Content uploaded by James G Maxham
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by James G Maxham on Feb 18, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by James G Maxham
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by James G Maxham on Feb 18, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Identification and Aftermarket
Personalization with Durable Goods
D. Todd Donavan
Colorado State University
Swinder Janda
Kansas State University
James G. Maxham III
University of Virginia
ABSTRACT
Blending elements of the heuristic–systematic model and social identity theory, the authors extend
theory by exploring the role of intimacy as a key boundary condition for identification (ID).
Specifically, this research illustrates how intimacy affects the relationship between brand
characteristics (prestige and distinctiveness) and ID. Further, the authors explore the relationship
between ID and aftermarket spending on accessories. In a consumer durables setting, the authors
conducted a field study with 1,193 consumers and matched customer perceptions with their actual
retail spending on aftermarket goods. The results suggest that an individual’s intimacy with a brand
may affect how prestige and distinctiveness shape their ID. In addition, results show that the
relationship between ID and customer aftermarket spending is moderated by a customer’s level of
satisfaction. Managerial implications of the findings are also outlined. ©2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Marketers have long recognized the benefits of de-
veloping and maintaining strong relationships with
customers. Relationship marketing can be especially
critical in durable product categories (i.e., products
that last for three or more years), where aftermarket
spending can often generate significant ongoing rev-
enue. Because many consumers see possessions as an
extension of the self (Belk, 1988), they often spend
surprising amounts of effort and money to personalize
products and develop emotional bonds with durable
goods over time (Mugge, Schoormans, & Schifferstein,
2009). Thus, in many durable good categories, the
initial sale sparks the beginning of what retailers
hope is a long-term relationship that is fueled by
customer engagement through ongoing personalized
aftermarket purchases.
Deeper engagement with brands as illustrated
above would seem to positively affect a company’s
bottom-line sales figures, in addition to providing
positive nonmonetary outcomes. For instance, average
auto enthusiasts spend approximately US$1800 on
aftermarket goods to personalize their vehicles (Staab,
2005). In fact, a study by the Specialized Equipment
Market Association reports that nearly 90% of car
owners between 16 and 25 years of age customized
their vehicles (Miller, 2006). Pimp My Ride, a pop-
ular television series based on unique automobile
customization, highlights how the enthusiasm for
personalization has sparked a vast do-it-yourself (DIY)
ecosystem of automobile aftermarket customization.
Aftermarket accessories can include product add-ons
such as new mufflers for a car or paraphernalia items
such as hats, jackets, shirts, and so on, with the brand
logo and/or name associated with them. Such items
portray the owner’s social identity to the social world
(Holt, 1995). In many durable product categories, such
as automobiles and smartphones, aftermarket acces-
sory revenue can represent a notable portion of overall
company revenue and can be up to five times larger
than the original equipment revenue (Cohen, Agrawal,
& Agrawal, 2006). For example, smartphone accessory
sales accounted for about $20 billion in 2012 (Graziano,
2012). Aftermarket accessories are often high-margin
products, and research suggests that aftermarket sales
can represent 45% of profits among consumer durable
firms (Cohen, Agrawal, & Agrawal, 2006). Moreover, af-
termarket accessory customers often become mission-
aries for the company through their efforts to encourage
others to engage with the company. This study uses the
aftermarket context to test what drives consumers to
continue purchasing brand paraphernalia after the ini-
tial purchase has been made.
Prior research in this area has greatly enhanced
the understanding of how consumers relate to brands
(Aaker, Fournier, & Brasel, 2004). Specifically, the
authors found that a brand’s personality (e.g., sincere)
Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 32(6): 611–623 (June 2015)
View this article online at wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/mar
©2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1002/mar.20804
611
Distinctiveness
Inti mac y ID
Satisfaction
Prestige
( - )
Aftermarket
Spending
Prior-Year
Aftermarket
Spending
Figure 1. Theoretical model.
affected the relationship between the consumer and
the brand. Sincere brands often lead to a relationship
similar to that of close friends. Further, the work by
Donavan, Janda, and Suh (2006) demonstrates that the
more individuals identify with a brand, the more likely
they are to purchase and share brand symbols with oth-
ers. These studies demonstrate that consumers often
relate to brands similarly as they do to people in close
personal relationships. However, relevant questions
still remain regarding what leads consumers to become
engaged with specific brands, and what encourages
consumers to continue the relationship with the brand
over time (via ongoing aftermarket purchases). One
key factor that seems central to an understanding of
these relationships is a consumer’s sense of belonging-
ness or identification (ID) with the brand. The focus
of this research, thus, is to establish the boundary
roles of key brand characteristics (i.e., prestige and
distinctiveness) in affecting ID and in understanding
how ID gives rise to desirable brand outcomes (e.g.,
aftermarket spending). This research also studies the
role played by intimacy and satisfaction in this context.
The proposed model is shown in Figure 1. The next
section provides a conceptual framework outlining the-
oretical insights including prior relevant research and
the relationships proposed in this study. The subse-
quent sections include the methodology, results, and a
discussion, including theoretical and managerial impli-
cations and ideas for future research.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND
HYPOTHESES
Identification
ID reflects certain aspects of an individual’s self-
schema. Schemas are frameworks or knowledge
networks about a certain concept, which are stored
in our minds (Brown, 1992). A consumer may have a
schematic set of associations with Zara apparel, for in-
stance, that may include ideas such as Spanish-made,
prestigious, youthful, and irreverent.
ID occurs when an individual feels a sense of “one-
ness with or belongingness to an entity, where the in-
dividual defines him or herself in terms of the entity
to which he or she is a member” (Mael & Ashforth,
1992, p. 104). ID represents the degree to which an
individual believes the organization, retailer, or brand
has become a part of the self—in other words, the indi-
vidual defines him/herself as having similar attributes
as the entity (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994).
When ID is strong, the entity becomes self-referential
or self-defining for the individual (Mael & Ashforth,
1992; Pratt, 1998; Schneider, Hall, & Nygren, 1971). As
Fisher and Wakefield (1998) suggest, when people are
asked to describe who they are they often use group as-
sociations, such as “Denver Bronco fan,” or other groups
to describe their identity.
Lam, Ahearne, Hu, and Schillewaert (2010) suggest
that customer-brand ID is “a customer’s psychological
state of perceiving, feeling, and valuing his or her be-
longingness with a brand” (p. 129). Prior research has
primarily focused on what leads consumers to identify
with an entity (see Lam et al. [2010] for an exception).
The current study extends the understanding of ID
by considering the long-term relationship between the
consumer and a brand. Specifically, the focus is on con-
sumers who already have some level of ID with a brand.
As marketers embrace the relationship philosophy, it
is important to understand how ID is affected once
consumers are already engaged with the entity. Con-
sumers who are in a long-term brand relationship are
still influenced by their information processing mode
and brand intimacy (depth of knowledge and under-
standing of the brand). The next section begins by dis-
cussing the two most widely studied antecedents of ID.
