Based on the research of Bhattacharya and Sen (2003), identification is influenced by three factors that are identity similarity, identity distinctiveness and identity prestige.
This framework of identification is considered as a identity-related and individual-level framework because it satisfy three basic self-definitional needs (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003). The needs of self-continuity are reflects by that individuals will find an entity which has similar identity with them. In addition, identity distinctiveness satisfy the needs of self-distinctiveness and identity prestige fulfills the needs of self-enhancement.
The framework of identification which proposed by Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) is provided in figure 2.2.
It is worthy to be mentioned that the paper argues that identity of an online brand community is constructed by the members in it, not the enduring features of an entity
18
itself, such as company or brand. In other words, identity similarity, identity distinctiveness and identity prestige of an online brand community argued in this paper are come from the members inside the community. Perceived similarity with other members as well as perceived distinctiveness and perceived prestige of them in the community will attract individuals. Therefore, we apply Bhattacharya and Sen's (2003) framework to the peer-to-peer identification in the brand community; further, member-to-member identification.
2.3.1 Peer Identity Similarity
Individuals will always be attracted by someone or something that perceived to be similar factually or symbolically with their own social identity according to the similarity-attraction theory. Besides, individuals always create their self-image through products and brands they used for achieving the social identity goals (Huffman,
Source: Bhattacharya & Sen (2003)
Figure 2.1 Bhattacharya and Sen’s framework of organizational identification
19
Ratneshwar and Mick, 2000). In organizational research, Pratt (1998) observed that people will identify with an organization which can fulfill their own needs for self-continuity so that they can establish their cognitively consistent social identities.
Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) also claimed that when a company's identity matches consumers' identity, they will be attracted. In order to consumer psychology literature, it is verified that a product will become more desirable when the consumers feel similarity with its typical user. In this paper, we proposed that the individual's identification with other members in the brand community has positively related to the degree of the similarity they perceived between themselves and other members in it.
H4: Greater perceived member similarity is directly and positively related to greater peer identification.
2.3.2 Peer Identity Distinctiveness
Tajfel and Turner (1985) argued that people will always try to make themselves distinctive against others in any social context they participate in. It means that individuals’ want to be unique and special. The argument however seems to be a contradiction with the sense of identity similarity. Brewer (1991) explained that people will always identify with groups which can satisfy both needs. In other words, the groups they choose to identify with would be unique from other groups and similar to their self-concept simultaneously. Besides, the groups people choose to identify with are not required to be a entirely distinctive one but particularly distinctive on the dimensions they value. In this research, we suggest that the individual's identification with other members in the brand community has positively related to the degree of the distinctiveness they perceived with the brand community against other community.
20
H5: Greater perceived member distinctiveness is directly and positively related to greater peer identification.
2.3.3 Peer Identity Prestige
A organization has a great potential to promote self-esteem through identification when it is prestigious (Mael and Ashforth, 1992). To fulfill the needs for self-enhancement, joining a prestigious organization is a common way (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Dutton et al., 1994). Based on Bergami and Bagozzi (2000), prestige are positive perception which organization’s stakeholders’ perceive that other peoples' evaluation towards the organization. In consequence, in terms of organizational identification, Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) claimed that consumers will reflect themselves in the prestige of a brand or a company in order to raise their sense of self-worth. However, this research argues that a member in the brand community will enhance the identification with other members when they perceived the prestige of other members.
H6: Greater perceived member prestige is directly and positively related to greater peer identification.
2.3.4 Peer Identification to Brand Community Identification
People’s identification with an organization is influenced not only by the relationship between individuals and the organization, but also by their identification with other individuals involved in the organization, such as other customers and employees. Prentice et al. (1994) validated the distinction between common-bond groups, which are based mainly on identification with group members, and common-identity groups, which are based mainly on direct identification to the organization. In common-bond groups, the extent to which an individual knows and
21
feels similar to other individuals of the group affect the formation of a group identification. However, in common identity groups, the identification of a group depends on one’s commitment to the identity of the group, not to the individuals within the group. Moreover, McAlexander et al. (2002) argue that important relationships can form between not only the customer and the organization, but the customer and other customers. Therefore, we suggest that the identification with other members in the brand community will also lead to higher brand community identification.
H7: Greater peer identification is directly and positively related to greater brand community identification.