Brand Tribalism - An Anthropological Perspective

Journal of Product & Brand Management
Brand tribalism: an anthropological perspective

Harry A. Taute Jeremy Sierra
Article information:
To cite this document:
Harry A. Taute Jeremy Sierra , (2014),"Brand tribalism: an anthropological perspective", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 23 Iss 1
pp. 2 - 15
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2013-0340
Downloaded on: 10 October 2016, At: 03:05 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 65 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3024 times since 2014*
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDADE DE AVEIRO At 03:05 10 October 2016 (PT)
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(2014),"Consumer engagement with self-expressive brands: brand love and WOM outcomes", Journal of Product & Brand Management,
Vol. 23 Iss 1 pp. 33-42 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-06-2013-0326
(2015),"Brand tribalism and self-expressive brands: social influences and brand outcomes", Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol.
24 Iss 4 pp. 333-348 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-07-2014-0656
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:135966 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how
to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for
more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290
journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer
resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and
also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Harry A. Taute
Woodbury School of Business, Utah Valley University, Orem, Utah, USA, and
Jeremy Sierra
McCoy College of Business Administration, Texas State University, San Marcos, Texas, USA
Abstract
Purpose Companies should move beyond product attribute positioning to fostering affective-laden relationships with customers, as customers often
want to feel engaged with the brand they purchase. These brand tribal members share something emotively more than mere brand ownership. As
measures of brand engagement continue to evolve, proven instruments measuring brand tribalism and studies investigating its explanatory power are
limited. The purpose of this paper is to help fill this research fissure by offering a three-study approach, leaning on Sahlins anthropological theory of
segmented lineage.
Design/methodology/approach In Study 1, the authors develop and evaluate the measurement properties of a brand tribalism scale. Using survey
data in Study 2 and Study 3, the applicability of brand tribalism on brand-response variables across two technological contexts is examined.
Findings Data drawn from ordinary brand users confirm scale validity while questioning the efficacy of communal social structures to affect brand
attitude and repurchase intentions.
Research limitations/implications Moving consumers from occasional brand users to members of their brand tribe should be one of many
company objectives. The studies here offer acumen as to why such objectives should be pursued and how they can be met.
Originality/value The data from the three studies lend insight to the importance of brand tribalism, its measurement properties, and raise issues
regarding its effect on key brand-related outcomes.
Keywords Consumer behaviour, Brand community, Scale development, Brand attitude, Brand tribe, Repurchase intentions,
Segmentary lineage theory
Paper type Research paper
Relationship marketing has become the dominant marketing

paradigm (Dimitriadis and Papista, 2010); conceptualizing
the nature of these relationships has thus become increasingly
important (Veloutsou, 2007). As Fournier (1998) illuminates,
brand relationships are salient in the mind of the consumer,
assume a variety of forms, and have a number of life cycle
variations. Many of these relationship descriptions are drawn
from comparisons to interpersonal relationships (Fournier
and Alvarez, 2012); for example, Fournier (1998)
characterizes consumer-product relationships as ranging
from forced marriages, casual friends/buddies, through
kinships, childhood friendships, courtships, and in extreme
cases to dependencies and enslavements. Consumer brand
relationships may also be characterized and measured in
terms of brand personality, brand attachment, brand
identification, brand love, brand engagement, and the brand
experience (e.g. Aaker, 1997; Batra et al., 2012; Brakus et al.,
2009; Lam et al., 2010; Park et al., 2010, Sprott et al., 2009;
Thomson et al., 2005).
A singular and important characterization of the consumer
brand relationship is linked to the brand community (Cova
and Pace, 2006; McAlexander et al., 2002; Muniz and
OGuinn, 2001). In this sense, the brand unites ardent
consumers in its own unique, structured, yet non-
geographically oriented social relationship (Muniz and

OGuinn, 2001). Communities are best recognized by their
commonalities or means of mutual identification; what all
communities have in common is the creation of and
negotiation of meaning (McAlexander et al., 2002).
Communities have been examined in such disparate settings
as Harley-Davidson and Jeep (McAlexander et al., 2002),
Saab, Ford Bronco, and Apple computers (Muniz and
OGuinn, 2001), European car clubs (Algesheimer et al.,
2005) and breakfast confectioneries (Cova and Pace, 2006).
Also known as consumption subcultures, communities have a
social hierarchy, share common beliefs, morals or character,
and have common jargon, symbols, and rituals (Schouten and
McAlexander, 1995).
Strong brand relationships have also been characterized as
tribes (Cova and Cova, 2002). Much of the literature
describing tribal behavior in brands relies on the postmodern
or Latin perspective (e.g. Cova, 1997; Cova and Cova, 2002;
Cova and Pace, 2006). The word tribe, in the postmodern
sense, refers to an individuals return to pre-industrial values
of religiosity, a local sense of community, a fusion of value
systems, and a shared ethnocentrism (Cova, 1997; Cova and
Cova, 2001); a tribe may be defined as a social network of
heterogeneous individuals linked by a shared passion or
emotion (Dionisio et al., 2008). From this point-of-view,
consumers seek self-expression, self-fulfillment, and shared
experiences with the brands, products, and leisure experiences
they favor; it is the linking value of the brand that is most
cherished rather than utilitarian or hedonic value (Cova and
Cova, 2001, p. 67).
Belk and Tumbat (2005) use the term cult to describe the
extreme tenor of Macintosh users when describing their
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1061-0421.htm

23/1 (2014) 215
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 1061-0421]
[DOI 10.1108/JPBM-06-2013-0340]
Harry A. Taute and Jeremy Sierra
Volume 23 Number 1 2014 2 15
brand; in this respect a brand cult may be distinguishable

from the tribe or community by the apparent sanctity of the
brand and the religious fervor of cult members. Acosta and
Devasagayam (2010) suggest that cults are communities with
enhanced connections between members and increased levels
of brand following, as well as an enforced cultural conformity
among members brought on by their collective social identity.
These results suggest that cult members are younger,
educated, and more affluent (Acosta and Devasagayam,
2010). Moutinho et al. (2007) differentiate between sports
fans and sport cult members by cult members recognition of
sacred places, participation in rituals, and singular devotion to
the sport.
The relationships of consumer subcultures to brands have
thus been labeled communities, brands, and cults;
these terms are seemingly interchangeable (see Cova and
Pace, 2006; Cova and White, 2010) or may be taken to
represent degrees of enthusiasm for the brand. For example,
Veloutso and Moutinho (2009, p. 314) refer to brand
communities or tribes in developing a measure of these
phenomena, Cova and Pace (2006, p. 1088) suggest that
Western authors move seamlessly within one and the same
text between the designations and then continue to
interchange the two terms in their text, while Cova and
White (2010, p. 257) use all three brand relationship
descriptors in the same sentence. This literature thus
suggests that communities, tribes, and cults are not
theoretically differentiable; the constructs may be separable
only by the degree of following (Belk and Tumbat, 2005),
connectedness (Acosta and Devasagayam, 2010), and social
identification (Algesheimer et al., 2005).
On the other hand, there is a plethora of studies proposing
attributes or dimensions of brand communities and tribes in
particular. The brand community literature seems to have
delineated well the non-geographical, social structure
conceived by Muniz and OGuinn (2001) as a brand
community. For example, Schau et al. (2009) use a metaanalytic process to delineate four value-creating functions of
brand communities:
1 social networking;
2 impression management;
3 community engagement; and
4 brand use.
lifestyle, passion in life, reference group acceptance, social

