_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________ Report Information from ProQuestMarch 19 2015 08:56_______________________________________________________________

Document 1 of 1 Online brand community response to negative brand events: the role of group eWOM Author: Chang, Aihwa; Hsieh, Sara H; Tseng, Timmy H ProQuest document link Abstract: Purpose - Brand communities now play a significant role in building brand loyalty. Past researchesfocus on how brand community facilitates brand loyalty under normal market situations. Yet, limited researchexamines consumer responses to negative events within the brand community context. Drawing from socialidentity theory and the theory of involvement, the present study aims to reveal the role that group eWOM playsin influencing brand community members' evaluation on negative brand decisions.Design/methodology/approach - By using an experimental study, the current research adopts far brandextension as the empirical testing ground. Findings - This research illustrates that group eWOM's influence onbrand community member's attitude toward the negative brand information is affected by member's level ofbrand community identification and brand involvement. When the group eWOM opposes far extension, highbrand community identified members are driven by social creativity to resist negative impacts to the brand.However, when the group eWOM supports far extension, high brand involved members are strengthened bygroup eWOM to promote favorable brand evaluations and attenuate negative impacts to the brand. Practicalimplications - Firms should leverage the ingrained associations between brand community identification, brandinvolvement and group eWOM in affecting brand community's responses to insulate brand community from theimpacts of negative events. Originality/value - The present study extends prior research on customer loyaltyfrom an individual perspective to reveal the significance of group dynamics in influencing brand community'sresponse to negative events. Full text: 1. Introduction Brand community as a social aggregate has drawn the attention of brand fans and has become increasinglyprevalent. Marketers who recognize the value of brand community have begun to either build or facilitatedeveloping offline brand communities and online brand communities (OBC) to encourage customerengagement and foster greater brand loyalty. Previous research on brand community has primarily focussed onhow brand community facilitates brand loyalty under a normal market situation ([53] McAlexander et al. , 2002;[70] Schouten et al. , 2007), yet limited research investigated the influence of community on member brandattitude under negative events. However, as the business environment becomes more competitive, firms havegreater chances to become exposed to negative events that may threaten customer-brand relationship. Crisismanagement has become increasingly challenging because the internet-facilitated word-of-mouth (eWOM)allows consumers to obtain information from widely dispersed groups of people ([52] Lee et al. , 2006; [65]Ratchford et al. , 2001). This easily accessible information could greatly affect consumer consumption decisionsand brand attitudes. Whereas the power of eWOM is heavily studied, most researchers focus on eWOM from anonymous sources,in which the connection among senders and receivers are nonexistent ([31] Godes and Mayzlin, 2004; [71]Shang et al. , 2006; [29] Duan et al. , 2008), with limited research investigating the influence of eWOMgenerated from OBC, in which the relationships can be developed over time ([21] Brown et al. , 2007). Previousstudies have asserted that the strength of relationship within OBC create a profound influence on thepersuasion value of information ([74] Steffes and Burgee, 2009; [22] Brown and Reingen, 1987). However, OBCmember response to group-generated eWOM is not well understood, thus a knowledge gap exists. This study attempts to contribute to the eWOM marketing literature by explaining the effect of group-generatedeWOM on consumer decisions. Past research indicated that with a lack of social ties, consumers evaluate thepersuasiveness of eWOM primarily on content characteristics ([80] Walther, 1996). We suggest that consumer

http://search.proquest.com/docview/1425422202?accountid=149759

response to group-generated eWOM is affected by both group-level factors and individual-level factors. Therationale is as follows. Consumers join a brand community for the purpose of not only accessing informationabout the brand, but also enjoying the communal relationship with other brand admirers ([10] Bagozzi andDholakia, 2006). As [24] Carlson et al. (2008) contend that consumers who join a brand community may "feel asense of community as a result of identifying with the desirable characteristics of a particular brand and/or thecharacteristics of other consumers who purchase the brand." Therefore, consumers may develop two types ofidentification through brand community, one at the group level, which is identification with the community andthe other at individual level which is identification with the brand. Brand community identification (BCI) marks thestrength of the social relationship within the community. In addition, members develop a psychological sense ofbrand community, even when no social interaction exists between brand users ([24] Carlson et al. , 2008). Thebrand, and not the communal relations among brand users, is the key to facilitating consumers' sense ofcommunity, and brand involvement (BI) marks the strength of this type of identification. Because a group exertssocial influence on members by providing various functions such as perceived risk reduction, expertisereference, and provision of individual need for approval ([14] Bearden and Etzel, 1982), we propose that OBCmember attitude toward brands is affected by group generated eWOM, and this influence varies with the level ofBCI and BI. Drawing from social identity theory ([77] Tajfel and Turner, 1979; [76] Tajfel, 1982) and the theory ofinvolvement ([63] Park and Mittal, 1985), the objective of this research is aimed to contribute in revealing bothgroup-level factors and individual-level factors that influence group eWOM within OBC on individual response tonegative brand events. This research adopts far brand extension as the empirical testing ground because as competition intensifies inthe marketplace, brand extensions are increasingly used as an important strategy for firms to gain growth ([3]Aaker, 1997). Brand extension occurs when a firm uses an established brand name to enter a completelydifferent product class ([2] Aaker and Keller, 1990). For example, Oral-B extends from toothbrush to toothpaste.For brands with strong loyalty, the temptation is to exploit that loyalty by stretching the brand to other productcategories. Brand extension entering a product category that fits lowly with the original product classes aremostly considered far extensions ([13] Barone et al. , 2000; [87] Zhang and Sood, 2002). Far brand extensions(e.g. Harley Davidson Perfume) may generate a negative image that can damage evaluations of the brandextension and parent brand ([4] Ahluwalia, 2008; [27] DelVecchio and Smith, 2005). [1] Aaker (2002) alsocontended that the introduction of extensions far from the core business makes the parent brand lose credibility.The relevance of the scenario makes it an ideal testing ground; we thus propose that the implications of an OBCresponse to far brand extension be examined to shed light on the dynamics of group eWOM. 2. Literature review To address our research questions, we review the relevant literature. We first summarize the extant researchrelated to the brand community, laying out the functions of online and offline brand community. Then we surveythe research on BCI and BI, the two key constructs in our investigation of consumer's responses to thecommunication within the OBC. Following is the literature review about the recipient's responses to negativeeWOM, which highlights major impacts on consumer's decision making. 2.1 OBC Online community is defined as an aggregation of self-selected people who share a common interest andcommunicate through computer-mediated mechanism ([71] Shang et al. , 2006; [36] Hennig-Thurau et al. ,2004). Common interests such as brands drive the social interaction among online community members ([81]Wang et al. , 2012), resulting in booming of OBC. [60] Nambisan and Baron (2010) contended that thedifference between an online forum and an offline brand community may differ in the mode and frequency ofcustomer-company interaction. Social interactions in offline brand communities are face to face, whereas socialinteractions in an OBC are mediated by electronic devices. Although OBC takes the social network of brandcommunity onto the internet platform, the nature of OBC and offline brand community is similar; that is, "they

