Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 978985

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Online brand community engagement: Scale development and validation

Brian J. Baldus a,, Clay Voorhees b, Roger Calantone b
a
California State University, Sacramento, Tahoe Hall 2015, 6000 J Street, Sacramento, CA 95819-6088, United States
b
The Eli Broad College of Business, North Business Complex, 632 Bogue Street, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1122, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In a quest for connecting with customers, the world's largest brands have gone online to develop communities to
Received 30 October 2013 interact with consumers. Despite widespread adoption less is known about what motivates consumers to contin-
Received in revised form 23 September 2014 ually interact in these communities. Across six studies, we develop and test a typology of online brand commu-
Accepted 24 September 2014
nity engagement (i.e., the compelling intrinsic motivations to continue interacting with an online brand
Available online 11 October 2014
community). We identify 11 independent motivations and test the scale's predictive power for participation in
Keywords:
an online brand community. This study provides a much needed renement to the disparate conceptualizations
Online brand communities and operationalizations of engagement in the literature. As a result, academic researchers can now rely on a di-
Scale development verse set of motivational measures that best t the context of their research, adding to the versatility of future
Branding research studies. The results provide managers with new insight in the motivations for and impact of interacting
Consumer motivation in online brand communities.
Brand community 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction measurement of these motivations can also assist in the development

Brands as disparate as the Boston Red Sox, Salesforce.com, Starbuck's
Coffee, Dell, General Motors, and Procter & Gamble are making signi-
cant investments in online brand communities in an effort to cultivate
stronger relationships with their consumers. Often, these communities
began as simple text forums where consumers share thoughts and
questions about a brand, but over the past 15 years these communities
have evolved and some have even blossomed into strategic market-
ing investments designed to offer unique brand experiences in rich
interactive multimedia environments. This increased sophistication
not only offers consumers a new array of opportunities within
these communities, but also carries a substantial cost for the brands.
For example, General Motors recently announced that they invest
$30 million annually to simply generate content for their community
on Facebook and are planning to continue this investment, despite
cutting their $10 million Facebook advertising budget (Barkholz &
Rechtin, 2012).
While each brand community has a unique purpose, the one univer-
sal is that they represent an explicit marketing investment on behalf of
the rm to develop long term connections with their current and poten-
tial consumers (Zaglia, 2013). In order to increase returns on these sub-
stantial investments, marketing managers require better consumer
insights into the motivations to participate in brand communities and
the resulting attitudinal and nancial benets to the brand. Improved
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 916 278 6978.
E-mail addresses: baldus@csus.edu (B.J. Baldus), voorhees@broad.msu.edu
(C. Voorhees), rogercal@broad.msu.edu (R. Calantone).
of operational standards of excellence for this maturing medium of
brand communication. Despite this practical need, academic research
on the consumer motivations to participate in online brand communi-
ties has struggled to keep pace with the changing landscape of the
industry (e.g., Brodie, Ilic, Juric, & Hollebeek, 2013). While early investi-
gations in brand communities provide us with operational denitions of
these investments: Online brand communities represent a network of
relationships between consumers and the brand, product, fellow con-
sumers, and the marketer (McAlexander, Schouten, & Koenig, 2002,
p. 39) and insight into early motivations for community engagement
(e.g., Dholakia, Bagozzi, & Pearo, 2004) they fail to capture the complex-
ity of motivations driving consumer engagement in communities for
three reasons (e.g., Cova & Pace, 2006). First, these initial investigations
are now a decade old and these initial conceptualizations don't account
for the new possibilities of interaction due to recent technological inno-
vations and substantial investments in these communities by their
brands.
Second, early investigations were necessarily limited to extreme
lead users. Brand communities now have moved into the mainstream
and it is common to nd as many early and late majority consumers
interacting in these communities as lead users. The increased diversity
in online brand communities challenges community managers to in-
crease participation rates and necessitate a broader set of marketing
tools to reach the diverse types of community members.
Third, no prior study has undertaken a dedicated effort to understand
the unique dimensions of engagement for online brand communities.
Several studies have examined channels, in general Calder, Malthouse,
and Schaedel (2009), brand channels (Hollebeek, Glynn, & Brodie,
2014) and C2C communication (Hennig-Thurau, Gwinner, Walsh, &

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.09.035
0148-2963/ 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 B.J. Baldus et al. / Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 978985 979

Table 1
Operationalizations of engagement in the marketing literature.

Online context

Unbranded
Citation Construct denition Dimensions/ Data General Dedicated
outlets MROCs
items collections social media brand
(forums and
outlets communities
media sites)

Current research Online brand community engagement is the 11 dimensions/ 2 qualitative/

compelling, intrinsic motivations to continue 42 items 4 quantitative
interacting with an online brand community

Hollebeek et al. (2014) Consumer brand engagement is a consumer's 3 dimensions/10 1 qualitative/

positively valenced cognitive, emotional and items 3 quantitative
behavioral brand-related activity during, or
related to, specic consumer/brand
interactions. p. 6

Sprott et al. (2009) Brand engagement in self-concept is the 1 dimension/8 5 quantitative

individual difference representing consumers' items
propensity to include important brands as part
of how they view themselves. p. 92

Calder et al. (2009) Consumer engagement with a website 8 dimensions/32 1 quantitative

is dened as a collection of experiences items
(consumer's beliefs about how a site ts into
his/her life) with the site. p. 322

Algesheimer et al. Community engagement is the consumer's 1 dimension/4 1 quantitative

(2005) intrinsic motivation to interact and cooperate items
with community members (p. 21)

Hennig-Thurau et al. eWOM communication is dened as as any 8 dimensions/27 1 quantitative

(2004) positive or negative statement made by items
potential, actual, or former customers about a
product or company, which is made available to
a multitude of people and institutions via the
Internet p. 39

Note: MROCS = Marketing Research Online Communities.

