Brand community loyalty: a self determination theory perpective.

O'Donnell, Edward ; Brown, Steven

INTRODUCTION

Branding is an effective way for organizations to identify and differentiate their products in the market place. For example, few consumers will have difficulty identifying the brand symbols of well-known companies like Honda, Audi, and Lexus as well as the unique bottle shape of Coca-Cola. Interestingly, in addition to their usefulness as a differentiating tool, brands enable marketers to develop close and often enduring relationships with consumers. Fournier's (1998) research suggests that consumers frequently form emotional bonds with their favorite brands. Organizations such as Proctor and Gamble, Starbucks, and IBM that have successfully connected with consumers have experienced high levels of brand equity and shareholder value (Madden, Fehle & Fournier, 2006). Thus, the ability to create strong relationships between one's brands and consumers is an important source of success.

Brand communities represent an effective strategy to develop and maintain strong relationships with consumers (Fournier & Lee, 2009). A brand community is a specialized, non-geographically bound community which is built upon a structured set of social relationships among admirers of a branded good or service (Muniz and O'Guinn, 2001). Companies such as Harley-Davidson and Jeep have been very successful in their efforts to create and maintain successful brand communities (Schouten & McAlexander, 1995; McAlexander, Schouten & Koenig, 2002). In fact, many members of these groups demonstrate almost zealot-like loyalty to the brand and the brand community that they belong too. But what makes brand communities so successful at developing and maintaining committed and loyal customers? We will attempt to address this question by introducing a theoretical framework that links various social and volitional influences to the loyalty that an individual has toward his/her brand community.

Brand communities provide an ideal venue to fulfill an individual's needs. For example, a person may fulfill a need for affiliation by attending rallies or by chatting with other likeminded people on a brand related web page; moreover, a need for esteem maintenance or enhancement may be fulfilled through comparisons to others within the community or to others outside the community. Unfortunately, a widely accepted theoretical framework describing the process by which individuals come to identify with a brand community appears to be missing in the current literature. As a result, much of the research in brand community tends to be more descriptive in nature.

In this paper, we extend the current research by introducing a Self Determination Theory (SDT)-based framework (Deci & Ryan, 1985) to better understand the relationship that individuals have with their brand communities. In particular, we extend SDT's concept of internalization (Ryan & Connell, 1989; Ryan & Deci, 2002; Ryan, Deci & Grolnick, 1995) to more completely describe the process by which an individual allows a particular brand community to become part of self (Ryan & Deci, 2002). We also examine the impact that social influences, social comparisons, and self-determination have on the internalization process or as will be further clarified in this paper, brand community loyalty. Thus, this research represents an important theoretical contribution to the brand community literature.

This paper is organized as follows. First, we briefly review the existing brand community research. We present SDT and justify its use as an appropriate framework with which to study brand community loyalty. We then introduce and describe the internalization process and develop a conceptual model that addresses the impact that social influences, social comparisons, and self-determination have on encouraging higher levels of brand community loyalty. Finally, we identify propositions that directly flow out of our conceptual model.

REVIEW OF BRAND COMMUNITY LITERATURE

Brand community is a concept that originated from community research in sociology. Fischer, Bristor, and Gainer (1994) argued that marketing researchers needed to push the boundaries beyond the individual level of analysis in order to study community and its relationship to consumption. Consistent with Fischer's et al. (1994) perspective, researchers (Sirsi, Ward & Reingen, 1994; Gainer & Fischer, 1994) have begun the process of developing more contemporary methods of defining communities through their shared consumption patterns.

The sociology literature identifies at least three core components of a community (Muniz & O'Guinn, 2001). The first component is referred to as community in kind (Gusfield, 1978) or the intrinsic connection that community members feel toward one another and the collective sense of difference from others not in the community. The second component is the presence of rituals and traditions which tend to perpetuate the community's shared history, culture, and consciousness. The third component is a sense of moral responsibility or a felt sense of duty or obligation to the community as a whole and to its individual members. Muniz and O'Guinn (2001) conclude that for any group to be considered a community, it must meet each of these three core concepts.

