Journal of Consumer Research, Inc.

How Does Organizational Identification Form? A Consumer Behavior Perspective

Author(s): Melea Press and Eric J. Arnould
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 38, No. 4 (December 2011), pp. 650-666
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/660699 .
Accessed: 30/01/2012 15:11
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press and Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Consumer Research.

http://www.jstor.org

How Does Organizational Identification

Form? A Consumer Behavior Perspective
MELEA PRESS
ERIC J. ARNOULD
This article takes a consumer behavior perspective to investigate how constituents
come to identify with organizations. Using longitudinal and cross-sectional interview
data collected in two contexts (one consumer and one employee), the data illustrate
that constituents engage with two conduits, one formal and one informal. These
conduits provide opportunities for sensegiving, which features normative elements
particular to an organization, and sensemaking, an integrative process in which
productive consumption plays a key role. Three paths (epiphany, emulation, and
exploration) leading from these conduits to identification are defined and explored.
Second, this article reveals dynamic consequences of identification for both customer and employee constituents, including changes in their consumer values and
behaviors extending beyond organizational concerns. Finally, this article defends
the merit of softening hard conceptual distinctions drawn between consumers and
employees, as the findings show that identification forms in parallel fashion with
similar outcomes across a consumer-to-firm and an employee-to-firm context.

2006; Riketta 2005). In consumer research, this connection

has been termed identification. But, how does identification
develop, and what are the consequences for organizational
constituents? These are the initial questions that animate our
research and lead us to an investigation of the process of
organizational identification in two contexts.

envers iconic Tattered Cover bookstore scheduled a

move to a new location over a weekend. Almost 300
loyal customers arrived unbidden at the old store on a Saturday afternoon to help pack and move the books. The move
took 30 hours and was completed in time for the new store
to open promptly on the following Monday morning. The
free labor and consumer goodwill that benefited Tattered Cover is now flaunted on their Web site (http://www.tatteredcover
.com/). This example illustrates the benefits beyond sales or
employee productivity that organizations can reap when
consumers develop a deep connection to them (Handelman

LITERATURE REVIEW
Reflecting on the vast literature on organizational identification, Pratt (1998, 172) wrote that of all of the central
questions of organizational identification, the one that has
probably received the least attention by organizational scholars has been, How does organizational identification occur? Ten years later, reflecting on an even larger literature,
Ashforth, Harrison, and Corley (2008, 346) contend that
research on the process of identification is a low-hanging
fruit for future research. In this article, we begin to unpack
this identification process.

Melea Press (mpress@uwyo.edu) is assistant professor of marketing

and sustainable business practices, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY
82071; Eric J. Arnould (earnould@uwyo.edu) is distinguished professor
of sustainable business practices, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY
82071, and adjunct visiting professor, Southern Denmark University, 55
Campusvej, 5230 Odense C, Denmark. Correspondence: Melea Press. This
article is based on the first authors dissertation research conducted at
Pennsylvania State University. The first author would like to thank William
T. Ross Jr. for his support. The authors would also like to thank Fleura
Bardhi, David Crockett, Jenny Mish, and Markus Giesler for feedback on
earlier drafts and Risto Moisio for stimulating ideas about productive consumption. In addition, the authors would like thank the reviewers and
editors for their many helpful suggestions.

Defining Organizational Identification

Early psychological research conceptualized identification as a process in which an individual tries to emulate
another, becomes part of a group, or takes on a specific
cause (Kagan 1958; Kelman 1958) and by which personality
is changed (Sanford 1955). More recently, organizational
identification has been discussed primarily as a cognitive
constructfocusing on the perception of unity between the

John Deighton served as editor and Soren Askegaard served as associate

editor for this article.
Electronically published May 11, 2011

650
2011 by JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH, Inc. Vol. 38 December 2011
All rights reserved. 0093-5301/2011/3804-0005$10.00. DOI: 10.1086/660699