612 DONAVAN, JANDA, AND MAXHAM III
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Brand Characteristics
Prestige. The quest for prestige has its roots back
in the hunter-gatherer age. To gain prestige, hunters
sought the largest game trophy rather than relegat-
ing themselves to seeking nuts and berries (Diamond,
1999). Consistent with prior work (Davies, Chun, da
Silva, & Roper, 2004), prestige is defined as hav-
ing to do with the consumer’s desire for respect and
status.
Contemporary marketers inundate consumers with
references to prestige (Colarelli & Dettmann, 2003).
For instance, many companies incorporate the word
“prestige” into their name to send cues to consumers
that they offer premier quality and service (e.g., Winn-
Dixie Prestige Beef, Avis Prestige Rental Cars, Prestige
BMW, Prestige Hotels and Resorts, and Prestige Retail
Park). Other firms create prestige categories to create
and manage a portfolio of experiences across varying
levels of quality (e.g., Accor Hotels describes its up-
scale hotel, Sofitel, as prestigious). The idea of prestige
is particularly well illustrated by the apparel indus-
try. It is frequently noted that Gucci, Patagonia, and
Lululemon hold prestigious positions with respect to
other specialty apparel retailers, and these retailers
are regarded by consumers as symbolic of a higher so-
cial standing. The presence of prestige has previously
been shown to enhance overall brand equity (Randall,
Ulrich, & Reibstein, 1998) and customers are willing to
pay higher prices for prestigious brands.
Prior organizational behavior research suggests that
prestige always has a positive influence on ID be-
cause individuals typically prefer to associate with
prestigious entities (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Bhat-
tacharya, Rao, & Glynn, 1995; Bhattacharya & Sen,
1995; Colarelli & Dettmann, 2003). For instance,
Bhattacharya, Rao, and Glynn (1995) found that per-
ceptions of prestige resulted in increased ID among
museum patrons. Recent research also shows that the
positive effect of prestige is even greater in online set-
tings as compared with traditional shopping environ-
ments (Danaher, Wilson, & Davis, 2003). Moreover,
prestige projects a prominence beyond that of other
nonprestigious products (Park, Milberg, & Lawson,
1991). Sullivan (1998) suggests that consumers often
prefer prestigious brands, while Belk (1988) adds that
consumers select prestige to express their self-identity.
Auken and Adams (1999) found that firms can create
perceived value when one brand is compared to a more
prestigious brand in the same product category.
Social identity theory (SIT) suggests that individu-
als seek prestigious affiliations to improve their social
standing; thus, affiliating with entities perceived to
possess desirable image-related characteristics (i.e.,
high degree of prestige) ostensibly enhances their social
standing (Baek, Kim, & Yu, 2010; Bodet & Bernache-
Assollant, 2011; Wiedmann, Hennigs, & Siebels, 2009).
Consumer perceptions are partially determined by
other people’s opinions (Keller & Lehmann, 2006; Wong
& Ahuvia, 1998). Specifically, brands can help cate-
gorize individuals into social categories (Stokburger-
Sauer, 2010). Consumers often patronize a retailer in
order to gain membership into a social group (Park,
Jaworski, & MacInnis, 1986), and they may perceive
their own self-concept as overlapping with the retailer’s
image (Park, Milberg, & Lawson, 1991). Consequently,
customer perceptions of prestige are associated with
ID. No formal hypothesis related to prestige and ID is
being presented due to the existing literature in this
area; that is, the article’s contribution is not based on
reintroducing prestige as a predictor of ID, but instead
discussing the boundary conditions of prestige.
Distinctiveness. A few savvy retailers, such as REI,
Trader Joe’s, PetSmart, and Apple, have proven to be
successful in breaking away from the pack with distinc-
tive customer offerings. Funnel Mill Rare Coffee & Tea
(Santa Monica, CA, USA) provides an excellent exam-
ple of distinctiveness by transforming coffee drinking
into a unique experience that includes everything
from the creation and presentation of beverages to the
coffee house motif. Similarly, Whole Foods Market is
frequently cited as having a distinctive merchandising
strategy. Distinctiveness differentiates the group to
which an individual feels he/she belongs (the in-group)
from other groups (out-groups) by creating a salient
identity (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Mael & Ashforth,
1992). Further, distinctiveness leads to a perception
of oneness or belongingness with the brand (Mael &
Ashforth, 1992).
SIT emphasizes that people focus on distinctiveness
by demonstrating how they are different from an out-
group and simultaneously profess commonality with an
in-group (Tajfel & Turner, 1985). These actions both
enhance distinction and build affiliation (Holt, 1995).
Consumers demonstrate their in-group and out-group
affiliation by showing a “belongingness” with brands
that reinforce their social ties, and these social ties can
be with the brand itself. As Lam et al. (2010) suggest,
ID is a psychological oneness with a social entity such
as a brand.
While each brand may have its own distinctive iden-
tity, an individual is likely to choose a brand that ful-
fills his/her desired social identity. Consequently, firms
segment the market to satisfy unique consumer needs.
Individuals who feel that a certain brand identity is
consistent with the desired image of the in-group (and
other brands are representative of an out-group) will be
more likely to identify with that brand.
These two facets of prestige and distinctiveness have
consistently been cited as affecting consumer ID in a
positive linear relationship (Ashforth & Mael, 1989;
Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000; Bhattacharya, Rao, & Glynn,
1995; Mael & Ashforth, 1992). The current study adds
to this research by looking at the context-specific nature
of these effects. It is proposed that a consumer’s deep
understanding of the brand (as reflected by intimacy
with the brand) will affect how prestige and distinc-
tiveness influence his/her brand ID. A more elaborate
discussion on intimacy appears in the following section.
IDENTIFICATION AND AFTERMARKET SPENDING 613
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Theoretical Development
The heuristic–systematic model (HSM, Chaiken [1980,
1987]) is now introduced and integrated with SIT to pre-
dict interactions. HSM suggests that consumers have
two processing modes that may determine their at-
titudes or social judgments: heuristic and systematic
(Chen & Chaiken, 1999). Heuristic processing involves
activation of judgmental rules or “heuristics” that re-
quire minimal amounts of cognitive processing—in this
case, the reliance is on peripheral cues or decision
rules learned through past experiences and observa-
tions (Chaiken, 1980). When a consumer has very little
knowledge of the brand, there is a greater reliance on
heuristics to make a judgment (Chen & Chaiken, 1999).
In systematic processing, an individual dedicates
substantial cognitive effort to evaluate the message
based on the validity and strength of the arguments
(Chaiken, 1980; Chaiken & Maheswaran, 1994). Under
systematic processing individuals form their judgments
after considering all useful information (Chaiken,
Liberman, & Egley, 1989), whereas in heuristic pro-
cessing individuals take a superficial view of the in-
formation (Chaiken & Maheswaran, 1994). Individuals
are more likely to use the systematic processing mode
in situations where there is a great deal of knowledge
or intimacy (Chaiken, 1980).