Gremler, 2004), but very few have examined communities centered on
brands in the online domain. As a result, our paper is the rst to truly cap-
ture the unique engagement dimensions for these communities that
must capture motivations tied to the channel, other consumers, and the
brand simultaneously. Without considering all these elements, our un-
derstanding is incomplete and overly generic. While these broader con-
ceptualizations certainly have a lot of value to the literature, they must
be complemented with context-specic investigations that provide ac-
tionable insights at a very granular level. This is particularly important
from an area of marketing investment as important as online brand
communities.
We attempt to close this gap by conducting a comprehensive exam-
ination of consumer motivations to participate in a broad variety of
brand communities and developing a measure of online brand commu-
nity engagement following a grounded theory approach. In doing so,
this research contributes to the marketing literature by providing a plat-
form for future investigations into how these motivations inuence
consumer behavior in online brand communities and in the market-
place following interactions in the community. Accordingly, our prima-
ry research question is what motivations do consumers have for
interacting with an online brand community?
Results of the scale development process and subsequent nomolog-
ical net testing suggest that online brand community engagement is not
unidimensional, but multidimensional. Therefore, extant measures of
engagement are too narrow to capture online brand community
members' diverse motivations. Ultimately this research enables both re-
searchers and managers to better understand consumer motivations for
participating in brand communities and provides a widely-applicable
platform for future research on brand communities. In the following
section, we briey review the evolution of brand communities, current
research on brand communities, review the scale development process,
and discuss the implications of this research.
2. Scale development and validation procedure
To develop measures for online brand community engagement, we
began with a review of the engagement literature (Algesheimer,
Dholakia, & Herrmann, 2005; Calder et al., 2009; Hennig-Thurau et al.,
2004; Hollebeek et al., 2014; Sprott, Czellar, & Spangenberg, 2009)
followed by a grounded theory approach to establish baseline
dimensions of engagement in online brand communities and then
proceeded with a modied scale development processes. Table 2 pro-
vides an overview of the entire process, which entailed two qualitative
data collections, item generation, expert review, an exploratory data
collection, and two validation studies. In the following sections, we
provide details on the entire process and criteria used at each stage of
the development. (See Table 1.)
2.1. Identication of engagement dimensions
Because there has been limited research into online brand commu-
nity engagement, we follow a grounded theory approach (Spiggle,
1994) to explore the domain of engagement to develop the scale for on-
line brand community engagement. Specically, we began the process
using a series of qualitative research efforts (focus groups and qualita-
tive surveys) to identify consumer motivations for interacting with
brand communities. Consistent with our earlier denition, these moti-
vations served as our primary engagement dimensions. When these di-
mensions aligned with prior literature, we labeled them accordingly
and for dimensions that were unique, we created new labels and
980 B.J. Baldus et al. / Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 978985

Table 2 and identied preliminary themes related to brand community engage-

Scale development process.
Steps in the process
Study 1 focus groups
Focus group interviews
Study 2 Open-ended surveys
Extension of focus group
questions into open-ended
questionnaire format
Item generation
Item reduction and expert review
Study 3 initial validation study
Conrmatory factor analysis
o Dimensionality
o Factor loadings
Validity
o Convergent validity
o Discriminant validity
Reliability
Study 4 validation study and
establishment of a short form scale
Conrmatory factor analysis
Validity
o Convergent validity
o Discriminant validity
Reliability
Study 5 validation of a short form Online survey of online brand
scale and nomological validity
testing
Conrmatory factor analysis
Validity
o Convergent validity
o Discriminant validity
Reliability
Nomological validity testing
via OLS regression
Study 6 testretest reliability
assessment
operational denitions that captured the essence of the motivation. De-
tails on the focus groups and the open ended survey are provided next.
Details
Two focus groups
Qualitative analysis of focus group
transcripts to identify motivations
Open-ended surveys of active brand
community members
Qualitative analysis of responses to open
ended survey questions to rene the
listing of motivations
This process resulted in the identica
tion of 11 distinct motivations for
interacting with an online brand
community
Generation of 494 items by research
team based on 11 constructs
138 items selected for expert review
2 Marketing Faculty Members and 6
Marketing Doctoral Students Judged Items
94 Items remained
Online survey of online brand
community members
72 items remained
Online survey of online brand
community members
Establishment of a short form version of
the scale including 42 items across the
11 dimensions
community members
Validation of a short form version of the
scale including 42 items across the 11
dimensions
Establishment of nomological validity
Online surveys of a panel of online
brand community members at two time
periods, 30 days apart
ment. In order to rene the initial listing of motivational themes, a
follow-up qualitative survey was administered.
2.1.2. Study 2 open-ended surveys
An online panel company was then used to collect a sample of very
active (i.e., participate in an online brand community more than 23
times a week) online brand community members. Of the 70 completed
surveys returned, 44 surveys were screened because they were not very
active members of online brand communities (i.e., participate in an
online brand community more than 23 times a week). In addition, 2
surveys were dropped for data quality concerns (e.g., lack of elaboration
on qualitative questions and speeding). The remaining 24 responses
were analyzed for themes surrounding the motivations brand commu-
nity members have to interact with the brand community (11 male and
13 female, median age 40 years old). Open-ended survey questions
based on the focus group questioning route were used to assess the mo-
tivations of respondents. The responses were analyzed for themes sur-
rounding brand community members' motivations to interact with
the community. Following this analysis, the research team met and
reconciled the results of both qualitative research efforts and developed
a preliminary listing of 11 dimensions of online brand community en-
gagement. Following Rossiter (2002), tentative construct denitions
were created for each dimension. Table 3 provides an overview of the
11 engagement dimensions and operational denitions.
2.2. Initial item generation and reduction
2.2.1. Item generation
Following the identication of the engagement dimensions, the
research team generated items using the construct denitions. In
total, 2 researchers and 2 research assistants independently genera-
ted a total of 494 items (approximately 10 items per dimension per
person) to measure the 11 dimensions of brand community member
motivations.
2.2.2. Item reduction and expert review
After creating a large pool of potential items, the research team met
to rene construct denitions, eliminate redundant items, and select
items that had good face validity for expert review. In total, 138 items
were selected for expert review. Given the large number of constructs,
experts were randomly assigned half of the total items. A review of
the item pool was conducted by two marketing faculty members and
six marketing doctoral students who were familiar with the branding
literature, but unaware of the specic focus of this research project.
Each expert was presented 69 items one at a time in random order.
For each item, judges were asked to assign the item to the most repre-
sentative construct denition. If a majority of the experts correctly
assigned the item to its intended denition, then the item was retained
for further testing. In total, 94 items were retained based on the expert
review.
2.3. Preliminary assessment of the scale