HOW ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION FORMS

self and the organization, a sense that one belongs in an

organization (Ashforth and Mael 1989)and as congruence
between personal and organizational attributes (Dutton,
Dukerich, and Harquail 1994). Identification has largely
been studied as a state of being, which has led researchers
to assess [it] as existing solely in individuals at particular
points in time. . . . [This] offer[s] little opportunity for
understanding the dynamics of the individual-organization
relationship (Cheney 1983, 345). A few exceptions to this
static approach exist in the conceptual literature (e.g., Bhattacharya and Sen 2003; Dutton et al. 1994; Pratt 2000), but
overwhelmingly, identification is measured as an outcome
variable employing the Mael and Ashforth (1992; Riketta
2005) scale. This measurement approach does not bring to
light how identification forms. While some scholars recognize that identification is both a process and a state, few
go beyond proposing that identification is a state that is
continually . . . created and recreated (Ashforth and Mael
1989, 20; Burke 1973). Some scholars suggest that identification is the process of emerging identity. Identification,
especially as expressed in symbolic terms, represents the
forging, maintenance, and alteration of linkages between
persons and groups (Larson and Pepper 2003, 530). Thus,
identification as a process is acknowledged, but how identification actually occurs is not elaborated, and in practice
it is measured statically. As a consequence, the process of
identification formation and the constituent perspective in
this process have been largely ignored. This article helps to
rectify these omissions.

Consumer Identification
Prior research has acknowledged that consumers may
identify with organizations. In consumer culture theory,
most research takes consumer identification as a starting
point for the exploration of other issues (e.g., Muniz and
Schau 2005; Schau, Muniz, and Arnould 2009; Schouten
and McAlexander 1995; Thompson and Coskuner-Balli
2007); some reduces discussion of the processes that lead
to identification to a dispassionate information quest (Bagozzi and Dholakia 2006). Prior brand community research
recognizes that further work is needed to discover why and
how identification forms, including the facilitating conduits
to identification once interest is sparked (see Schau, Muniz,
and Arnould 2009). This article aims to identify such conduits.
Other research highlights a specific service encounter or
pivotal experience that sparks greater participation or organizational engagement (e.g., Kozinets 2002; McAlexander,
Schouten, and Koenig 2002), but there has been no discussion of how these transformative events lead to identification
as defined above. We hope to show that personal transformations in consumer values and behaviors occur through
identification and, in addition, can occur in mundane settings.
In managerially oriented consumer research, identification
is treated as antecedent to outcomes of value to organizations
(e.g., Bhattacharya, Rao, and Glynn 1995; Dutton et al.

651

1994; Lichtenstein, Netemeyer, and Maxham 2010; Mael

and Ashforth 1992). Here, we examine the process of identification formation in terms of behavioral and material dimensions, while bringing constituent-focused outcomes in
organizational and nonorganizational roles into view.
Several conceptual papers have speculated that constituents evaluate various aspects of an organization on the basis
of the perceived similarity between constituents and the
organizations identities (Bhattacharya and Sen 2003) and
that constituents recognize and evaluate traits they desire to
have in the organization (Dutton et al. 1994). We agree that
attraction to an organization can be based on recognized
similarities or aspirational traits, but we hope to show empirically that constituents recognition of organizational identity is not necessarily antecedent to attraction but develops
over time through the narrative processes of sensegiving
and sensemaking (Ashforth et al. 2008; Gioia and Chittipeddi 1991; Weick 1995). And we suggest that productive
consumption may be useful in understanding how organizational identification unfolds.

