group behavior, and brand behavior were .58, .41,
emotions on social intentions, as predicted in our proposed .14, and .15, respectively. These are lower than the values
framework. found for the HBCGs, except for brand behavior (compare
Rows 5 and 6, respectively, summarize the tests of direct Figs. 2 and 3; again, brand identification was not measured for
effects from negative anticipated emotions and subjective the NHRGs because many different brands were purchased
norms on social intentions. As anticipated, these paths are and coefficients associated with causes and effects of brand
non-significant (χd2(1) = .55, p N .46) and (χd2(1) = .48, p N .49), identification could not be interpreted as referring to a singular
respectively), and hence desire fully mediates the effects of brand in this case).
negative anticipated emotions and subjective norms on social All three components of social identity for the NHRGs
intentions. loaded highly on the second order factor. It can be seen in
The last six rows in Table 4 present the tests of mediation for Fig. 3 that the affective component is again the strongest
social intentions. Rows 7 and 8 show the results for the tests of component (γ10 = .99, p b .001), while the evaluative compo-
direct paths from social identity and attitude, respectively, on nent is somewhat less strong (γ11 = .85, p b .001), and the
group behavior. It can be seen that the respective paths are non- cognitive component is the least strong (γ9 = .57, p b .001).
significant (χd2(1) = 3.38, p N .07), and (χd2(1) = .48, p N .49), and Nevertheless, all three components of social identity are of
therefore, as hypothesized, social intentions fully mediate the consequence.
effects of social identity and attitude on group behavior.
Rows 9 and 10 display the findings for the tests of direct effects 4.4.6. Tests of mediation for the NHRGs
of positive and negative anticipated emotions on group behavior, Table 5 presents the findings for the formal tests of mediation
respectively. The χ2-difference tests reveal that these effects are implied by the hypotheses in Fig. 1 for the NHRGs. The first
non-significant, as predicted (χd2(1) = .23, p N .66), and (χd2(1) row again displays the goodness-of-fit results for the model as
= .16, p N .68), respectively). Hence, social intentions mediate all pictured in Fig. 3. Row 2 shows the results for the test of a direct
the effects of anticipated emotions on group behavior. path from social identity to social intentions, where it can be
Finally, rows 11 and 12 in Table 4 summarize the results seen that the path is non-significant, as hypothesized (χd2(1)
for tests of mediation of subjective norms and perceived = .37, p N .56). Desire fully mediates the effects of social identity
behavioral control, respectively, by intentions. It can be seen on social intentions.
 R.P. Bagozzi, U.M. Dholakia / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 23 (2006) 45–61
Fig. 3. Findings for structural equation model: non-Harley riding group (N = 255). (Parameter estimates presented for structural model only for simplicity.)
The third row in Table 5 reveals, contrary to hypotheses,
that attitude has a direct effect on social intentions
(χd2(1) = 5.29, p b .05). Thus, given the additional finding of a
significant effect of attitude on desire, we conclude that desire
partially mediates the effects of attitude on social intentions.
Rows 4–6 indicate that, as predicted, neither positive
anticipated emotions (χd2(1) = 1.50, p N .21), negative anticipat-
ed emotions (χd2 (1) = .55, p N .48), nor subjective norms
(χd2(1) = 2.68, p N .10) significantly influence social intentions.
Thus, given the results for the paths shown in Fig. 3, we
conclude that desire fully mediates the effects of positive
anticipated emotions and subjective norms on social intentions
(negative anticipated emotions failed to affect social inten-
tions, so there is no influence to mediate here).
Row 7 in Table 5 reveals, contrary to expectations, that social
identity has a direct effect on group behavior for the NHRGs
(χd2 (1) = 9.07, p b .001). Therefore, social intentions only
partially mediate the effects of social identity on group
behavior. We find in row 8 in Table 5 that attitude does not
directly affect group behavior (χd2(1) = .99, p N .35). Hence, as
predicted, social intentions fully mediate the effects of attitude
on group behavior. As shown in row 9 in Table 5, positive
anticipated emotions have a significant direct effect on group
behavior (χd2(1) = 4.54, p b .05). Thus, contrary to forecasts,
social intentions only partially mediate the effects of positive
anticipated emotions on group behavior. Finally, rows 10–12
demonstrate that neither negative anticipated emotions
(χd2 (1) = 1.38, p N .24), nor subjective norms (χd2 (1) = .81,
p N .40), nor perceived behavioral control (χ d2 (1) = 2.00,
57
p N .17) influences group behavior, consistent with hypotheses.