2.1.1. Study 1 focus groups 2.3.1. Study 3: initial validation

Focus group participants were recruited from a large Midwestern
university's undergraduate marketing courses. Thirty students
volunteered to participate in the focus groups for extra credit. 11 stu-
dents (6 male and 5 female, median age 21 years old) were identied
as active members of online brand communities and included in this
phase of the research process. Focus group sessions were conducted
based on a questioning route developed specically for this study
(Krueger & Casey, 2009). Following the focus group sessions, the
researchers and assistant moderators (two research assistants not
aware of the theoretical background) met to discuss the transcripts.
The researchers and assistant moderators reviewed the transcripts
For study 3, an online panel company was contracted for the next
round of data collection to get a sample of 2839 US Internet users who
are 18 and older. 1190 respondents indicated that they were not mem-
bers of brand communities and were screened immediately from the
study. 737 of the remaining responses were screened by the panel
company for speeding through initial survey questions. In total, 911
completed surveys were returned. Of the completed surveys returned,
282 responses were dropped for data quality (e.g., straight-lining and
gibberish responses to open-ended questions). Two independent raters
coded whether or not the remaining respondents were actually mem-
bers of a brand community (86% agreement on classifying members
 B.J. Baldus et al. / Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 978985
Table 3
Online brand community engagement dimensions.
Engagement Denitions
dimensions
Brand inuence The degree to which a community member wants to inuence
the brand.
Brand passion The ardent affection a community member has for the brand.
Connecting The extent to which a community member feels that being a
member of the brand community connects them to some good
thing bigger than themselves.
Helping The degree to which a community member wants to help
fellow community members by sharing knowledge,
experience, or time.
Like-minded The extent to which a community member is interested in
discussion talking with people similar to themselves about the brand.
Rewards The degree to which the community member wants to gain
(hedonic) hedonic rewards (e.g., fun, enjoyment, entertainment, friend-
ly environment, and social status) through their participation
in the community.
Rewards The degree to which the community member wants to gain
(utilitarian) utilitarian rewards (e.g., monetary rewards, time savings,
deals or incentives, merchandise, and prizes) through their
participation in the community.
Seeking The degree to which a community member wants to receive
assistance help from fellow community members who share their
knowledge, experience, or time with them.
Self-expression The degree to which a community member feels that the
community provides them with a forum where they can
express their true interests and opinions.
Up-to-date The degree to which a community member feels that the
information brand community helps them to stay informed or keep up-to-
date with brand and product related information
Validation A community member's feeling of the extent to which other
community members afrm the importance of their opinions,
ideas, and interests.
and nonmembers of brand communities). 285 responses were screened
because the respondents were not active members of brand communi-
ties. This data collection effort resulted in a usable sample of 344 of
online brand community members (38% of respondents were male,
median age 47 years old and median education 2 year college degree).
To analyze the results, we adopted Gerbing and Anderson (1988)
updated approach to the Churchill (1979) paradigm that leverages
the benets of structural equation modeling as opposed to item-
to-total correlation analysis. In line with similar scale development
efforts in marketing (Brocato, Voorhees, & Baker, 2012; Seiders,
Voss, Godfrey, & Grewal, 2007), we conceptualize brand community
engagement as a second order formative construct making SEM an
ideal method to examine the loadings of the reective dimensions
at the rst level.
Specically, we iteratively estimated a series of measurement
models where the 11 engagement dimensions were estimated as rst
order reective scales. In these models, bad items were removed
and then the entire model was re-estimated and re-assessed. During
this process, items with large standardized residuals were removed
as they negatively affected the unidimensionality of each dimension
(Gerbing & Anderson, 1988). In order to enhance the rigor of this
initial investigation, we include measures for two related variables:
expectations for community member behavior (e.g., I think that reg-
ular participation is necessary to be an active member of this brand
community) and intentions to share information from the communi-
ty with others (e.g., I encourage my friends and family to participate
in this brand community). These variables were included to provide
a more rigorous assessment of discriminant validity and ensure that
items for the engagement dimensions were strictly measuring en-
gagement and not expectations or outcomes of brand community
participation.
Initial overall model t for the CFA was modest (2 = 12,380, df =
