Intentional Social Action in Virtual Communities

INTENTIONAL SOCIAL ACTION
IN VIRTUAL COMMUNITIES
R i c h a r d P . B a g o z z i
U t p a l M . D h o l a k i a
f
A B S T R A C T
There is growing evidence of the increasing participation in, and
inuence of, virtual communities in digital environments. To help
explain this irresistible allure, the individual and social determinants
of the members intentions to participate are investigated.
Conceptualizing virtual community participation as intentional social
action, we explicate the concept of we-intentions, and use the
Model of Goal-Directed Behavior to explain members we-
intentions. Virtual community inuences pertaining to compliance,
internalization, and social identity are also elaborated on. An
empirical study of regular virtual community participants (N 157)
nds that we-intentions to participate are functions of both
individual determinants (positive anticipated emotions and desires),
and community inuences (social identity). Implications for
marketing and future research opportunities are discussed.
2002 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. and
Direct Marketing Educational Foundation, Inc.
f
JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING
VOLUME 16 / NUMBER 2 / SPRING 2002
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
DOI: 10.1002/dir.10006
2
RICHARD P. BAGOZZI is J. Hugh
Liedtke Professor of Management
in the Jesse H. Jones School of
Management and Professor of
Psychology in the Department of
Psychology.
UTPAL M. DHOLAKIA is Assistant
Professor of Management in the
Jesse H. Jones School of
Management.
The authors would like to express
their appreciation to the associate
editor and an anonymous reviewer
for comments made on an earlier
draft of this article.
The small group tends to restore, structurally,
the symbolic power. Step by step, one can see a
mystical network being built, carefully yet sol-
idly connected, leading one to speak of a cul-
tural resurgence in social life. This is the lesson
taught by these eras of the masseseras based
mainly on the concatenation of groups with
splintered but exacting intentionalities.
(Maffesoli, 1996, p. 83)
Since the early characterization of digital envi-
ronment
1
users as electronic sociopaths (Can-
ter & Siegel, 1994), the conventional wisdom
has changed considerably. As digital environ-
ments have become more pervasive, both with
respect to the number of people using them
and the different activities they are used for,
there is growing realization of their social func-
tions (e.g., Postmes, Spears, & Lea, 1998;
Walther, 1996), their potent inuence in bring-
ing together far-ung, like-minded individuals
(Hagel & Armstrong, 1997; Wellman & Gulia,
1999), and their role in inuencing consumer
opinions, knowledge, and behaviors (e.g., Wil-
liams & Cothrell, 2000). By their very nature,
digital environments originate in networks
and networks thrive on social interaction,
whether specialized or broad, interpersonal or
group-based, social or formal (Hagel & Arm-
strong, 1997; Rheingold, 1991). Where digital
environments are concerned, the interactive
in interactive marketing pertains just as much
to interactions between consumers as between
marketers and consumers.
Even in the early development of digital en-
vironments, users recognized and employed the
social affordances of digital networks to orga-
nize, support, and communicate, giving rise to a
unique social entity, or what is now commonly
known as a virtual community (Rheingold, 1993).
We view virtual communities to be mediated
social spaces in the digital environment that
allow groups to form and be sustained primarily
through ongoing communication processes.
Here, we conceive of groups as two or more
individuals, each aware of his or her member-
ship in the group, each aware of the others who
belong to the group, and each aware of the
positive interdependence as they strive to
achieve mutual goals (Johnson & Johnson,
1987). The mutual goals of the virtual commu-
nity may be functional, such as the symbiotic
exchange of useful information regarding prod-
ucts, or hedonicthe creation and consumption
of a positive, conuent experience through in-
teraction. In either case, the community acts as
an important reference group for its individual
participants. For some participants, the virtual
community may supplement existing primary
and secondary reference groups, but for many
others, it may actually replace other inuential
reference groups (e.g., Constant, Sproull, &
Kiesler, 1996).
Membership, frequency, and extent of partic-
ipation in virtual communities is driven by voli-
tional choice, and may be terminated by the
member relatively effortlessly. In spite of this
seemingly tenuous hold, researchers nd that
virtual communities are playing a bigger and
bigger role in many aspects of member life
from forming and maintaining friendships and
romantic relationships (Park & Floyd, 1996;
Walther, 1996), to learning (Constant et al.,
1996), to forming opinions, purchasing, and
consuming products and services (Kozinets,
1999; Hagel & Armstrong, 1997). Researchers
active in trying to understand the sustained,
even increasing, allure of virtual communities
have primarily adopted (1) the social network
analysis paradigm (e.g., Wellman, 1999), (2) an
ethnographic methodology (e.g., Kozinets, 1999), or
have focused on (3) the unique characteristics
of the digital environment, in understanding
how mediated communication differs from
face-to-face communication (e.g., Danet, Rue-
denberg, & Rosenbaum-Tamari, 1998; Walther,
1996). Interestingly, in spite of practitioner in-
terest, little research in marketing has focused
on the consumer psychology of virtual commu-
nity participation or its antecedents (however,
see Kozinets, 1999).
To complement existing conceptual ap-
1
By digital environments, we refer mainly to the internet and the
World Wide Web, and include such socially oriented virtual fo-
rums as electronic mail, bulletin board systems, multiuser dun-
geons, internet relay chat (IRC), and other Web-based chat
rooms.
I N T E N T I O N A L S O C I A L A C T I O N I N V I R T U A L C O M M U N I T I E S
JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING VOLUME 16 / NUMBER 2 / SPRING 2002
3
proaches and to focus more explicitly on under-
standing the role of individual and social inu-
ences in attracting members to the virtual
community, we adopt a social psychological lens
and conceptualize member participation as in-
tentional social action. Building on this conceptu-
alization, we study the role of attitudes, perceived
behavioral control, desires, and anticipated emotions,
all individual characteristics, and compliance,
identication, and social identity, all social inu-
ences exerted by the communityon the indi-
vidual members intention to participate in the
virtual community.
Our objectives in this research are threefold.
First, we wish to elaborate on the we-inten-
tions (i.e., group intentions) concept, argue
for its distinctiveness, and establish its value for
understanding the individuals participation in
a virtual community, as well as its importance
for interactive environment marketers. We
present a brief overview of some pertinent phil-
osophical ideas to fully explain the concept.
Second, we present the Model of Goal-Directed
Behavior (MGB) (Perugini & Bagozzi, 2001)
and extend it to apply to group behavior in
order to explicate the individual and social vari-
ables that shape the members we-intention to
participate in virtual community interaction. In-
tegrating ideas from attitude theory, motiva-
tional research, and social identity theory, this
model enables a rich understanding of the al-
lure of virtual communities for individual par-
ticipants. Finally, our goal is to test the hypoth-
eses implied by the MGB in the context of
virtual community participation. Our contribu-
tion in this regard is also to the substantive
social psychological discipline, to enhance
knowledge regarding the determinants of social
intentional action. Taken together, we hope to
provide digital environment marketers with
both a rich conceptual understanding and prac-
tical insights regarding the allure of virtual com-
munities and their implications.
We begin with a brief review of the extant
virtual community research, followed by an
elaboration of the we-intentions concept. This
is followed by a detailed discussion of the indi-
vidual and social bases of member participation
in the virtual community, along with a presen-
tation of the research hypotheses. The results of
an empirical study, employing a structural equa-
tion modeling methodology are then pre-
sented. The article concludes with a discussion
of the marketing signicance of issues consid-
ered in, and arising from, the analysis.
AN OVERVIEW OF VIRTUAL
COMMUNITY RESEARCH
Virtual communities may be of many different
types. Some are tightly bound, densely knit
groups of individuals who know one another
well, and use the digital environment primarily
as a way of augmenting their existing social
relationships (Wellman & Gulia, 1999). In con-
trast, others are far-ung, sparsely connected
networks of individuals who come together only
in the mediated digital environment and have
little chance of ever meeting physically. Some
exist for social reasons, such as to enable like-
minded individuals to meet; others exist primar-
ily for commercial reasons (Hagel & Armstrong,
1997 call these communities of transaction).
Irrespective of type, one characteristic that all
virtual communities share is that text-based com-
munication in the digital environment is the primary
formative and shaping force for their evolution,
growth, and sustenance.