In other words, social intentions fully mediate the effects of
subjective norms and perceived behavioral control on group
behavior (because negative anticipated emotions did not affect
desire, there is nothing to mediate here).
4.4.7. Test of relative differences in key associations across
HBCGs and NHRGs
We also conducted a simultaneous confirmatory factor
analysis for the latent variables common to the two groups.
This twelve-factor model fit the data well: χ2(374) = 595.06,
p ≃ .00, RMSEA = .047, NNFI = .95, and CFI = .96. The test of
equality of factor loadings showed that we cannot reject the
hypothesis of invariance: (χd2(12) = 19.99, p N .05).
Table 6 presents the results for tests of differences in
correlations between the correlated factors corresponding to the
key paths in Fig. 1. It can be seen that eight of the eleven
correlations are statistically different across groups, with the
values corresponding to the HBCGs greater than the NHRGs in
every case. The correlation between cognitive identity and
desire and between subjective norms and desire is especially
greater for the HBCGs than NHRGs (.72 vs .14 and .69 vs .22,
respectively). This suggests that cognitive identity and
subjective norms have much greater effects on desire for the
HBCGs than NHRGs. Nevertheless, the six other correlations
also point to greater impacts for the respective paths for the
HBCGs versus NHRGs. Three correlations did not differ
significantly between the two groups: perceived behavioral
control with desire (.13 vs .30), negative anticipated emotions
58 R.P. Bagozzi, U.M. Dholakia / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 23 (2006) 45–61

Table 5 membership (sometimes called, collective or group-based self-

Summary of findings for non-Harley rider community sample esteem).
Model Goodness-of-fit Tests of hypotheses Social identity in relation to one's small group brand
1 Baseline model: χ2(225) = 366.60 – community was an important indirect determinant of group
hypothesized paths (Fig. 2) p ≃ .00 behavior for both Harley brand community and the non-Harley
RMSEA = .046 rider club members. At the same time, the magnitude of effects
NNFI = .94
was statistically stronger for the small group brand community
CFI = .95
2. Social χ2(224) = 366.23 M2 − M1: versus the non-brand-specific rider club members. This result is
identity → intentions (χ2d(1) = .37, p N .56) noteworthy, providing evidence that customer communities
3. Attitude → intentions χ2(224) = 361.31 M3 − M1: organized in small groups around a brand engender greater
(χ2d(1) = 5.29, p b .05) social identification, when compared to similar communities of
4. Positive anticipated χ2(224) = 365.10 M4 − M1:
customers organized around the product category more
emotions → intentions (χ2d(1) = 1.50, p N .21)
5. Negative anticipated χ2(224) = 366.05 M5 − M1: generally. The drivers of this greater social identity are worth
emotions → intentions (χ2d(1) = .55, p N .48) studying further in future research. Here, there are multiple
6. Subjective χ2(224) = 363.92 M6 − M1: possibilities in this regard.
norm → intentions (χ2d(1) = 2.68, p N .10) One is that customers in the Harley small group brand
7. Social identity → group χ2(224) = 357.53 M7 − M1:
communities are more homogeneous in their psychographic
behavior (χ2d(1) = 9.07, p b .001)
8. Attitude → group behavior χ2(224) = 365.61 M8 − M1: characteristics (although demographically they were equally
(χ2d(1) = .99, p N .35) varied in our samples), leading to greater overlaps between the
9. Positive anticipated χ2(224) = 362.06 M9 − M1: personal identities of members and the group in the former
emotions → group (χ2d(1) = 4.54, p b .05) when compared to the later case. A second distinct possibility is
behavior
that in the former case, the organizing brand serves to magnify
10. Negative anticipated χ2(224) = 365.22 M10 − M1:
emotions → group (χ2d(1) = 1.38, p N .24) or accentuate the similarities among group members leading
behavior them to experience stronger social identity. Equally interesting
11. Subjective norm → group χ2(224) = 365.79 M11 − M1: was the finding that the association between cognitive
behavior (χ2d(1) = .81, p N .40) identification and desire was much greater for Harley brand
12. Perceived behavioral χ2(224) = 364.60 M12 − M1:
community members than the non-brand-specific rider club
control → group behavior (χ2d(1) = 2.00, p N .17)
members. This result suggests that awareness may go beyond
identification with one's group to strongly influence the desire
with desire (.37 vs .33), and group behavior with brand behavior to, and ultimately actual participation in, group activities.