5916; CFI = 0.844; SRMR = 0.075; RMSEA = 0.056). Through a series
981
of inspections and iterative model estimations, we removed a total of 23
items due to large standardized residuals (N .25) (Gerbing & Anderson,
1988, p. 189), lambdas below .707 (lambda's below .707 indicate
that random error determines more variation in the item than
what is determined by the latent construct), and signicant cross-
loadings as detected through an examination of Lagrange Multipli-
er indices. After deleting these items, a nal measurement model
was estimated that offered improved t ( 2 = 7168, df = 3662;
CFI = 0.897; SRMR =0.054; RMSEA = 0.053).
Moreover, using the results of this nal CFA, we assessed validity and
reliability based on the recommendations for Fornell and Larcker
(1981). The results provided support for convergent validity as each
the average variance extracted (AVE) for each construct was greater
than 0.50. Discriminant validity was also supported as the AVE for
each scale exceeded the squared correlation between the construct
and all other constructs in the measurement model. Finally, all construct
reliabilities for the constructs exceeded 0.70, providing evidence of
reliability.
2.4. Study 4 validation and establishment of a short-form scale
2.4.1. Validation of the measurement model
A validation dataset was collected to conrm the measurement
model and establish a short-form version of the scale. This dataset was
collected through Amazon's Mechanical Turk service and all respon-
dents were screened to ensure that they were active participants in
online brand communities. Of the 376 completed surveys returned, 19
respondents indicated that they were not members of brand communi-
ties and were screened immediately from the study. 151 of the remain-
ing responses were screened for speeding through initial survey
questions and data quality (e.g., straight-lining, lack of elaboration and
gibberish responses to open-ended questions). Two independent raters
coded whether or not the remaining respondents were actually mem-
bers of a brand community (90% agreement on classifying members
and nonmembers of brand communities). 45 responses were screened
because the respondents were not active members of brand communi-
ties. In total, 198 respondents (49% of respondents were male, median
age 31 years old, and median education 4 year college degree) provided
data suitable for analysis.
Once again, we assessed the scales by iteratively estimating
models to identify any items that may be negatively affecting the
scale for each dimension by assessing standardized residuals, lamb-
da loadings, and cross-loadings. The initial measurement model pro-
vided good t to the data (2 = 4487, df = 2429; CFI = 0.85;
SRMR = 0.07; RMSEA = 0.07). As a result of the nal screening 5
items were removed. Following the removal of these items, the mea-
surement model offered good t (2 = 3764, df = 2089; CFI = 0.87;
SRMR = 0.06; RMSEA = 0.06). Moreover, we found evidence for the
validity and reliability of each scale based on Fornell and Larcker
(1981) criteria.
2.4.2. Development of a short-form scale
Following the nal validation of the scale, we had identied 11 di-
mensions that were measured using 67 items. The original goal of this
research was to develop a short-form scale that adequately measured
all dimensions in a manner that both future researchers and managers
could use in practice. As a result, we undertook one nal assessment
and revision to the measurement model with the goal of identifying
an ideal subset of the best three to four indicators for each dimension
that would serve as the nal items in the short-form version of this
scale. In order to accomplish this, for dimensions with more than four
items retained, we selected the four items with the highest lambda
loadings and if a construct had four or fewer items remaining, we
retained all items. The measurement model for the short form version
of the scale had offered excellent t to the data (2 = 1248, df = 764;
CFI = 0.94; SRMR = 0.05; RMSEA = 0.06). Once again, all dimensions
982 B.J. Baldus et al. / Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 978985

exhibited construct reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant items retained for the short-form version of the scale as well as their
validity based on Fornell and Larcker's (1981) criteria (AVE's ranged respective ranges, means, standard deviations, and lambda loadings to
from 0.82 to 0.89). In Table 4 we provide a complete listing of all assist in the establishment of scale norms.

Table 4
Scale items, descriptive statistics, and factor loadings for the short form version of the scale.

Factor item Study 4 establishing Study 5 validating

scale scale

Range Mean SD Range Mean SD

Brand inuence (Study 4: CR = .87; Study 5: CR = .84)

1. I am motivated to participate in this brand community because I can help improve the brand and its products 111 7.02 2.84 .91 411 9.64 1.49 .94
2. I like to know that my comments and suggestions can inuence the brand and its products 111 7.35 2.78 .84
3. Increasing the inuence I have on the brand and its products makes me want to participate more in this 111 6.98 2.75 .89 211 9.37 1.63 .84
brand community
4. I hope to improve the brand or product through my participation and expression in this brand community 111 7.18 2.79 .91 411 9.75 1.45 .90

Brand passion (Study 4: CR = .87; Study 5: CR = .88)