Intimacy. Intimacy is a psychological “closeness” felt
toward another party (Altman & Taylor, 1973). Deep
intimacy involves access to the other party’s essence
(Fromm, 1956) and, as such, implies a stronger and
deeper knowledge structure (Fournier, 1981). In the
current context, these rich meanings and associations,
acquired via experience with a brand, enhance the
relationship. In the context of this research, intimacy
is defined as the depth of knowledge and rich under-
standing about a particular brand (Aaker, Fournier, &
Brasel, 2004).
Intimacy is the catalyst to information processing
and determines whether an individual will process
heuristically or systematically, based on a motivation
to enhance one’s social identity. An individual with low
brand intimacy can quickly gain more from an asso-
ciation with the prestigious brand, because such an
association provides instant respect. When a person
has low brand intimacy, s/he will likely rely on any
available heuristic cue, such as prestige, to make a
judgment (Chen & Chaiken, 1999).
SIT can be further tied to this prediction. As stated,
prestige has to do with gaining respect. For instance,
Janda and Donavan’s (2004) phenomenological study
found that college students were often attracted to pres-
tigious teams that reflected a sense of gaining greater
esteem among peers. SIT suggests that consumers are
attracted to brands that enhance social standing. An
individual with low brand intimacy has little knowl-
edge of the brand; therefore, such an individual will be
more inclined to rely on prestige to help define his or
her social identity.
Prestige is a socially construed perception that other
people, who are trusted, have a high regard for the
brand (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000). Relying on other peo-
ple’s opinions or judgments is a heuristic similar to pre-
viously identified heuristics like “expert’s statements
can be trusted,” “length implies strength,” and “con-
sensus opinions are correct” (Chen & Chaiken, 1999).
Heuristic processing is more likely to occur when in-
dividuals have lower intimacy with the brand (Chen
& Chaiken, 1999). Consequently, prestige is a rule of
thumb that allows an individual with low intimacy to
make a judgment about his or her level of brand ID. An
example is the “band wagon fan” who begins following a
team immediately after a victory (Cialdini et al., 1976).
The brand community literature further supports this
argument. McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig (2002)
suggest that those with low intimacy can increase their
level of ID for self-expressive or social reasons, such as
an association with a prestigious brand.
To complete the interaction, it is proposed that an
individual with high brand intimacy will process the
information systematically because high intimacy sug-
gests a deep understanding and heightened relation-
ship with the brand (Price, Arnould, & Tierney, 1995).
High intimacy moves an individual to process any infor-
mation about the brand more deeply. Those with high
intimacy have a stronger relationship with the brand
and are less likely to be influenced by socially defined
cues such as prestige.
To sum this up, individuals with low levels of brand
intimacy will use the socially defined and easily ac-
cessed construct of prestige to determine their level of
ID. High-intimacy individuals, conversely, will be less
impacted by prestige as their brand relationship is well
developed and, consequently, they do not need to rely on
an evaluation that is socially defined. These arguments
lead to the first hypothesis.
H1: The positive influence of prestige on ID will be
stronger when intimacy is weak than when in-
timacy is strong.
The effect of distinctiveness on ID may also be
impacted by intimacy. As SIT (Tajfel & Turner,
1979) suggests, distinctiveness creates a more salient
definition of the self (Mael & Ashforth, 1992) by sep-
arating the “self” from the out-group (Ashforth &
Mael, 1989). Individuals with low intimacy do not have
a wealth of knowledge on which to draw (Chen &
Chaiken, 1999) and, as such, may not have a desire
to separate themselves from an out-group through as-
sociation with the brand. As brand intimacy increases,
individuals may be more motivated to demarcate from
the out-group and distinctiveness provides a means to
a unique identity (Ashforth & Mael, 1989).
As previously noted, consumers may rely on salient
cues when the cues help define their social identity pos-
itively. Individuals with strong intimacy with a brand
are in a better position to appreciate how the brand’s
distinctiveness can enhance their social identity. These
614 DONAVAN, JANDA, AND MAXHAM III
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
individuals may have a stronger desire to be seen as
distinct from the out-group than those with low levels
of intimacy simply because low-intimacy individuals do
not comprehend the benefits of separating themselves
from an out-group. Experienced owners (i.e., those pos-
sessing high intimacy) are more driven to reaffirm ties
to an in-group than others (McAlexander, Schouten, &
Koenig, 2002). Individuals with low intimacy have a
weaker relationship with the brand and may not fully
appreciate the desire to separate from an out-group
through the brand’s distinctiveness. Thus:
H2: The positive influence of distinctiveness on ID
will be stronger when intimacy is strong than
when intimacy is weak.
To sum up the first two hypotheses, it is predicted
that intimacy will have a differential effect on prestige
and distinctiveness when predicting ID. Specifically,
those low in intimacy will be influenced more by pres-
tige and those high in intimacy will be more strongly
influenced by distinctiveness.
ID and Spending
In durable product categories, ongoing retail spending
on licensed aftermarket accessory goods is a critical
outcome of the customer relationship because it moves
beyond mere attitudes or intentions. As such, Licensed
Aftermarket Accessory Customer Spending (LAACS)
offers retailers a quantitative metric for gauging how
effectively strategic and operational efforts translate
onto the income statement. A strong social bond or
association will enhance an individual’s relationship
with a brand; as such, the individual may incorporate
salient features or values related to the brand as part
of his/her own self (Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Glynn,
1998). This sense of enhanced self-relevance will re-
sult in greater time, effort, and monetary resources
spent on brand-related activities (Petty, Caccioppo, &
Schumann, 1983). Consistent with Oliver’s (1999) ac-
tion loyalty theory, consumers with higher levels of ID
purchase aftermarket goods that possess personalized
symbols or markers (e.g., licensed aftermarket parts).
Individuals rating high on ID should have increased
personalization in the form of increased aftermarket
spending.
SIT provides a structure for understanding this re-
lationship. An individual’s identity is described as a
schema, or that which is viewed as distinctive and cen-
tral about the individual (Dutton, Dukerich, & Har-
quail, 1994). Tajfel and Turner (1985) contend that
“social identity consists of those aspects of an individ-
ual’s self-image that derive from the social categories
to which he perceives himself as belonging” (p. 16), and
those categories define one’s place within the social
world. Social categories might be derived from basic
demographic groupings, such as age or gender, or from
organizational memberships, such as teams, religion,
or employment (Bhattacharya, Rao, & Glynn, 1995).
The characteristics of the categories, in part, make up
an individual’s social identity (Hogg, 1996; Hogg, Terry,
& White, 1995; Pratt, 1998). Further, formal member-
ship is not required to become a member of a category
(Carlson, Suter, & Brown, 2008; Pratt, 1998), as in-
dividuals can become members by possessing brands
associated with the social category (Belk, 1988). Con-
sumers with high ID with an entity are more likely to
follow the behavior of the group in making purchase
decisions (Madrigal, 2001). Hence:
H3: ID is positively related to spending.