(.46 vs .37). We also studied subjective norms which reflect quite
different social processes than social identity. They capture
5. General discussion the experienced social pressure, are based on the need for
approval and are interpersonal (as opposed to group-oriented) in
The findings indicate that customer participation in collec- focus. Both subjective norms and social identity were found to
tive activities within small group brand communities can be be important antecedents of group behavior. However, scruti-
explained by a combination of social and psychological nizing the findings within each of the two consumer
variables. One of these variables captures an aspect of shared communities we studied, we found social identity to be between
volition of group members and was termed ‘social intentions’. about 2 to 3 times more impactful than subjective norms.
We argued that social intentions have hitherto been accorded Comparing the two samples, the effect of subjective norms was
relatively little attention by marketers, but are important for a
variety of consumer behaviors, being particularly useful for
Table 6
characterizing participation in small group brand communities. Differences in correlations between key variables
We found social intentions to be strong proximal determinants
Correlation Harley small group Non-Harley
of group behavior in our study.
brand community rider group
A second kind of social variable we considered in order to
Desire-intention .79⁎⁎ .61
explain brand community activities was the social identity of
Affective ID-desire .79⁎⁎ .63
brand community members with their specific small circle of Cognitive ID-desire .72⁎⁎⁎ .14
friends with whom they interact frequently. We note that the Evaluative ID-desire .72⁎⁎ .51
construct of social identity as proposed here is a refinement of, Subjective norm-desire .69⁎⁎⁎ .22
and elaboration on, the notion of ‘consciousness of kind’, Perceived behavioral .13 .30
control-desire
designated by Muniz and O'Guinn (2001) as a core component
Attitude-desire .62⁎⁎ .47
of brand community. It consists of three interrelated parts: the Positive AE-desire .72⁎⁎⁎ .57
customer's self-awareness that s/he is a member of a particular Negative AE-desire .37 .33
brand community (cognitive identification), the attachment to, Intention-group behavior .50⁎ .36
or feelings of belongingness with, the brand community Group behavior-brand behavior .46 .37
(affective commitment), and the evaluative significance of ⁎p b .05, ⁎⁎p b .01, ⁎⁎⁎p b .001.
 R.P. Bagozzi, U.M. Dholakia / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 23 (2006) 45–61
much stronger for the Harley small group brand communities
than for the non-brand-specific rider groups. These findings
support the notion that small group brand communities are
egalitarian associations.
There is still another sense of social influence that we did not
examine in the present study, group norms, or what Kelman
(1974) termed, internalization. This could be an important
aspect of social influence in small group brand communities
(e.g., Bagozzi & Lee, 2002) and would seem to be a worthy
topic for future research.
In our study, we also found the need to deepen and broaden
psychological explanation within the TPB. Desire was a key
mediator introduced into the TPB to better account for how
rational and other reasons for acting are transformed into a
decision or intention to act. Building on recent work in
philosophy, we constructed desire as a motivational variable
functioning in an integrative and executive fashion to activate
the social intention to act. Desires have only recently begun to
be studied in this sense.
Strong tests of mediation were performed in this study by the
use of χ2-difference tests. We found for the Harley small group
brand communities that desire fully mediated the effects of all
antecedents on social intentions shown in Fig. 1 (except for
perceived behavioral control which had no significant direct or
indirect effects and does not appear to be relevant for the brand
communities under investigation). For the non-Harley rider
communities, desire fully mediated the effects of attitudes on
intentions but only partially mediated the effects of social
identity, subjective norms, positive anticipated emotions, and
negative anticipated emotions on intentions. It is unclear why
desire performed as predicted for the former group and showed
direct and indirect effects on intentions for the latter. One
possibility is that, given the nature and focus of Harley brand
communities, desires are more well-formed and crystallized for
Harley brand communities than the non-Harley rider groups.
Non-Harley group members may be less cohesive and relatively
more individualistic and thus desires to participate in group
activities may be less organized and focused. If true, this
provides another instance of the brand community exerting
greater social influence on its members than a community
organized around a product category.