1. I am motivated to participate in this brand community because I am passionate about the brand 111 8.75 2.20 .91 111 8.39 2.16 .95
2. I participate in this brand community because I care about the brand 211 8.90 2.12 .89 111 8.88 1.88 .87
3. I would not belong to a brand community if I did not have passion for the brand 111 8.79 2.31 .81
4. My passion for this brand's products makes me want to participate in this brand community 111 8.76 2.25 .89 111 8.45 2.09 .95

Connecting (Study 4: CR = .78; Study 5: CR = .82)

1. Increasing the strength of the connection I have with this brand community makes me want to participate 111 7.89 2.17 .90 211 8.92 1.79 .88
more in the community
2. Being part of this brand community makes me feel more connected to the brand 111 8.41 1.91 .74 411 9.37 1.63 .88
3. Being part of this brand community makes me feel more connected to other consumers of the brand 111 8.53 1.92 .82 211 8.89 1.91 .85

Helping (Study 4: CR = .86; Study 5: CR = .84)

1. I like participating in the brand community because I can use my experience to help other people 111 7.58 2.46 .82 211 9.06 1.73 .87
2. I like to share my experience and knowledge with others in this brand community to help them be more 111 7.74 2.39 .82
educated about the brand
3. I really like helping other community members with their questions 111 7.85 2.40 .91 211 8.84 1.82 .92
4. I feel good when I can help answer other community member's questions 111 8.34 2.29 .90 311 9.19 1.71 .90

Like-minded discussion (Study 4: CR = .86; Study 5: CR = .85)

1. I look forward to discussing my opinions about the brand with others who share the same interest as me 111 8.12 2.35 .87 111 8.88 1.88 .89
2. I enjoy conversing with people similar to myself in this brand community 111 8.37 2.16 .86
3. I look to this brand community when I want to discuss a topic with people who have similar interests 111 7.99 2.64 .85 111 8.37 2.14 .90
4. Having conversations with people in this brand community who share the same views about this brand 111 7.51 2.45 .87 111 8.36 2.16 .92
is important to me

Rewards (Hedonic) (Study 4: CR = .87; Study 5: CR = .87)

1. I like participating in this brand community because it is entertaining 111 8.29 2.23 .91 211 8.95 1.71 .92
2. Having fun is my main reason for participating in this brand community 111 7.58 2.71 .83
3. I participate in this brand community because I think it is fun 111 8.44 2.22 .89 211 8.94 1.78 .89
4. I nd participating in this brand community to be very entertaining 111 8.17 2.18 .88 111 8.73 1.90 .95

Rewards (utilitarian) (Study 4: CR = .82; Study 5: CR = .78)

1. I am motivated to participate in this brand community because I can earn money 111 2.83 2.84 .91 111 8.15 2.76 .94
2. If it weren't for the money, I wouldn't participate in this brand community 111 2.47 2.42 .89 111 5.46 3.06 .58
3. Receiving more money makes me want to participate more in this brand community 111 3.62 3.28 .78 111 8.41 2.77 .89

Seeking assistance (Study 4: CR = .88; Study 5: CR = .89)

1. I am motivated to participate in this brand community because I can receive help from other community members 111 7.86 2.49 .90 111 7.76 2.42 .95
2. I am motivated to participate in this brand community because community members can use their knowledge 111 8.09 2.50 .90 111 8.07 2.31 .94
to help me
3. I like participating in this brand community because it gives me an opportunity to receive help from other 111 7.95 2.47 .94 111 8.00 2.37 .94
community members
4. It is important to me to be able to use this community to nd answers to my questions about the brand 111 8.23 2.42 .83

Self-expression (Study 4: CR = .86; Study 5: CR = .85)

1. I feel that I can freely share my interests in the brand community 211 8.78 1.96 .89 511 9.78 1.49 .93
2. I would express any opinion or idea I had about this brand in this brand community 111 8.64 2.28 .85
3. I can always be myself when interacting with others in this community 111 8.55 2.32 .86 311 9.73 1.57 .90
4. This community makes it easy for me to express my true beliefs about the brand 111 8.74 2.08 .87 411 9.75 1.48 .89

Up-to-date information (Study 4: CR = .86; Study 5: CR = .84)

1. This brand community is my critical connection for new and important information about the brand and its products 111 8.60 2.26 .86 111 8.24 2.31 .91
2. When I want up-to-date information about this brand, I look to this brand community 111 8.95 2.15 .89 111 8.24 2.33 .89
3. This community keeps me on the leading edge of information about the brand 111 9.00 1.98 .85
4. This community is the best way to stay informed about new developments with this brand 211 8.86 2.11 .88 111 8.68 2.19 .89

Validation (Study 4: CR = .85; Study 5: CR = .85)

1. Receiving more afrmation of the value of my comments, makes me want to participate more in the brand community 111 8.00 2.31 .77
2. I feel good about myself when other community members share my ideas 111 8.00 2.10 .91 111 8.71 1.94 .91
3. I appreciate when others agree with the ideas I express in this brand community 111 8.26 2.12 .85 211 8.83 1.83 .90
4. When others support my ideas and opinions in this brand community, I feel better about myself 111 7.54 2.30 .87 111 8.35 2.18 .90

Note: All scales measured on a 010 Likert-type scale with anchors 0 = Strongly Disagree and 10 = Strongly Agree. Prior to analysis all values were recoded to a 111 range, which is
presented in all results tables. CR = Construct Reliability.
 B.J. Baldus et al. / Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 978985 983

2.5. Study 5 nal validation of the short-form scale and nomological va- community engagement dimensions do an excellent job predicting con-
lidity testing sumer motivations for participating in online brand communities.