are both groups of consumers with a shared enthusiasm for the brand and a well-developed social identity, withmembers who engage jointly in group actions to accomplish collective goals and/or express mutual sentimentsand commitments" ([10] Bagozzi and Dholakia, 2006, p. 45). Thus, brand communities, irrespective of whetherthey are found in offline or online environments, both demonstrate the principles of community: sharedconsciousness, rituals and traditions, and a sense of moral responsibility ([59] Muniz and O'Guinn, 2001). [62]Peris et al. , (2002) indicated that online relationships complement face-to-face relationships, but they do notsubstitute them. Therefore, marketers recognizing the power of shared customer experiences ([53]McAlexander et al. , 2002) often leverage event-marketing activities (e.g. jeep camps) to foster relationships inan offline brand community. Because OBC enjoys the superiority of the internet platform to interactivecommunication, it is an effective tool for strengthening relationships and fostering brand loyalty ([69] Schau etal. , 2009). [88] Zhou (2011) and [54] McWilliam (2000) also find that OBC plays a greater role in helping firmsbuild brand loyalty, increase market penetration, and create positive word-of-mouth. 2.2 BCI BCI signals the strength of consumer connection with the brand community and represents the individualconstrues himself or herself to be a member (i.e. "belonging" to the brand community; [7] Algesheimer et al. ,2005). Identification with a brand community induces consumers to agree with the norms, tradition, rituals, andobjectives, and promotes its well-being ([18] Bhattacharya et al. , 1995). OBC identification indicates thestrength of perceived closeness and emotional involvement with the OBC. Identification with OBC can beestablished through community engagement practices such as consumers retelling and sharing milestonememories of the brand and grooming practices dictating the appropriate way to care for the brand ([69] Schauet al. , 2009). The sharing of meaningful consumption experience strengthens interpersonal ties and enhancesmutual appreciation for the brand; thus, virtual ties become real ties, and weak ties become stronger. Nutella isa good example, in which passionate personal consumption experience is shared through the symbols andrituals related to the brand, thereby strengthening the connectedness between Nutella lovers and reinforcingidentification with the OBC ([26] Cova and Pace, 2006). Social identity theory ([77] Tajfel and Turner, 1979) shed light on how BCI is formed. The theory asserts thatpeople define their self-concept using their connections with social groups. Group members distinguish betweenthemselves and those who do not share such affiliations through a categorization process, whereby theconsumer formulates and maintains a self-awareness of his or her membership within the community,emphasizing the perceived similarities with other community members and dissimilarities with nonmembers.This captures the consciousness-of-kind aspect of brand communities ([59] Muniz and O'Guinn, 2001).According to social identity theory, people exhibit need for positive social identity and tend to enhance the groupsuperiority, therefore, in-group bias may thus occur; which is defined as situations that go beyond the objectiveevidence of the situation to show biased in-group favoritism over the out-group that is unjustifiable ([19] Brewer,1979; [20] Brown, 2000). When social identity is threatened (i.e. negatively perceived), in-group members are likely react with threestrategies: individual mobility - involves members leaving or dissociating themselves from their group; socialcreativity - involves altering one's perceptions rather than taking direct action; and social competition - refers toengagement in social action to promote changes in the status quo ([75] Tajfel, 1978; [78] Tajfel and Turner,1986). The two most crucial factors that affect people's choices among strategies are the strength of groupidentification and their perceptions of the likelihood of individual mobility ([77] Tajfel and Turner, 1979; [83]Wright et al. , 1990). If people are highly identified with a group, they tend to adopt social creativity or socialcompetition and tend not to use individual mobility ([73] Smith and Mackie, 2007, p. 223). Because highcommunity-identifiers have their self-concept largely more embedded in the group than low community-identifiers, the barrier to leave one's group for high community-identifiers is stronger than for low community-identifiers ([77] Tajfel and Turner, 1979, p. 44). [77] Tajfel and Turner (1979) indicate social competition occurs