The above explanation for the different outcomes for
mediation by desires receives indirect support when we
examine the non-hypothesized, rival direct effects on group
behavior. Again, desire and intentions fully mediated all effects
of antecedents on group behavior, as hypothesized and as
depicted in Fig. 1, for Harley brand community members. But
for non-Harley rider community members, we found that
intentions fully mediated the effects of attitudes, negative
anticipated emotions, subjective norms, and perceived behav-
ioral control, and only partially mediated the effects of social
identity and positive anticipated emotions on group behavior.
The two direct effects on group behavior for non-Harley rider
community members (by social identity and positive anticipated
emotions) imply that these variables have non-volitional,
automatic impacts, in addition to indirect volitional effects.
As with desires, intentions for non-Harley members may not be
59
well-formed or fully crystallized or may be unstable. Whether
this interpretation is correct, and what the conditions affecting
the formation and stability of desires and intentions are, deserve
further study.
The other psychological content we introduced into the TPB
concerns anticipated emotions. We found that positive and
negative anticipated emotions influenced desire to participate in
group activities significantly for Harley small group brand
communities, but only positive anticipated emotions influenced
desire for non-brand-specific rider groups. It seems that Harley
versus non-brand-specific riders are more goal-directed and
were bothered to a greater extent by the prospects of failing to
achieve their group goals. The differential aspects of anticipated
emotions may be a consequence of greater solidarity and
affinity for the former versus the latter.
Brand-related behaviors were found to be consequences of
group behavior for both Harley small group brand communities
and non-Harley rider communities, but the amounts of
explained variance in both cases were low. This is likely
because brand-related behaviors may be driven by individual-
istic and situational considerations to a significant extent, which
are not considered in our analysis. Showing that brand-related
behaviors of small group brand community members are
influenced by their participation in the community is an
important step toward the goal of legitimizing brand community
building programs and placing them within the portfolio of
marketing programs available to brand and marketing managers
in consumer settings. It could also be that more refined and
multidimensional measures of brand-related behavior could
help to bolster the strength of the relationship between group
and brand behavior. Purchase diaries or panel studies where
brand-related behaviors are measured more frequently could
also help in this regard.
Brand identification was found to be dependent on social
identity with one's small group brand community, but brand
identification did not significantly predict brand-related behav-
ior for Harley riders. This is probably due to measurement error,
because brand identification, unlike the other constructs in the
model, was indicated by a single item, making predictions based
on it particularly susceptible to unreliability.
Our findings regarding brand identification, along with those
of the recent study by Algesheimer et al. (2005) raise interesting
questions regarding the relationship between brand identifica-
tion and brand community belonging and participation. On the
one hand, as we found, social identity with the brand community
can contribute to the participant's identification with the brand.
Practically, this link suggests that brand community may be
effective means of recruiting novice customers and making them
attached and loyal to the brand. On the other hand, as
Algesheimer et al. (2005) showed, brand identification can be
an antecedent to the consumer's participation and affiliation with
the community. Such a relationship implies that the brand
community may be more suitable and effective for experienced
and already-engaged customers of the firm.
Are these two perspectives inconsistent? We believe that
there is interplay between the consumer's relationship with the
band and the brand community. It is possible that among others,
60 R.P. Bagozzi, U.M. Dholakia / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 23 (2006) 45–61
current strength of the brand, the importance of the product
class, and the disposition of the consumer could all be potential
moderators in determining the direction(s) and the strength(s) of
the relationship between brand identification and brand
community social identity. Further research is needed to
examine this important issue.
To summarize the results, small group brand communities
were found to express their decisions in social intentions, which
in turn influenced group behavior. In addition to the effects of
the classic antecedents specified under the TPB (i.e., attitudes
and subjective norms), we found that dynamic appraisals in the
form of anticipated emotions and group identification processes
in the form of social identity were key explanatory variables. All
antecedents were further found to work through desires enroute
to their effects on decisions and behavior.