Rheingold (1991) describes the essence of
virtual communities: People in virtual com-
munities use words as screens to exchange
pleasantries and argue, engage in intellectual
discourse, conduct commerce, exchange knowl-
edge, share emotional support, make plans,
brainstorm, gossip, feud, fall in love, nd
friends and lose them, play games, irt, create a
little high art, and a lot of idle talk. Pictures,
animations, or voice may nowadays augment
the written word, but text still remains the pri-
mary medium of virtual community communi-
cation. Given our objectives, our interest in this
research is in text-based virtual communities
formed for primarily social purposes such as
online chat rooms on the World Wide Web,
rather than in communities focused on com-
mercial or information exchanges. It is impor-
tant to note that it is such social communities
J O U R N A L O F I N T E R A C T I V E M A R K E T I N G
4
that exert the greatest inuence on partici-
pants knowledge and opinions regarding prod-
ucts and services through normative or informa-
tional mechanisms (or both), and ultimately
inuence consumer behaviors. Because of this,
social scientists have referred to such commu-
nities as information neighborhoods (Bur-
nett, 2000).
Attributes of Virtual Communities
Regardless of geographic dispersion or organi-
zational emphasis, virtual communities share
several characteristics. First, most virtual com-
munities are organized around some distinct in-
terest, which to a lesser or greater extent pro-
vides its raison detre. This shared interest may
pertain to a particular product or topic (such as
Ford Probe cars, or gardening, for instance) or
an afiction (such as cancer or Parkinsons dis-
ease), or a demographic attribute (single peo-
ple over 50). From a marketing standpoint,
such virtual communities may be thought of as
market fragmentswith one specic product, or
many different products and services of rele-
vance to it, depending on the scope of the
shared interest.
Second, as in real communities, virtual com-
munity members feel a consciousness of
kinan intrinsic connection toward other
members, and a collective sense of separation
from nonmembers (Wellman & Gulia, 1999).
Such group afliation not only colors the indi-
viduals opinions, ideas, and positions on spe-
cic issues, but also provides the impetus to
return to the community in the future. Not only
that, the interpersonal ties shared by virtual
community members have also been shown to
increase the willingness to share information
and resources with other members to provide
support and to commit to goals identied by
the group (Walther, 1996; Wellman, 1999).
Third, most virtual communities create and
use shared conventions and language (such as
jargon, emoticons, or acronyms), maintain so-
cial roles, establish boundaries, enact rituals,
show commitment to communal goals, and fol-
low norms of interaction (such as netiquette).
Through these functions, virtual communities
are able to provide many of the same benets to
members as traditional communities, in spite of
their physical dispersion and mediated environ-
ment. Shirley (1995) cites Eric Hochman, a
member of an early virtual community called
ECHO (East Coast Hang Out), as offering the
following comments:
I think ECHO is, in some ways, its own separate
world, one with its own mythology, jargon, and
social order; in other words, it has its own
culture. An interesting one, because rather
than it being an external thing that we adapt
to, or have imposed on us, were collectively
creating it, here and now, as we post.
Fourth, unlike many traditional media where
individuals consume content passively, content
is created by community members through ac-
tive participation. This content creation acts as
an important shaping force of the communitys
character, and determines not only its inuence
on participants, but also the status and inu-
ence of individual members (Werry, 1999).
Moreover, since digital environments facilitate
the archiving of past content inexpensively, vir-
tual communities come to represent an aggre-
gation of collective expertise on individual top-
ics, difcult to match elsewhere, and create a
capital of knowledge, increasing its value for all
members. Such member-generated content also
provides the opportunity for integration into
digital media advertising programs to raise their
credibility and effectiveness (Werry, 1999).
Finally, because most virtual communities,
whether Web-based chat rooms, or Usenet
newsgroups, or even e-mail lists or old-fangled
bulletin-boards, are still based predominantly
on text, most cues used in the traditional face-
to-face community settings such as nonverbal
expressions and social characteristics are l-
tered out (Kiesler & Sproull, 1992; Walther,
1996). This ltering out elevates the impor-
tance of communication content as the communi-
tys shaping force, allowing individual members
the strategic freedom to express themselves
(Postmes et al., 1998; Spears & Lea, 1994).
Rheingold (1993) describes this facet of virtual
communities well: Its like a neighborhood
pub or coffee shop. Its a little like a salon,
where I can participate in a hundred ongoing
5
conversations with people who dont care what
I look like or sound like, but who do care about
how I think and communicate. There are sem-
inars and word ghts in different corners.
Marketing practitioners initially adopted a
commercial, albeit simplistic, lens when consid-
ering the value of virtual communities from a
tactical standpoint. This is exemplied by Ray-
port and Sviokla (1995) in an early discussion
on the marketing value of virtual communities:
The successful marketspace will invite consum-
ers into a communal experience (making)
shopping a transaction involving not just goods
and services, but also (a positive) experience.
Werry (1999) summarizes this early marketing
approach to virtual communities well: (in
marketing) Community became a polite way
of talking about audience, consumer demo-
graphics, and market segmentation, while seem-
ing sensitive to Internet users, their culture and
community (p. 4). Recognizing the impor-
tance of member-generated content and social
interaction, more recent thinking has adopted
the organic ecosystem metaphor, focusing on
managerial practices such as seeding conver-
sations, planting provocative ideas, and care-
fully considering such organic attributes of the
virtual community as size, intimacy, continuity,
and growth as decision variables in their man-
agement (Hagel & Armstrong, 1997). But all of
these approaches emphasize commercial as-
pects inordinately, ignoring for the most part
the social psychological processes that make vir-
tual communities so popular and inuential in
the rst place.
Difference From Traditional
Communities
In spite of many similarities to traditional com-
munities, there is one essential difference. For
the individual member, membership, involve-
ment, and communication in virtual com-
munities is driven by volitional choiceunlike
traditional bounded communities where mem-
bership may be imposed involuntarily by chance
of birth, proximity of residence, or the happen-
stance of geographic relocation. An individual
member can terminate his or her membership
in the virtual community conveniently and ef-
fortlesslyoften simply by ending the naviga-
tion session and never returning to the virtual
communitys domain. In spite of this seemingly
tenuous hold on individual members, there is
growing evidence that participation in such vir-
tual communities is immersive and protracted.
With the passage of time, the virtual community
becomes a central venue for many members,
where they seek and appear to nd companion-
ship, social support, and a sense of belonging-
ness (Wellman & Gulia, 1999). As adoption of
and participation in such communities in-
creases, these forums also appear to be gaining
in importance as sources of information, and
shapers of the participants world view, not just
regarding the communitys organizing topic,
but much broader attitudes and opinions, and
importantly from our perspective, their con-
sumption decisions and practices (Hagel &
Armstrong, 1997).
There has been considerable interest among
researchers in the communication domain in
trying to understand the sustained allure of vir-
tual communities. The paradigm of social net-
work analysis has been frequently used to exam-
ine this member attraction (e.g., Wellman &
Gulia, 1999). This paradigm has uncovered
valuable insights: from the breadth of commu-
nication topics found in these communities
(Wellman & Gulia, 1999), to the strength of
weak ties (Constant et al., 1996), to the impact
of ltered-out cues on communication (e.g.,
Kiesler & Sproull, 1992), and group dynamics
(Postmes, Spears, & Lea, 2000). A second re-
search approach has focused on obtaining a
better understanding of the unique character-
istics of the digital environment, and how they
are used by members to construct community.
For instance, Danet and her colleagues (1998)
nd incidence of play and performance in vir-
tual chat rooms facilitated by the creative use of
text, and by the emphemerality, speed, and in-
teractivity of the medium. Similarly, Postmes
and his colleagues show that the anonymity af-
forded by computer-mediated groups allows
deindividuation effects to occurenhancing
susceptibility of group members to situational
group norms (Postmes et al., 1998; 2000). Fi-
nally, Walther (1996) reviews the literature on
6
computer-mediated communication and use,
and nds that in addition to impersonal and
interpersonal uses, digital environments some-
times facilitate communication surpassing nor-
mal interpersonal levelshe labels such com-
munication as hyperpersonal, when users
exchange information, build impressions
and compare values (p. 33). On the whole, this
line of research has shown that congurations
of the digital environment implicate social pro-
cesses, both by accentuating the inuence of
existing social inuences, and creating new
ones (discussed in detail later). In contrast, as
mentioned before, relatively little academic re-
search in marketing has examined virtual com-
munities, though marketing practitioners have
evinced considerable interest (e.g., Williams &
Cothrell, 2000; Hagel & Armstrong, 1997).
Our interest is in contributing to this growing
literature on virtual communities by seeking a
better understanding of the individual and social
determinants of action that drive member partic-
ipation in the virtual community. Our emphasis is
squarely on the individual community member.
Adopting a social psychological lens, our interest
is in studying the individual psychological mech-
anisms and the processes of community inuence
that attract participants to these mediated com-
munication forums and shape their social action.
We posit that virtual community participation
constitutes intentional social action in that the com-
munity member acts intentionally (i.e., engages in
purposive and goal-directed action that remains
under the individuals volitional control), and
that these actions have a collective basis in that both
what is done and why it is done in the virtual com-
munity are determined by the communitys social
characteristics (Bagozzi, 2000).