when group members hold a belief system of social change. Social competition occurs only when absolutely nomobility is possible ([73] Smith and Mackie, 2007, p. 223). The impossibility of getting out on one's own as anindividual indicates the high impermeability between groups, and such example could be seen in between racialgroups ([77] Tajfel and Turner, 1979). An OBC usually does not set limits for members to leave; hence, socialcompetition is less likely to occur in our research context. Furthermore, social competition involves collectiveaction such as strikes and protest marches from group members ([45] Kelly and Kelly, 1994). It may costmembers high if they initiate group activity to fight against the brand's decision. As in the case of Nutella, manymembers suffer high emotional distress when Nutella prohibits members' action to set up online communities. Along fight between community members and the brand continues before the brand allows members to set upOBCs ([26] Cova and Pace, 2006). This example indicates that if members adopt social competition, it may costthem much effort and resources. Therefore, a social competition strategy is less likely to occur in our researchcontext. Compared to social competition, social creativity is more likely to be adopted when individual mobility isnot possible because the cost is relatively lower ([73] Smith and Mackie, 2007). For members with high BCI,changing thoughts incurs less cost than initiating collective action to fight brand decision. Based on theaforementioned discussion, we think social creativity is the most probable strategy used by members with highBCI to confront the identity threat resulting from the negative brand event. 2.3 BI Involvement is defined as a person's perceived relevance of the object based on intrinsic needs, values, andinterests ([48] Krugman, 1966). [42] Johnson and Eagly (1989) defined involvement as a motivational stateinduced by an association between an activated attitude and a self-concept. BI indicates the consumer'sperceived relevancy of a brand ([3] Aaker, 1997). Consumer involvement with an object (product or brand) is theconsequence of multiple factors such as risk perception, importance of the object to consumers, and itscapability to improve their lifestyle and self-image ([72] Sirgy, 1982). Thus, BI may also relate to brandidentification, as [17] Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) postulated by stating that brand identification exists whenconsumers identify with and associate themselves with brands that reflect and reinforce their self-identities.High brand-involved consumers are more difficult to persuade to modify their enduring brand values ([42]Johnson and Eagly, 1989). Thus, high BI is accompanied by high brand commitment and brand loyalty ([50]Lastovicka and Gardner, 1979; [85] Zaichkowsky, 1985). Under low BI, consumers lack particular preference toa brand, perceive similarity among different brands, and see low personal relevance with the brand. 2.4 Negative eWOM An eWOM communication refers to any positive or negative statement made by potential, actual, or previouscustomers about a product or company, which is made accessible to an assembly of people and institutionsthrough the internet ([36] Hennig-Thurau et al. , 2004). Past studies on eWOM have indicated that WOMinfluence is asymmetrical because a negative WOM has a stronger effect than a positive WOM on the brandevaluations of consumers ([9] Arndt, 1967; [58] Mizerski, 1982; [6] Ahluwalia et al. , 2000). Compared to positiveinformation, negative information is perceived to provide more diagnostic information in assisting judgments ([5]Ahluwalia and Shiv, 2002), and it is perceived as more provocative ([68] Rozin and Royzman, 2001).Furthermore, evidence shows that dissatisfied consumers are involved in considerably more WOM behaviorthan satisfied consumers ([35] Halstead, 2002). As the amount of negative online consumer reviews increases,the product attitude becomes less favorable; in addition, high-quality negative online consumer reviewsinfluence consumers more than low-quality negative online consumer reviews ([51] Lee et al. , 2008). Thenegative eWOM effect is also found on purchase intentions ([22] Brown and Reingen, 1987; [82] Weinberger etal. , 1981). 3. Research hypotheses Group members develop a sense of moral responsibility ([59] Muniz and O'Guinn, 2001), which inducesmembers to help each other and promote group well-being. When the brand adopts a far extension, which is a

potentially negative event due to difficulty in transfer of the original advantage to the new category ([43] Keller,2008), the results may damage the brand equity and the status of the OBC. Thus, group members mayperceive negative social identity. To cope with identity threat, they may act social creativity to avoid thederogation of OBC. The high brand community identified members (high community-identifiers hereafter),having strong connection with the OBC, are especially prone to react with social creativity, that is, they distortinformation to respond in favor of the brand to support brand decision. In contrast, low community-identifiersperceive less threat and are unlikely to induce social creativity. We therefore propose H1 as follows: H1. In far brand extension situations, the extension evaluations of high community-identifiers are higher thanthose of low community-identifiers. People often follow group opinions when members of the group endorse these opinions. The phenomenon thatmembers act in conformance to group opinion demonstrates group identity. Group compliance becomesembedded through socialization because new group members find benefit in observing the group norm ([12]Bandura, 1977). Adhering to such group consensus not only provides legitimacy in proper actions, but alsomakes people feel respected by others whose opinions they value. When the brand adopts a far extension thatis likely to damage the brand image, yet if this decision receives support from the group, the group opinioninsulates the negative effects to OBC members. Because the brand is the center of OBC, members basicallyhold a positive attitude toward the brand; thus, when they perceive a group consensus (in the form of eWOM)supporting a brand move, their reactions are likely to be similar - to support the brand. In this situation, theperceived identity threat caused by the negative event for members is likely to be lower. Both high community-identifiers and low community-identifiers are likely to act congruently. In contrast, when group consensus isagainst the brand far extension, the higher community-identifiers are prone to conform to the group decision andagree with the group, thus have an even lower brand extension evaluation than the lower community-identifiers.We thus propose H2a and H2b : H2a. When group eWOM supports far brand extension, the extension evaluations of high community-identifiersare non-significantly different from those of low community-identifiers. H2b. When group eWOM opposes far brand extension, the extension evaluations of high community-identifiersare significantly lower than those of low community-identifiers. BI indicates the consumer-perceived relevancy of a brand ([3] Aaker, 1997). Consumers are highly involvedwhen they sense that the attitude is highly associated with their self-concepts ([42] Johnson and Eagly, 1989).Self-enhancement theory ([66] Rogers, 1961) asserts that people are motivated in enhancing self-esteem andincreasing their feelings of personal worth. This motive becomes especially prominent in situations that threatenone's self-esteem. For high brand-involved members, because the brand is a part of their self-concept, theytend to evaluate the brand in a more positive manner than low brand-involved members. We therefore proposeH3 : H3. In far brand extension situations, the extension evaluations of high brand-involved members are higher thanthose of low brand-involved members. Based on the heuristic-systematic model, people employ two types of information processing: heuristicprocessing and systematic processing ([23] Chaiken, 1980). Heuristic processing consumes little effort andinfers or judges by relying on accessible information. Systematic processing expends comprehensive, effortfulconsideration to a wide range of information relevant to judgments. Systematic processing requires motivationand ability. Only highly involved people are motivated to undertake systematic processing ([23] Chaiken, 1980;[32] Griffin et al. , 2002). Mainstream thinking, which is represented by group eWOM, is likely to be processedsystematically by highly involved members; thus, group eWOM exerts considerable influence over highlyinvolved members. Therefore, when group eWOM supports brand extension strategy, the brand evaluation ofhighly involved members is likely to be upheld by group eWOM opinion and may take a positive attitude towardfar brand extension. In group eWOM-opposing situations they are likely to be influenced by the group to adopt a