Satisfaction and ID
It has been argued that as a customer’s ID level in-
creases, spending should also increase. However, the
level of satisfaction may affect the relationship between
ID and spending. Bolton (1998) has shown that cumu-
lative satisfaction, based on prior experience with the
relationship partner, affects long-term retention. Sat-
isfaction may be important in understanding ID due to
its inherent tie to customer lifetime value and repeat-
purchase behaviors (Ho, Park, & Zhou, 2006). Specifi-
cally, research demonstrates that customer satisfaction
strongly predicts repeat purchase behaviors (Anderson
& Sullivan, 1993; Gupta & Zeithaml, 2006), as well as
re-patronage intentions, loyalty, and looking forward to
visiting the retailer (Jones & Reynolds, 2006).
Customers may have varying levels of ID with a
brand. Stronger levels of ID imply higher spending on
the brand as previously illustrated (H3). It is further
proposed that the positive effect of ID on spending will
be enhanced if the customer’s satisfaction level with
the brand is high. Since satisfaction occurs as a re-
sult of prior experience, high satisfaction levels should
amplify ID’s effect on spending. Similarly, customers
with lower levels of brand satisfaction spend less on
the brand even though they may otherwise identify. As
an example, a car owner may identify strongly with a
certain brand (e.g., BMW), but an unpleasant service
experience may result in that customer spending less
at the dealership on accessories, such as floor mats or
headlight covers. Regardless, the customer may still re-
main a fan of the brand (in this example BMW). The
case of automotive specialty equipment is highlighted
here as it is estimated that such products accounted
for $31 billion in revenue during 2012; by no means a
trivial amount (Campbell, 2013).
The interaction between ID and satisfaction can be
further predicted with the literature on basking in re-
flected glory (Cialdini et al., 1976; Wann & Branscombe,
1990). Cialdini et al. (1976) found that students sig-
nificantly increased their behavior of wearing team
paraphernalia after a team victory. Arguably, these
students already identified with the team, but their sat-
isfaction with the team’s performance led to increases
or decreases in wearing team gear. Consequently, an
IDENTIFICATION AND AFTERMARKET SPENDING 615
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
individual’s level of ID influenced the behavior of wear-
ing team colors (or buying in this study), but this effect
was amplified by the level of satisfaction. Thus,
H4: The positive effect of ID on spending will be
stronger when satisfaction is high.
METHOD
Data Collection Procedures and Measures
Procedures. Given the context of ID and ongoing af-
termarket retail spending, the authors conducted a field
study with motorcycle owners who attended a motorcy-
cle retailer exposition that showcased new models and
aftermarket goods and services. Because major motor-
cycle retailers are bolstering their resources to con-
nect with customers and build lifestyle customer ex-
periences (Greenberg, 2004), this industry provides a
relevant setting for a field study. Three tables were set
up at various locations around the exposition and at-
tendees were invited to complete a survey about their
relationship and overall experiences with the company
in exchange for a commemorative event lapel pin. Over
a three-day period, 1705 owners were asked to par-
ticipate, and 1193 completed responses were collected,
yielding a 70% response rate. On average, respondents
had owned one of this retailer’s privately branded mo-
torcycles for 15 years; periods of ownership ranged from
less than one year to 46 years. Fifty-four percent of the
sample was male, and the average age was 48 (SD =
16.03). A wide range of annual household incomes was
represented; approximately 50% of respondents had
incomes in the $60,000–$90,000 range. Respondents
spent an average of $312 on licensed (branded) after-
market motorcycle accessories from the retailer during
the previous calendar year, with expenditures ranging
from $6 to $1,175.
Respondent Bias Checks. Two checks were employed
to assess respondent bias. First, the sample character-
istics were not significantly different from the general
customer profile reported by the focal retailer, offering
some evidence that the sample is representative of the
focal firm’s customer base. Second, 243 owners, who
shopped at competitors’ motorcycle retailers, were sur-
veyed to assess whether respondents were significantly
different from other motorcycle consumers. The analy-
sis revealed no significant differences in age, gender, or
ID between the study respondents and the comparative
sample, offering some evidence that the respondents
are representative of motorcycle consumers. These data
checks suggest that rating biases are likely minimal.
Customer Measures
The authors used two single-item measures (i.e.,
12-month prior-survey spending and 12-month post-
survey spending) and five multi-item measures. Four
multi-item measures utilized 7-point Likert scales (1
=“strongly disagree” and 7 =“strongly agree”), and
the last multi-item measure (i.e., Bergami & Bagozzi,
2000) included an 8-point visual representation and a 1
to 7 scaled item. Since the goal was to investigate con-
sumer relationship with brands, the Aaker, Fournier,
& Brasel’s (2004) multi-item scales for measuring inti-
macy and satisfaction were chosen. To measure pres-
tige the Mael and Ashforth’s (1992) multi-item scale
was selected. All three measures have sound measure-
ment properties and have been validated in prior re-
search.
A multi-item distinctiveness measure was developed
for this study. The authors created a battery of eight
distinctiveness items based on a thorough literature
review and findings from a qualitative study utilizing
depth interviews. In a pretest, respondents evaluated
a brand on these items pertaining to distinctiveness
along with four items related to prestige. Scale purifi-
cation based on this pretest resulted in final retention
of three prestige and three distinctiveness items.
Customer Aftermarket Spending. Because after-
market spending on motorcycles can be a critical part
of a manufacturer’s overall revenue, and because it
captures the type of spending that can signal a per-
sonalized brand connection, this study focused on li-
censed aftermarket accessory customer spending. To
collect the spending variable of interest, the respon-
dents’ loyalty program numbers were recorded, which
were gathered by either (1) scanning their loyalty card
or (2) searching the firm’s database for the number
based on address or phone number information. As
such, all respondents had at least one prior purchase
transaction recorded with the retailer, which was a nec-
essary criterion for developing an aftermarket spending
history. The focal firm’s database was queried for the
customers’ total purchases of company-licensed after-
market accessories that could be traced back to each re-
spondent’s customer record. It is important to note that
the aftermarket spending of interest did not include
original equipment manufacturer replacement/repair
parts that restore motorcycles to factory condition, as
those expenses are mostly tied to motorcycle perfor-
mance rather than to brand expression. Instead, the
focus was on licensed aftermarket accessory spending
on bolt-on accessories (e.g., custom fenders, seats, back-
rests, luggage racks, saddlebags, etc.) that offer person-
alized (and branded) enhancements to one’s motorcycle.
Data were collected for the two relevant time periods:
12 months of presurvey aftermarket spending and 12
months of postsurvey aftermarket spending. This cus-
tomer information was corroborated using data check-
points in the company’s database and was deemed reli-
able and valid. Items for all scales used, as well as the
sources of these items, are provided in the Table A1.