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE
INDIVIDUALS PERSONAL AND GROUP
INTENTIONS
The intention concept commonly studied by
social psychologists is that of a personal intention.
Eagly and Chaiken (1993, p. 168) dene such a
personal intention as a persons motivation in
the sense of his or her conscious plan to exert
effort to carry out a behavior. Researchers to
date have primarily scrutinized personal inten-
tions, where the target is a singular subject.
However, we believe that the allure of a virtual
community for an individual member derives
from the collectivity, the positive experience of
congregating and communicating in the medi-
ated environment, together, as a group (see
Postmes et al., 2000, for a similar view). Conse-
quently, virtual community members are likely
to perceive themselves as members of the
group, and form participation intentions in re-
lation to this plural target. Gilbert (1989) points
out that action in relation to such plural sub-
jects requires different conceptual schemes
than the more common theme of singular action
(see Bagozzi, 2000, for a detailed explication).
Philosophers have recently given a great deal of
attention to this construct of group intentions,
using such labels as collective intentions (Searle,
1990), we-intentions (Tuomela, 1995), and
shared-intentions (Bratman, 1997). For in-
stance, Bratman (1997) expresses a shared in-
tention in the form I intend that we act. In a
similar vein, Tuomela (1995, p. 2) denes a
we-intention as a commitment of an individ-
ual to participate in joint action, and involves an
implicit or explicit agreement between the par-
ticipants to engage in that joint action. In this
article, we conceptualize a virtual community
members participation intention as a group
intention, based on the premise that members
regard themselves as part of the social fabric of
the virtual community in certain specic ways
(Bagozzi & Lee, 2002a). Then, based on the
extant philosophical literature cited above, a set
of criteria may be specied to stipulate the con-
stitution of this group intention, which we
henceforth refer to as the virtual community
members we-intention.
First, Tuomela (1995, pp. 154146) main-
tains that a we-intention occurs under the fol-
lowing conditions: (1) two or more members of
a collectivity agree to jointly perform an action
on behalf of the collectivity, (2) each member
intends to perform his or her own part contrib-
utory to the group action, (3) members individ-
ually and mutually believe that the opportunity
for joint action is likely to occur, and the mem-
7
bers will perform their parts, and nally, (4) the
intention to perform ones part is determined,
in part, by the aforementioned individual and
mutual beliefs (plus presumably the assurances
and obligations entailed by the prior agree-
ment). Second, Tuomela maintains that the be-
liefs required for we-intentions are purely sub-
jective and need not be true, and a member
could, in principle, be the only agent in a group
with the we-intention (assuming that the four
conditions listed above are satised). Finally,
Tuomela (1995, p. 129) asserts that we-inten-
tions require individual commitment, and com-
mitment to provide a mutual support in the
sense that a member is not only committed to
performing the preassigned part but he is
also committed to furthering the joint action
(such as helping others in performing their
parts, when needed). Bratman (1997) proposes
a somewhat similar conceptualization of we-in-
tentions, which he terms shared intentions.
Tuomelas (1995) and Bratmans (1997) speci-
cations of group intentions are conceptual
frameworks based on logical criteria and pre-
suppose what philosophers term intentionalism
(i.e., the view that individual human be-
ings must see themselves in a particular way in
order to constitute a collectivity intentions
are logically prior to collectivities [Gilbert,
1989, p. 12]).
THE INDIVIDUAL BASES OF
INTENTIONAL ACTION
Classic formulations of attitude theory maintain
that intentions to act are functions of individual
and normative inuences (e.g., Eagly &
Chaiken, 1993). The Theory of Planned Behav-
ior (TPB) suggests that ones personal intention
to enact behavior is a function of the individu-
als attitude toward the behavior (i.e., the be-
haviors evaluation), his/her subjective norms
(i.e., the perceived social pressure to perform
or not perform the behavior), and perceived
behavioral control (i.e., the perception of how
easy or difcult it is to perform the behavior).
The TPB has been used extensively because of
its parsimony (Ajzen, 1991). Modifying the TPB
to apply to group behavior, we might hypothe-
size that the virtual community members we-
intention to participate will be determined by
his or her attitudes toward participation, his or
her perceived pressure from online group
members and other central people to partici-
pate, and his or her perceived control over the
act of participation.
The Model of Goal-Directed Behavior (MGB)
subsumes the TPB and has been recently shown
to improve the predictive and explanatory
power of the TPB (Perugini & Bagozzi, 2001).
In addition to the constructs in the TPB, the
MGB introduces three classes of individual
bases to better explain purposive behavior and
its affective implications. One addition to the
TPB under the MGB is the incorporation of
anticipated emotionsprefactual appraisals where
the individual imagines the affective conse-
quences of goal attainment and goal failure be-
fore deciding to act (Gleicher et al., 1995)as
predictors.
Recent research shows that negative antici-
pated emotions inuence the individuals inten-
tions over and above the variables in the TPB.
For instance, Parker, Manstead, and Stradling
(1995) found that anticipated regret lowered
expectations that one would commit certain car
driving violations. Similarly, Bagozzi, Baumgart-
ner, and Pieters (1998) found that both positive
and negative anticipated emotions inuence vo-
litions to exercise and to diet. The rationale for
the effects of anticipated emotions is based on
the argument that people, when deliberating to
act or not in goal-directed situations such as
virtual community participation, take into ac-
count the emotional consequences of both en-
acting and not enacting that behavior (Bagozzi
et al., 1998). This is done through a particular
form of counterfactual thinking that Gleicher et
at. (1995) term prefactuals. Gleicher et al.
(1995, p. 284) suggest that individuals may
think about imaginary alternatives to events in
terms of the implications of these events for the
future Peoples behavior may well be
determined by what the counterfactuals imply
for the future For example, anticipated neg-
ative outcomes may affect decisions through
counterfactual processes in two ways:
8
First, when a person generates a counterfactual
that reverses a negative outcome, he or she is
likely to make the attribution that there is an
effective action that can be taken in the future
(Second) when an individual thinks about a
counterfactual in advance, the motivation to
avoid this negative affect inuences behavioral
choices (Gleicher et al., 1995, pp. 294295).
Parallel processes can be hypothesized for
positive outcomes, where it is assumed that peo-
ple are motivated to make choices promoting
positive affect. Thus, we expect that positive
emotions result when the individual imagines
the pleasant aspects of the experience when she
succeeds in chatting with the other virtual com-
munity members beforehand, and negative
emotions when she imagines what will happen
when she is not able to do so. We posit that
these anticipated emotions in turn positively
inuence the individuals intentions to partici-
pate in the virtual community (through their
effect on desires, as developed below).
A second addition to the TPB under the
MGB is the role of past behavior. A recent meta-
analysis examined 64 studies and found robust
evidence for the impact of frequency of past
behavior on both intentions and future behav-
iors (Oullette & Wood, 1998). Other authors
have proposed partitioning the effects of past
behavior into frequency and recency effects
(e.g., Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1990). Although
seemingly related, frequency and recency ef-
fects are conceptually distinct and therefore
might carry independent information. For in-
stance, one may have a long history of perform-
ing a given behavior without having performed
it recently (e.g., a person who curtailed her
browsing on the Web for pleasure, because of a
time-consuming job), or one may have recently
taken up an activity with no prior experience
(as when purchasing a computer and using the
internet for the rst time). Recency of behavior
should inuence future behavior to the degree
that availability and anchoring/adjustment bi-
ases occur in information processing (e.g., Tver-
sky & Kahneman, 1974), and to the degree that
the activity, whether established or not, has
been recently initiated. Based on this discus-
sion, we expect that the more frequent and
recent the past participation of the member,
the more positive the we-intentions to partici-
pate in the virtual community in the future.
Finally, the third augmentation introduced
by the MGB is desires as a mediator between
attitudes, anticipated emotions, and subjective
norms on the one hand, and intentions on the
other hand.
2
Desires are also hypothesized to
partially mediate the effects of perceived behav-
ioral control. A number of researchers over the
years have pointed out that attitude theory
and/or the TPB fail to consider how decisions
become energized (e.g., Bagozzi, 1992, pp.
184186; Fazio, 1995, pp. 271272). The criti-
cism is that attitudes, subjective norms, and
other commonly specied direct determinants
of intentions provide reasons for acting but do
not incorporate the motivational content needed
to induce an intention to act. Drawing on argu-
ments on philosophy, Bagozzi (1992) proposed
that desires can function as the proximal deter-
minants of intentions and in so doing channel
the effects, if any, of the classical reasoned
antecedents (e.g., attitudes) on decisions and
intentions.