negative attitude toward far brand extension. Consequently, the evaluations of high-involvement members showa significant difference between the two situations. In contrast, low-involvement members who do not perceiveself-relevance to the brand are less likely to process group eWOM systematically, and may even pay littleattention to group opinion because BI in OBC is more related to the brand instead of to the group ([24] Carlsonet al. , 2008). Therefore, we hypothesize that their brand extension evaluations under the two group opinionsituations have no significant difference: H4a. High brand-involved member evaluations of the far extension are significantly higher in group eWOM-support brand situation than in a group eWOM-opposing brand situation. H4b. Low brand-involved member evaluations of the far extension are non-significantly different in both groupeWOM-support and opposing situations. 4. Methodology 4.1 Design and measurements The experimental design of this research adopts far brand extension as the empirical testing ground becausebrand extensions are used as an important strategy for firms to obtain growth ([3] Aaker, 1997). We conductedan experimental study using a 2 (group eWOM: support, not support)2 (product fit: low fit, moderate fit)2(BCI: high, low)2 (BI: high, low) between-subjects design. We manipulated group eWOM and far brandextensions. BCI and BI are measured independent variables. The measured dependent variable is theextension evaluation. Perceived fit was measured for manipulation check purposes. All constructs were mostlyadopted from previous research; the reference sources and items are listed in Tables I and II [Figure omitted.See Article Image.], respectively. All items were measured using seven-point scales. 4.2 Stimuli A pretest was conducted to select poor brand extensions from Starbucks. After a discussion with two brandresearchers, ten potential brand extensions were selected. In all 62 valid questionnaires were obtained fromundergraduate students in a Taiwan university responding to the perceived fit of the ten potential brandextensions. The result of the pretest indicated that perceived fit was the lowest for shampoo ( M =1.84, S =0.95)and moderate for watch (M =3.12, S =1.38). Therefore, shampoo was selected as the low fit extensionexperimental stimulus and watch as the moderate low fit extension experimental stimulus. The reasons to usetwo levels of low fit extension are for the replications (more than one low fit condition) and exploration purpose-to see if there is difference of responses and hypotheses test results in two situations. 4.3 Subject OBCs of Starbucks in Taiwan were selected because of their numerous members, frequent interactions amongmembers, and long membership duration. There are two major Starbucks OBCs in Taiwan, by using the coffeeboard of the biggest bulletin board system in Taiwan (PTT) to recruit participants we were able to reachmembers belonging to Starbucks' two OBCs (i.e. Starbucks BBS and Starbucks Fans Club Facebook). In total,273 members participated in this study and had the opportunity to win cash gifts worth NT$100, NT$300, andNT$500. Nonmembers and incomplete questionnaires were dropped from the sample, and 263 usablequestionnaires were obtained. For membership duration, more than half of the members belonged to thecommunity for more than six months (60.8 percent). For frequency of visiting a community, more than half of themembers came to the community over seven times in a month (57.8 percent). The sampling characteristicswere as follows: 68.1 percent of members were women, 79.4 percent were from 20 to 40 years of age, and 81percent of members were less than or equal to college age. The demographic statistics of respondents is shownin Table III [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]. There are 194 members in the Starbucks BBS and 69 membersin Starbucks Fans Club Facebook. A series of 2 -tests were conducted to determine if associations betweenthe type of OBC and demographic variables exist. The results indicated that the type of OBC has no significantassociation with all demographic variables (p -values >0.10), except education (p

4.4 Procedure The survey was posted online on the discussion forum. We implemented a device that forbade multiplesubmissions from a single IP address to reduce the likelihood of a single respondent participating multipletimes. The entire procedure took approximately 20 minutes to complete. Participants were invited to offeropinions concerning "new products from Starbucks." Participants were randomly directed to one of four webpages describing the questionnaire and contract. Qualified participant members were asked the followingquestions: the name of OBC, membership duration, monthly visiting frequency, BI, BCI, and demographicstatistics. The second part of the questionnaire included the experimental stimuli introducing new Starbucksproducts (shampoo/watch). Participants were told that Starbucks will introduce a brand extension and wereshown a print ad of the new product (Figure 1 [Figure omitted. See Article Image.]). Below the advertisement, afew sentences described group eWOM of OBC on the brand decision (support/nonsupport). Participants werethen asked to evaluate the brand extension, print ad, and the perceived fit of the extension and parent brand. Inthe end, participants were told that the study was fictitious. 5. Results 5.1 Reliability and validity Reliability analyses were conducted for all constructs, as shown in Table I [Figure omitted. See Article Image.].The results indicated reliability coefficients from 0.85 to 0.94, and they were acceptable (>0.7; [61] Nunnally,1994). To ensure measurement validity, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted for the mainresearch constructs: BCI, BI, brand extension evaluation, and perceived fit. The model fit was acceptable(CFI=0.92, NNFI=0.92, NFI=0.90, all >0.90; SRMR=0.07

ANCOVA full models (for H2 and H4 ). We used separate models to examine H1 and H3 because these twohypotheses have a firm theoretical basis. None of the demographic covariates were statistically significant, andthey were dropped in the subsequent analyses (p- values >0.10). The attractiveness of the printed adsignificantly influenced brand extension evaluation in all three models (p -values