2.5.1. Validation of the short form scale
A nal validation dataset was collected to conrm the measurement
model for the short-form version of the scale and assess the predictive
validity or nomological net properties of the short-form scale. The
data for this study was gathered through a partnership with a consult-
ing rm specializing in the creation and management of online brand
communities and eight of their clients. Due to survey length require-
ments set by the data collection partner, three items were used to
measure each dimension of engagement. A link to our survey was
posted in each community and community members were offered gift
card sweepstakes calibrated to community norms in exchange for
their participation in the survey effort. Ultimately, this process resulted
in an average response rate of 21% across the eight communities, pro-
viding us with 620 usable responses (47% of respondents were male,
median age 41 years old, and median education some college).
In this phase of the scale development process, we conducted one
nal measurement model where all items from the short-form version
of the scale were allowed to load on their respective constructs. The
measurement model provided good t to the data (2 = 1153, df =
440; CFI = 0.97; SRMR = 0.06; RMSEA = 0.05). Moreover, all items
loaded highly and signicantly on their respective constructs and the
model results provided evidence of both convergent and discriminant
validity based on Fornell and Larcker's (1981) criteria. Table 5 presents
the correlations and scale statistics for the data collected as part of
Study 5.
2.5.2. Assessing the nomological net
Once the measurement model was conrmed, we assessed the abil-
ity of the 11 dimensions of online brand community engagement to pre-
dict intentions to participate in the brand community (Algesheimer
et al., 2005). According to regulatory engagement theory, higher levels
of engagement should lead to higher value perceptions of the communi-
ty (Higgins & Scholer, 2009). Therefore, we expect that online brand
community engagement should be positively related to participation
intentions. At a basic level, all engagement dimensions correlated signif-
icantly with participation intentions. To extend this assessment further,
we regressed participation intentions on the 11 engagement dimen-
sions and dummy variables developed to reect community member-
ship for the eight brands.
The independent variables explained 44% of the variance in partici-
pation intentions and 8 of the 11 dimensions had a signicant impact
on the dependent variable. Specically, Brand Passion, Utilitarian
Rewards, and Validation were not drivers of participation intentions in
this sample. Complete results of the regression analysis are presented
in Table 6. Ultimately, the results suggest that the online brand
2.6. Study 6 testretest reliability assessment
In the nal study, we assess the testretest reliability of the scales.
Specically, a few weeks after the original survey administered in
Study 5, 651 community members were re-contacted and asked to
complete a brief follow-up survey. This survey included single items
for each dimension of engagement measured in Study 5. In total, 160
respondents completed the survey for a 25% response rate. To assess
testretest reliability, we conducted a number of tests. Specically, we
conducted paired sample t-tests to assess changes in means across
time as well as correlations and Cronbach's alpha estimates for each
dimension. The results of the paired t-tests revealed relative stability
in community member motivations over time. Specically, with the
exception of Brand Inuence, Seeking Assistance, Self-Expression, and
Up-to-date Information all other engagement dimensions did not sig-
nicantly differ across time periods. Moreover, the average testretest
correlation across all 11 dimensions was .60. Estimates for Cronbach's
alpha calculated using scores from each time period ranged from .65
(Validation) to .84 (Helping) with an average value of .74 across all
dimensions. Taken together, the results suggest that engagement is
relatively stable over time.
3. Discussion
There is some productive overlap between our study and extant lit-
erature, but the vast majority of our factors are completely distinct and
advance these early discussions. First, we found similarities with the
broader conceptualizations of motivations to interact with an online
brand community. Hennig-Thurau et al. (2004) and Nambisan and
Baron (2007) found that there are different types of engagement that
propel people to interact with an online community. Broadly, these fac-
tors are social status enhancement, social interaction, learning more
about using the product and having fun. Research in this stream places
an overly strong emphasis on the uses and gratication paradigm which
viewed online communities from a one-way (i.e., marketer to consum-
er) point of view. These studies offered important insight into the moti-
vations of community members as the internet evolved from an
information storage and retrieval system to an interactive environment.
Our research is the rst dedicated effort to develop a multi-
dimensional measure of online brand community engagement and the
rst substantial investigation into online brand community engagement
since signicant advances in online communities such as the launch of
Facebook, YouTube, and a litany of other Internet-based technologies
and applications revolutionized online brand communities. Across six
studies, we developed and validated a short-form scale for online
brand community engagement across a variety of communities and

Table 5
Study 5 results of measurement model assessment and scale statistics nal validation study short form scale.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1. Brand inuence
2. Brand passion 0.67
3. Connecting 0.79 0.78
4. Helping 0.62 0.61 0.76
5. Like-minded discussion 0.59 0.69 0.75 0.73
6. Rewards (Hedonic) 0.60 0.60 0.72 0.58 0.65
7. Rewards (utilitarian) 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.14
8. Seeking assistance 0.37 0.49 0.54 0.60 0.69 0.49 0.07
9. Self-expression 0.68 0.54 0.67 0.60 0.55 0.59 0.09 0.36
10. Up-to-date information 0.63 0.66 0.72 0.54 0.67 0.62 0.04 0.53 0.51
11. Validation 0.51 0.55 0.67 0.63 0.61 0.51 0.20 0.45 0.46 0.53
Average variance extracted 0.80 0.86 0.75 0.80 0.81 0.85 0.67 0.89 0.82 0.80 0.81
Construct reliability 0.84 0.88 0.82 0.84 0.85 0.87 0.78 0.89 0.85 0.84 0.85