For desires to function as motivators, Davis
(1984) maintains that decision makers must be
aware of their desires and accept them as moti-
vating reasons for acting. Frankfurt (1988) also
sees a special role for desires. In his view, desires
function as determinants of decisions when de-
cision makers give self-reective consideration
to their desires and come to endorse them as
motivators to act. Empirical support for the mo-
tivational role of desires can be found in Pe-
rugini & Bagozzi (2001). Recent research has
elaborated on the distinction between desires
and intentions demonstrating several structural
differences with regard to level of abstraction,
temporal construal, and perceived feasibility
(Perugini & Bagozzi, 2002). We hypothesize
that desires will be strong determinants of the
2
Belk, Ger, and Askegaard (2000) consider important aspects of
desire but construe it in a narrower sense than we do. Our
conceptualization of and role for desires in consumer research
are similar to the treatment of desires in the theory of action and
theory of mind by philosophers (see below). See also Bagozzi
(1992) and Perugini and Bagozzi (2001, 2002).
9
individuals we-intentions, and the remaining
antecedents in the MGB will inuence we-inten-
tions through desires (except for PBC), which is
expected to have both indirect and direct ef-
fects on we-intentions. We now develop some
additions to the MGB by considering varieties of
social inuences exerted by the virtual commu-
nity on the individual member.
VIRTUAL COMMUNITY INFLUENCES
ON THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBER
After examining the individual bases of the in-
dividuals participation, we turn now to the in-
uences of the group, represented by the vir-
tual community, on the individuals we-
intention. The MGB is primarily a model of
individual goal-directed behavior and only con-
siders one aspect of social inuence: namely,
felt subjective norms, which reect social pres-
sure from signicant others to perform a focal
act. However, there is reason to question
whether subjective norms fully capture group
effects (see Eagly & Chaiken, 1993, for a de-
tailed discussion of this issue).
Compliance Processes
One problem with subjective norms is that al-
though diffuse in scope, they do not cover many
important aspects of group behavior. Subjective
norms reect the inuence of expectations of
others and constitute what Kelman (1974)
terms compliance. The person holding the
subjective norms is believed to be motivated by
the need for approval from signicant others.
Subjective norms are typically operationalized
in terms of this felt inuence in a rather general
sense by specifying other people whose opin-
ions are important to me as the source of
expectations (Ajzen, 1991). For the individual
member, such other people could either be
virtual community members or members of
other primary reference groups such as family
or friends, or both. A particular group inu-
ence, if any, is not singled out, and the compar-
ative function of norms (Kelley, 1952) from any
of these social groups is not incorporated di-
rectly into the subjective norms concept and its
measures. Because of volitional choice, incon-
spicuous participation, and low barriers of exit
associated with participation in virtual commu-
nities, we expect that compliance processes will
play a less inuential role in determining the
individuals we-intentions compared with other
community inuences. Nevertheless, we expect
a positive mediated effect of subjective norms
on the individuals participation we-intentions
through desires in the MGB (see Figure 1). Two
other forms of interpersonal inuence specied
by Kelman (1974) are more pertinent to the
study of community inuence: internalization
and identication.
Internalization Processes
Internalization is the adoption of a decision
based on the congruence of ones values with
the values of another. Eagly and Chaiken (1993,
p. 639) suggest that such values can by con-
strued broadly to encompass beliefs and atti-
tudes, as well as more abstract moral tenets. For
a virtual community member, internalization
occurs when the individual nds his or her
values match those of other group members. A
cigar connoisseur may nd others who love ci-
gars just as much, or a gardener may meet
others equally knowledgeable about azaleas and
daffodils, in virtual communities devoted to
these topics. In each case, there is a great over-
lap of values, facilitating internalization. Fur-
F I G U R E 1
Model of Goal-Directed Behavior with Proposed Social
Determinants Introduced
10
ther, we expect internalization to play an espe-
cially important role for the virtual community
member because of volitional choice: individu-
als are likely to seek out and maintain member-
ship in virtual groups with overlapping values.
Internalization is thought to arise primarily
from the information communicated between
group members, and to reside in the personal
meaning of that information for the participant
(e.g., Deutsch & Gerard, 1955; French & Raven,
1959). Internalization processes are repre-
sented in the current research through the ef-
fects of group norms. Here, social inuence is
captured by shared values or goals perceived by
the individual between oneself and other mem-
bers of the virtual community. To the extent
that the members values and goals are congru-
ent with those of other members of the commu-
nity, we expect that his/her we-intentions will
increase. This is also posited to result, in part,
from a reorganization of means-ends frame-
works (Kelman, 1974). It is not sufcient for a
person to merely perceive reference group in-
uence in order to form an intention to partic-
ipate in the community. Rather, the individual
has to realize that he/she and other community
members share one or more common goals in
this regardwhether to swap notes about the
best brand of cigars, or new varieties of hybrid
seeds (see Method). Consistent with this view,
recent research has shown that group norms
have a strong inuence in computer-mediated
groups (Postmes et al., 1998). Group norms
emerge in such groups through interaction,
and are often inferred by members from the
text-based communications used here (Postmes
et al., 2000). In the present research, we posit
that group norms will positively inuence both
desires and participation we-intentions (see Fig-
ure 1).
Identication Processes
Identication refers to ones conception of self
in terms of the dening features of a self-inclu-
sive social category (in this case, the virtual com-
munity) that renders the self stereotypically in-
terchangeable with other group members, and
stereotypically distinct from outsiders (Hogg,
1992). Because of identication, the individual
develops we-intentions to maintain a positive
self-dening relationship with virtual commu-
nity members. Further, ones self-esteem is
boosted to the extent that ones ego-ideal over-
laps with that of the others, and acting as the
other acts or wants one to act reinforces ones
self-esteem. Identication resembles aspects
of normative and informational inuence
(Deutsch & Gerard, 1955), as well as referent
power (French & Raven, 1959), and is charac-
terized by the community members social iden-
tity.
We hypothesize that social identity has main
effects on we-intentions, where group action is
the common referent. Our rationale draws
from social identity and social categorization
theories (e.g., Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Tajfel,
1981; Terry, Hogg, & Duck, 1999) and is sup-
ported by the view of communication research-
ers who show that digital environments may be
perceived as socially rich environments allowing
social identity to develop for, and subsequently
inuence, individual members (Postmes et al.,
1998). Tajfel (1978) suggested that a person
achieves a social identity through self-awareness
of ones membership in a group, and the emo-
tional and evaluative signicance of this mem-
bership. Building on these insights, Ellemers,
Kortekaas, and Ouwerkerk (1999, p. 372) re-
cently proposed that three components com-
prise ones social identity: a cognitive compo-
nent (a cognitive awareness of ones mem-
bership in a social groupself-categorization),
an emotional component (a sense of emotional
involvement with the groupaffective commit-
ment), and an evaluative component (a positive
and negative value connotation attached to
this group membershipgroup-based self-es-
teem).
The self-categorization process that consti-
tutes the cognitive aspect of social identity pos-
tulates a cognitive categorization process where
similarities between self and group members
are accentuated as are comparisons of dissimi-
larities with nonmembers, and the self is per-
ceptually and behaviorally depersonalized in
terms of the relevant group prototype (Hogg,
1992). The cognitive self-categorization process
has been shown to be operant for communica-
11
tors in mediated digital environments (Spears &
Lea, 1994). Second, emotional meaning of
group membership is also thought to be impor-
tant to the social identication process of the
individual (Tajfel, 1978). This emotional com-
ponent of social identity may be labeled affective
commitment, and may be characterized in a man-
ner similar to Allen and Meyer (1996, p. 253),
who dene affective commitment as identica-
tion with, involvement in, and emotional attach-
ment to, the focal group. Ellemers et al. (1999)
studied experimentally formed groups and
found that the affective component of social
identity inuenced in-group favoritism (in
terms of evaluative ratings and outcome alloca-
tions). Similarly, in the organizational context,
Bergami and Bagozzi (2000) found that the
cognitive component of social identity had an
indirect effect, and the affective component
had a direct effect, on organizational citizen-
ship behaviors.
Third, the evaluative component of social
identitygroup-based self-esteemhas been de-
ned as the positive or negative value connota-
tion attached to group membership (Ellemers
et al., 1999, p. 372), and arises from evaluations
of self-worth derived from membership. Group-
based self-esteem has been found to promote
actions that produce in-group welfare (e.g.,
Long & Spears, 1997). The construct validity
and the measures of these components of social
identity have been demonstrated by Bergami
and Bagozzi (2000) and Ellemers et al. (1999).
We hypothesize that each of these three com-
ponents of social identity should inuence de-
sires and we-intentions (see Figure 1).
METHOD
Subjects and Procedure
A total of 157 active virtual community mem-
bers (39% female) participated in this research.