visibility, and collective memory in addition to adapting two
dimensions from Veloutsou (2007) to describe the brand
relationship, i.e. two-way communications and emotional
exchange. Recently, Goulding et al. (2013) suggest that tribes
may be distinguished from brand communities in that tribes:
.
do not dominate consumers lives;
.
are playful rather than devoted;
.
are transient; and
.
are entrepreneurial in nature.
The purpose of this research is therefore to examine the
applicability of Sahlins (1961) anthropological theory of
tribal behavior to consumers in developing brand
relationships. Sahlins (1961) argues that tribes are unique in
societal evolution; they are more adaptive than the roving
bands that preceded tribal formation, yet lacking the
centralized authority and hierarchical structure of chiefdoms
which succeed them. Sahlins tribal perspective includes two
attributes or dimensions in common with prior literature:
1 sense of community (Algesheimer et al., 2005); and
2 the existence of a social network (Schau et al., 2009).
We argue, however, that two attributes of Sahlins (1961)
anthropological description are applicable to tribes as
opposed to communities and other social structures:
1 segmentary lineage, or the view that tribes are best
described as associations of kin groups, which are
themselves composed of related individuals; and
2 the tribe is internally unorganized, a state of near-anarchy
exists internally until an external threat or opportunity
coalesces the group defensively or aggressively (i.e. defense
of the tribe).
Using data collected over the past two years, our contribution
to the brand relationship literature is made across three
studies.
In Study 1, we develop, test, and confirm robust
measurement properties of a 16-item, four-dimensional
brand tribalism scale grounded in Sahlins (1961)
anthropological theory of tribal behavior. Using an operating
systems context, Study 2 employs MANOVA to examine
response differences between brands for tribalism dimensions
and pertinent attitudinal variables. In Study 3, using a
smartphone context, we model, across two brands, the
dimensions of brand tribalism as determinants of brand
attitude and repurchase intention. Inclusion in our samples
requires only that respondents own and/or use the products
under study; respondents may or may not be highly brand
allegiant. Collectively, our studies offer meaningful insight into
brand tribalism dimensions, show significant differences
between brands, and demonstrate predictive relationships
with important brand-response variables, several of which
appear to counter existing research findings regarding brand
communities and subcultures. The exposition proceeds as
follows. First, we differentiate the brand community and brand
tribalism concepts, followed by a description of segmentary
lineage theory. Then, we offer the method and results for each
study. Ensuing is an overall discussion, followed by
implications, limitations, and future research directions.
Another measure of community uses items indicating the

consumers relationship to the product, brand, company, and
other owners (McAlexander et al., 2002). All communities
have a social structure or network, have one or many common
denominators, a shared ethos, and a pervasive culture
(Schouten and McAlexander, 1995).
Consumer tribes, in contrast, are not as well defined. From
the post-modern perspective, Maffesoli (1996) posits six
facets or attributes of tribes:
1 sense of community;
2 ethnocentrism;
3 devotion;
4 emotional connection;
5 secrecy; and
6 sustenance of the collective.
Cova and Pace (2006) consider tribes to be distinct societies
with their own value systems, hierarchies, language, religion,
and history. Veloutsou and Moutinho (2009) develop tribal
scale items under dimensional headings of degree of fit with
3
Consumer brand communities
favorable and unfavorable results (Algesheimer et al., 2005);

when brands engage in questionable practices or the
relationship is broken, consumers may retaliate more
because of the intensity of the prior relationship (Johnson
et al., 2011).
Consumer subcultures have been delineated in such diverse

markets as motorcycles (Schouten and McAlexander, 1995),
computer products (Muniz and OGuinn, 2001; OGuinn
and Muniz, 2005), cars (Algesheimer et al., 2005; Muniz and
OGuinn, 2001), entertainment (e.g. Star Wars and Harry
Potter fans; Mielke, 2011), and sports (Cova and Cova, 2002;
Dionisio et al., 2008; Taute et al., 2010). More importantly,
whether you take the postmodern or Latin perspective (Cova,
1997; Cova and Cova, 2001; Henry and Caldwell, 2007) or
sociological view (Carlson et al., 2008; Muniz and OGuinn,
2001), consumer-brand relationships have distinct cultures,
attitudes, social relationships, and behavioral characteristics.
Brand communities are thought to create value for the brand
and among its consumers; community practices that create
value may be organized into categories of social networking,
impression management, community engagement, and brand
use (Schau et al., 2009).
Much of the literature on brand communities takes a
sociological view (Carlson et al., 2008), rather than focusing on
a physical place as defining the community (McAlexander et al.,
2002; Muniz and OGuinn, 2001). The idea of community, as
opposed to modern urban culture, is one of familiarity and
respect, where everybody knows everybody; communities are
also bonded emotionally through shared values and ideals
(Maffesoli, 1996; Muniz and OGuinn, 2001). An additional
distinction can be made between the functionality of an
individual in modern society and the more integrated social
role of the person in his or her community (Maffesoli, 1996).
People of a community are conscious of a difference between
themselves and others, share unique customs and traditions,
and feel a sense of moral responsibility to each other and the
community as a whole (Muniz and OGuinn, 2001).
Where the brand relationship was once conceived primarily
as interaction-based between the company and its customers,
brand relationship discussions now include customer
interactions with other customers, the product itself, the
brand, and the marketing entity (McAlexander et al., 2002).
Consumption or brand communities may differ as local,
regional, national, or global entities, involve relatively minor
to intense social contexts, and vary as to duration (Fournier,
1998; McAlexander et al., 2002). However different they may
be, all brand communities have unique ways of accomplishing
objectives (e.g. procedures are grounded in culturally
accepted rules and procedures), generating a common
understanding (e.g. common vernacular, expressions, and
modes of operation are standard), and achieving community
member commitment to reach goals and uphold values
(e.g. accepted moral, intellectual, and emotional principles)
(Muniz and OGuinn, 2001).
Engaging the brands consumers as a community has been
shown to positively affect sales (Adjei et al., 2010), shopping
and buyer behavior (Bagozzi and Dholakia, 2006), brand
loyalty and word-of-mouth (Madupu and Cooley, 2010),
revenue (Kim et al., 2008), and innovation (Fuller et al.,
2008). Brand communities are thought to increase loyalty for
the espoused brand and engender opposition to competing
brands; this relationship may however be contingent on a
number of factors including the timing of product
introduction and overlapping community memberships
(Luedicke and Giesler, 2007; Thompson and Sinha, 2008).
Engagement with the community has also shown both
Consumer brand tribes

Consumer tribes are defined as people who are devoted to a
particular brand (Arnould et al., 2004, p. 441). From the
postmodern perspective, the brand becomes valued for its
ability to link or unite consumers in some social order of their
own device, hence a tribe (Cova, 1997; Maffesoli, 1996). In
this sense, brands, products, and leisure activities are
consumed less for their utilitarian or hedonic value and
more for their social linking value (Cova and Cova, 2002). As
such, brand tribes depart from the typical segmentation
variables of demographics or product benefits; they are
instead characterized as:
.
being sustained admirers of a specific brand;
.
having common traditions, stories, lived experiences,
and/or rituals;
.
sharing a common consciousness and kinship; and
.
having a felt moral obligation to each other and the brand
(Henry and Caldwell, 2007).
Cova and Pace (2006) offer a perspective on consumer tribes
and/or communities as being endowed with certain
characteristics, including an ethnocentric mentality,
ceremonies, rituals, and traditions associated with the
brand, and a sense of shared commitment and responsibility
to the brand community. In an extensive delineation of the
post-modern tribal paradigm, Maffesoli (1996, pp. 72-103)
offers six characteristics of tribes. First, there is a collective
and tactile understanding of being part of the community; a
material sense of belonging. Second, the tribal social life is
established only in relation to the group; tribes are highly
ethnocentric and one must either be for or against the group.
Third, there is a mysterious, even religious aspect to the social
network which governs tribal group behaviors without central
management. Fourth, the tribe is posited as an elective,
affective society where the group is put before individual
members. Fifth, there is a level of obscurity; as such, tribes
protect themselves, their members, and their rituals with a
vow of secrecy. Lastly, although tribes may have goals, what is
most important is the affective effort expended to create,
constitute, and maintain the group as a whole. Recent
research suggests that tribes are less singularly devoted, more
playful, more transitory, and more entrepreneurial than other
consumption subcultures (Goulding et al., 2013).
Cova and Cova (2001) portray the tribe as inestimable
through positivistic approaches, intimating that the linking,
associative value of the tribe is ascertainable only through
qualitative approaches. Thus, the bulk of tribe-related
research has centered on interpretive studies of individual
brand communities and tribes. As a result, quantitative
research on definitive brand tribalism dimensions and
measurement characteristics independent of the context in
which they are inductively generated are limited, as are
inquiries investigating brand tribalisms explanatory power
(e.g. Jurisic and Azevedo, 2011; Veloutsou and Moutinho,
2009). From a quantitative perspective, Veloutsou (2007)
develops a factor structure which suggests that a brand
4
relationship has two distinct dimensions: two-way

communications; and emotional exchange. Veloutsou and
Moutinho (2009) develop a measure of tribalism which
contains items indicating the brands fit with the consumers
lifestyle, passion in life, acceptance by relevant reference
groups, social visibility, and collective memory; these
dimensions are useful in predicting brand relationships in
the soft drink market (Veloutsou and Moutinho, 2009) and
observing brand attitude differences in European mobile
communications markets (Jurisic and Azevedo, 2011).
whole tribe might convene for annual ceremonies (Sahlins,