In concluding, it is important to position the present
research with respect to the large and vibrant research body on
customer satisfaction, brand loyalty, and customer equity (e.g.,
Dick & Basu, 1994; Oliver, 1999). Also based on attitude-
theoretic models, this research has shown customer loyalty to
be explained by consumers' product-related cognitions (e.g.,
expectations and evaluations of performance), commitment
toward the brand, and identification with the brand's image
(e.g., Bendapudi & Berry, 1997; Fullerton, 2003; Rust,
Lemon, & Zeithaml, 2004). Rather than supplanting it, our
research complements and adds to these analyses of customer
loyalty. In particular, we proposed and found that in addition
to cognitive and motivational variables related to the product
and the brand that these studies have examined, commitment
to a brand can also be influenced (positively) through
encouraging interactions with small groups of like-minded
customers and identification with the group in a social context
offered (and sponsored) by the firm and the brand, but
controlled and managed primarily by the consumers them-
selves (see also Escalas & Bettman, 2003). As such,
encouraging participation in small group brand community
may be yet another means of increasing loyalty and customer
equity, in addition to the variables uncovered by the loyalty
modeling research.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Ann Arbor HOG
Chapter, John Lonskey, Janet Nightingale, and Bill “Jarhead”
Strebel and Rick “Rickster” Perry of the Southern Cruisers
Riding Club, and the many anonymous motorcycle enthusiasts
who participated in this study. When this paper was written
Richard P. Bagozzi was both part-time, Cardiff Business
School, Cardiff, Wales, and full-time at the Jesse H. Jones
School of Management, Rice University.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior &
Human Decisions Processes, 50(2), 179−211.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social
behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U. M., & Herrmann, A. (2005, July). The social
influence of brand community: Evidence from German car clubs. Journal of
Marketing, 64, 19−34.
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned
behavior: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40
(4), 471−499.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1992). The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior
[Special issue]. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(2), 178−204.
Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the concept of intentional social action in consumer
behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(3), 388−396.
Bagozzi, R. P. (2006). Consumer action: Automaticity, purposiveness, and
self-regulation. In N. Malhotra (Ed.), Review of marketing research, vol. 2.
(pp. 3−42). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
Bagozzi, R. P., Baumgartner, H., & Pieters, R. (1998). Goal-directed emotions.
Cognition and Emotion, 12(1), 1−26.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. M. (1999). Goal setting and goal striving in
consumer behavior [Special issue]. Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 19−32.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). A general approach to representing
multifaceted personality constructs: Application to state self-esteem.
Structural Equation Modeling, 1(1), 35−67.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Lee, K. -H. (2002). Multiple routes for social influence: The
role of compliance, internalization, and social identity. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 65(3), 226−247.
Bagozzi, R. P., Wong, N., & Yi, Y. (1999). The role of culture and gender in the
relationship between positive and negative affect. Cognition and Emotion,
13(6), 641−672.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51
(6), 1173−1182.
Belk, R. W., Ger, G., & Askegaard, S. (2003). The fire of desire: A multisited
inquiry into consumer passion. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3),
326−351.
Belk, R. W., & Tumbat, G. (2002). The cult of MacIntosh. Salt Lake City, UT:
Odyssey Films.
Bendapudi, N., & Berry, L. L. (1997). Customer receptivity to relationship
marketing. Journal of Retailing, 73(1), 15−37.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238−246.
Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Self-categorization, affective
commitment and group self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in
the organization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39(4), 555−577.
Bratman, M. E. (1997). I intend that we J. In G. Homström-Hintikka, & R.
Tuomela (Eds.), Contemporary action theory (pp. 49−63). Dordrecht, the
Netherlands: Kluwer.
Brown, S., Kozinets, R. V., & Sherry Jr., J. F. (2003). Teaching old brands new
tricks: Retro branding and the revival of brand meaning. Journal of
Marketing, 67(3), 19−33.
Browne, M., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In
K. A. Bollen, & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models
(pp. 136−162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Calder, B. J., & Ross, M. (1973). Attitudes and behavior. Morristown, NJ:
General Learning Press.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cova, B. (1997). Community and consumption: Towards a definition of the
‘linking value’ of product or services. European Journal of Marketing, 31
(3–4), 297−316.
Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R. K., Blaine, B., & Broadnax, S. (1994). Collective
self-esteem and psychological well-being among White, Black, and Asian
college students. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20,
503−513.
Cudeck, R. (1989). Analysis of correlation matrices using covariance structure
models. Psychological Bulletin, 105(2), 317−327.
Davis, W. A. (1984a). A causal theory of intending. American Philosophical
Quarterly, 21, 43−54.