Muniz and O'Guinn (1996) first introduced the concept of brand communities based on their research regarding the Zima beverage brand. Their research suggests that brands come to stand for certain shared styles of human association, a community of consumers, that attract new members who want to participate in the norms and satisfaction shared by the other members. Kover (1996) argues that brand communities offer an alternate form of community for individuals who have become members by buying and owning a particular branded product. Essentially, the shared meanings invested in these brands and their collective significance is posited as another form of social construction of reality.

Muniz and O'Guinn (2001) define a brand community as a specialized, non-geographically bound community which is based on a structured set of social relationships among admirers of a branded good or service. In support of Anderson's (1983) notion of an imaginary community, the results from their ethnographic study suggest that it is possible for communities to form around any brand, but are most likely to form around those with a strong image, a rich and length history, and threatening competition. Their results indicate that publicly consumed products or services stand a better chance of producing communities than those consumed in private; furthermore, they find that brand communities are fairly stable with individuals being committed to both the brand and to each other. Muniz and O'Guinn (2001) conclude that brands are undeniably social entities, created as much by consumers as by marketers in a complex process of social construction.

McAlexander, Schouten, and Koenig (2002) extend the conceptualization of a brand community from a customer-customer-brand triad (Muniz & O'Guinn, 2001) to a customer-centric model involving owner-to-product, owner-to-brand, owner-to-company, and owner-to-other owner relationships. According to McAlexander et al. (2002), events like Jeep Jamborees, Camp Jeep, and HOG rallies bring people together who often share no connection other than an interest in a brand and its consumption. However, by sharing meaningful consumption experiences, interpersonal ties are strengthened and mutual appreciation for the product, the brand, and the facilitating marketers is increased. Greater integration in a brand community (IBC) results from the ties created between the individual brand owner and the company, the other brand owners, and the brand itself. Therefore, IBC is a more comprehensive concept than the earlier conceptualization of a brand community originally proposed by Muniz and O'Guinn (2001), and is grounded in a consumer's total-life experience with a brand. Essentially, it is posited that events like brand fests and rallies act as breeding grounds for the development of relationships between brand users and other members of the customer-centric model potentially facilitating the creation and maintenance of brand communities.

Though the notion of brand community needs further development, most of the perspectives regarding brand community (Algesheimer, Dholakia & Herrmann, 2005) suggest a process of increased levels of social identification (Tajfel, 1981). However, social identification is only one aspect of brand community loyalty. The volitional aspects of individuals should also be considered in order to gain a more complete picture of the process of increased loyalty to a brand community. For this reason, a theoretical model that addresses both the volitional and social aspects of brand community loyalty is a crucial foundation upon which to build a more comprehensive understanding of this important marketing phenomenon.

THEORETICAL DEVELOPMENT

Individuals participate in brand communities for many different reasons (Celsi, Rose & Leigh, 1993). Some attend brand community events to socialize with people who share their interest in the brand while others participate because they view the brand community as an important part of their self-concept. Due to the wide range of motivational variations that are associated with brand community participation, Self-Determination Theory (SDT) is an appropriate theory (Ryan & Deci, 2002).

SDT, as developed by Deci and Ryan (1985), is an organismic theory of motivation in that it views people as organisms that are actively looking for ways to satisfy needs. As Deci and Ryan (1985, pp. 7) explain, SDT is "motivational rather than cognitive because it addresses the energization and the direction of behavior and it uses motivational constructs to organize cognitive, affective, and behavioral variables." According to SDT, individuals are motivated to satisfy the three basic needs of relatedness, competence, and autonomy. Relatedness concerns our need for interaction and connectedness to others whereas competence refers to an individual's need to feel effective and capable in exercising and expressing his/her capabilities (Ryan & Deci, 2002). The final need state, autonomy, relates to our need to originate our own actions and behaviors (Ryan & Deci, 2002).