among OBCs; thus, modern firms have greater opportunities to face negative eWOM, which may threatencustomer-brand relationships. The inputs from group eWOM have a significant influence on the purchasedecisions and brand attitude of individual OBC members. Therefore, it is critical to examine the mechanism thatdrives people in OBC to sustain brand loyalty in face of negative events. Our study is set to advance ourunderstanding on this important topic. Our investigation differs from those of past studies on the effect of negative WOM in two important ways. First,past studies assumed that homogeneous people respond similarly to negative WOM, and their discussion wasfocussed on the asymmetrical effect of negative WOM and positive WOM ([58] Mizerski, 1982) or on suggestingthat negative information provides more diagnostic information in assisting judgments than positive information([5] Ahluwalia and Shiv, 2002). The differences between people are largely neglected. Thus, unlike past studies,we distinguish ours by considering that heterogeneity exists among people in OBC, in which people with varyinglevels of BCI and BI moderate the effect of a group consensus. Second, we examined the study in an OBCcontext, where a group eWOM consensus may agree or not agree with brand decisions. Thus, group eWOMmay function as a supportive or unsupportive force to the brand. We examined individual responses in the twoconditions. From a theoretical perspective, this study contributes academically by adopting a social identity perspective toexamine eWOM research. First, the study reveals that group eWOM in OBC exerts differential effects onmembers with distinctive levels of BCI. When group eWOM supports far brand extension, the extensionevaluations of high BCI members are similar to those of low community-identifiers. This is because when groupeWOM supports brand decisions, the group opinion shields members from negative effects, thus reducing theperceived identity threat of high community-identifiers. Hence, high community-identifiers are likely to actcongruently with the group and react similarly with low community-identifiers. However, when group eWOMopposes far brand extension, the extension evaluations of high community-identifiers are significantly higherthan those of low-community-identifiers. This finding demonstrates the influence of brand seems to be greaterthan that of brand community for high community-identifiers. The concern for the brand itself is stronger thanconformity to the community for the high community-identifiers. In essence, brand is the center of OBC. Thisphenomenon can also be found in Toyota's recall crisis in 2009. When Toyota faced major defects in their best-selling vehicles, Toyota was forced to announce a recall of their vehicles, and they found their solid reputationfor quality under a serious crisis ([8] Andrews et al. , 2011). However in the midst of severe allegations, manyToyota owners shared their experiences of the vehicles and went so far as to establish brand community websites to share their positive experiences with others ([79] van Doorn et al. , 2010). These high brand community-identifiers took actions to support Toyota to prevent an ample breakdown of Toyota's brand image. Thisdemonstrates that when the majority opposes brand decisions where high community-identifiers perceive aserious threat to the overall brand image, and may eventually deteriorate the position of the brand community,they are likely to adopt social creativity to sustain brand well-being instead of following the opinions of themajority. However, low community-identifiers do not feel the urge to protect group interests; thus, they are notlikely to feel the conflict. They tend to adopt individual mobility by following mainstream thought - that the farextension is a failure, and they evaluate the brand more negatively. This finding also resonates with the studyby [49] Lam et al. (2010), in attesting that brand identification, which establishes psychological bonding,provides greater resistance to brand switching. Our study shows that high brand community-identifiers tend toperceive negative social identity severely, thereby eliciting brand-defensive actions. Second, this study extends our understanding by showing that group eWOM imposes diverse group influenceon members with differing levels of BI. The evaluation of far brand extension in high brand-involved members issignificantly higher in group eWOM support situation than in group eWOM opposing situation. This confirms thatthe brand evaluations of highly involved members strengthened by the group-supporting opinion promotesfavorable brand evaluation, attenuates negative effects to the brand, and are thus not derogated significantly in

far brand extension. This finding is in agreement with a prior study that suggested that brand attitudes held withhigh certainty (because of more thoughts engaged or social consensus of related others) tend to "insulate"brands, even when negative publicity matches the basis of brand attitudes ([64] Pullig et al. , 2006). However,evaluations of far extension in low brand-involved members are similar in both group eWOM support andopposing situations, demonstrating that low brand-involved members who perceive low brand self-relevancy areunder less influence of group eWOM in both brand support and opposing situations. This finding is in agreementwith the suggestion by [55] Maoz and Tybout (2002), that when involvement level is low, consumers do notengage in elaboration, and thus, the incongruity of moderate extension does not incur negative response. Morebroadly, our findings show the deeply ingrained association between BI and group opinion in affecting OBCresponses. In sum, comparing Figures 2 and 3 [Figure omitted. See Article Image.], the findings reveal differential effects ofgroup eWOM on BCI and BI on OBC members. First, group eWOM has limited effect on low BI members inboth group support and opposing situations. Second, the brand supporting group eWOM strengthens theevaluation of high BI members due to their more engaged thoughts in processing the group opinions. However,in group opposing situations, the group opinion also exerts effect on high BI members to attenuate theirevaluation of the brand. Third, high brand community-identifiers and low brand community-identifiers'sevaluation to far brand extension are similar in group supporting eWOM situation, indicating the vital effect ofgroup influence on upholding the brand in face of negative brand information. This group influence effect is alsomanifested on low community-identifers in group opposing situation as their brand evaluations are droppedaccordingly. However, this group influence was not displayed accordingly on high community-identifers in groupopposing situation; this is because social creativity played a critical role to sustain brand well-being instead offollowing the group eWOM. These findings shed light on the importance of group opinion and high brandcommunity-identifiers in insulating the brand from negative eWOM. 6.1 Managerial implications This study has important managerial implications because it shows that building a strong OBC can insulatebrands from negative events. We specifically verify that when group eWOM opposes far extension evaluation,high brand community-identifiers are driven by in-group favoritism to resist negative brand effects. Accordingly,managers should cultivate a strong brand identification to establish a solid consumer-brand relationship.Whereas customers can attain social need satisfaction through building and maintaining relationships, the brandbenefits from the loyalty and advocacy of such customers to defend the brand in the face of negativeinformation. The findings show that when group eWOM supports far brand extension, the evaluations of highlyinvolved members, strengthened by positive group eWOM, promote favorable brand evaluations, and attenuatenegative brand effects. Building on these findings, marketers should adopt branding strategies to enhancebrand image and brand engagement. This is particularly important because members who exhibit high BI maynot interact with other OBC members, and thus, brand engagement activity that reinforces brand-customerinteraction is important. Because group eWOM plays a prominent role in influencing high brand-involvedmembers, marketers should leverage positive group eWOM to influence high brand-involved members. 6.2 Limitations and future research This study focussed on the role of group eWOM in influencing OBC response to negative events. Consideringthe controlled environment in which the experiment was conducted, caution should be exercised in generalizingthe results. The main limitation factor is the product selection because we used one brand (Starbucks) as theempirical testing ground for far brand extensions. The characteristics of hedonic products (coffee) and functionalproducts differ, and could affect consumer perceptions and association with OBC. Therefore, future researchshould investigate other product categories to obtain understanding on the effects of group dynamics and howthese factors may contribute to OBC member response under negative events. Several future research directions can be taken, such as investigating how the relationship between the degree