1961). Current conceptualizations of brand social networks
suggest there is a broad range of applicable social contexts;
members may be on an intimate basis or share little other
than brand ownership (McAlexander et al., 2002).
Third is sense of community, the ability to coexist in
harmony. Although primitive tribes had limited sociability and
endured political fragmentation in dealing with normal states
of affairs (Sahlins, 1961), their common binding thread
allowed for coexistence without an established permanent
social structure; they would band together to achieve common
objectives or celebrate through rituals and ceremonies. This
dimension is evident in definitions of brand communities
where the members exhibit a shared set of beliefs and values
with common symbols and modes of expression (Muniz and
OGuinn, 2001; Schouten and McAlexander, 1995). Sahlins
(1961) intimates that, while tribes may have considered
themselves one people, often the people, an orderly system
representing and uniting the whole tribe seldom, if ever, exists.
The fourth aspect, defense of the tribe, suggests that when
in competition for resources or under threat, there is a tribal
massing effect, where tribal members will band together to
oppose a stronger tribe or to take advantage of another weaker
tribe (Sahlins, 1961). Modern day examples of tribal behavior
where any opposition between groups extends automatically
to any and all members of other tribes include football fans
(Taute et al., 2010), motorcycles (Schouten and
McAlexander, 1995) and electronic devices (Muniz and
Schau, 2005). Several brand community theorists suggest that
this opposition to other brands is also a crucial aspect of
brand communities (Muniz and OGuinn, 2001; OGuinn
and Muniz, 2005) and tribes (Cova and Pace, 2006), however
this aspect of brand relationships is empirically untested.
Segmentary lineage theory

Sahlins (1961) offers a theory of segmented lineage to explain
the predatory behavior of tribes. Sahlins, in the 1961
discourse, argues that the term tribe has a unique and
determinant place in the evolution of social relationships; they
are distinct from the roving bands that preceded tribal
formation and distinguishable from the hierarchical
chiefdoms and agrarian communal organizations that
supplanted them. Sahlins (1961, p. 324) states that a band
is a simple association of families, but a tribe is an association
of kin groups which are themselves composed of families.
Also, Sahlins (1961) observes that tribes have social and
communal aspects in common with their evolutionary
predecessors and successors; however, this discourse is
adamant that the segmentary nature of their lineage and the
opportunistic/defensive nature of their association set tribes
apart from other forms of social relationships. This framework
suggests that tribes as social and cultural entities are organized
more so by threat or opportunity than by cohesive political or
social structure.
As outlined in segmented lineage theory, Sahlins proposed
multiple dimensions to capture the tribalism construct; we
draw from the following four facets in developing a new
16-item instrument to measure brand tribalism. First is
segmentary lineage, the threads that bind tribal segments
together. In the study of primitive tribes, this association was
hereditary, as for the most part, primitive tribes were
descendants of a few family groups banded together. The
brand tribe is thus characterized as a close knit, affectively
joined society that exists without effective central control or
government restrictions. This common thread is observed
today in collegiate sports where fans may be from different
schools, colleges, or campuses yet unite to defend the
university team against traditional foes (Taute et al., 2010),
and in the passing of brand loyalty down through generations
e.g. preferences or products passed from grandfather to father
to son or grandmother to mother to daughter (Olsen, 1995).
Further, marketers may discern segmentary lineage in the
Apple brand as users of Apple II, Macintosh, the iPod, the
iPhone, and more recently the iPad. In the Latin or postmodern view, this dimension may capture the linking value of
the brand, the common bond members feel beyond the use of
the product.
Second is social structure, i.e. the oneness that tribe
members share. Tribal organizations are a level of societal and
cultural development; while members of primitive tribes
shared a sense of unity there was great social and economic
sovereignty among the respective tribe members (Sahlins,
1961). The Indians of the American plains, for example,
commonly hunted as a family during some seasons, combined
with other segments of the tribe in other seasons, and the
Study 1
Item generation
Insofar as a literature search could determine, there exists just
one scale measuring and testing the strength of brand tribalism;
given its dynamic nature and importance to brand building,
this discovery was surprising. Veloutsou and Moutinhos
(2009) 16-item, five-dimension scale lays a sturdy foundation
by which brand tribalism can be evaluated. They posit that
brand tribalism dimensions include:
.
degree of fit with lifestyle;
.
passion in life;
.
reference group acceptance;
.
social visibility of the brand; and
.
collective memory.
Additionally, we turned to the literature on brand community,
brand tribalism, brand engagement, and social identity theory
for items indicative of the four tribalism components of our
scale. The preliminary 35 items consisted of seven items each
for segmentary lineage and social structure, nine items for
sense of community, and 12 items for defense of the tribe.
Our description of the sense of community dimension thus
draws from studies defining community. Muniz and OGuinn
(2001) suggest that brand communities exhibit at least three
attributes of pre-industrialized society:
1 members are conscious of a bond between themselves;
2 members share rituals and traditions; and
5
there is a shared sense commitment to one another and

the brand.
Results
Factor structure
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using maximum likelihood
estimation (MLE) and principal components analysis (PCA)
were used to assess the factor structure of the 35 items
comprising the four-dimensional brand tribalism scale.
Results for both the MLE and PCA techniques revealed
severe cross-loadings. Thus, items from each dimension were
deleted until a robust, theoretically sound four factor solution
ensued for each reduction method. The final 16-item
instrument (see the Appendix) (three items each for lineage
and social structure, and five items each for defense and
community) explained 70.55 percent of the variance, and
revealed high factor loadings for both the MLE (0.615-0.887)
and PCA (0.505-0.847) procedures with no meaningful crossloadings.
Using this four-dimensional, 16-item instrument, a
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) measurement model was
then estimated with LISREL 8.72. The average variance
extracted (AVE) for each dimension exceeds 0.50, which
provides evidence for convergent validity (see Table I). Also,
the AVE for each tribal construct is greater than the squared
correlations across the constructs (see F and F2 matrices in
Table I), which provides evidence for discriminant validity
(Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Estimation of the measurement
model produced the following goodness-of-fit statistics:
x2(98) 431.14 ( p 0.00), comparative fit index
(CFI) 0.97, non-normed fit index (NNFI) 0.97,
goodness-of-fit index (GFI) 0.89, root mean square error
of approximation (RMSEA) 0.088, and standardized root
mean square residual (SRMR) 0.048. Collectively, these fit
statistics provide evidence of good model fit and valid
construct measures.
Algesheimer et al. (2005) develop a five-item measure of

identification with the brand community; this construct is
consistent with members shared social identity (Tajfel and
Turner, 1985) and an adversarial relationship to other
competing brands (Taute et al., 2010). The literature on
brand community suggests that brand relationships exist
between individuals, the product itself, representations of the
brand, the company, and other brand owners (McAlexander
et al., 2002).
In adopting the tribal brand metaphor, Cova and Cova
(2002) reject the modern construct of community as denoting
a body of people aggregated by residence, occupation, or
interest. For them, the modern community construct is
devoid of the emotion, passion, and feelings which exemplify
consumer and brand tribes (Cova and Cova, 2002). In this
sense, consumer tribes essentially reconstitute archaic value
systems including a more local sense of group identification,
morality, and ethnocentrism; tribes are held together by
shared emotions, lifestyles, and consumption behaviors (Cova
and Cova, 2001). This line of research suggests that tribes
may be defined as any group of people having interests in a
specific brand or product through which they create a distinct
society with its own myths, values, rituals, vocabulary and
hierarchy (Cova and Pace, 2006, p. 1089). We thus adopt
items from research on the social structure of consumer
subcultures such as brand communities or tribes defining
themselves as distinct social structures.
Both the brand community and consumer tribalism
research streams point to social identity theory as
fundamental to the formation and description of these social
orders (Algesheimer et al., 2005; Moutinho et al., 2007).
According to social identity theory, social group members
self-identify with the group and hold themselves as
representative of the group, in turn modeling their attitudes,
emotions, and behaviors according to group norms (Tajfel
and Turner, 1985). These normative controls solidify group
membership and define the groups unique position in society
(Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel and Turner, 1985). In this sense,
consumer or brand tribes function as micro- or subcultures
defined through their own shared experiences, emotions, and
realities (Cova and Cova, 2001; Cova and Pace, 2006;
Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982).
Study 2 and hypotheses