Shortly stated, SDT (Ryan, Deci & Grolnick, 1995) defines a process whereby an individual takes an object from the environment and allows that object to become part of self (Deci, Eghrari, Patrick & Leone, 1994; Ryan & Deci, 2002; Ryan, Deci & Grolnick, 1995). This process is called internalization. The target object is usually conceptual in nature and typically involves a rule, value, or possibly, a group. Deci and Ryan (1985) argue that the process of internalization reflects an individual's intrinsic tendencies to assimilate and integrate external objects into more self-determined ones and to move away from heteronomy toward autonomy. The process of internalization, as defined by Grolnick, Deci, and Ryan (1997), involves three stages that are located on a linear continuum. The three stages of internalization are the introjection stage, identification stage, and reciprocal assimilation/internalization stage. The introjection stage is considered a sub-optimal form of internalization that is characterized by compliance to an object from a feeling of obligation to family, friends, or other such individuals. Introjection typically results in stress and anxiety since one feels obligated to conform to objects that are not consistent with his/her values and beliefs. The identification stage is characterized by a realization that the object is important relative to achieving that individual's personal goals. Finally, reciprocal assimilation involves the process of allowing the object to become part of an individual's self-concept. In essence, the object becomes an integral part of that individual's identity. Regulation research involving varying age groups and domains, including religion (Ryan & King, 1993), sport (Pelletier et al., 1995), aging (Vallerand, O'Conner & Hamel, 1995), relationships (Blias, Sabourin, Boucher, & Vallerand, 1990), and health care (Ryan, Plant & O'Malley, 1995) supports the internalization process with more positive outcomes being associated with self-determined forms of regulation.

When extended to brand communities, SDT's internalization continuum (Grolnick, Deci & Ryan, 1997) may be operationalized as a continuum involving three distinct developmental stages: introduction stage, identification stage, and internalization stage. We call this the brand community development continuum. Consistent with the internalization process, an individual's level of loyalty to a brand community is hypothesized to increase as he/she moves from the introduction stage to the internalization stage. In the introduction stage, an individual has not selected a particular brand community with which to identify. As a result, the brand community has limited salience to the individual. In the identification stage, an individual has decided to be identified with a particular brand community because of its importance in achieving his/her goals. For example, one way that an individual may fulfill a need for affiliation is by participating in a brand community. In the internalization stage, an individual has decided to allow the community to become part of self. An individual in this stage demonstrates high, possible zealot-like, levels of loyalty to the brand community.

FACTORS IMPACTING BRAND COMMUNITY LOYALTY

So what factors influence individuals to become more loyal to brand communities? This question will be examined from the perspective of three basic influences; in particular, social influences, social comparisons, and self-determination. The resulting conceptual model is shown in Figure 1.

As shown in Figure 1, we propose that social influences and social comparisons tend to push individuals to higher levels of internalization with an object (i.e. a value, standard, or in this case, a brand community). In addition to social-related factors, self-determination is the volitional element of the model which describes an individual's desire to allow an object to be assimilated into his/her self-concept (e.g., to become part of self). The basic premise underlying this model is that by fulfilling the innate needs of its members, these three influences motivate them to become more loyal to the brand community. A brief discussion of each of these influences is provided in the following paragraphs.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Social Influences

Family, friends, co-workers, and other such individuals have a major influence on the choices made by individuals. Such groups are called reference groups. A reference group is a person or group of people that significantly influences an individual's behavior (Bearden & Etzel, 1982). According to Park and Lessig (1977), there are three motivational influences of reference groups: informational influence, utilitarian influence, and value-expressive influence.

The informational influence occurs when an individual uses the values, norms, and behaviors of others as credible evidence about reality. Essentially, an individual will look to another whom they consider to be more knowledgeable to act as a guide for their own behavior. The utilitarian influence occurs when an individual fulfills the expectations of others to gain a direct reward or to avoid a punishment. Finally, the value-expressive influence occurs when individuals use the norms, values, and behaviors of others as a guide for their own attitudes, values, and behaviors. This type of influence operates because of an individual's need for psychological association with a person or group (Bearden & Etzel, 1982). One or more of these influences may be operating on an individual at any given point in time and are closely related to the desire for psychological association or social affiliation with others. Therefore, social influences may change as individuals become involved in new individual or group relationships.