of extremity of the negative event and group eWOM interact to influence OBC response. Future research couldalso explore group eWOM effect as it evolves over time to influence OBC response to negative events becausegroup development that occurs over time also affects group behavior outcomes ([25] Chidambaram et al. ,1990/1991). In the face of a brand negative event, obtaining an understanding of the differences between newlyestablished OBC response and a long established OBC is critical. Researchers taking a longitudinal study areable to secure a greater understanding on this issue. Finally, because people with collectivistic culturalbackgrounds are associated with higher uniformity-seeking tendencies, compared to those of individualisticcultural backgrounds ([84] Yoon et al. , 2011), investigation into the cultural influence on OBC conformity togroup opinion manifested by group eWOM should be of considerable interest to both practitioners andacademics. In this study, group eWOM is manipulated by giving respondents a summary of information aboutother OBC members's opposing or supporting evaluations. However, in the real world, OBC members obtaininformation of other member's brand evaluation through individual postings. Hence, subsequent studies canmanipulate group eWOM by varying the supporting and opposing evaluations through postings that mayincrease the realism of the study. This research was partially supported by grant NSC 99-2410-H-004-109- from the National Science Council ofTaiwan, R.O.C. The authors thank National Science Council for the financial support of this research. They alsoexpress thanks for the valuable contributions from anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments. References 1. Aaker, D.A. (2002), Brand Portfolio Strategy, The Free Press, New York, NY. 2. Aaker, D.A. and Keller, K.L. (1990), "Consumer evaluations of brand extension", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54No. 1, pp. 27-41. 3. Aaker, J. (1997), "Dimensions of brand personality", Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 347-356. 4. Ahluwalia, R. (2008), "How far can a brand stretch? Understanding the role of self-construal", Journal ofMarketing Research, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 337-350. 5. Ahluwalia, R. and Shiv, B. (2002), "How prevalent is the negativity effect in consumer environments", Journalof Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 270-280. 6. Ahluwalia, R., Burnkrant, R.E. and Unnava, H.R. (2000), "Consumer response to negative publicity: themoderating role of commitment", Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 203-214. 7. Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U.M. and Herrmann, A. (2005), "The social influence of brand community:evidence from European car clubs", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 3, pp. 19-34. 8. Andrews, A.P., Simon, J., Tian, F. and Zhao, J. (2011), "The Toyota crisis: an economic, operational andstrategic analysis of the massive recall", Management Research Review, Vol. 34 No 10, pp. 1064-1077. 9. Arndt, J. (1967), "Role of product-related conversations in the diffusion of a new product", Journal ofMarketing Research, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 291-295. 10. Bagozzi, R.P. and Dholakia, U.M. (2006), "Antecedents and purchase consequences of customerparticipation in small group brand communities", International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 1,pp. 45-61. 11. Bagozzi, R.P. and Yi, Y. (1988), "On the evaluation of structural equation models", Journal of the Academyof Marketing Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 74-94. 12. Bandura, A. (1977), "Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change", Psychological Review,Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 191-215. 13. Barone, M.J., Miniard, P. and Romeo, J.B. (2000), "The influence of positive mood on brand extensionevaluations", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 386-400. 14. Bearden, W.O. and Etzel, M.J. (1982), "Reference group influence on product and brand purchasedecisions", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 183-194.

15. Bentler, P.M. and Bonnet, D.C. (1980), "Significance tests and goodness of it in the analysis of covariancestructures", Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 588-606. 16. Berenson, M.L., Levine, D.M. and Goldstein, M. (1983), Intermediate Statistical Methods and Applications,Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 17. Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2003), "Consumer-company identification: a framework for understandingconsumers' relationships with companies", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 2, pp. 76-88. 18. Bhattacharya, C.B., Rao, H. and Glynn, M. (1995), "Understanding the bond of identification: aninvestigation of its correlates among art museum members", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 46-57. 19. Brewer, M.B. (1979), "Ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup situation: a cognitive motivational analysis",Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 475-482. 20. Brown, R. (2000), "Social identity theory: past achievements, current problems and future challenges",European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 30 No. 6, pp. 745-778. 21. Brown, J., Broderick, A.J. and Lee, N. (2007), "Word of mouth communication within online communities:conceptualizing the online social network", Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 2-20. 22. Brown, J.J. and Reingen, P.H. (1987), "Social ties and word-of-mouth referral behavior", Journal ofConsumer Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 350-362. 23. Chaiken, S. (1980), "Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versusmessage cues in persuasion", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 752-766. 24. Carlson, B.D., Suter, T.A. and Brown, T.J. (2008), "Social versus psychological brand community: the role ofpsychological sense of brand community", Journal of Business Research, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 284-291. 25. Chidambaram, L., Bostrom, R.P. and Wynne, B.E. (1990/1991), "A longitudinal study of the impact of groupdecision support systems on group development", Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 7 No. 3,pp. 7-25. 26. Cova, B. and Pace, S. (2006), "Brand community of convenience products: new forms of customerempowerment - the case my Nutella the community", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40 Nos 9/10, pp.1087-1105. 27. DelVecchio, D. and Smith, D.C. (2005), "Brand-extension price premiums: the effect of perceived fit andextension product category risk", Journal of the Academy of Management Science, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 184-196. 28. Diamantopoulos, A. and Siguaw, J.A. (2000), Introducing LISREL, Sage Publications, London. 29. Duan, W., Gu, B. and Whinston, A.B. (2008), "The dynamics of online word-of-mouth and product sales: anempirical examination of the movie industry", Journal of Retailing, Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 233-242. 30. Falomir-Pichastor, J.M., Gabarrot, F. and Mugny, G. (2009), "Group motives in threatening contexts: when aloyalty conflict paradoxically reduces the influence of an anti-discrimination ingroup norm", European Journal ofSocial Psychology, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 196-206. 31. Godes, D. and Mayzlin, D. (2004), "Using online conversations to study word-of-mouth communication",Marketing Science, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 545-560. 32. Griffin, R.J., Neuwirth, K., Giese, J. and Dunwoody, S. (2002), "Linking the heuristic-systematic model anddepth of processing", Communication Research, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 705-732. 34. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, Prentice Hall,Upper Saddle River, NJ. 35. Halstead, D. (2002), "Negative word of mouth: substitute for or supplement to consumer complaints?",Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, and Complaining Behavior, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-12. 36. Hennig-Thurau, T., Qwinner, K.P., Walsh, G. and Gremler, D.D. (2004), "Electronic word-of-mouth viaconsumer-opinion platforms: what motivates consumers to articulate themselves on the Internet?", Journal ofInteractive Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 38-52. 38. Hornsey, M.J., Majkut, L., Terry, D.J. and McKimmie, B.M. (2003), "On being loud and proud: non-