616 DONAVAN, JANDA, AND MAXHAM III
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
RESULTS
Measurement Properties
The covariances among the 16 items were input into
AMOS20 to estimate a confirmatory factor measure-
ment model. Consistent with a two-step approach, the
objective of this analysis was to assess dimensionality,
discriminant validity, and internal consistency among
the hypothesized model’s constructs prior to estimat-
ing the structural parameters (Anderson & Gerbing,
1993). Analysis began with a confirmatory factor anal-
ysis on the seven scales: prestige (three items), distinc-
tiveness (three items), intimacy (three items), satisfac-
tion (three items), ID (two items), spending (one item),
and presurvey spending (one item). The variables rep-
resenting spending are directly observable measures
(rather than latent constructs) that were captured by
the firm and verified by multiple sources. As such, the
factor loading and error term were both fixed in ac-
cordance with Anderson and Gerbing (1993). The CFA
model gave acceptable fit indices: (χ2=78.92, df =85;
p<0.10; comparative fit index [CFI] =1.00; Tucker–
Lewis Index [TLI] =1.00; root mean square error of
approximation [RMSEA] =−.001) and all indicators
loaded on the appropriate latent factors.
Discriminant validity among the model constructs
was supported, as the average variance extracted
(AVE) between each pair of constructs was greater
than ϕ2(i.e., the correlation between two constructs) for
all possible construct pairs (Fornell & Larcker, 1998),
and ranged from 0.83 to 0.95. Further, Cronbach’s al-
pha, composite reliability, and AVE estimates indicated
strong internal consistency for all multi-item construct
measures. In sum, the 16-item, seven-factor measure-
ment model was supported. Table 1 presents a sum-
mary of the descriptive statistics.
Brand Characteristics, Intimacy, and ID
To evaluate H1–H2, the authors examined the
eight-factor (i.e., prestige, distinctiveness, ID, inti-
macy, spending, presurvey spending, and two con-
trol variables: age and gender) structural model. The
interaction variables were added as described here. To
test the interactions between the brand characteristics
(i.e., prestige and distinctiveness) and the variable in-
timacy, and the interaction between ID and satisfac-
tion, procedures recommended by Little, Bovaird, and
Widaman (2006) were followed for testing moderation
in structural equation modeling. In doing so, new la-
tent variable interactions were created for the three
combinations using residual centering. This created a
structural model with 12 constructs, which includes
the three interaction constructs, (i.e., prestige ×inti-
macy, distinctiveness ×intimacy, and ID ×satisfac-
tion). Paths were included from the three interaction
terms to their respective outcome variables.
The model, as represented in Figure 1, included
the following paths: Prestige, distinctiveness, intimacy,
the interactions of distinctiveness ×intimacy and inti-
macy ×prestige to ID. Paths were added from prestige
and distinctiveness to satisfaction. Paths included were
from satisfaction, ID, spending at time 1, and the inter-
action of ID ×satisfaction to spending at time 2; satis-
faction to spending at time 1; and finally age and gender
to spending at time 2. The error terms on gender and
age were fixed. Additionally, since sales data were di-
rectly tied to customer loyalty cards, sales at both times
1 and 2 were fixed. The exogenous variables prestige,
distinctiveness, and intimacy were subsequently corre-
lated. The three interaction terms (1) distinctiveness ×
intimacy, (2) prestige ×intimacy, and (3) ID ×satisfac-
tion were each correlated to their original constructs—
for example, the interaction of distinctiveness ×inti-
macy was correlated with both distinctiveness and in-
timacy as prescribed by Little, Bovaird, and Widaman
(2006). The structural model was estimated using max-
imum likelihood. The results gave acceptable fit statis-
tics (χ2=2,263.84, df =751; CFI =0.98; TLI =0.98;
RMSEA =0.04). Table 2 displays structural model path
estimates.
Regarding H1, which predicted the effect of pres-
tige on ID will be weaker when intimacy is stronger,
support was found. The interaction effect of prestige
×intimacy on ID, H1 (SPE −0.05, t=−2.03), was
significant. The means corresponding to the two-way
interaction effects between prestige and intimacy are
plotted in Figure 2. These results indicate that when
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlations.
Variable Mean SD 123456
1. Prestige 3.69 1.96 0.96
2. Distinctiveness 4.79 1.92 0.63 0.95
3. Intimacy 4.22 1.97 0.71 0.67 0.97
4. IDa9.02 3.90 0.73 0.70 0.77 0.93
5. Satisfaction 3.68 2.01 0.71 0.66 0.73 0.78 0.98
6. Spending at time 1 (covariate) $311.70 $241.60 0.40 0.38 0.38 0.44 0.43 –
7. Spending at time 2 $336.85 $302.24 0.59 0.53 0.57 0.63 0.60 0.60
Note:Theitalicized numbers on the diagonal are the average “composite reliability” estimates of internal consistency.
Unless noted, the correlations represent disattenuated estimates from a confirmatory-factor measurement model that
account for measurement error.
aID represents a two-item summated score ranging from 2 to 15.
IDENTIFICATION AND AFTERMARKET SPENDING 617
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Table 2. Results of Structural Equations Analyses.
χ22263.84
df 751
CFI 0.98
TLI 0.98
RMSEA 0.04
Paths Hypothesis Std. Path Est. t-Value
Prestige ×intimacy
→ID
H1 −0.05 −2.03a
Distinctiveness ×
intimacy →ID
H2 0.05 2.13a
ID →Spending H3 0.37 13.38a
ID ×satisfaction →
spending
H4 0.14 8.59a
Other Paths in
Model
Prestige →ID 0.37 13.62a
Distinctiveness →ID 0.31 11.58a
Intimacy →ID 0.34 12.40a
Prestige →
satisfaction
0.48 18.09a
Distinctiveness →
satisfaction
0.38 14.48a
Satisfaction →
spending
−0.03 −1.16
Satisfaction →
prior-year
spending
0.43 16.00a
Prior-year spending
→spending
(covariate)
0.74 57.27a
Note:N=1193. Standardized path estimates shown. Age and gen-
der were included as covariates to spending. Neither covariate was
significant.
ap<0.01, bp<0.05, cp<0.10 (two-tail tests).
intimacy is stronger, the effect of prestige on ID is
attenuated. Specifically, individuals with lower brand
intimacy were more strongly impacted by prestige than
those with high brand intimacy. In the test of H2 that
the interaction between distinctiveness and intimacy
will have a positive effect on ID, a significant path was
found. The interaction between distinctiveness ×inti-
macy on ID was significant, H2: (SPE .05, t=2.13).
H3 and H4 were tested next. ID was positively re-
lated to spending (H3: SPE =0.37, t=13.38). Fur-
ther, the path from ID to spending was enhanced when
accounting for the interaction with satisfaction in H4
(SPE =0.14, t=8.59). Refer to Table 2 to view all the
main effect results.