The intent of Study 2 was two-fold. First, we sought to
examine the scale validity of our brand tribalism scale when
stacked up against other, conceptually distinct, attitudinal
factors. As brand attitude and repurchase intention are replete
in the branding literature, they were selected here. Second, we
wanted to examine response differences for brand tribalism
and the previously mentioned attitudinal variables. In doing
so, we chose a purchase context where we believed brand
tribal behavior would be evident, namely type of computer
operating system.
Prior literature suggests that Apple users have more of an
enhanced social and community structure, indeed tribal
nature, than Windows users (Muniz and OGuinn, 2001). For
example, Belk and Tumbat (2005) point to the cult-like
following of the Macintosh computer, even citing Apple as the
exemplar of a brand community (p. 205). After the Apple
brand had moved on, Muniz and Schau (2005) point to the
maintenance of the Newton PDA by loyal, if abandoned,
brand followers as indicative of a brand community. Similarly,
social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1985) suggests that
identification with the community will enhance the
communitys social engagement and enforce normative
structures regarding their conduct (Algesheimer et al.,
2005). In the current setting therefore, we posit that Apple
users will have a more communal bond and social identity
than Windows users. Further, brand communities are thought
to increase loyalty for the espoused brand and engender
Methodology
Data collection procedure
Undergraduate students (n 442) at a business school
located in the Southwest USA were solicited as respondents.
At the onset of the questionnaire, participants were asked to
indicate their favorite brand. While thinking of this brand,
they answered seven-point Likert scale items (anchored from
1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree) for the brand
tribalism instrument we developed, which captured the
following four dimensions:
1 lineage LINEAGE (bound together) (seven items);
2 social structure SOCIAL (different from others) (seven
items);
3 sense of community COMMUN (nine items); and
4 defense of tribe DEFENSE (12 items).
6
Table I Study 1 confirmatory factor analysis

Constructs
LINEAGE
LINEAGE1
LINEAGE2
LINEAGE3
SOCIAL1
SOCIAL2
SOCIAL3
DEFENSE1
DEFENSE2
DEFENSE3
DEFENSE4
DEFENSE5
COMMUN1
COMMUN2
COMMUN3
COMMUN4
COMMUN5
0.75
0.87
0.74
Average variance extracted (percent)
SOCIAL
DEFENSE
COMMUN
Item reliabilities
Delta (d)
0.78
0.79
0.84
0.86
0.76
0.562
0.757
0.548
0.593
0.740
0.593
0.504
0.672
0.608
0.578
0.608
0.608
0.624
0.706
0.740
0.578
0.438
0.243
0.452
0.407
0.260
0.407
0.496
0.328
0.392
0.422
0.392
0.392
0.376
0.294
0.260
0.422
0.77
0.86
0.77
0.71
0.82
0.78
0.76
0.78
62.23
64.18
59.42
65.11
F matrix
LINEAGE
SOCIAL
DEFENSE
COMMUN
1.00
0.70
0.62
0.72
1.00
0.66
0.60
1.00
0.74
1.00
F2 matrix
LINEAGE
SOCIAL
DEFENSE
COMMUN
1.00
0.49
0.38
0.51
1.00
0.43
0.36
1.00
0.54
1.00
opposition to competing brands; we expect that Apple users

will be more supportive of their brand and actively defend this
brand against competitors (Thompson and Sinha, 2008).
Hence, our four-dimensional brand tribalism measure should
reflect this in higher tribalism scores for the Apple user
condition.
H1.
Methodology
Scale descriptions
The questionnaire contained items from the developed brand
tribalism scales:
.
segmentary lineage (LINEAGE; three items);
.
social structure (SOCIAL; three items);
.
defense of the tribe (DEFENSE; five items); and
.
sense of community (COMMUN; five items).
Brand tribalism scores for (a) lineage, (b) social

structure, (c) defense of the tribe, and (d) sense of
community will be higher for Apple users than
Windows users.
Our research uses established seven-point scales from prior

research for brand attitude (AB) and repurchase intentions
(PurINT); these scales are briefly described.
Our literature review suggests that sense of the community

and enhanced social structures surrounding the brand offer
value to the brand and the consumer (Schau et al., 2009).
This value may be demonstrated in brand loyalty and
favorable word-of-mouth (Madupu and Cooley, 2010), sales
quotas and revenues (Adjei et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2008), as
well as improved buyer behavior (Bagozzi and Dholakia,
2006). Thus, we also expect more favorable responses toward
brand attitude and repurchase intentions for the Apple users.
H2.
H3.
Attitude toward the brand (AB)

Viewed as a situation-bound construct, attitudinal response is
a tendency to respond either favorably or unfavorably toward
an entity (Gardner, 1985; MacKenzie and Lutz, 1989).
Grossbart et al. (1986) measured ABRAND with four semantic
differential items; using this scale, respondents were asked to
indicate their attitude toward their computer operating system
brand.
Apple users will display more favorable brand attitude

responses toward the Apple brand than Windows users
will toward the Windows brand.
Apple users will show stronger repurchase intentions of
the Apple brand than Windows users will of the
Windows brand.
Repurchase intentions (PurINT)

Holmes and Crocker (1987) and MacKenzie et al. (1986)
measured consumers intention to purchase using semantic
differential scale items; using four items from their scales,
respondents were asked to indicate their intentions to
7
purchase the same brand of computer operating system as

they currently used.
brand tribalism relates positively with the customer-brand

relationship (Jurisic and Azevedo, 2011; Veloutsou and
Moutinho, 2009), which can be attributed to consumers
thoughts and feelings about the brand. Specifically, brand
relationship quality and identification with the brand
community influences brand attitudes (Algesheimer et al.,
2005). When the brands personality is in line with their
self-concept, consumers feel good about the brand
relationship (Tajfel and Turner, 1985). Therefore:

Students (n 174; MAGE 26.68, SD 6.41; males 71
percent; Whites 86 percent) at a business school located in
the mountain West USA were solicited as respondents. At the
onset of the questionnaire, participants were asked to indicate
their preferred operating system; responses varied between
Windows (n 77) and Apple (n 97). Then, respondents
answered seven-point rating scale items for the dimensions of
brand tribalism, brand attitude, and repurchase intention for
the studied constructs about their preferred operating system.
H4(a). Brand lineage relates positively to brand attitude.

H4(b). The social structure of the brand relates positively to
brand attitude.
H4(c). Defense of the brand tribe relates positively to brand
attitude.
H4(d). The sense of community surrounding the brand
relates positively to brand attitude.
Results
Factor structure
Both PCA with Varimax rotation and MLE with direct
Oblimin rotation were used to assess the factor structure of
the 28 items comprising the seven scales. The resulting seven
factor solutions, accounting for 79.76 percent of the variance,
for each procedure revealed robust factor loadings (i.e. PCA:
0.477-0.914; MLE: 0.641-0.944) with no meaningful crossloadings. Reliability coefficients ranged from 0.853 to 0.949.
Brand community and social identification with the brand are

demonstrated as providing value to the brand though a variety
of mechanisms (Schau et al., 2009), such as impacting brand
loyalty (Madupu and Cooley, 2010), affecting sales (Adjei
et al., 2010; Kim et al., 2008), and influencing shopping and
buyer behavior (Bagozzi and Dholakia, 2006). We expect then
that the dimensions of brand tribalism will positively impact
repurchase intentions for the espoused brand. Thus:
MANOVA
MANOVA was used to test response differences between the
Windows and Apple users collectively. As posited,
respondents in the Apple group yielded more positive
responses toward each of the studied constructs, supporting
H1-H3 (see Table II). The MANOVA exhibited a positive
overall effect (i.e. Hotellings T2 0.606, F(7, 166) 14.37,
p , 0.01, Wilks l 0.623, h2 0.377, POWER 1.0).
Specifically, Apple users showed more favorable responses
for (H1(a)) lineage, (H1(b)) social structure, (H1(c)) defense
of the tribe, (H1(d)) sense of community, (H2) brand
attitude, and (H3) repurchase intentions.
H5(a). Brand lineage relates positively to repurchase

intentions.
H5(b). The social structure of the brand relates positively to
repurchase intentions.
H5(c). Defense of the brand tribe relates positively to
repurchase intentions.
H5(d). The sense of community surrounding the brand
relates positively to repurchase intentions.
Consumers attitudes are robust influencers of their purchase
decisions; here, the hierarchy of effects model has been used
to describe the progression of consumers from cognitions to
the formation of brand attitudes and purchase intentions
(Smith et al., 2008). Such models are demonstrated in
advertising (Edell and Burke, 1987; Sierra et al., 2009),
service industries (Wang, 2009), and may be applicable in a
variety of additional contexts (Barry, 2002; McGuire, 1968).
As brand attitude is at the core of consumer intentions and
behaviors (Keller, 2003); we expect brand attitudes to
positively influence repurchase intentions. Hence:
Study 3 and hypotheses