Social Comparisons

Social comparison is the process by which individuals evaluate themselves based on how they fare relative to others on certain attributes, attitudes, or abilities. Social comparison was originally conceptualized by Festinger (1954) who postulated that individuals have a drive to evaluate their opinions and abilities through comparisons with similar others. However, the original work by Festinger is limited in that it applies to social comparisons involving opinions and abilities only. Prior research (Wood, 1989) suggests that social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954) also applies to personal attributes as well as to attitudes and opinions.

All individuals engage in social comparison to some extent; however, not everyone compares in the same way, with the same frequency, or on the same attributes or dimensions. Wheeler and Miyake (1992) suggest that there are three social comparison goals. The first comparison goal is accurate self-evaluation, which occurs when individuals seek to maintain their current level of self-esteem by confirming their perceptions of performance on an attribute of interest. Self-evaluation is most commonly achieved by comparing with others whose abilities are similar to those of the comparer (Festinger, 1954). The second comparison goal is self-improvement, which occurs when individuals seek to raise their base-level self-esteem by learning new techniques to improve their own performance on an attribute of interest. Self improvement is most commonly achieved by upward comparison (Wood, 1989) since by comparing oneself with an individual who is superior with respect to an attribute or ability of interest it is possible to be inspired by or to learn from social comparison.

The final comparison goal is self-enhancement, which occurs when an individual's self-esteem has been damaged and needs to be reestablished. Self-enhancement is most commonly achieved by downward comparison (Wood, 1989). Therefore, individuals may use upward, downward, or level comparisons depending on the situation; however, in all cases, the goal of these comparisons involves the regulation of an individual's self esteem. Social comparisons may occur between group members or between group members and non-group members.

Self-Determination

Self-determination is an outcome of autonomy. Autonomy describes a condition of being self-initiating as well as feeling a sense of freedom and volition (Ryan, Deci & Grolnick, 1995). In the case of intrinsically motivated activities, the experience is one of spontaneous interest and validity. According to SDT, contexts that enhance intrinsically motivated activity are those that afford autonomy and promote competence. When these affordances occur in conjunction with relational support, the conditions will be optimal for promoting intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation comprises both behavioral and psychological activities that do not require external prompts or reinforcement contingencies. Individuals do these activities freely and for the inherent satisfaction that they derive from doing them.

From a psychological perspective, the maintenance of intrinsic motivation, and the vitality and effectiveness of the activity it encourages, is dependent on satisfaction of three primary psychological needs: competence, autonomy, and relatedness (Ryan, Deci & Grolnick, 1995). Competence involves the desire to feel effectance in dealing with the environment and underlies a variety of selective, directed, and prolonged behaviors that result in mastery. Autonomy is the desire to experience an internal locus of initiation and regulation for one's behavior. According to deCharms (1968), people must experience a sense of choice to maintain high intrinsic motivation (Zuckerman et al., 1978). Finally, relatedness, as argued by Harlow (1958), is a need to experience love and interpersonal contact. In essence, intrinsic motivation flourishes only when there is a backdrop of relatedness to others. The active tendency inherent in intrinsic motivation (i.e., to do, to assimilate, to seek and master challenges) is theorized to occur primarily under conditions that allow satisfaction of the intrinsic needs to feel competent, autonomous, and related. Ryan, Deci, and Grolnick (1995) suggest individuals become increasingly autonomous or self-determined as the process of internalization functions more fully and effectively to bring initially external objects into coherence with one's self.

PROPOSITIONS

The impact of social influences, social comparisons, and self-determination are expected to be different for people who are at different levels of internalization to a brand community. In this paper, we will look at the different levels of brand community internalization through the prism of the brand community development continuum identified earlier. In particular, the propositions identified here attempt to identify the impact that social influences, social comparisons, and self-determination will have on brand community members who are at different stages of the continuum (e.g., the introduction stage, the identification stage, and the internalization stage) or as discussed earlier, internalization.