Follow-up Test for Mediation
To examine the mediating effects of ID, models were
estimated consistent with Baron and Kenny (1986) and
Holmbeck (1997). Four conditions for mediation were
examined. The first condition is satisfied if the inde-
pendent variables (prestige and distinctiveness) affect
the mediator ID. The second condition is satisfied if the
mediator affects the dependent variable (aftermarket
spending). Both of these conditions were met by the
path estimates in the hypothesized model. The third
condition is satisfied if the independent variables (pres-
tige and distinctiveness) affect the dependent variable
(aftermarket spending). Thus, a model was estimated
with only direct paths from the antecedents to after-
market spending—a “direct” model (χ2=2,6553.03,
df =751; CFI =0.98; TLI =0.97; RMSEA =0.05).
The direct paths were significant with t-values of pres-
tige (3.22) and distinctiveness (2.22), thus satisfying
the third mediating condition.
The fourth mediating condition is satisfied if the di-
rect paths from the independent variables (prestige and
distinctiveness) to the dependent variable (aftermarket
spending) become nonsignificant when the paths from
the independent variable to the mediator (ID) are in-
cluded in the model (full model). The fit of the “full”
model (χ2=2,263.63, df =749; CFI =0.98; TLI =0.98;
RMSEA =0.04) was not better than the fit of the hy-
pothesized model, indicating that ID fully mediates the
effects of prestige and distinctiveness on aftermarket
spending.
DISCUSSION
Summary of Findings
Blending elements of SIT with the literature on
heuristic–systematic processing, a field study was con-
ducted that matched consumer surveys to aftermarket
spending data to examine key antecedents and con-
sequences of ID. Findings offer new insights into the
theoretical relationships among prestige and distinc-
tiveness as related to ID and spending. In addition
to enhancing current theoretical perspectives related
to ID, the study also sets forth managerially relevant
strategies for enhancing ID, and offers a key customer
outcome of such strategies.
The findings offer implications for managers and
scholars regarding the ways in which widely recog-
nized brand characteristics and intimacy are related
to ID. The findings suggest that firms may want to con-
sider level of intimacy when targeting consumers for
personalized aftermarket spending. When consumers
have high levels of intimacy with the brand, firms
may particularly benefit by highlighting the distinc-
tiveness of the brand relative to its competitors. This
approach may translate to higher levels of ID with the
brand, resulting in higher spending on brand-related
aftermarket purchases. Moreover, for consumers who
are not as intimate with the brand, an enhanced fo-
cus on brand prestige may be a way to build ID and
enhance branded aftermarket spending. Thus from a
managerial perspective, firms need to consider devel-
oping unique communications for various target mar-
kets defined in terms of their levels of intimacy with
the brand. Such focused communication can be effec-
tively employed via use of social media ecosystems. The
618 DONAVAN, JANDA, AND MAXHAM III
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Low Intimacy (2.25): Y = .41 P + 1.43
1
3
4
5
6
2
Intimacy
High
Intimacy
Low
High Intimacy (6.19): Y = .21 P + 3.93
ID
Low
1.73
High
5.65
Prestige
Figure 2. The moderating effect of intimacy on prestige.
results suggest that even when customers have a base
level of ID with a brand, firms can still improve out-
comes by recognizing that different customer segments
are motivated by different brand characteristics. Fur-
ther, another managerial recommendation is that firms
should work to create opportunities for their brand en-
thusiasts to collect brand symbols. While some indus-
tries, such as the motorcycle industry, have embraced
this strategy, many firms simply focus on the initial
sale.
The study’s findings have implications for after-
market spending. As previously outlined, aftermarket
spending is a large contributor to numerous firms’ bot-
tom lines. While it appears that many of the firms that
benefit from ID, and subsequent aftermarket spend-
ing, sell highly conspicuous products, brands can be
repositioned to entice more conspicuous consumption. A
case in point is Starbucks, Inc. Coffee was once viewed
as a commodity with little brand loyalty or ID with
the brand. Starbucks changed the coffee landscape and
now enjoys a highly identified set of loyal customers
around the world. Coffee is now a conspicuously con-
sumed product as many Starbucks drinkers proudly
display the logo as they consume. By training the
team of baristas in skills for making the perfect coffee
drinks and also in providing consistent customer ser-
vice, Starbucks ensures customers are satisfied. High
levels of satisfaction combined with strong ID result in
enhanced aftermarket spending over time.
It can be assumed that the relationship between in-
timacy and prestige and intimacy and distinctiveness
goes beyond aftermarket sales. Firms can use prestige
to attract new customers as these customers increase
their level of intimacy with the brand. Conversely, these
same firms may increase ID among their high-intimacy
fans by further developing a distinctive brand image.
It would appear beneficial for managers to period-
ically monitor the levels of both brand characteristics
and intimacy and allocate appropriate levels of social
media, in-store design, brand events, and merchandis-
ing (e.g., store architecture or fac¸ades, media, fixtures,
flooring, furniture, lighting, and signage) aimed at en-
hancing brand ID. Managers can add measures of the
brand characteristics to ongoing survey efforts to pro-
vide a marketing metric tracking dashboard for gaug-
ing customer perceptions of the brand experience. Such
ongoing tracking efforts can be important for managers
as successful monitoring and management of consumer
perceptions of prestige, as well as distinctiveness, will
likely result in enhanced levels of loyalty (e.g., ID)
and a positive behavioral outcome (e.g., aftermarket
spending).
IDENTIFICATION AND AFTERMARKET SPENDING 619
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
One example of a company that seems to be enhanc-
ing loyalty by affecting some of these company charac-
teristics is Zappos.com. Zappos is an online retailer that
provides free shipping both ways (shipping purchases
to customers, as well as shipping returns from cus-
tomers back to the company warehouse) and will pro-
vide this free shipping consistently, even on repeated
customer orders (e.g., creating distinctiveness relative
to competitors who typically provide free shipping to
customers but not for returned items). In addition, Zap-
pos does not provide the lowest prices but emphasizes
prestige with stellar customer service (Hsieh, 2010).
Through the use of these elements, Zappos seems to be
enhancing its distinctiveness and prestige, thus affect-
ing customers’ loyalty. Current study findings suggest
that if a firm such as Zappos were to assess customers’
levels of intimacy and emphasize distinctiveness for
those high in intimacy while focusing more on pres-
tige for those lower in intimacy, they may be able to
further enhance customer ID and spending.
ID and Customer Aftermarket Spending
This study finds a positive relationship between ID
and consumer aftermarket spending. Given that the
measures of ID and consumer aftermarket spending
were collected from different sources (eliminating com-
mon methods biases), this relationship is intriguing and
valuable for managers. Resources spent on enhancing
ID, as well as working to enhance the strength of their
relationship to the company, can trigger increased af-
termarket spending. In addition, the results illustrate
the pivotal role played by satisfaction in affecting ID’s
influence on spending. It appears that, for consumers
with higher levels of satisfaction, ID has a much big-
ger effect on spending than those with lower levels of
satisfaction. This finding emphasizes the importance
of delivering a quality customer experience beyond
promotions aimed toward brand building efforts. As
such, this study highlights where the “rubber meets the
road” by setting forth key retail experience initiatives
that translate into increased consumer aftermarket
spending.