We used the screening condition that respon-
dents had to engage in participation in a vir-
tual chat room at least 5 hours a week. The
self-reported average time spent by participants
in the virtual community was 9.58 hours per
week (SD 20.36). Participants were recruited
using a snow-ball procedure by six research as-
sistants, and varied in age from 17 to 67 years
(mean age 28.4 years). The study was intro-
duced as an opinion survey, and participants
rst listed their favorite online chat room. The
most-frequently mentioned chat room was Ya-
hoo Chat, followed by AOL Chat, Blackplanet.
com, and MSN. Topics ranged from sports-re-
lated (e.g., hockey), to specic city (New York
City), age group (teenchat), and general inter-
ests (tattoos, stock investing, tness, etc.). Par-
ticipants were then asked to imagine that you
are logging on to the online chat room to talk
with the group of friends that you regularly talk
to. Though the virtual communities men-
tioned typically have thousands of active mem-
bers, the self-reported average size of this virtual
community group was 4.69 persons (SD
1.34). The survey was administered to all
participants using a pencil-and-paper method.
Details of the measures are provided next.
Measures
Attitudes. Four items were used to measure
the attitudes construct. Subjects were asked to
respond to the following: On the following
scales, please express your attitude toward chat-
ting in the virtual chat room with the group of friends
you identied above sometime during the next
2 weeks. Four 7-point semantic differential
items were then presented anchored by fool-
ishwise, harmfulbenecial, badgood,
and punishingrewarding.
Subjective norms. Two 7-point items were
used to measure subjective norms and were in-
troduced with the statement, Please express
how strongly most people who are important to
you feel you should or should not chat in the
virtual chat room with the group of friends you
normally chat with. Then the two items were
presented as follows:
Most people who are important in my life think
I (circle appropriate number): should 1: 2: 3: 4:
5: 6: 7: should not chat in the virtual chat-room
with friends sometime during the next 2 weeks.
Most people who are important to me would
(circle appropriate number): approve 1: 2: 3: 4:
12
5: 6: 7: disapprove of me chatting in the virtual
chat room with friends sometime during the
next 2 weeks.
Perceived Behavioral Control. Two items were
used to measure perceived behavioral control.
The rst was a 7-point item that asked respon-
dents to react to the query, How much control
do you have over chatting in the virtual chat
room with the group of friends you identied
above during the next 2 weeks? The end points
of the scale were anchored with no control
and total control and had moderate control
as the mid point. The second item asked partic-
ipants to respond to the statement, For me to
chat in the virtual chat room with the group of
friends I mentioned above during the next 2
weeks is:, and used a 7-point difculteasy
scale.
Past Behavior. This was measured with two
items. The rst item asked, How many times in
the past 2 weeks did you chat together in the
virtual chat-room with the group of friends you
identied above? The respondent then en-
tered a number in a blank space: _____ time(s)
with my friends. The second item asked, How
many times did you chat together in the virtual
chat room with the group of friends you iden-
tied above in a typical 2-week period over the
past 6 months? The respondent again entered
a number in a blank space: _____ time(s) with
my friends. The rst item captures the re-
cency aspects of past behavior, while the sec-
ond item obtains a robust measure of the past
behaviors frequency.
We-Intentions. Two items were used to mea-
sure the we-intentions construct. The rst was a
5-point scale strongly disagreestrongly agree
item in response to the statement, I intend that
our group (i.e., the group of online friends that
I identied before) chat in the virtual chat
room together sometime during the next 2
weeks. The second item was also a 5-point
strongly disagreestrongly agree item in re-
sponse to the statement We (i.e., the group of
online friends that I identied above) intend to
chat in the virtual chat room together sometime
during the next 2 weeks.
Anticipated Emotions. A 17-item scale devel-
oped by Bagozzi et al. (1998) was used to mea-
sure anticipated emotions. After verifying that
respondents had a goal to chat in the virtual
community with their online friends, seven pos-
itive anticipated emotions (excited, delighted,
happy, glad, satised, proud, self-assured) were
introduced with the statement, If I am able to
chat in the virtual chat room with the group of
friends I identied above during the next 2
weeks, I will feel: and were measured on
7-point scales with not at all and very much
as anchors, and moderately as a mid point.
Similarly, 10 negative anticipated emotions (an-
gry, frustrated, guilty, ashamed, sad, disap-
pointed, depressed, worried, uncomfortable,
anxious) were introduced with the statement,
If am unable to chat in the virtual chat room with
the group of friends I identied above during
the next 2 weeks, I will feel: and were measured
with the same response alternatives as with pos-
itive anticipated emotions.
Desires. Three items were used to measure
desires. The rst was a 7-point disagreeagree
item that asked participants to respond to the
statement, I desire to chat in the virtual chat
room with the group of friends I mentioned
above during the next 2 weeks. The second
item asked participants to react to the state-
ment, My desire for chatting in the virtual chat
room with the group of friends I mentioned
above during the next 2 weeks can be described
as:, and provided seven response alternatives:
no desire at all, very weak desire, weak
desire, moderate desire, strong desire,
very strong desire, very, very strong desire.
The last item presented the statement, I want
to chat in the virtual chat room with the group
of friends I mentioned above during the next 2
weeks. A 7-point does not describe me at all
to describes me very well scale was used to
record the subjects response.
Group Norms. Group norms were indicated
with 5-point items measuring the degree of
13
shared goals between the self and each of the
group members. The items were introduced
with the following statements: Chatting to-
gether in the virtual chat room sometime dur-
ing the next 2 weeks with the group of friends
you often chat with can be considered a goal.
For each of the people listed below, please esti-
mate the strength with which each holds the
goal. The responses were recorded using very
weak, weak, moderate, strong, and very
strong alternatives. To operationalize group
norms, the item measuring strength of shared
goals by the self was used as one indicator, and
the average of the items measuring strength of
shared goals for the other group members was
used as a second indicator.
Social Identity. The cognitive component of
social identity (i.e., self-awareness as a member
of the virtual community) was measured by two
items. The rst was developed by Bergami and
Bagozzi (2000) to measure self-awareness of
group membership and consists of an 8-point
visual and verbal representation of ones per-
ceived overlap between ones self-identity and
identity of the group. The second item in-
structed participants to Please indicate the de-
gree to which your self-image overlaps with the
identity of the group of online friends you men-
tioned above as you perceive it and used a 7-point
scale anchored with not at all and very much
and with moderately in the middle.
Affective social identity was measured by two
items based on research pertaining to commit-
ment (e.g., Allen & Meyer, 1996). The rst was
a 7-point item asking, How attached are you to
the group of your online friends that you chat
regularly with?, and had not at all attached; I
have no positive feelings toward the group and
attached very much; I have very strong positive
feelings toward the group as end points and
moderately attached as a mid point. The sec-
ond items asked, How strong would you say
your feelings of belongingness are toward the
group you mentioned above? and used a
7-point scale anchored with not at all and very
much and with moderately in the middle.
Evaluative social identity was measured using
two 7-point items based on a scale developed by
Luhtanen and Crocker (1992). The rst item
stated: I am a valuable member of the group
mentioned above, and responses were an-
chored by does not describe me at all and
describes me very well with describes me
moderately well as a mid point. The second
item stated, I am an important member of the
group mentioned above, and used the same
response scale as the rst item.
Tests of Hypotheses
Structural equation modeling was used to test
the models shown in Figure 1. The LISREL 8.3
program was employed for this purpose (Jores-
kog & Sorbom, 1999). The goodness-of-t of
the overall models was assessed with chi-square
tests, the root mean square error of approxima-
tion (RMSEA), the standardized root mean
square residual (SRMR), the nonnormed t in-
dex (NNFI), and the comparative t index
(CFI). Discussions of these indices may be
found in Bentler (1990), Brown and Cudeck
(1993), and Marsh, Balla, and Hau (1996). Sat-
isfactory model ts are indicated by nonsigni-
cant chi-squared tests, RMSEA and SRMR values
less than 0.08, and NNFI and CFI values greater
than or equal to 0.90. Two indicators were used
to operationalize most latent variables, except
for desires where three indicators were used.
This meant using individual measures for all
constructs, except for attitudes where the four
measures were combined into two indicators by
averaging pairs of measures (Bagozzi & Heath-
erton, 1994). Because the measures of affective
and evaluative social identity were highly corre-
lated, they were modeled as indicators of one
affective-evaluative factor (see Table 1 below).
Social identity was thus treated as a second-
order factor, with self-categorization and affective-
evaluative reactions as rst-order factors loading
on it. All tests of models were performed on
covariance matrices (Cudeck, 1989).
RESULTS
Table 1 presents the means, standard devia-
tions, and reliabilities of all the measures used.