Study 3 objectives were two-fold. First, we sought to further
validate our brand tribalism scale using a different sample and
product category than those used in either Study 1 or Study 2.
Second, we wanted to examine the explanatory power of the
individual dimensions of brand tribalism as direct
determinants of brand attitude and repurchase intentions.
As seen in mobile communication and soft drink settings,
H6.
Table II Study 2 MANOVA results

Hypotheses
Apple
M 5.17
(SD 1.14)
H1(b) (SOCIAL)
M 4.68
(SD 1.40)
H1(c) (DEFENSE)
M 4.68
(SD 1.42)
H1(d) (COMMUN) M 3.91
(SD 1.60)
H2 (AB)
M 6.53
(SD 0.71)
H3 (PurINT)
M 6.45
(SD 1.11)
H1(a) (LINEAGE)
Windows
Significance
h2
M 3.94
(SD 1.08)
M 3.51
(SD 1.16)
M 3.45
(SD 1.20)
M 2.91
(SD 1.14)
M 5.50
(SD 0.86)
M 5.71
(SD 1.04)
F (1, 173) 51.68

( p , 0.01)
F (1, 173) 34.39
( p , 0.01)
F (1, 173) 36.35
( p , 0.01)
F (1, 173) 21.16
( p , 0.01)
F (1, 173) 69.63
( p , 0.01)
F (1, 173) 19.87
( p , 0.01)
0.231
Brand attitude relates positively to brand repurchase

intentions.
Methodology
Smart phone users at a business school located in the
mountain West USA, who did not participate in Study 1 or
Study 2, were solicited as respondents. At the onset of the
questionnaire, participants were asked to indicate their
smartphone (iPhone and Android were most readily noted);
subsequently, they answered seven-point rating scale items for
the same indicators and studied constructs used in Study 2
about their phone.
0.167
0.174
0.110
0.288
Results
MANOVA
MANOVA was used to test response differences between the
iPhone and Android users collectively. Differences between
0.104
these groups on the brand tribal measures would suggest the

inaptness of pooling the data for structural equation modeling.
The data show respondents in the iPhone group yielded more
positive responses toward each of the studied brand tribal
dimensions; therefore, a SEM model was evaluated for each
user group (iPhone: n 261; MAGE 25.79, SD 6.08;
males 71 percent; Whites 83 percent, Hispanics 9
percent) (Android: n 220; MAGE 26.64, SD 5.97;
Males 75 percent; Whites 83 percent, Hispanics 8
percent).
The MANOVA exhibited a positive overall effect
(i.e. Hotellings T2 0.131, F(4, 455) 14.89, p , 0.01,
Wilks l 0.884, h2 0.116, POWER 1.0). Specifically,
iPhone users showed more favorable responses for:
.
lineage (iPhone: M 4.82, SD 1.21, Android:
M 3.96, SD 1.37; F(1, 459) 46.32, p , 0.01,
h2 0.092);
.
social structure (iPhone: M 4.35, SD 1.42, Android:
M 3.72, SD 1.46; F(1, 459) 22.01, p , 0.01,
h2 0.046);
.
defense of the tribe (iPhone: M 4.15, SD 1.45,
Android: M 3.27, SD 1.50; F(1, 459) 40.44,
p , 0.01, h2 0.081); and
.
sense of community (iPhone: M 3.45, SD 1.46,
Android: M 2.74, SD 1.45; F(1,459) 27.37,
p , 0.01, h2 0.056).
goodness-of-fit statistics: x2(237df) 1,016.12 ( p 0.00),

CFI 0.93, NNFI 0.92, GFI 0.75, RMSEA 0.11,
and SRMR 0.05. The t-statistic associated with four of
the nine path coefficients (PC) is significant as posited at the
p , 0.05 level or better, supporting H4(a), H4(c), H5(c), and
H6. Specifically, lineage relates positively to brand attitude
(H(4a); PC 0.23, t 2.02), which in turn relates positively
to repurchase intention (H6; PC 0.67, t 11.87. Also,
defense of the tribe relates positively to both brand attitude
(H4(c); PC 0.48, t 4.17) and repurchase intention
(H5(c); PC 0.52, t 5.39).
However, non-significant paths, or paths in the direction
opposite of predicted are found for the remaining
relationships; that is, the effect between lineage and
repurchase intention is not supported at the p , 0.05 level
(H5(a); PC 2 0.00, t 2 0.02); similar non-significant
findings are apparent for the paths between social and both
brand attitude (H4(b); PC 0.08, t 0.51) and repurchase
intention ((H5b); PC 20.21, t 21.82). Lastly, the paths
between sense of community and both brand attitude ((H4d);
PC 2 0.25; t 22.49) and repurchase intention (H5(d);
PC 2 0.29; t 23.63) are supported; yet, the direction of
the paths is inverse, when positive paths were theoretically
expected.
Model estimation for the Android data produced the
following goodness-of-fit statistics: x2 (237df ) 905.42
( p 0.00), CFI 0.95, NNFI 0.94, GFI 0.74,
RMSEA 0.11, and SRMR 0.04. The t statistic
associated with three of the nine path coefficients (PC) is
significant as posited at the p , 0.01 level, supporting H4(c),
H5(c), and H6(a). Specifically, defense of the tribe relates
positively to both brand attitude (H(4c); PC 0.64, t 3.69)
and repurchase intention (H5(c); PC 0.53, t 3.54); also,
brand attitude and repurchase intention relate positively (H6;
PC 0.56, t 9.02)
However, non-significant paths, or paths in the direction
opposite of predicted, are found for the remaining
correlations; that is, the effect between lineage and both
brand attitude (H4(a); PC 0.16; t 0.83) and repurchase
intention (H5(a); PC 0.31, t 1.90) is not supported at the
p , 0.05 level; similar non-significant relationships are found
for the paths between social and both brand attitude (H4(b);
PC 2 0.01, t 20.04) and repurchase intention (H5(b);
PC 2 0.38, t 2 1.79), as well as the path between sense of
community and repurchase intention (H5(d); PC 2 0.19,
t 2 1.76). Lastly, the path between sense of community and
brand attitude (H4(d); PC 2 0.31; t 2 2.41) is
supported; yet, the direction of the path is inverse, when a
positive effect was theoretically predicted.
Factor structure
Using LISREL 8.72, a CFA measurement model for both the
iPhone and Android data was estimated with the 24 items
comprising the four scales. Regarding the iPhone data, the
AVE for each construct (i.e. LINEAGE 72.91 percent,
S OCIAL 71.20 percent, D EFENSE 60.35 percent,
COMMUN 70.74 percent, A B 88.38 percent, and
PurINT 87.08 percent) exceeds 50 percent; also, the AVE
for each construct (aside from DEFENSE 0.6035 and F2 of
LINEAGE and SOCIAL 0.6561) is greater than the squared
correlations between each construct and the other constructs.
Estimation of the iPhone measurement model produced the
following goodness-of-fit statistics: x2(237df) 1,016.02
( p 0.00), CFI 0.93, NNFI 0.92, GFI 0.75,
RMSEA 0.11, and SRMR 0.054.
For the Android data, the AVE for each construct
(i.e. LINEAGE 73.09 percent, SOCIAL 70.21 percent,
DEFENSE 65.65 percent, C OMMUN 78.16 percent,
AB 87.46 percent, and PurINT 87.91 percent) exceeds
50 percent; also, the AVE for each construct
(aside from LINEAGE 0.7309, S OCIAL 0.7021, and
and
F2
of
LINEAGE
and
DEFENSE 0.6565
SOCIAL 0.7921 and, DEFENSE and F2 of COMMUN
and D EFENSE 0.6889) is greater than the squared
correlations between each construct and the other
constructs. Estimation of the Android measurement model
produced the following goodness-of-fit statistics:
x2(237df) 905.42 ( p 0.00), CFI 0.95, NNFI 0.94,
GFI 0.74, RMSEA 0.11, and SRMR 0.045.
Discussion
Essential to the development and longevity of customer-brand
relationships, brand tribes fuse zealous members through
social experiences; as such, tribal-linked procurement can be
ascribed to their social value (Cova and Cova, 2002). Here,
each tribe is a culture unto itself; members have their own
language, gatherings, and customs, rejecting the norms
imposed by other cultures. In this sense, brand tribes can be
characterized as:
.
being sustained admirers of a brand;
.
experiencing similar traditions;
.
sharing a common kinship; and
Structural equation model