Contributions and Limitations
Results of this study provide evidence that the positive
effects of ID go beyond the context of organizational ID
(i.e., identifying with one’s employing firm), and into a
consumer context. In so doing, the results show that
aftermarket spending trends upward as ID increases.
This research extends SIT by providing empirical evi-
dence showing how consumers’ ID is affected by their
processing mode, either heuristically or systematically
via intimacy. The findings also provide managerial im-
plications for strategic management.
One limitation is that the current research focuses
on a single industry context (motorcycles). To further
enhance the efficacy of the findings, future research
should investigate whether these construct relation-
ships extend to other contexts—such as people’s ID
with a company, a sports organization, an educational
institution, a celebrity endorser, and other types of con-
sumer brands. For now, this study offers new insights
into strategic management by helping managers bet-
ter allocate precious marketing dollars and providing
scholars a better understanding of the key antecedents
and longer-term revenue outcomes of ID.
Acknowledgement
The second author would like to acknowledge summer
grant support from the College of Business at Kansas
State University that allowed him to contribute his
time toward this research.
REFERENCES
Aaker, J. L., Fournier, S., & Brasel, S. A. (2004). When good
brands do bad. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 1–16.
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration: The de-
velopment of interpersonal relationships. New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston.
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation
modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step
approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.
Anderson, E. W., & Sullivan, M. W. (1993). The antecedents
and consequences of customer satisfaction for firms. Mar-
keting Science, 12, 125–143.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and
the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–
39.
Auken, S. V., & Adams, A. J. (1999). Across-versus within-
class comparative advertising: Insights into prestige class
anchoring. Psychology & Marketing, 16, 429–450.
Baek, T. H., Kim, J., & Yu, J. H. (2010). The differential roles
of brand credibility and brand prestige in consumer brand
choice. Psychology & Marketing, 27, 662–678.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator
variable distinction in social psychological research: Con-
ceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal
of Consumer Research, 15, 139–168.
Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Self-categorization, af-
fective commitment and group self-esteem as distinct as-
pects of social identity in the organization. British Journal
of Social Psychology, 39, 555–577.
Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company
identification: A framework for understanding consumer’s
relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67,
76–88.
Bhattacharya, C. B., Rao, H., & Glynn, M. A. (1995). Under-
standing the bond of identification: An investigation of its
correlates among art museum members. Journal of Mar-
keting, 59, 46–57.
Bodet, G., & Bernache-Assollant, I. (2011). Consumer loyalty
in sport spectator services: The relationships with con-
sumer satisfaction and team identification. Psychology &
Marketing, 28, 781–802.
620 DONAVAN, JANDA, AND MAXHAM III
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Bolton, R. N. (1998). A dynamic model of the duration of the
customer’s relationship with a continuous service provider:
The role of satisfaction. Marketing Science, 17, 45–65.
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this ‘we’? Levels
of collective identity and self-representations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83–93.
Brown, T. J. (1992). Schemata in consumer research: A con-
nectionist approach. In J. F. Sherry & B. Sternthal (Eds.),
Diversity in consumer behavior: Advances in consumer
research (Vol. 19, pp. 787–794). Provo, UT: Association for
Consumer Research.
Campbell, S. (2013). 2013 SEMA Annual Market Study
Preview. SEMA News – September 2013. Retrieved
from http://www.sema.org/sema-news/2013/09/2013-sema-
annual-market-study-preview
Carlson, B. D., Suter, T. A., & Brown, T. J. (2008). Social versus
psychological brand community: The role of psychological
sense of brand community. Journal of Business Research,
61, 284–291.
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information
processing and the use of source versus message cues in
persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
3, 752–766.
Chaiken, S. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M. P.
Zanna, J. M. Olson, & C. P. Herman (Eds.), Social influence:
The Ontario symposium (pp. 3–39). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing
can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibil-
ity, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude
judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
66, 460–473.
Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Heuristic
and systematic information processing within and beyond
the persuasion context. In J. S. Yleman & J. A. Bargh
(Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 212–252). New York: Guil-
ford Press.
Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model
in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.),
Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 73–96). New
York: Guilford Press.
Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Walker, M. R., Free-
man, S., & Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory:
Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 34, 366–375.
Cohen, M. A., Agrawal, N., & Agrawal, V. (2006). Win-
ning in the aftermarket. Harvard Business Review, 85,
129–138.
Colarelli, S. M., & Dettmann, J. R. (2003). Intuitive evolu-
tionary perspectives in marketing practices. Psychology &
Marketing, 20, 837–865.
Danaher, P. J., Wilson, I. W., & Davis, R. A. (2003). A compari-
son of online and offline consumer brand loyalty. Marketing
Science, 2, 461–476.
Davies, G., Chun, R., da Silva, R. V., & Roper, S. (2004). A
corporate character scale to assess employee and customer
views of organization reputation. Corporate Reputation Re-
view, 7, 125–146.
Diamond, J. (1999). Guns, germs, and steel. New York: W.W.
Norton and Company.
Donavan, D. T., Janda, S., & Suh, J. (2006). Environmental
influences in corporate brand identification and outcomes.
Journal of Brand Management, 14, 125–136.
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Orga-
nizational images and member identification. Administra-
tive Science Quarterly, 39, 239–263.
Fisher, R. J., & Wakefield, K. (1998). Factors leading to group
identification: A field study of winners and losers. Psychol-
ogy & Marketing, 15, 23–40.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equa-
tion models with unobservable variables with measure-
ment errors. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 35–50.
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumer and their brands: Developing
relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Con-
sumer Research, 24, 343–373.
Fromm, E. (1956). The art of loving. New York: Harper and
Row.
Glynn, M. A. (1998). Individuals’ need for organizational iden-
tification (nOID): Speculations on individual differences
in the propensity to identify. In D. A. Whetten & P. C.
Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory
through conversations (pp. 238–244). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Graziano, D. (2012). Smartphone accessory revenues
valued at $20 billion in 2012. Retrieved from http://
bgr.com/2012/06/22/mobile-accessories-revenues-increase-
smartphones/.
Greenberg, K. (2004). Turf war prompts ‘grittier’ Yamaha ads.
Brandweek, 45, 6.
Gupta, S., & Zeithaml, V. (2006). Customer metrics and their
impact on financial performance. Marketing Science, 25,
718–739.
Ho, T., Park, Y. H., & Zhou, Y. P. (2006). Incorporating satis-
faction into customer value analysis: Optimal investment
in lifetime value. Marketing Science, 25, 260–277.