conformity and counter-conformity to group norms", British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 319-335. 39. Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), "Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structural analysis", StructuralEquation Modeling, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55. 40. IBM (2011), "SPSS Advanced Statistics 20 Manual", available at:http://public.dhe.ibm.com/software/analytics/spss/documentation/statistics/20.0/en/client/Manuals/IBM_SPSS_Advanced_Statistics.pdf (accessed June 29, 2013). 41. Jetten, J., Spears, R. and Manstead, A.S.R. (1997), "Strength of identification and intergroup differentiation:the influence of group norms", European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 603-609. 42. Johnson, B.T. and Eagly, A. (1989), "Effects of involvement on persuasion: a meta-analysis", PsychologicalBulletin, Vol. 106 No. 2, pp. 290-314. 43. Keller, K.L. (2008), Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring, Managing Brand Equity, 3rd ed.,Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 44. Keller, K.L. and Aaker, D.A. (1992), "The effects of sequential introduction of brand extensions", Journal ofMarketing Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 35-51. 45. Kelly, C. and Kelly, J. (1994), "Who gets involved in collective action? Social psychological determinants ofindividual participation in trade unions", Human Relations, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 63-88. 48. Krugman, H.E. (1966), "Measurement of advertisement involvement", Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 30 No.4, pp. 583-598. 49. Lam, S.K., Ahearne, M., Hu, Y. and Schillewaert, N. (2010), "Resistance to brand switching when a radicallynew brand is introduced: a social identity theory perspective", Journal of Marketing, Vol. 74 No. 6, pp. 128-146. 50. Lastovicka, J.L. and Gardner, D.M. (1979), "Components of involvement", in Maloney, J.C. and Silverman,B. (Eds), Attitude Research Plays for High Stakes, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL, pp. 53-73. 51. Lee, J., Park, D.H. and Han, I. (2008), "The effect of negative online consumer reviews on product attitude:an information processing view", Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 341-352. 52. Lee, M.K.O., Cheung, C.M.K., Lim, K.H. and Sia, C.L. (2006), "Understanding customer knowledge sharingin web-based discussion boards: an exploratory study", Internet Research, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 289-303. 53. McAlexander, J.H., Schouten, J.W. and Koenig, H.F. (2002), "Building brand community", Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 66 No. 1, pp. 38-54. 54. McWilliam, G. (2000), "Building stronger brands through online communities", Sloan Management Review,Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 43-54. 55. Maoz, E. and Tybout, A.M. (2002), "The moderating role of involvement and differentiation in the evaluationof brand extensions", Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 119-131. 56. Martnez, E. and Pina, J.M. (2010), "Consumer responses to brand extensions: a comprehensive model",European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 44 Nos 7/8, pp. 1182-1205. 58. Mizerski, R.W. (1982), "An attributional explanation of the disproportionate influence of unfavorableinformation", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 301-310. 59. Muniz, A.M. Jr and O'Guinn, T.C. (2001), "Brand community", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27 No.4, pp. 412-432. 60. Nambisan, S. and Baron, R.A. (2010), "Different roles, different strokes: organizing virtual customerenvironments to promote two types of customer contributions", Organization Science, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 554-572. 61. Nunnally, J.C. (1994), Psychometric theory, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. 62. Peris, R., Gimeno, M.A., Pinazo, D., Ortet, G., Carrero, V., Sanchiz, M. and Ibez, I. (2002), "Online chatrooms: virtual spaces of interaction for socially oriented people", CyberPsychology and Behavior, Vol. 5 No. 1,pp. 43-51.