The reliabilities are generally high except for
the measures of perceived behavioral control,
14
where the reliability was 0.65. To test for con-
vergent and discriminant validity, we ran a con-
rmatory factor analysis for the 12 latent vari-
ables underlying the extended MGB shown in
Figure 1 (i.e., attitudes, positive anticipated
emotions, negative anticipated emotions, sub-
jective norms, group norms, past behavior, de-
sires, we-intentions, perceived behavioral con-
trol, self-categorization, affective commitment,
and group-based self-esteem). This model t
well, conrming convergent validity:
2
(258)
405.58, p .00, RMSEA .056, SRMR
.045, NNFI .94, and CFI .95. Discrimi-
nant validity can be scrutinized by inspection of
the correlations among latent variables and
their standard errors. The ndings in this re-
gard are shown in Table 2, where it can be seen
that all correlations are less than 1.00, when we
examine the condence intervals for each. Only
the correlation between affective commitment
and group-based self-esteem suggests a problem
of discriminant validity; thus our decision here
to combine the four measures as indicators of a
single affective commitment/group-based self-
esteem factor. It should be emphasized that the
correlations displayed in Table 2 have been cor-
rected for attenuation and that the raw Pearson
product-moment correlations of measures
across the latent variables are actually lower
than these correlations.
Figure 2 presents the results for the test of
the model in Figure 1. This model ts well
overall:
2
(282) 438.36, p .00, RMSEA
.063, SRMR .058, NNFI .93, and CFI
.94. As hypothesized under the MGB, desires
mediate the effects of antecedents on we-inten-
tions ( .63, SE .10), and positive antici-
pated emotions inuence desires ( .04, SE
.01). The addition of social identity to the
MGB results in a strong effect for this variable
on desires: .42, SE .11. Very high levels of
explained variance result for desires (R
2
.77)
and we-intentions (R
2
.69). Inspection of the
standardized coefcients in Figure 1 suggests
that positive anticipated emotions and social
identity have roughly equal effects on desires.
The ndings up to this point show that the
model of Figure 1 is consistent with the data. To
see if desires fully mediate the effects of the
antecedents on we-intentions, we added direct
paths from attitudes, positive anticipated emo-
tions, negative anticipated emotions, and sub-
jective norms to we-intentions. The results show
that none of the direct paths is signicant; i.e.,
1
.15 (t 1.30),
2
.03 (t 1.67),
3
.02 (t 1.29),
4
.04 (t 0.79),
respectively. Thus, desires fully mediate the ef-
fects of the antecedents on we-intentions, as
hypothesized under the extended MGB.
T A B L E 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliabilities of Construct Measures
Scale Mean
Standard
Deviation Reliability
Number of
Measures Range
Attitudes 18.97 4.02 .88 4 028
Subjective norms 9.18 2.99 .89 2 014
Perceived behavioral control 9.04 2.66 .65 2 014
Past behavior 13.06 18.53 .95 2 NA
Positive anticipated emotions 34.59 12.47 .94 9 063
Negative anticipated emotions 23.49 11.90 .93 12 084
Desires 13.72 15.25 .88 3 021
Group norms 6.25 1.97 .90 2 014
Cognitive social identity 8.35 3.02 .82 2 015
Affective/evaluative social identity 18.97 5.90 .95 4 028
We-intentions 7.16 1.83 .91 2 010
15
T
A
B
L
E
2
C
o
r
r
e
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
A
m
o
n
g
L
a
t
e
n
t
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
f
o
r
E
x
a
m
i
n
i
n
g
D
i
s
c
r
i
m
i
n
a
n
t
V
a
l
i
d
i
t
y
(
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
E
r
r
o
r
s
i
n
P
a
r
e
n
t
h
e
s
e
s
)
L
a
t
e
n
t
V
a
r
i
a
b
l
e
s
(
1
)
(
2
)
(
3
)
(
4
)
(
5
)
(
6
)
(
7
)
(
8
)
(
9
)
(
1
0
)
(
1
1
)
(
1
2
)
W
e
-
i
n
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
s
(
1
)
1
.
0
0
D
e
s
i
r
e
s
(
2
)
.
8
2
(
.
0
4
)
1
.
0
0
S
e
l
f
-
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
(
3
)
.
3
4
(
.
0
8
)
.
4
8
(
.
0
7
)
1
.
0
0
A
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
c
o
m
m
i
t
m
e
n
t
(
4
)
.
5
6
(
.
0
6
)
.
6
9
(
.
0
5
)
.
5
9
(
.
0
7
)
1
.
0
0
G
r
o
u
p
s
e
l
f
-
e
s
t
e
e
m
(
5
)
.
5
9
(
.
0
6
)
.
7
0
(
.
0
5
)
.
5
0
(
.
0
7
)
.
9
4
(
.
0
2
)
1
.
0
0
A
t
t
i
t
u
d
e
s
(
6
)
.
6
0
(
.
0
6
)
.
6
1
(
.
0
6
)
.
1
8
(
.
0
9
)
.
5
4
(
.
0
7
)
.
5
5
(
.
0
6
)
1
.
0
0
P
o
s
i
t
i
v
e
a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
e
m
o
t
i
o
n
s
(
7
)
.
5
6
(
.
0
6
)
.
7
7
(
.
0
5
)
.
2
8
(
.
0
8
)
.
5
3
(
.
0
7
)
.
5
5
(
.
0
6
)
.
5
8
(
.
0
6
)
1
.
0
0
N
e
g
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
e
m
o
t
i
o
n
s
(
8
)
.
3
7
(
.
0
8
)
.
4
6
(
.
0
8
)
.
2
0
(
.
0
9
)
.
2
2
(
.
0
9
)
.
2
4
(
.
0
8
)
.
4
3
(
.
0
8
)
.
5
3
(
.
0
7
)
1
.
0
0
S
u
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
n
o
r
m
s
(
9
)
.
4
1
(
.
0
7
)
.
3
5
(
.
0
8
)
.
0
3
(
.
0
9
)
.
3
3
(
.
0
8
)
.
3
4
(
.
0
8
)
.
5
5
(
.
0
7
)
.
3
0
(
.
0
8
)
.
0
1
(
.
0
9
)
1
.
0
0
P
e
r
c
e
i
v
e
d
b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
a
l
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
(
1
0
)
.
4
3
(
.
0
8
)
.
4
9
(
.
0
8
)
.
1
1
(
.
0
8
)
.
4
1
(
.
0
8
)
.
4
5
(
.
0
8
)
.
3
9
(
.
0
8
)
.
3
6
(
.
0
8
)
.
1
6
(
.
0
8
)
.
1
9
(
.
0
8
)
1
.
0
0
P
a
s
t
b
e
h
a
v
i
o
r
(
1
1
)
.
1
7
(
.
0
8
)
.
1
3
(
.
0
7
)
.
0
2
(
.
0
7
)
.
1
4
(
.
0
7
)
.
1
5
(
.
0
7
)
.
1
1
(
.
0
7
)
.
0
4
(
.
0
7
)
.
0
0
(
.
0
7
)
.
0
6
(
.
0
7
)
.
1
7
(
.
0
7
)
1
.
0
0
G
r
o
u
p
n
o
r
m
s
(
1
2
)
.
5
6
(
.
0
6
)
.
6
9
(
.
0
5
)
.
4
0
(
.
0
8
)
.
5
6
(
.
0
6
)
.
5
3
(
.
0
6
)
.
5
4
(
.
0
7
)
.
6
6
(
.
0
6
)
.
4
6
(
.
0
7
)
.
2
3
(
.
0
8
)
.
4
4
(
.
0
8
)
.
1
4
(
.
0
7
)
1
.
0
0
16
GENERAL DISCUSSION
In contrast to the psychology literature which
addresses personal intentions, we construed in-
tentions differently to apply to the group setting
characterized by the virtual community (see
also Bagozzi & Lee, 2002a). Unlike the tradi-
tional personal intention that refers to an ac-
tion that one will do alone (e.g., I intend to
check my e-mail this evening), we scrutinized
we-intentions to capture the social behavior.
We-intentions are intentions expressed either
in the form, I intend that we act jointly, or the
form, I intend that our group performs group
activity X. Such we-intentions have only re-
cently been considered by philosophers (e.g.,
Bratman, 1997; Tuomela, 1995), who have un-
derstandably focused on conceptual and logical
aspects of the concept, and not on measure-
ment and hypothesis testing concerns. In a
sense, a we-intention reects the intention of a
person who construes him- or herself as a social
category (e.g., member of virtual community
Y) and acts as an agent of the group in concert
with other group members. We posit that we-
intentions are drivers of participation in virtual
communities and the expression of its allure for
the individual member.