The studied relationships for both the iPhone and Android
data were tested using a structural equation model with
LISREL 8.72 (see Figures 1 and 2). A covariance matrix and
MLE were used in each case to estimate model parameters.
Missing data were handled via pairwise deletion. Model
estimation for the iPhone data produced the following
9
Figure 1 Study 3 path model (iPhone)
having a moral obligation to the brand community.
Apple and Windows (the two types of systems referenced in

this study), each dimension of our brand tribalism scale was
able to distinguish between consumers with augmented tribal
psyches, as brand tribalism scores were significantly higher for
Apple than Windows with F-values ranging from 21.16 to
51.68. Also, responses for brand attitude and repurchase
intention were higher for Apple, which can be attributed to
the greater tribal following of Apple users.
In Study 3, using a smart phone context (i.e. iPhone and
Android), SEM is employed to model each brand tribalism
dimension (i.e. LINEAGE, SOCIAL, DEFENSE, and COMMUN) as
a determinant of brand attitude and repurchase intention. For
both smart phone conditions, only the DEFENSE aspect of
brand tribalism correlates positively with each AB and PurINT;
thus, identification or fit with the brand and disassociation
from the competing brand are strong determinants of brand
attitude and repurchase intention for both iPhones and
Androids. For the iPhone specifically, LINEAGE relates
positively to AB; thus, iPhone users feel a bond between
themselves, users of other Apple products, and the brand
itself.
Beguilingly, the SOCIAL aspect of brand tribalism is not
significantly related to either AB or PurINT in either smart
phone condition, indicating that general owners of smart
phones may not identify uniquely with or form associations
with other users of the brand, at least in relation to brand
attitude and repurchase intention. The COMMUN dimension
demonstrates significance; however, the relationship is
inverse, indicating that, in these samples, brand attitude and
Their prominence in society is evidenced in their visibility

across diverse markets, including motorcycles, sports teams,
automobiles, and technology.
Our research contributes to the brand tribalism literature in
the following ways. First, in Study 1, we develop and test the
measurement properties of a new brand tribalism scale
grounded in four dimensions (i.e. segmentary lineage, social
structure, sense of community, and defense of the tribe) of
Sahlins (1961) anthropological theory of tribal behavior. This
scale confirms consumer or brand tribes as being inherently
social and communal structures in common with prior
literature, yet differentiates tribes as:
.
having kinship or common lineage; and
.
being actively engaged in defending the brand.
Aside from Veloutsou and Moutinhos (2009) brand tribalism
scale, our instrument is the only other brand tribal
multidimensional metric insofar as a literature search could
determine. Both scales put brand management research on a
better course to understand the determinants, dimensions,
and effects of consumer brand tribalism.
Second, we test the applicability of brand tribalism across
two diverse studies, offering insight into its interplay with
important brand-response variables among samples of
common users. In Study 2, using an operating systems
context, we employ MANOVA to examine response
differences for each studied brand tribalism dimension and
germane attitudinal variables. Even for successful brands like
10
Figure 2 Study 3 path model (Android)
repurchase intention are formed individually rather than

through inclusion in the brand subculture. In both studies, as
expected, AB relates positively to PurINT.
In general, these data are contrary to prior findings from
primarily interpretive methodologies, which suggest that all
aspects brand tribalism lead to favorable brand and purchaserelated outcomes for tribal members. To understand these
results, we turn to the measures themselves, the respective
products, and the samples. First, our measures are grounded
in anthropological theory (Sahlins, 1961); anthropological
theories enjoy a base of support in marketing (Sherry, 1995).
The measures are consistent with and developed out of prior
literature; of the five items measuring community, three come
from Algesheimer et al.s (2005) study of European car clubs.
Second, with regard to the significant effect of LINEAGE in the
iPhone condition versus no effect for Android, it is apparent
that the long line of current and former Apple products
contributes to the feeling of kinship of those users with the
brand as opposed to Googles Android technology.
Lastly, we sought to survey ordinary users in more casual
non-emotive settings, rather than ethnographic engagement
with brand aficionados or attending communal events
(brandfests) where rabid fans feel the need to express
themselves emotively. Study 2 demonstrates that tribal
tendencies exist in populations of general users; and, Study
3 suggests that all tribal dimensions may not be efficacious or
necessarily positive. In the context of ordinary users, it is
apparent that the contribution of the associative or
community aspects of the brand relationship to positive
brand attitude and repurchase intentions fall short of

expectations. As such, our research indicates that more data
are needed to fully understand how and when different
aspects of the brand relationship influence behavioral-related
outcomes.
Instruments used to measure brand tribalism, as well as its
explanatory power on brand and purchase-related outcomes
are certainly germane to brand specialists. The data here offer
insight to these marketing aspects across multiple technology
consumption settings. As such, our results function as
benchmarks for explaining the effects of brand tribalism in
technology-laden contexts. Importantly, the ability to identify,
explain, and differentiate effect sizes enables research streams
to cultivate and theory to evolve (Peterson and Jolibert,
1995); Study 2 and Study 3s findings offer insight to such
effects in an operating system and smartphone context,
respectively, which should help consumer behavior and brand
management researchers by offering a conterminous rubric
for evaluating future and existing brand tribalism-grounded
studies.
Managerial implications
As a means to feel part of something bigger than themselves,
research and the marketplace both show that consumers may
opt to join, be involved with, and advocate brand tribes.
Although the task of pinpointing reasons why some brands are
able to generate a community-based and tribal-like consumer
following seems difficult if not impossible to understand, our
11
data indicate that when certain tribal tendencies are directed

toward beloved brands, favorable brand-related responses
ensue; these findings should benefit marketers brandbuilding efforts. For example, results from Study 3 suggest
that the defense of the tribe dimension of brand tribalism
positively influences brand attitude and repurchase intentions
for both smartphone conditions. Also, for the iPhone, a
positive effect was found between lineage and brand attitude.
These data suggest that marketers should pursue
promotional-related tactics that further an us versus them
mindset, which in rare instances can lead to detrimental
societal outcomes (e.g. violence associated with soccer
hooliganism), ultimately hindering new tribe membership
and brand development. Yet, this tribal-linked ethos is safely
evident in a variety of contexts such as food (i.e. organic
versus processed), video games (i.e. gamers versus nongamers), motorcycles (i.e. riders/owners versus non-riders/
non-owners), and sports marketing (i.e. underdog versus
favorite), all of which benefit the brand by further
strengthening the defense of the tribe perspective and
bonding agent among tribe members. Possibly through the
efficient nature of reaching followers through social media,
marketers can begin to spawn avid fans and customers; a
necessary prerequisite of a tribal following.
Study 2 suggests that although companies competing in the
same market can be financially successful and equityresonant, perceptions of consumer brand tribalism can differ
meaningfully between such brands. Hence, companies should
continually strive to develop and position their brand as triballaden and laudable; in doing so effectively, a tribal mindset
among targeted consumers may ensue and cultivate,
benefiting all brand constituents. For example, using IMC
to emphasize social structure and defense of the tribe with
brand owners, users, and followers may prove successful in
generating a tribal following, much to marketers benefit.
Additionally, we propose and show validation across three
studies for a novel brand tribalism scale. Companies seeking
to assess the tribal tendencies of targeted and existing
customers may opt to employ our four-dimensional
instrument. For example, understanding what binds fellow
brand consumers together (segmentary lineage), their
perceived sense of unity (social structure), their ability to
coexist in harmony (sense of community), and their
emotionally-charged perceived opposition of competing
brands (defense of the tribe) should put marketers in an
opportune position to reach, appeal to, and develop long-term
robust relationships with customers, fans, and followers.
examined. For example, future research could investigate the