63. Park, C.W. and Mittal, B. (1985), "A theory of involvement in consumer behavior: problems and issues", inSheth, J.N. (Ed.), Research in Consumer Behavior, Vol. 1, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 201-232. 64. Pullig, C., Netemeyer, R.G. and Biswas, A. (2006), "Attitude basis, certainty, and challenge alignment: acase of negative brand publicity", Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 528-542. 65. Ratchford, B.T., Talukdar, D. and Lee, M.S. (2001), "A model of consumer choice of the internet as aninformation source", International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 7-21. 66. Rogers, C.R. (1961), On Becoming a Person: A Therapists' View of Psychotherapy, Houghton Mifflin,Boston, MA. 67. Rosenthal, R. and Rosnow, R.L. (1985), Contrast Analysis: Focused Comparisons in the Analysis ofVariance, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 68. Rozin, P. and Royzman, E.B. (2001), "Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion", Personalityand Social Psychology Review, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 296-320. 69. Schau, H.J., Muiz, A. and Arnould, E.J. (2009), "How brand community practices create value", Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 73 No. 5, pp. 30-51. 70. Schouten, J.W., McAlexander, J.H. and Koenig, H.F. (2007), "Transcendent customer experience and brandcommunity", Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 357-368. 71. Shang, R.A., Chen, Y.C. and Liao, H.J. (2006), "The value of participation in virtual consumer communitieson brand loyalty", Internet Research, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 398-418. 72. Sirgy, M.J. (1982), "Self-concept in consumer behavior: a critical review", Journal of Consumer Research,Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 287-299. 73. Smith, E.R. and Mackie, D.M. (2007), Social Psychology, 3rd ed., Psychology Press, New York, NY. 74. Steffes, E.M. and Burgee, L.E. (2009), "Social ties and online word of mouth", Internet Research, Vol. 19No. 1, pp. 42-59. 75. Tajfel, H. (1978), Differentiation Between Social Groups, Academic Press, London. 76. Tajfel, H. (1982), "Social psychology of intergroup relations", Annual Review of Social Psychology, Vol. 33No. 1, pp. 1-39. 77. Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1979), "An integrative theory of intergroup conflict", in Austin, W.G. and Worchel,S. (Eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Nelson-Hall, Chicago, IL, pp. 33-47. 78. Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1986), "The social identity theory of intergroup behavior", in Worchel, S. andAustin, W. (Eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relation, Nelson Hall, Chicago, IL, pp. 7-24. 79. van Doorn, J., Lemon, K.N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P. and Verhoef, P.C. (2010), "Customerengagement behavior: theoretical foundations and research directions", Journal of Service Research, Vol. 13No. 3, pp. 253-266. 80. Walther, J.B. (1996), "Computer-mediated communication: impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonalinteraction", Communication Research, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 3-43. 81. Wang, E.S., Chen, L.S. and Tsai, B. (2012), "Investigating member commitment to virtual communitiesusing an integrated perspective", Internet Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 199-210. 82. Weinberger, M.G., Allen, C.T. and Dillon, W.R. (1981), "Negative information: perspectives and researchdirections", Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 398-404. 83. Wright, S.C., Taylor, D.M. and Moghaddam, F.M. (1990), "The relationship of perceptions and emotions tobehavior in the face of collective inequality", Social Justice Research, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 229-250. 84. Yoon, S.S., Lee, K. and Eun, S.P. (2011), "To seek variety or uniformity: the role of culture in consumers'choice in a group setting", Marketing Letters, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 49-64. 85. Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985), "Measuring the involvement construct", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 12No. 3, pp. 341-352. 86. Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1994), "The personal involvement inventory: reduction, revision, and application to

advertising", Journal of Advertising, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 59-70. 87. Zhang, S. and Sood, S. (2002), "Deep and surface cues: brand extension evaluations by children andadults", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 129-141. 88. Zhou, T. (2011), "Understanding online community user participation: a social influence perspective",Internet Research, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 67-81. Further reading 1. Hagel, J. and Armstrong, A.G. (1997), Net Gain: Expanding Markets Through Virtual Communities, HarvardBusiness School Press, Boston, MA. 2. Herr, P.M., Kardes, F.R. and Kim, J. (1991), "The effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute informationon persuasion: an accessibility-diagnosticity perspective", Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 17 No. 4, pp.454-462. 3. Kozinets, R. (1999), "E-tribalized marketing? The strategic implications of virtual communities ofconsumption", European Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 252-264. 4. Krueger, J. (1998), "Enhancement bias in descriptions of self and others", Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, Vol. 24 No. 5, pp. 505-516. 5. Mittal, B. and Lee, M.-S. (1989), "A causal model of consumer involvement", Journal of EconomicPsychology, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 363-389. Appendix About the authors Aihwa Chang is an Associate Professor of Marketing at the Department of Business Administration, NationalChengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan. She received her Ph.D. in marketing from University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her main research interest has been in the area of consumer behavior in e-marketing, brandingstrategies, and internal marketing. Aihwa Chang's academic research interests have led to prolific publication ofresearch papers in the areas of brand management and consumer behavior. Sara H. Hsieh is a Ph.D. candidate at the Department of Business Administration, National Chengchi University.Her research centers on brand management and includes the areas of consumer behavior, virtual community,Internet marketing, branding strategies and advertising research. Sara H. Hsieh is the corresponding author andcan be contacted at: 98355502@nccu.edu.tw Timmy H. Tseng is a Ph.D. candidate at the Department of Business Administration, National ChengchiUniversity. His research interests are related to the domains of experiential marketing, relationship marketing,Internet marketing, service marketing, and consumer behavior. AuthorAffiliation Aihwa Chang, Department of Business Administration, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan Sara H. Hsieh, Department of Business Administration, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan Timmy H. Tseng, Department of Business Administration, National Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan Illustration Figure 1: Example of experimental manipulation Figure 2: Brand extension evaluation differences between different brand community identification and groupeWOM Figure 3: Brand extension evaluation differences between different brand involvement and group eWOM. Table I: Reliabilities for constructs Table II: Examination of convergent validity Table III: Demographic statistics of the respondents Table IV: Examination of discriminant validity Table V: ANCOVA models

Subject: Studies; Marketing; Social interaction; Brands; Product introduction; Publication title: Internet Research Volume: 23 Issue: 4 Pages: 486-506 Publication year: 2013 Publication date: 2013 Year: 2013 Publisher: Emerald Group Publishing, Limited Place of publication: Bradford Country of publication: United Kingdom Publication subject: Computers--Internet ISSN: 10662243 CODEN: IRESEF Source type: Scholarly Journals Language of publication: English Document type: Feature DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IntR-06-2012-0107 ProQuest document ID: 1425422202 Document URL: http://search.proquest.com/docview/1425422202?accountid=149759 Copyright: Copyright Emerald Group Publishing Limited 2013 Last updated: 2013-09-19 Database: ProQuest Research Library

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IntR-06-2012-0107http://search.proquest.com/docview/1425422202?accountid=149759

BibliographyCitation style: Harvard - British Standard

CHANG, A., HSIEH, S.H. and TSENG, T.H., 2013. Online brand community response to negative brand events:the role of group eWOM. Internet Research, 23(4), pp. 486-506.

_______________________________________________________________ Contact ProQuest Copyright 2015 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. - Terms and Conditions

http://www.proquest.com/go/contactsupporthttp://search.proquest.com/info/termsAndConditionsOnline brand community response to negative brand events: the role of group eWOMBibliography