Marketers have evinced considerable interest
in measuring personal intentions in traditional
settings where consumption has the individual
as the referent. In virtual communities in con-
trast, social interaction is the objective and the
draw for the individual participant. The result-
ing joint communication and the positive expe-
rience are the direct products that are con-
sumed by members. We suggest that in this case,
we-intentions, encapsulating joint behaviors by
the collectivity, are more appropriate and
should be measured instead by marketers for
predictive or inferential purposes.
The ndings in our study show that we-inten-
tion decisions to participate in virtual commu-
nities are functions of three antecedents. Posi-
tive emotions in anticipation of achieving ones
goal of participation in virtual communities
function as strong determinants of we-inten-
tions and reect an individual-level criterion.
Social identity also drives decisions to partici-
pate in virtual communities and reects a
group-level criterion. Positive anticipated emo-
tions and social identity were found to produce
their effects on we-intentions through the me-
diating role of desires. Desires perform a trans-
formative function to motivate decisions to par-
ticipate with fellow group members in the
virtual community.
We investigated a particular kind of group
action in the present study and scrutinized the
individuals participation decision from the van-
tage point of a member of the group consti-
tuted by the virtual community. Such friendship
groups have already been formed, and the
shared intention to participate in community
interaction together is in a sense an ongoing
agreement to act jointly in the future, whenever
predetermined conditions arise, such as at a
particular time or occasion. Our focus on ongo-
ing groups in the virtual community setting re-
stricts the scope of inquiry, but was deemed
necessary for purposes of manageability and to
control boundary conditions. We thus avoid is-
sues concerning certain understandings and
commitments that respondents made prior to
formation of their groups. Our emphasis is on
the sustenance of we-intentions, a form of con-
tinuing we-intentions, but we recognize that
the creation of the virtual community and the
initiation of rst-time we-intentions are worthy
F I G U R E 2
Path coefcients and R
2
values for the extended Model of
Goal-Directed Behavior (factor loadings, error variances,
and correlations among exogenous variables omitted for
ease of interpretation
17
of future study. But we wish to note that our
emphasis complements nicely the work of social
science researchers studying online groups
without any preexistence and prior knowledge
of group members (e.g., Postmes et al., 1998;
Spears & Lea, 1994).
Our focus on online chat rooms constitutes
what social psychologists have referred to as fully
cooperative group action (Bagozzi & Lee, 2002b).
Here, members perform individual actions con-
tributory to the group actionsuch as sharing
information regarding a particular product or
object. Such groups typically involve consumer-
to-consumer communications, and when com-
pared with other groups considered next, are
likely to be the most inuential in shaping the
consumers enduring opinions and behaviors.
At least two other types of group actions are
pertinent from a marketing standpoint to vir-
tual communities. Under partially cooperative
group action, members of a group perform coor-
dinated individual actions, but coordination
governs only a portion of the group action,
something less than full cooperation. Examples
of such virtual communities would be bulletin
boards, mailing lists, or newsgroups devoted to
specic commercial or informational objectives.
Here, members may participate in response to
earlier communication, or originate communi-
cation, but these actions lack the extent of mu-
tual understanding, commitment, and coordi-
nation characteristic of fully cooperative group
action. So-called partially cooperative group ac-
tion in such virtual communities also lacks a
sense of personal obligation or responsibility on
the part of members for performing their own
parts to a joint action (indeed, jointness is
ambiguous or vaguely dened in this situation),
and often lacks a feeling of social responsibility
for performing extra contributions in the form
of mutual support, if needed, to implement the
group intention. Such groups are more likely to
support transactions rather than relationships
between members, and are therefore less likely
to evoke the social processes of inuence de-
scribed herein. Indeed, virtual communities of
transaction (Hagel & Armstrong, 1997) also fall
into this category.
A second distinct type of pertinent group
action not considered here is what may be
termed as minimally cooperative group action (Ba-
gozzi & Lee, 2002b), or what Tuomela (1995)
calls co-action. According to him, co-action is
collective action in which agentswithout a
joint intentionhave the same goal, perhaps
mutually believing so and possibly interacting in
various ways (Tuomela, 1995, p. 73). An exam-
ple would be sports fans standing in unison at a
baseball game to hear the national anthem.
Many virtual communities such as technical sup-
port groups (Constant, et al., 1996), news bul-
letin boards, and mailing lists, t this bill. Many
virtual communities may be organized and sus-
tained by a commercial entity such as a rm
selling a particular type of software, with the
intent of collecting and managing consumer
feedback. In such communities, most partici-
pants have a common goal such as to get help
in using the software, yet they cannot be said to
have a joint intention. Future research may ben-
et from studying the bases of participation in
these two types of virtual communities: partially
cooperative groups and minimally cooperative
groups.
This research provides some important in-
sights for digital environment marketers. Much
effort in the last 5 years or so has gone toward
creating virtual communities for commercial
purposes. Early simplistic thinking of build,
and they will come has given way to a less
obtrusive, hands-off nurture and cultivate ap-
proachbut even here, the focus of marketers
has been on keeping the commercial topic (dis-
cussion regarding the product) as the underly-
ing focus of the community. The research pre-
sented here suggests that such an emphasis may
be somewhat myopic and misdirected. The
group, not the product, must be the object of
nurturance, for virtual community builders. In
our research, even though the communities
chosen by participants were vast with thousands
of members, the average size of the members
regular group was only about ve people. This
suggests that the allure of these virtual commu-
nities for these participants lies in the benets
of social interaction with a small circle of
friends. They develop identication with this
small group, allowing group norms to form
18
through processes of identication. A vast body
of social science research suggests that such
groups, once formed, are very inuential in
shaping and changing the members opinions,
preferences, and actions. Rather than focusing
on the product or service, per se, these ndings
suggest that marketers should focus on provid-
ing the right conditions for the same individuals
to come together and meet often enough for
such groups to form, and then naturally exert
their inuence on participating consumers.
Further, in the interactive marketing litera-
ture, much recent research has extolled the
benets of mass customization or one-to-one
marketing (e.g., Wind & Rangaswamy, 2001)
the designing of customized offerings speci-
cally for individual consumers. Indeed, many
attributes of digital environments, such as digi-
tal information modularity, the network archi-
tecture, and availability of extensive behavioral
information at the individual level, all facilitate
this approach. The research presented here
suggests a need to temper this enthusiasm. Even
in digital environments where most consumers
face a glut rather than a scarcity of information
sources, and the freedom to express their pref-
erences more individually, they seem to be im-
pelled to form small social groups to participate
and create a common pool of information, of-
ten of marketing relevance. The outcome of
such social interaction is likely to be a homog-
enization rather than a dispersion of prefer-
ences and behaviors, suggesting that group-
level marketing analysis and programs may still
be quite appropriate and effective in the digital
world (see Kozinets, 1999, for a similar view).
Another important issue for future consider-
ation is the characterization of the type of ac-
tion, and hence referents for explanatory vari-
ables, to which we-intentions apply. Some
member actions pertaining to virtual communi-
ties may have limited if any sense of jointness to
them, and indeed the actions involved could be
performed by one personsay retrieving some
specic product-related information from a vir-
tual community devoted to the pertinent topic.
Other virtual community actions, even within
fully cooperative groups, in contrast, are not
separable into individual parts that could be
performed separately and entirely by one com-
munity member. That is, certain virtual commu-
nity actions appear to require multiple individ-
uals actions in concert, together, in a particular
way to be meaningful. Our focus in this study on
interacting with ones regular friends in a vir-
tual community is just such a group action.
After all, this activity can only occur when all
community members are together simulta-
neously, and act jointly; no one individual can
perform this activity by him- or herself alone.
Future research on this topic should explore
we-intentions for digital collectivities and cir-
cumstances where the nature or extent of
groupness varies. In conclusion, we fully ex-
pect this area to be a buzzing hive of research
activity, as virtual communities become more
pervasive, accepted, and valued by more and
more consumers.
REFERENCES
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Or-
ganization Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
50, 179211.
Allen, M.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1996). Affective, continu-
ance, and normative commitment to the organiza-
tion: An examination of construct validity. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 49, 252276.
Bagozzi, R.P. (1992). The self-regulation of attitudes,
intentions and behavior. Social Psychology Quar-
terly, 55, 178204.
Bagozzi, R.P. (2000). On the concept of intentional
social action in consumer behavior. Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 27 (3), 388396.
Bagozzi, R.P., Baumgartner, H., & Pieters, R. (1998).
Goal-directed emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 12,
126.
Bagozzi, R.P., & Heatherton, T.F. (1994). A general
approach to representing multifaceted personality
constructs: Application to state self-esteem. Struc-
tural Equation Modeling, 133, 3567.