Note: All correlations greater than 0.11 and less than 0.11 are signicant.
984 B.J. Baldus et al. / Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 978985
Table 6
Study 5 results of regression analysis.
Independent variables
Brand inuence 0.24
Brand passion 0.07
Connecting 0.13
Helping 0.14
Like-minded discussion 0.09
Rewards (Hedonic) 0.20
Rewards (utilitarian) 0.05
Seeking assistance 0.07
Self-expression 0.13
Up-to-date information 0.10
Validation 0.02
R2 0.44
Note:
p b .10.
p b .05.
p b .01.
contexts. Moreover, in the fth study, we demonstrated that these
engagement dimensions predict intentions to participate in a brand
community. Finally, in Study 6, the results reveal that these motivations
are relatively stable over time.
3.1. Theoretical implications
Our ndings extend initial studies on online brand community
engagement (e.g., Algesheimer et al., 2005; Dholakia et al., 2004;
Madupu, 2006) by providing an updated and comprehensive investiga-
tion into engagement in online brand communities. Without an up-
dated examination into the motivations of online brand community
users, marketing researchers must rely on dated operationalizations
that were vetted by lead users and may no longer apply to the current
landscape. Many of the prominent studies into brand communities
to date have focused on relatively few highly visible and very unique
communities (e.g., Harley Owners Group). As brand communities are
being created around an increasing variety of brands and continue to
migrate online, a more comprehensive investigation of online brand
communities is needed to account for the technological leaps that
have occurred as well as the shifts in the membership in online
brand communities. For example, utilitarian rewards was primarily
viewed as time savings or giving and receiving information in the past
(e.g., Dholakia et al., 2004), with the evolution of the internet from an
informational to a transactional medium, utilitarian rewards also in-
clude monetary rewards, deals or incentives, merchandise, and prizes.
The short form scales developed in this manuscript provide marketing
researchers with a versatile set of motivations that are suitable for
future investigation.
Another important contribution of this study is to delineate the
domain of engagement. It is important to note that the engagement di-
mensions developed here represent a comprehensive set of motivations
across a wide range of online brand communities and consumers. Prior
research exploring few communities to varying levels of depth has failed
to capture the domain of engagement that we were able to in this study.
Finally, the provision of a complete battery of engagement dimensions
that have been validated across a range of brand communities and con-
sumers allows marketing researchers to extend the work on ofine
brand communities to the online realm. This is an important
advancement as given the tremendous cost savings and scalability rms
are quickly shifting their focus and investments to harvesting these online
brand communities. By better understanding the motivations for using
online communities, better parallels can be drawn to prior studies on
brand communities, customer to customer interactions, and brand at-
tachment that were derived in ofine contexts.
3.2. Managerial implications
The online brand community engagement scale is a reliable and valid
tool for measuring consumer motivations for interacting with an online
brand community. Our results reveal that the engagement dimensions
can explain up to 44% of the variance in participation intentions. However,
the directionality of the effects reveals a more complex story. Specically,
two of the engagement dimensions (Seeking Assistance and Up-to-
Date Information) had signicant, negative effects on participation.
Ultimately, it appears that consumers primarily motivated by a
need for information are less inclined to participate, suggesting
that they may only log in to answer a question. This suggests that
community managers may need to nd new ways to engage their in-
formation seekers to increase their connections with the brand if
they want to draw them into becoming more active community
members. In the following three sections, we will highlight three
important potential applications of the engagement scale.
3.2.1. Proling of community members
The scales introduced in this research would allow rms to prole
their current and potential community members. Armed with an im-
proved understanding of what compels consumers to actions within
their specic community, they could develop strategic marketing ac-
tions to best engage their community base. For example, a community
that is comprised of members primarily motivated by inuencing
the brand should place an emphasis on providing feedback on how
suggestions from the community are shaping the trajectory for the
brand. Alternatively, if members are driven by hedonic rewards, the
community should offer members special recognition and access to
exclusive events.
Moreover, consumers could be pre-screened and recruited for com-
munity interaction based on their motivational proles. For example, if
a rm sought to develop a sub-group within their community focused
on idea generation for new products, they could productively isolate
consumers who are driven by a need for up-to-date information and
brand inuence and likely experience stronger involvement, improved
idea generation, and better results overall than if they just pulled com-
munity members or their customers at random.
3.2.2. Targeted communication efforts
As we started this project, it was clear that the landscape for online
brand communities had changed drastically since the initial investiga-
tions into this phenomenon, but the results of our research revealed
an even more complex set of engagement dimensions than we had
anticipated. As communities have evolved so has the membership
base. Communities are no longer comprised of lead users who can be
activated exclusively by product information and access to new prod-
ucts. With a more heterogeneous audience with a range of motivations,
rms must better understand the motivational composition of their
communities before launching communication efforts within the com-
munity (e.g., Kozinets, de Valck, Wojnicki, & Wilner, 2010). Specically,
it appears prudent for community manager to micro-segment their
community members to understand the motivations of each member
at the individual member and then develop tailored communication
members for each individual that are designed to activate their specic
motivations. Failing to tailor these messages could result in alienating
some community members with poorly calibrated messages.