The Organizational Identification Process

Management contributes the bulk of literature on identification and offers us tools to address questions of organizational identification in consumer as well as employee contexts. At a general level, scholars point out that organizational
identification may affect constituents in both their role-directed behaviors and their extrarole behaviors (Ahearne,
Bhattacharya, and Gruen 2005), presumably then including
their consumer roles. At the same time, driven by motives
of self fulfillment . . . market-oriented organizational reforms often serve to turn employees into each others customers . . . to take on the role of both customer and server
in the workplace (du Gay 1996, 13940). That is, some
papers suggest that some managerial practices erode the
distinction between contemporary consumer and employee
roles. Thus, we may expect both that organizational identification may affect some consumer behaviors and that some
consumption processes may contribute to organizational
identification, whether in consumer-to-organization or employee-to-organization contexts.
Sensegiving and Sensemaking. Management scholars
recognize that communication between organizations and
constituents should be key to identification (e.g., Ashforth
et al. 2008; Weick 1995). The concepts of sensegiving and
sensemaking they use have not been explicitly employed in
consumer research (Weick 1995), but these terms encompass
organizational constituents interpretive activities. Sensegiving refers to the communicative process of influencing the
meaning construction of constituents about a preferred organizational reality (Gioia and Chittipeddi 1991, 442). Sensegiving provides constituents material to recognize how to
behave in the organization (Ashforth et al. 2008). In a conceptual piece, Bhattacharya and Sen (2003) speculate that
consumers identify with an organization through companyrelated rites, rituals, and routines (82) communicated through

652

sensegiving devices that originate inside (e.g., annual reports,

company meetings) versus outside (media reports, customer
reports) the firm. Sensemaking is about meaning construction among constituents as they attempt to develop a framework for understanding their organizational environment
through informal channels. The sensemaking construct parallels the interpretive work consumers undertake to make
sense of brands, marketing communications, service personnel, and firms (Fournier 1998). With regard to identification, sensemaking can be observed through dress, office
decor, performances, and behaviors that conform to norms
of identity and organizational citizenship (Ashforth et al.
2008). In sum, sensegiving flows primarily from the organization to constituents, while sensemaking is a communicative interplay between an organization and its constituents,
among constituents, and even within individual constituents.
It may affect identification formation in different ways than
sensegiving (DiSanza and Bullis 1999; Gioia and Chittipeddi 1991). In the management literature, both sensegiving
and sensemaking have been conceived in primarily narrative
rather than behavioral and material terms. We will suggest
that sensegiving and sensemaking provide facilitating behavioral conduits through which organizational identification can occur.
Productive Consumption. The concept of constituents
productive consumption lends insight into the behavioral
and material dimensions of identification. The contribution
of organizations and customers to producing shared value
through commercial exchange is increasingly recognized.
Customers bring their own purpose and projects to an organizations product offerings, which is what makes the
product and the organization useful and meaningful to them
(Franke and Schreier 2006; Schau, Muniz, and Arnould
2009). The foundational idea of productive consumption originates with Mill (1884), who argued that productive consumption goes to maintain and increase the productive powers of the community; either those residing in its soil, in its
materials, in the number and efficiency of its instruments of
production or in its people (61; emphasis added). Consistent
with Mills formulation that recognizes a role for enjoyment, productive consumption refers to sense and value making that blurs the boundaries between work and leisure (Schau,
Gilly, and Wolfinbarger 2009). Productive consumption is
similar to Stebbinss (1982) concept of serious leisure, which
also recognizes the blurring of work and leisure that emerges
in relation to consumer identity and lifestyle-related goals.
The merging of production and consumption behaviors has
been documented in some elderly consumers identity renaissances (Schau, Gilly, and Wolfinbarger 2009). Similarly, recognition that informants leisure production has identity outcomes is also acknowledged by Holt (1998) and Kozinets
(2002). Thus, the idea of productive consumption lurks across
a number of recent studies that generally posit a relationship
between production and consumer identity work. Finally,
Ritzer (2010) argues that worker-producers are also consumers; that is, in the process of production they consume technology in both practical purposes and experiences. In addition,

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

employees both produce and consume their own worker identities while on the job (see also du Gay 1996; du Gay and
Salaman 1992). Thus, it follows that productive consumption
behaviors that simultaneously enhance organizational productivity and constituent experience could lead to identification as individuals revise their identities.