Hogg, M. A. (1996). Social identity, self-categorization, and
the small group. In J. H. Davis & E. H. Witte (Eds.), Un-
derstanding group behavior: Small group processes and in-
terpersonal relations (Vol. 2, pp. 227–254). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J., & White, K. M. (1995). A tale of two
theories: A critical comparison of identity theory and social
identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 255–269.
Holmbeck, G. N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual,
and statistical clarity in the study of mediators and moder-
ators: Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psy-
chology literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-
chology, 65, 599–610.
Holt, D. B. (1995). How consumers consume: A typology of
consumption practices. Journal of Consumer Research, 22,
1–16.
Hsieh, T. (2010). Zappos’s CEO on going to extremes for cus-
tomers. Harvard Business Review, 88, 1–5.
Janda, S., & Donavan, D. T. (2004). Identification: A phe-
nomenological look into choice mechanisms and outcomes
in the context of college sports. Thirty-third European Mar-
keting Academy Conference, Murcia, Spain, May 17–21.
Jones, M. A., & Reynolds, K. E. (2006). The role of retailer in-
terest on shopping behavior. Journal of Retailing, 82, 115–
126.
Keller, K. L., & Lehmann, D. R. (2006). Brands and branding:
Research findings and future priorities. Marketing Science,
25, 740–759.
Lam, S. K., Ahearne, M., Hu, Y., & Schillewaert, N. (2010).
Resistance to brand switching when a radically new brand
is introduced: A social identity theory perspective. Journal
of Marketing, 74, 128–146.
Little, T. D., Bovaird, J. A., & Widaman, K. F. (2006). On the
merits of orthogonalizing powered and product terms: Im-
plications for modeling interactions among latent variables.
Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 497–519.
IDENTIFICATION AND AFTERMARKET SPENDING 621
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Madrigal, R. (2001). Social identity effects in a belief-
attitude-intentions hierarchy: Implications for cor-
porate sponsorship. Psychology & Marketing, 18,
145–165.
Mael, F. A., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma
mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organi-
zational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
13, 103–123.
McAlexander, J. H., Schouten, J. W., & Koenig, H. F. (2002).
Building brand community. Journal of Marketing, 66, 38–
52.
Miller, S. (2006). Prepare for the afterlife. Brandweek, 47, 22–
26.
Mugge, R., Schoormans, J. P. L., & Schifferstein, H. N.
J. (2009). Emotional bonding with personalised products.
Journal of Engineering Design, 20, 467–476.
Oliver, R. L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of Mar-
keting, 63, 33–44.
Park, C. W., Jaworski, B. J., & MacInnis, D. J. (1986). Strategic
brand concept-image management. Journal of Marketing,
50, 135–145.
Park, C. W., Milberg, S., & Lawson, R. (1991). Evaluation of
brand extensions: The role of product feature similarity and
brand concept consistency. Journal of Consumer Research,
18, 185–193.
Petty, R. E., Caccioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Cen-
tral and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The
moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Re-
search, 10, 135–146.
Pratt, M. G. (1998). To be or not to be: Central questions
in organizational identification. In D. A. Whetten & P. C.
Godfrey (Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory
through conversations (pp. 171–207). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Price, L., Arnould, E. J., & Tierney, P. (1995). Going
to extremes: Managing service encounters and assess-
ing provider performance. Journal of Marketing, 59,
83–97.
Randall, T., Ulrich, K., & Reibstein, D. (1998). Brand equity
and vertical product line extent. Marketing Science, 17,
356–379.
Schneider, B., Hall, D. T., & Nygren, H. T. (1971). Self image
and job characteristics as correlates of changing organiza-
tional identification. Human Relations, 24, 397–416.
Staab, F. (2005). The auto aftermarket is no afterthought.
Businessweek. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.
com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2005/nf20051031_6810_db017.htm.
Stokburger-Sauer, N. (2010). Brand community: Drivers and
outcomes. Psychology & Marketing, 27, 347–368.
Sullivan, M. W. (1998). How brand names affect the demand
for twin automobiles. Journal of Marketing Research, 35,
154–165.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). The social identity theory of
intergroupbehavior.InS.Worchel&W.G.Austin(Eds.),
Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Chicago, IL:
Nelson-Hall.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1985). The social identity the-
ory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin
(Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7–
24).Chicago,IL:Nelson-Hall.
Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1990). Die-hard and fair-
weather fans: Effects of identification on birging and corfing
tendencies. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 14, 103–117.
Wiedmann, K. P., Hennigs, N., & Siebels, A. (2009). Value-
based segmentation of luxury consumption behavior. Psy-
chology & Marketing, 26, 625–651.
Wong, N., & Ahuvia, A. C. (1998). Personal taste and family
face: Luxury consumption in Confucian and western soci-
eties. Psychology & Marketing, 15, 423–441.
Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to:
D. Todd Donavan, College of Business, Colorado State Uni-
versity, 113 Rockwell Hall, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA
(todd.donavan@business.colostate.edu)
622 DONAVAN, JANDA, AND MAXHAM III
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
Table A1. Measures Used in the Analyses
Prestige
It is considered prestigious to be an XYZ customer.
XYZ is considered to be a status symbol.
XYZ is highly respected.
(adapted from Mael & Ashforth, 1992)
Distinctiveness
XYZ is a rare entity.
I feel XYZ is unlike any other motorcycles.
I believe XYZ is very unique as compared to other brands.
(Developed for this study)
Intimacy
I am familiar with the range of products and services “the
brand” offers.
I would feel comfortable sharing detailed personal information
about myself with “the brand.”
The company understands my needs in motorcycles.
(Aaker, Fournier, & Brasel, 2004)
Satisfaction
I am completely satisfied with XYZ.
I am completely pleased with XYZ.
XYZ is turning out better than I expected.
(Aaker, Fournier, & Brasel, 2004).
Licensed Aftermarket Accessory Customer Spending
12-Month Post-Survey Spending ($)
(Provided by the partner firm).
Licensed Aftermarket Accessory Customer Spending
Spending at Time 1- Covariate
12-Month Pre-Survey Spending ($)
(Provided by the partner firm).
Identification
Imagine that one of the circles at the left in each row represents
your own personal identity and the other circle at the right
represents the identity of “the brand”. Please indicate the one case
(A, B, C, D, E, F, G, or H) that best describes the level of overlap
between your identity and “the brand’s” identity. CIRCLE only
one letter on the following scale:
My Brand’s
Identity Identity
Question #2. Please indicate to what degree your self-image overlaps
with the image of “brand”. (1-7 Not at All to Very Much). (Bergami &
Bagozzi, 2000).
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Far Apart
Close Together
but Separate
Very Small Overlap
Small Overlap
Moderate Overlap
Large Overlap
Very Large Overlap
Complete Overlap
IDENTIFICATION AND AFTERMARKET SPENDING 623
Psychology & Marketing DOI: 10.1002/mar