Social Influences

For individuals in the introduction stage, the impact of brand community-related social influences should be minimal due to the limited salience of the brand community. However, it is important to recognize that some individuals in the introduction stage may be influenced by certain individuals within the brand community based on a prior relationship or a desire to be associated with that individual. In contrast, the impact of social influences should be significantly greater for individuals in the identification stage. In this stage, the magnitude and frequency of social influences should be at their highest level. Finally, individuals in the internalization stage should be less affected by social influences since their responses are more volitional in nature.

P1: The influence of brand community-related social influences should start at a low level for individuals in the introductory stage, increase to a higher level for individuals in the identification stage, and then reduce for individuals in the internalization stage.

Social Comparisons

For individuals in the introduction stage, the influence of brand community-related social comparisons should be minimal due to the limited salience of the brand community. In contrast, the influence of social comparisons should be significantly greater for individuals in the identification stage. In this stage, the magnitude and frequency of social comparisons should be at its highest level. Finally, individuals in the internalization stage should not be as heavily influenced by social comparisons since their responses are more volitional in nature.

P2: The influence of brand community-related social comparisons should start at a low level for individuals in the introductory stage, increase to a higher level for individuals in the identification stage, and then reduce for individuals in the internalization stage.

Self-Determination

In addition to the impact of social influences, the self-determination of individuals to intrinsically act according with and to personally support the norms, values and beliefs of the brand community varies among the three stages of the brand community development. Individuals in the introductory stage should exhibit minimal self-determination relative to the brand community, whereas individuals in the identification stage may exhibit varying degrees of self-determination depending in large part on their disposition to act volitionally. Finally, individuals in the internalization stage should exhibit a high level of self-determination relative to the brand community. These individuals may behave in a zealot-like manner toward the brand community and its associated norms, values, and beliefs.

P3: The influence of self-determination should start at a low level for individuals in the introductory stage and increase to a high level only after an individual has reached a moderate to high level of internalization with the brand community and remain high for individuals in the internalization stage.

DISCUSSION

In this paper, we identify a theoretical framework based on Self Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) that examines the impact that social influences, social comparisons, and self determination have on an individual's loyalty to a brand community. We also introduce SDT's concept of internalization in order to understand the process by which an individual allows the brand community to become part of self (Ryan & Deci, 2002). To capture an individual's loyalty to a particular brand community, we extend the internalization process to the brand communities by developing the brand community development continuum.

The brand community development continuum identifies three different levels (e.g., stages) of attachment that an individual may have with a brand community ranging from introduction, to identification, and finally, internalization. Consistent with the internalization process, loyalty to the brand community is hypothesized to increase as a person moves from the introduction to the internalization stage. In the introduction stage, an individual has not selected a particular brand community with which to identify whereas in the identification stage, the individual has decided to be identified with a particular brand community because of its importance in achieving his/her goals. Finally, in the internalization stage, the individual has decided (through his/her own volition) to allow the brand community to become part of self and as such, may demonstrate almost zealot-like loyalty to the brand community.

Propositions were then developed that identify the influence that social influences, social comparisons, and self-determination have on brand community members as they move from the introduction stage, to the identification stage, and then, the internalization stage. Our research suggests that the impact that each of these influences has on brand community members depend on the degree to which a person has internalized the brand community as evaluated by his/her development stage. We further posit that these three influences encourage individuals to become more loyal to the brand community.

The conceptual model proposed in this paper represents a valuable theoretical contribution to the brand community literature by introducing an individual level, psychologically-based model with which to better understand the dynamics of brand community. Furthermore, the model provides marketers with a method of classifying individuals relative to their level of brand community loyalty (e.g., internalization) as well as an understanding of the impact that social influences, social comparisons, and self-determination for individuals at each stage of brand community development. As a result, marketers will be better to develop programs targeted at individuals in each specific stage of brand community development in order to encourage increased levels of brand community loyalty.

REFERENCES

Algesheimer, R., U.M. Dholakia & A. Herrmann (2005). The social influence of brand community: Evidence from European car clubs. Journal of Marketing, 69(3), 19-34.

Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined community. London, England: Verso.

Bearden, W.O. & M.J. Etzel (1982). Reference group influence on product and brand purchase decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 183-194.