Bagozzi, R.P., & Lee, K.H. (2002a). Multiple routes for
social inuence: The role of compliance, internal-
ization, and social identity. Social Psychology Quar-
terly, forthcoming.
Bagozzi, R.P., & Lee, K.H. (2002b). Intentional social
action and the reasons why we do things with others.
Unpublished Working Paper, Rice University.
Bagozzi, R.P., & Warshaw, P.R. (1990). Trying to con-
sume. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 127140.
19
Belk, R.W., Ger, G., & Askegaard, S. (2000). The miss-
ing streetcar named Desire. In S. Ratneshwar, D.G.
Mick, & C. Huffman (Eds.), The why of consump-
tion: Contemporary perspectives on consumer mo-
tives, goals, and desires (pp. 98119), London, UK:
Routledge.
Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative t indexes in struc-
tural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238246.
Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R.P. (2000). Self-categoriza-
tion, affective commitment, and group self-esteem as
distinct aspects of social identity in the organization.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 555577.
Bratman, M.E. (1997). I intend that We J. In G. Holm-
strom-Hintikka & R. Tuomela (Eds.), Contemporary
action theory, volume II (pp. 4963). Dordrecht,
the Netherlands: Kluwer.
Browne, M., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of
assessing model t. In K.A. Bollen, & J.S. Long
(Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp.
136162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Burnett, G. (2000). Informational exchange in virtual
communities: A typology. Information Research, 5,
4.
Canter, L., & Siegel, M. (1994). How to make a fortune
on the information superhighway. New York, NY:
Harper Collins.
Constant, D., Sproull L., & Kiesler, S. (1996). The
kindness of strangers: The usefulness of electronic
weak ties for technical advice. Organization Science,
7 (2), 119135.
Cudeck, R. (1989). Analysis of correlation matrices us-
ing covariance structure models. Psychological Bul-
letin, 317327.
Danet, B., Ruedenberg, L., & Rosenbaum-Tamari, Y.
(1998). HmmmWheres that smoke coming from?
Writing, play and performance on Internet Relay
Chat. In F. Sudweeks, M. McLaughlin, & S. Rafaeli
(Eds.), Network and Netplay: Virtual groups on the
Internet (pp. 4176). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Davis, W.A. (1984). A causal theory of intending. Amer-
ican Philosophical Quarterly, 21, 4354.
Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H.B. (1955). A study of norma-
tive and informational social inuence upon individ-
ual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy-
chology, 51, 629636.
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 Psychol-
ogy, 29, 371389.
Fazio, R.H. (1995). Attitudes as object-evaluation asso-
ciations: Determinants, consequences, and corre-
lates of attitude accessibility. In R.E. Petty & J.A.
Krosnik (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and
consequences (pp. 247282). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Frankfurt, H. (1988). The importance of what we care
about. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
French, J.R. Jr., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social
power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social
power (pp. 150167). Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan.
Gilbert, M. (1989). On social facts. London, UK: Rou-
tledge.
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 af-
fect, attitudes, and behavior. In N.J. Roese & M.M.
Olson (Eds.), What might have been: The social psy-
chology of counterfactual thinking (pp. 283304).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hagel, J., & Armstrong, A.G. (1997). Net gain: Expand-
ing markets through virtual communities. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Hogg, M.A. (1992). The social psychology of group
cohesiveness: From attraction to social identity. New
York, NY: NYU Press.
Hogg, M.A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identica-
tions: A social psychology of intergroup relations
and group processes. London, UK: Routledge.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, F.P. (1987). Joining to-
gether: Group theory and group skills, 3rd edition.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1999). Lisrel 8: Users
reference guide, 2nd edition. Chicago, IL: Scientic
Software International.
Kelley, H.H. (1952). Two functions of reference
groups. In G.E. Swanson, T.M. Newcomb, E.L. Hart-
ley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology, 2nd edi-
tion (pp. 410414). New York, NY: Holt.
Kelman, H.C. (1974). Further thoughts on the pro-
cesses of compliance, identication, and internaliza-
tion. In J.T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Perspectives on social
power (pp. 125171). Chicago, IL: L. Aldine.
Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1992). Group decision mak-
ing and communication technology. Organization
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 96
123.
Kozinets, R.V. (1999). E-tribalized marketing? The stra-
tegic implications of virtual communities of con-
sumption. European Management Journal, 17 (3),
252264.
Long, K., & Spears, R. (1997). The self-esteem hypoth-
20
esis revisited: Differentiation and the disaffected. In
R. Spears, P.J. Oakes, N.E. Ellemers, & S.A. Haslam
(Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and
group life (pp. 299317). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-es-
teem scale: Self-evaluation of ones social identity. Per-
sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302318.
Maffesoli, M. (1996). The time of the tribes: The de-
cline of individualism in mass society. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Marsh, H., Balla, J., & Hau, K.T. (1996). An evaluation
of incremental t indices: A clarication of mathe-
matical and empirical properties. In G.A. Marcou-
lides & R.E. Schmacker (Eds.), Advanced structural
equation modeling: Issues and techniques (pp. 315
353). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Oulette, J.A., & Wood, W. (1998). Habit and intention
in everyday life: The multiple processes by which
past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological
Bulletin, 124, 5474.
Park, M., & Floyd, K. (1996). Making friends in cyber-
space. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communica-
tion [Online], 1 (4). Available: http://www.ascus-
c.org/jcmc/
Parker, D., Manstead, A.S.R., & Stradling, S.G. (1995).
Extending the theory of planned behavior: The role
of personal norm. British Journal of Social Psychol-
ogy, 34, 127137.
Perugini, M., & Bagozzi, R.P. (2001). The role of de-
sires and anticipated emotions in goal-directed be-
haviors: Broadening and deepening the Theory of
Planned Behavior. British Journal of Social Psychol-
ogy, 40, 7998.
Perugini, M., & Bagozzi, R.P. (2002). The distinction
between desires and intentions. Working Paper, Uni-
versity of Essex.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (1998). Breaching or
building social boundaries? SIDE-effects of comput-
er-mediated communication. Communication Re-
search, 25, 6, 689715.
Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Lea, M. (2000). The forma-
tion of group norms in computer-mediated commu-
nication. Human Communication Research, 26 (3),
341371.
Rayport, J.F., & Sviokla, J.J. (1995). Exploiting the vir-
tual value chain. Harvard Business Review, (Novem-
berDecember)
Rheingold, H. (1991). A slice of life in my virtual com-
munity. In L.M. Harasim (Ed.), Global networks
(pp. 5780). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Rheingold, H. (1993) The virtual community: Home-
steading on the electronic frontier. New York, NY:
Harper Collins.
Searle, J.R. (1990). Collective intentions and actions. In
P. Cohen, J. Morgan, & M. Pollack (Eds.), Intentions
in communication (pp. 401415). Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Shirley, C. (1995) Voices from the net. Emeryville, CA:
ZD Press.
Spears, R., &Lea, M. (1994). Panacea or panapticon? The
hidden power in computer-mediated communication.
Communication Research, 21 (4), 427459.
Tajfel, H. (1978). Social categorization, social identity
and social comparison. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differen-
tiation between social groups: Studies in the psychol-
ogy of intergroup relations (pp. 6176). London,
UK: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories:
Studies in social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Terry, D.J., Hogg, M.A., & Duck, J.M. (1999). Group
membership, social identity, and attitudes. In D.
Abrams & M.A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity and social
cognition (pp. 280314).Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Tuomela, R. (1995). The importance of us: A philoso-
phy study of basic social notions. Stanford, CA: Stan-
ford University Press.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under
uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185,
11241131.
Walther, J.B. (1996). Computer-mediated communica-
tion: Impersonal, interpersonal and hyperpersonal
interaction. Communication Research, 23, 1, 343.
Wellman, B. (1999). The network community: An in-
troduction to networks in the global village. In B.
Wellman (Ed.), Networks in the global village (pp.
148). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Wellman, B., & Gulia, M. (1999). Net-surfers dont ride
alone: Virtual communities as communities. In B.
Wellman (Ed.), Networks in the global village (pp.
331366). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Werry, C. (1999). Imagined electronic community:
Representations of virtual community in contempo-
rary business discourse [Online]. First Monday, 4
(9). Available: http://www.rstmonday.dk/.
Williams, R.L., & Cothrell, J. (2000). Four smart ways to
run online communities. Sloan Management Re-
view, Summer, 8191.
Wind, J., & Rangaswamy, A. (2001). Customerization:
The next revolution in mass customization. Journal
of Interactive Marketing, 15 (1), 1332.
21

Intentional Social Action in Virtual Communities

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intentional Social Action in Virtual Communities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTENTIONAL SOCIAL ACTION

You might also like