3.2.3. Lead user campaigns
Finally, while members of brand communities are certainly more
heterogeneous than the initial forums launched in the late 1990s,
there are still many lead users who actively participate in more main-
stream communities. The online brand community engagement scale
introduced in this research can help managers identify these individuals
within their community and activate them for specialized marketing ef-
forts that rely on lead users as seeds for their messages (e.g., Kozinets
 B.J. Baldus et al. / Journal of Business Research 68 (2015) 978985
et al., 2010). For example, online campaigns like the Fiesta Movement
launched by Ford required signicant investments in recruiting and
screening agents to participate in this program. Leveraging the mea-
sures introduced in this research, rms like Ford could better identify
their own community members who are passionate about the brand,
want to help others understand the brand, want to connect with some-
thing bigger than themselves, and ultimately shape the future of the
brand to immediately activate them as part of this movement. In
doing so, they would experience signicant cost savings associated
with independent recruiting efforts and would likely experience less se-
lection errors as brand community members have established histories
with brand and the community as opposed to individuals recruited off
the street.
3.3. Limitations and future research
This research makes a substantial departure from the dominant
paradigm of small sample case analysis pervasive in the brand commu-
nity research by sampling from as large and broad a pool of online brand
community members as possible. In capturing such a broad view of
online brand community members caution needs to be used when
attempting to apply the norms from brand community engagement
scales to individual online brand communities. Similar to Zaglia
(2013), future research should work to categorize the diverse sub-
types of brand communities (e.g., research oriented online brand com-
munities, fan sponsored online brand communities) to better under-
stand how stable these motivational proles are across different
brands and types of communities. Moreover, researchers could examine
situations in which certain motivations dominate participation inten-
tions and if certain engagement dimensions are stronger under different
situational circumstances. In addition, future research should explore
the mechanisms through which online brand community engagement
affects loyalty to the brand outside of the community and if marketing
actions that are calibrated based on brand community engagement
can provide better results than incongruent tactics.
Acknowledgments
Thank you Jacci Weber, Sam Herzing, & Cody Potter.
References
Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U.M., & Herrmann, A. (2005). The social inuence of brand
community: Evidence from European car clubs. The Journal of Marketing, 69(3),
1934.
985
Barkholz, D., & Rechtin, M. (2012, May 21). Net worth: GM's paid-ad pullback high-
lights a key question for auto makers: Can Facebook sell cars? Automot News
(1 & 42).
Brocato, E.D., Voorhees, C.M., & Baker, J. (2012). Understanding the inuence of cues from
other customers in the service experience: A scale development and validation.
Journal of Retailing, 88(3), 384398.
Brodie, R.J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual
brand community: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business Research, 66(1),
105114.
Calder, B.J., Malthouse, E.C., & Schaedel, U. (2009). An experimental study of the relation-
ship between online engagement and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 23(4), 321331.
Churchill, G.A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 6473.
Cova, B., & Pace, S. (2006). Brand community of convenience products: New forms of cus-
tomer empowermentthe case My Nutella the Community. European Journal of
Marketing, 40(910), 10871105.
Dholakia, U.M., Bagozzi, R.P., & Pearo, L.K. (2004). A social inuence model of consumer
participation in network- and small-group-based virtual communities. International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 241263.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research,
18(1), 3950.
Gerbing, D.W., & Anderson, J.C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development
incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research,
25(2), 186192.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., Walsh, G., & Gremler, D.D. (2004). Electronic
word-of-mouth via consumeropinion platforms: What motivates consumers
to articulate themselves on the internet? Journal of Interactive Marketing,
18(1), 38.
Higgins, E.T., & Scholer, A.A. (2009). Engaging the consumer: The science and art of the
value creation process. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(2), 100114.
Hollebeek, L.D., Glynn, M.S., & Brodie, R.J. (2014). Consumer brand engagement in social
media: Conceptualization, scale development, and validation. Journal of Interactive
Marketing, 28(2), 149165.
Kozinets, R.V., de Valck, K., Wojnicki, A.C., & Wilner, S.J.S. (2010). Networked narratives:
Understanding word-of-mouth marketing in online communities. The Journal of
Marketing, 74(2), 7189.
Krueger, R.A., & Casey, M.A. (2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Los
Angeles, CA: SAGE.
Madupu, V. (2006). Online brand community participation: Antecedents and consequences.
Dissertation. The University of Memphis.
McAlexander, J.H., Schouten, J.W., & Koenig, H.F. (2002). Building brand community. The
Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 3854.
Nambisan, S., & Baron, R.A. (2007). Interactions in virtual customer environments: Impli-
cations for product support and customer relationship management. Journal of
Interactive Marketing, 21(2), 4262.
Rossiter, J.R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing.
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19(4), 305335.
Seiders, K., Voss, G.B., Godfrey, A.L., & Grewal, D. (2007). SERVCON: Development and val-
idation of a multidimensional service convenience scale. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 35(1), 144156.
Spiggle, S. (1994). Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research.
The Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 491503.
Sprott, D., Czellar, S., & Spangenberg, E. (2009). The importance of a general measure of
brand engagement on market behavior: Development and validation of a scale.
Journal of Marketing Research, 46(1), 92104.
Zaglia, M.E. (2013). Brand communities embedded in social networks. Journal of Business
Research, 66(2), 216223.