influence of demographic factors such as life experience
(e.g. family life cycle), degree of brand loyalty, and cultural
background (e.g. inner city versus suburb residence) on brand
tribalism tendencies. Additional psychographic correlates of
brand tribalism could be explored including need for
uniqueness, self-esteem, and need for social recognition.
Additionally, exploring the effect of brand tribes organized
and perpetuated on the internet via social media invites
research attention.
Also, recent research by Goulding et al. (2013) suggests
tribes are playful (more than devoted), are transient (more
than fixated), and are mere facets of members lives (more
than a dominating feature); in contrast, our research suggests
that tribe members are highly allegiant to the brand, defend
their brand ferociously, and in essence, live their lives as part
of the brand community. Also, in contrast to prior research,
these data drawn from common users of prominent
technology found instances of non-significant and/or inverse
paths for the LINEAGE, SOCIAL, and COMMUN components of
brand tribalism, whereas existing interpretive inquiry suggests
positive effects between these factors and brand/purchaserelated responses. Thus, further research is needed to
delineate the affective and cognitive involvement requisite to
advancing from mere product use to active brand community
involvement.
References
Aaker, J. (1997), Dimensions of brand personality, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 347-356.
Acosta, P.M. and Devasagayam, R. (2010), Brand cult:
extending the notion of brand communities, Marketing
Management Journal, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 165-176.
Adjei, M.T., Noble, S.M. and Noble, C.H. (2010), The
influence of C2C communications in online brand
communities on customer purchase behavior, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 38 No. 5,
pp. 634-653.
Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U.M. and Herrmann, A. (2005),
The social influence of brand community: evidence from
European car clubs, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 3,
pp. 19-34.
Arnould, E.J., Price, L.L. and Zinkhan, G. (2004),
Consumers, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Bagozzi, R.P. and Dholakia, U.M. (2006), Antecedents and
purchase consequences of customer participation in small
group brand communities, International Journal of Research
in Marketing, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 45-61.
Barry, T.E. (2002), In defense of the hierarchy of effects: a
rejoinder to Weilbacher, Journal of Advertising Research,
Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 44-47.
Batra, R., Ahuvia, A. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2012), Brand love,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 1-16.
Belk, R.W. and Tumbat, G. (2005), The cult of Macintosh:
consumption, markets, and culture, Vol. 8 No. 3,
pp. 205-217.
Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H. and Zarantonello, L. (2009),
Brand experience: what is it? How is it measured? Does it
affect loyalty?, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 5,
pp. 52-68.
Carlson, B.D., Suter, T.A. and Brown, T.J. (2008), Social
versus psychological brand community: the role of
Limitations and future research directions

Our research is not limitation-free. For example, brand
tribalism data were collected using undergraduate student
samples, in two distinct US regions, evaluating two diverse
technological devices. To help further establish the
generalizability of the findings, additional data on differing
types of brand tribal-linked purchases from additional
regions, using non-student respondents, may be warranted.
Additionally, the measurement instruments used to assess the
constructs studied may not be equally valid across all product
settings, which could affect the measurement properties of the
underlying constructs and their interrelationships.
To provide further perspicacity into consumers purchase
processes involving brand tribalism, other variables could be
12
psychological sense of brand community, Journal of

Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 4, pp. 284-291.
Cova, B. (1997), Community and consumption: towards a
definition of the linking value in products and services,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 3/4, pp. 297-316.
Cova, B. and Cova, V. (2001), Tribal aspects of postmodern
consumption research: the case of French in-line skaters,
Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 67-76.
Cova, B. and Cova, V. (2002), The tribalization of society
and its impact on the conduct of marketing, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 Nos 5/6, pp. 595-620.
Cova, B. and Pace, S. (2006), Brand community of
convenience products: new forms of customer
empowerment the case of My Nutella the
community, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 40
Nos 9/10, pp. 1087-1105.
Cova, B. and White, T. (2010), Counter-brand and alterbrand communities: the impact of Web 2.0 on tribal
marketing approaches, Journal of Marketing Management,
Vol. 26 Nos 3/4, pp. 256-270.
Dimitriadis, S. and Papista, E. (2010), Integrating
relationship quality and consumer-brand identification in
building brand relationships: proposition of a conceptual
model, The Marketing Review, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 385-401.
Dionisio, P., Leal, C. and Moutinho, L. (2008), Fandom
affiliation and tribal behaviour: a sport marketing
application, Qualitative Market Research: An International
Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 17-39.
Edell, J.A. and Burke, M.C. (1987), The power of feelings in
understanding advertising effects, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 421-433.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and
measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Fournier, S. (1998), Consumers and their brands:
developing relationship theory in consumer research,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-373.
Fournier, S. and Alvarez, C. (2012), Brands as relationship
partners: warmth, competence, and in-between, Journal of
Consumer Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 177-185.
Fuller, J., Matzler, K. and Hoppe, M. (2008), Brand
community members as a source of innovation, Journal of
Product Innovation Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 608-610.
Gardner, M.P. (1985), Does attitude toward the ad affect
brand attitude under a brand evaluation set?, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 192-198.
Goulding, C., Shankar, A. and Canniford, R. (2013),
Learning to be tribal: facilitating the formation of
consumer tribes, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 47
Nos 5/6, pp. 813-832.
Grossbart, S., Muehling, D.D. and Kangun, N. (1986),
Verbal and visual references to competition in comparative
advertising, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 10-23.
Henry, P. and Caldwell, M. (2007), Imprinting, incubations
and intensification: factors contributing to fan club
formation and continuance, in Cova, B., Kozinets, R.V.
and Shankar, A. (Eds), Consumer Tribes, Elsevier, Oxford,
pp. 163-173.
Holbrook, M.B. and Hirschman, E.C. (1982), The
experiential aspects of consumption: consumer fantasies,
feelings, and fun, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 9
No. 2, pp. 132-140.
Holmes, J.H. and Crocker, K.E. (1987), Predispositions and

the comparative effectiveness of rational, emotional, and
discrepant appeals for both high involvement and low
involvement products, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 27-35.
Johnson, A.R., Matear, M. and Thomson, M. (2011), A coal
in the heart: self-relevance as a post-exit predictor of
consumer anti-brand actions, Journal of Consumer
Research, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 108-125.
Jurisic, B. and Azevedo, A. (2011), Building customer-brand
relationships in the mobile communications market: the
role of brand tribalism and brand reputation, Journal of
Brand Management, Vol. 18 Nos 4/5, pp. 349-366.
Keller, K.L. (2003), Brand synthesis: the multidimensionality
of consumer knowledge, Journal of Consumer Research,
Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 595-600.
Kim, J.W., Choi, J., Qualls, W. and Han, K. (2008), It takes
a marketplace community to raise brand commitment: the
role of online communities, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 24 Nos 3/4, pp. 409-431.
Lam, S.K., Ahearne, M., Hu, Y. and Schillewaert, N. (2010),
Resistance to brand switching when a radically new brand
is introduced: a social identity theory perspective, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 74 No. 6, pp. 128-146.
Luedicke, M.K. and Giesler, M. (2007), Brand communities
and their social antagonists: insights from the Hummer
case, in Cova, B. and Kozinets, R.V. (Eds), Consumer
Tribes, Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 275-295.
McAlexander, J.H., Schouten, J.W. and Koenig, H.F. (2002),
Building brand community, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66
No. 1, pp. 38-54.
McGuire, W.J. (1968), Personality and attitude change, in
Greenwald, A.G., Brook, T.C. and Ostrom, T.M. (Eds),
Psychological Foundations of Attitudes, Academic Press,
San Diego, CA.
MacKenzie, S.B. and Lutz, R.J. (1989), An empirical
examination of the structural antecedents of attitudetoward-the-ad in an advertising pretesting context, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 48-65.
MacKenzie, S.B., Lutz, R.J. and Belch, G.E. (1986), The
role of attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising
effectiveness: a test of competing explanations, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 130-143.
Madupu, V. and Cooley, D.O. (2010), Antecedents and
consequences of online brand community participation: a
conceptual framework, Journal of Internet Commerce, Vol. 9
No. 2, pp. 127-147.
Maffesoli, M. (1996), The Time of the Tribes: the Decline of
Individualism, Sage Publications, London.
Mielke, M. (2011), New Harry Potter cult on the rise,
available at: www.associatedcontent.com (accessed July 20,
2011).
Moutinho, L., Dionisio, P. and Leal, C. (2007), Surf tribal
behaviour: a sports marketing application, Market
Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 668-690.
Muniz, A.M. Jr and OGuinn, T.C. (2001), Brand
community, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27 No. 4,
pp. 412-432.
Muniz, A.M. Jr and Schau, H.J. (2005), Religiosity in the
abandoned Apple Newton brand community, Journal of
Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 737-747.
OGuinn, T.C. and Muniz, A.M. Jr (2005), Communal
consumption and the brand, in Ratneshwar, S. and
13
Mick, D.G. (Eds), Inside Consumption: Consumer Motives,