Davis, W. A. (1984b). The two senses of desire. Philosophical Studies, 45,
181−195.
 R.P. Bagozzi, U.M. Dholakia / Intern. J. of Research in Marketing 23 (2006) 45–61
Dholakia, U. M., Bagozzi, R. P., & Pearo, L. R. K. (2004). A social influence
model of consumer participation in network- and small-group-based virtual
communities. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3),
241−263.
Dick, A., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual
framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22(2), 99−113.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth,
TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J. W. (1999). Self-categorization,
commitment to the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct
aspects of social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29(2–3),
371−389.
Escalas, J. E., & Bettman, J. R. (2003). You are what you eat: The influence of
reference groups on consumers' connections to brands. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 13(3), 339−348.
Fazio, R. H. (1995). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations: Determi-
nants, consequences, and correlates of attitude accessibility. In R. E.
Petty, & J. A. Krosnik (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and conse-
quences (pp. 247−282). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fournier, S., McAlexander, J. H., Schouten, J. W., & Sensiper, S. (2000).
Building brand community on the Harley-Davidson posse ride. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Publishing.
Fullerton, G. (2003). When does commitment lead to loyalty? Journal of Service
Research, 5(4), 333−344.
Gleicher, F., Boninger, D. S., Strathman, A., Armor, D., Hetts, J., & Ahn, M.
(1995). With an eye toward the future: The impact of counterfactual
thinking on affect, attitudes, and behavior. In N. J. Roese, & J. M. Olson
(Eds.), What might have been: The social psychology of counterfactual
thinking (pp. 283−304). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gollwitzer, P. M., Heckhausen, H., & Stellar, B. (1990). Deliberative and
implemental mind-sets: Cognitive tuning toward congruous thoughts and
information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6),
1119−1127.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identification: A social psychology of
intergroup relations and group processes. London: Routledge.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1999). LISREL8 user's reference guide, 2nd ed.
Chicago: Scientific Software International.
Kelman, H. C. (1974). Further thoughts on the processes of compliance,
identification, and internalization. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Perspectives on
social power (pp. 126−171). Chicago: Aldine.
Maffesoli, M. (1996). The time of the tribes: The decline of individualism in
mass society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & Hau, K. -T. (1996). An evaluation of incremental fit
indices: A clarification of mathematical and empirical properties. In G. A.
Marcoulides, & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation
modeling: Issues and techniques (pp. 315−353). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
61
McAlexander, J. H., Schouten, J. W., & Koenig, H. F. (2002). Building brand
community. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 38−54.
Muniz Jr., A. M., & O'Guinn, T. C. (2001). Brand community. Journal of
Consumer Research, 27(4), 412−432.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory, 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill.
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence customer loyalty? (Special issue). Journal of
Marketing, 63(4), 33−44.
Perugini, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2001). The role of desires and anticipated
emotions in goal-directed behavior: Broadening and deepening the theory of
planned behavior. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(1), 79−98.
Perugini, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2004). The distinction between desires and
intentions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(1), 69−84.
Perugini, M., & Conner, M. (2000). Predicting and understanding behavioral
volitions: The interplay between goals and behavior. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 30(5), 705−731.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2000). Co-opting customer competence.
Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 79−87.
Richard, R., van der Pligt, J., & de Vries, N. (1995). Anticipated affective
reactions and prevention of AIDS. British Journal of Social Psychology, 34
(1), 9−21.
Rust, R. T., Lemon, K. N., & Zeithaml, V. A. (2004). Return on marketing using
customer equity to focus marketing strategy. Journal of Marketing, 68(1),
109−127.
Schouten, J. W., & McAlexander, J. H. (1995). Subcultures of consumption: An
ethnography of the new bikers. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(1),
43−61.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity, and social comparison.
In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the
social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 61−67). London: Academic
Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup
behavior. In S. Worchel, & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup
relations (pp. 7−24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (1996). Group norms and the attitude-behavior
relationship: A role for group identification. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 22(8), 776−793.
Tuomela, R. (1995). The importance of us: A philosophical study of basic social
notions. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Williams, R. L., & Cothrel, J. (2000, Summer). Four smart ways to run online
communities. Sloan Management Review, 81−91.
Yates, B. (1999). Outlaw machine: Harley-Davidson and the search for the
American soul. New York, NY: Broadway Books.