Blais, M.R., S. Sabourin, C. Boucher & R.J. Vallerand (1990). Toward a motivational model of couple happiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1021-1031.

Celsi, R.L., R.L. Rose & T.W. Leigh (1993). An exploration of high-risk leisure consumption through skydiving. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), 1-23.

DeCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behavior. New York, NY: Academic Press.

Deci, E.L. & R.M. Ryan (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 109-134.

Deci, E.L., H. Eghrari, B.C. Patrick & D.R. Leone (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62(2), 119-142.

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7(2), 117-140.

Fischer, E., J. Bristor & B. Grainer (1994). Creating or escaping community? An exploratory study of Internet consumers' behaviors. In C.T. Allen & D. Roedder (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, 21. Provo UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(2), 343-373.

Fournier, S. & L. Lee (2009). Getting brand communities right. Harvard Business Review, April, 105-111.

Gainer, B. & E. Fischer (1994). Community and consumption. In C.T. Allen & D. Roedder (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, 21. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Grolnick, W.S., E.L. Deci & R.M. Ryan (1997). Internalization within the family: The self-determination theory perspective. In J.E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and Children's Internalization of Values: A Handbook of Contemporary Theory. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Gusfield, J. (1978). Community: A critical response. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Harlow, H.F. (1958). The nature of love. American Psychologist, 13, 673-685.

Kover, A.J. (1996). The community of brands. In K.P. Corfman & J.G. Lynch (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, 23. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Madden, T.J., F. Fehle & S. Fournier (2006). Brands matter: An empirical demonstration of the creation of shareholder value through branding. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(2), 224-235.

McAlexander, J.H., J.W. Schouten & H.F. Koenig (2002). Building brand community. Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 38-54.

Muniz, A.M Jr. & T. O'Guinn (1996). Brand community and the sociology of brands. In K.P. Corfman & J.G. Lynch (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, 23. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Muniz, A.M. Jr. & T.C. O'Guinn (2001). Brand community. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(2), 412-432.

Park, C.W. & V.P. Lessig (1977). Students and housewives: Differences in susceptibility to reference group influences. Journal of Consumer Research, 4(3), 102-110.

Pelletier, L.G., M.S. Fortier, R.J. Vallerand, K.M. Tuscon, N.M. Brier & M.R. Blais (1995). Toward a new measure of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation in sports: The sport motivation scale. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17, 35-53.

Ryan, R.M. & J.P. Connell (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 749-761.

Ryan, R.M. & E.L. Deci (2002). An overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical perspective. In E.L. Deci & R.M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Determination Research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Ryan, R.M., E.L. Deci & W.S. Grolnick (1995). Autonomy relatedness, and the self: Their relation to development and psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & D.J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental Psychopathology, 1. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Ryan, R.M., R.W. Plant & S. O'Malley (1995). Initial motivation for alcohol treatment: relations with patient characteristics, treatment involvement and dropout. Addictive Behaviors, 20, 279-297.

Ryan, R.M., S. Rigby & K. King (1993). Two types of religious internalization and their relations to religious orientations and mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 586-596.

Schouten, J.W. & J.H. Alexander (1995). Subcultures of consumption: An ethnography of the new bikers. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(3), 43-61.

Sirsi, A.K., J.C. Ward & P.H. Reingen (1994). Microcultural analysis of variation in sharing of causal reasoning about behavior. In C.T. Allen & D. Roedder (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research, 21. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.

Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Vallerand, R.J., B.P. O'Connor & M. Hamel (1995). Motivation in later life: Theory and assessment. International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 41, 221-238.

Wheeler, L. & K. Miyake (1992). Social comparison in everyday life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(5), 760-773.

Wood, J.V. (1989). Theory and research concerning social comparisons of personal attributes. Psychological Bulletin, 106(2), 231-248.

Zuckerman, M., J. Porac, D. Lathin, R. Smith & E.L. Deci (1978). On the importance of self-determination for intrinsically-motivated behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4(3), 443-446.

Edward O'Donnell, Columbus State University

Steven Brown, Columbus State University