Goals, and Desires, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 252-272.
Olsen, B. (1995), Brand loyalty and consumption patterns:
the lineage factor, in Sherry, J.F. Jr (Ed.), Contemporary
Marketing and Consumer Behavior: An Anthropological
Sourcebook, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA,
pp. 245-281.
Park, C.W., MacInnis, D.J., Priester, J., Eisingerich, A.B. and
Iacobbucci, D. (2010), Brand attachment and brand
attitude strength: conceptual and empirical differentiation
of two critical brand equity drivers, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 74 No. 6, pp. 1-17.
Peterson, R.A. and Jolibert, A.J.P. (1995), A meta-analysis of
country-of-origin effects, Journal of International Business
Studies, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 883-900.
Sahlins, M.D. (1961), The segmentary lineage: an
organization of predatory expansion, American
Anthropologist, Vol. 63 No. 2, pp. 332-345.
Schau, H.J., Muniz, A.M. Jr and Arnould, E.J. (2009), How
brand community practices create value, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 73 No. 6, pp. 30-51.
Schouten, J.W. and McAlexander, J.H. (1995), Subcultures
of consumption: an ethnography of the new bikers, Journal
of Consumer Research, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 43-61.
Sherry, J.F. Jr (1995), Contemporary Marketing and Consumer
Behavior: An Anthropological Sourcebook, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Sierra, J.J., Hyman, M.R. and Torres, I.M. (2009), Using a
models apparent ethnicity to influence viewer responses to
print ads: a social identity theory perspective, Journal of
Current Issues and Research in Advertising, Vol. 31 No. 2,
pp. 41-66.
Smith, R.E., Chen, J. and Yang, X. (2008), The impact of
advertising creativity on the hierarchy of effects, Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 47-61.
Sprott, D., Czellar, S. and 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, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 92-104.
Tajfel, H. (1978), Differentiation between Social Groups: Studies
in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Academic
Press, London.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C. (1985), The social identity theory
of group behavior, in Worchel, S. and Austin, W.G. (Eds),
Psychology of Intergroup Relations, Rowman & Littlefield,
Lanham, MD, pp. 6-24.
Taute, H.A., Sierra, J.J. and Heiser, R.S. (2010), Team
loving and loathing: emotional determinants of
consumption in collegiate football, Journal of
Intercollegiate Sport, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 182-199.
Thompson, S.A. and Sinha, R.K. (2008), Brand
communities and new product adoption: the influence
and limits of oppositional loyalty, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 72 No. 6, pp. 65-80.
Thomson, M., MacInnis, D.J. and Park, C.W. (2005), The
ties that bind: measuring emotional attachment to brands,
Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 77-91.
Veloutsou, C. (2007), Identifying the dimensions of the
product-brand and consumer relationship, Journal of
Marketing Management, Vol. 23 Nos 1/2, pp. 7-26.
Veloutsou, C. and Moutinho, L. (2009), Brand relationships
through brand reputation and brand tribalism, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 314-322.
Wang, E.S.-T. (2009), Displayed emotions to patronage

intention: consumer response to contact personnel
performance, Service Industries Journal, Vol. 29 No. 3,
pp. 317-329.
Further reading
McAlexander, J.H. and Schouten, J.W. (1998), Brandfests:
servicescapes for the cultivation of brand equity,
Servicescapes: The Concept of Place in Contemporary
Markets, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL,
pp. 377-402.
Appendix. Study 1: brand tribalism scale items
Lineage (a 5 0.790)
.
(LINEAGE1) Compared with other brands, people who
own or use (brand) share more than just the product or
service use.
.
(LINEAGE2) Owners or users of (brand) have a bond.
.
(LINEAGE3) (Brand) owners or users are bound
together.
Social (a 5 0.832)
.
(SOCIAL1) People who own or use (brand) are unique
from those owning or using other brands in the same
market.
.
(SOCIAL2) I identify uniquely with others who own or
use (brand).
.
(SOCIAL3) People who own or use (brand) differentiate
themselves from non-owners or non-users of (brand).
Defense of tribe (a 5 0.863)
.
(DEFENSE1) Whenever (brand) is put down, I react
strongly.
.
(DEFENSE2) I often disagree whenever someone prefers
a competitive brand to (brand).
.
(DEFENSE3) I wont own or use any competitor of
(brand).
.
(DEFENSE4) (Brand) fits me personally in a way no
other brand will.
.
(DEFENSE5) Owners or users of (brand) get it;
non-owners or non-users not so much.
Sense of community (a 5 0.890)
.
(COMMUN1) The friendships I have with other (brand)
owners or users mean a lot to me. *
.
(COMMUN2) If other (brand) owners or users planned
something, Id think of it as something we would do,
rather than something they would do. *
.
(COMMUN3) I see myself as part of the (brand)
community. *
.
(COMMUN4) When the opportunity presents itself, I
refer to other owners or users of (brand) as us or we.
.
(COMMUN5) I feel a sense of co-ownership with
(brand).
(Notes: Items measured on a seven-point Likert scale from
1 strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree; asterisked items
taken from Algesheimer et al., 2005)
14
About the authors
and Practice and Journal of Services Marketing. He has

published his scholarly work in such outlets as Journal of
Advertising, Journal of Brand Management, Journal of Current
Issues & Research in Advertising, Journal of Marketing
Education, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Journal
of Promotion Management, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Journal of Services Marketing, Sport Marketing
Quarterly and Young Consumers. He also has published, with
Michael R. Hyman, Marketing Research Kit for Dummies. His
research interests include advertising effects, dual-process
theory, consumer behavior, and services marketing.
Jeremy Sierra is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: js204@txstate.edu
Harry A. Taute is Associate Professor of Marketing at Utah

Valley University. His research interests center on emotions
in: consumer behavior, sports marketing, and brand
management. His scholarly work has been published in
Psychology & Marketing, Journal of Advertising, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Journal of Brand Management,
Journal of Marketing Education, Journal of Retailing and
Consumer Services, Sport Marketing Quarterly and Journal of
Intercollegiate Sport.
Jeremy Sierra is Associate Professor of Marketing at Texas
State University. He serves on six editorial review boards,
including Journal of Advertising, Journal of Marketing Theory
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
15
This article has been cited by:

1. Sandra Maria Correia Loureiro, Hans Ruediger Kaufmann, Len Tiu Wright. 2016. Luxury values as drivers for affective
commitment: The case of luxury car tribes. Cogent Business & Management 3:1, 1171192. [CrossRef]
2. FetscherinMarc Marc Fetscherin CayollaRicardo Roseira Ricardo Roseira Cayolla GuzmnFrancisco Francisco Guzmn
VeloutsouCleopatra Cleopatra Veloutsou . 2016. Editorial. Journal of Product & Brand Management 25:6, 505-506. [Citation]
[Full Text] [PDF]
3. Amber L. Stephenson, David B. Yerger. 2016. How Pretrial Expectations and Anticipated Obstacles Impact University Brand
Identification. Journal of Promotion Management 1-21. [CrossRef]
4. Bernard Cova Kedge Business School, Marseille, France Bernard Paranque Kedge Business School, Marseille, France . 2016.
Value slippage in brand transformation: a conceptualization. Journal of Product & Brand Management 25:1, 3-10. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
5. Sabrina Trudeau H. Department of Marketing, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada Saeed Shobeiri Department of
Marketing. University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada . 2016. Does social currency matter in creation of enhanced brand
experience?. Journal of Product & Brand Management 25:1, 98-114. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Jeremy J. Sierra, Vishag A. Badrinarayanan, Harry A. Taute. 2016. Explaining behavior in brand communities: A sequential
model of attachment, tribalism, and self-esteem. Computers in Human Behavior 55, 626-632. [CrossRef]
7. Pia A. Albinsson, B. Yasanthi Perera, Pookie Truly Sautter. 2016. DART Scale Development: Diagnosing a Firms Readiness
for Strategic Value Co-creation. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 24:1, 42-58. [CrossRef]
8. Jeremy J. Sierra, Anna M. Turri, Harry A. Taute. 2015. Unhealthy Food and Beverage Consumption: An Investigative Model.
Journal of Foodservice Business Research 18:5, 470-488. [CrossRef]
9. Fariba Esmaeilpour Department of Business Management, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran . 2015. The role of functional
and symbolic brand associations on brand loyalty. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management: An International Journal 19:4,
467-484. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
10. Jeremy J. Sierra, Harry A. Taute, Anna M. Turri. 2015. Determinants of Intentions to Purchase Unhealthy Food and Beverage
Options: A Dual-Process Theoretical Perspective. Journal of Food Products Marketing 21:5, 503-520. [CrossRef]
11. Vishag A. Badrinarayanan, Jeremy J. Sierra, Harry A. Taute. 2014. Determinants and Outcomes of Online Brand Tribalism:
Exploring Communities of Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Games (MMORPGs). Psychology & Marketing 31:10,
853-870. [CrossRef]

Brand Tribalism - An Anthropological Perspective

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Brand Tribalism - An Anthropological Perspective

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Journal of Product & Brand Management