Intended Contribution
This article makes a threefold contribution to research on
organizational identification. First, we unpack dynamic elements of the identification formation process from the perspective of constituents whose personal, economic, and social lives are affected by that organization (Handelman 2006,
108). Specifically, we show that constituents use two different facilitating conduits for sensegiving and sensemaking
(Weick 1995), which lead to identification. We discover that
individuals follow three different paths to identification. Second, this research reveals dynamic consequences of identification for constituents, rather than organizations, including
changes in consumer values and behaviors that extend beyond organizational boundaries. Third, we show that identification formation operates similarly across consumer-tofirm and employee-to-firm contexts, a process in which
productive consumption plays a role. Making these contributions, we reveal a process of how identification forms,
thus moving beyond the state-based model of identification
employed in consumer research.

METHODOLOGY
We began by collecting data in a consumer-organization
context. From inductive analysis of longitudinal interview
data collected in this context, we examined consequences
of identification similar to those recognized in the management literature but also developed a processual perspective
on facilitating conduits and paths to identification. Reviewer
concerns about sample size and context specificity led us to
broaden our inquiry. Since our first study led to the proposition that identification formation might occur similarly
across contexts, we collected a second data set in an employee-employer context.
Triangulation with cross-sectional data obtained in the
employee-employer context provides credibility to our account of identification formation. The second data set also
suggests some linkages between paths and life stages and
offers some negative case examples not immediately apparent in our first data set. It also foregrounds the importance
of productive consumption in constituent sensemaking and
sheds light on why different people may follow different
paths to identification. In general, the second context allows
us to make a more parsimonious argument across contexts.
Together, the two data sets increase trustworthiness, lead us
to generate new theoretical insights, and help us generalize
our model of identification formation (Price, Arnould, and
Moisio 2006; Wallendorf and Belk 1989).
A community supported agriculture program (CSA) provides the consumer-organization context for data collection.

HOW ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION FORMS

653
TABLE 1

COMMUNITY SUPPORTED AGRICULTURE (CSA) INFORMANT PROFILES

Relationship
status

Children
at home

Education

29
42
50

Married
Married
Married

0
2 kids
2 teens

MA
MD, MBA, PhD
PhD

Librarian
Medical administrator
Professor

64
Over 200
120

Sandra
Sarah

36
42

Married
Single

0
2 kids

BS
BA

30
25

Tony

39

Single

BA

Freelance writer/editor
Manager in human
services
Engineer

Name

Age

Emily
Mary
Mitch

Profession

Here, the first author collected longitudinal data from which

we developed a dynamic model of identification formation.
Next, in a high-tech advertising agency we call BLAM, the
first author collected cross-sectional data from employees
of varying tenures. In both contexts, depth interviews provide data because identification [is] revealed through language, [and] interviews . . . have been successfully used
to gather insights into the process of identification (Larson
and Pepper 2003, 537; see also Cheney and Tompkins 1987;
DiSanza and Bullis 1999).

Context 1: Community Supported Agriculture

Longitudinal data come from members of one CSA, a
decentralized, share-based marketing system through which
participating consumers obtain allocations of farm-grown
produce; for a history, see Thompson and Coskuner-Balli
(2007). This CSA is typical in that consumers join as members and prepay for their season of produce, which, in this
case, is $600 for 30 weeks of produce, or $20 per week.
CSA members drive to the farm weekly to pick up their
produce, or their share.
Each informant was interviewed three times: early in the
CSA season, late in the season, and once after the CSAs
growing season was over, for a total of 18 interviews. The
first interview asked questions about reasons for joining the
CSA and asked for descriptions of initial experiences, including likes, dislikes, and expectations. The second interview focused on evolving relations and thoughts about the
CSA and its fit with their lives. The third interview assessed
the impact of participation on the customers relationships
with the CSA, as well as lasting effects of participation on
consumption. In the Findings section below, the timing
of the interviews is indicated next to the informants pseudonym; for example, a quotation from a second interview
with Sandra is labeled (Sandra, time 2).
Because we were interested in unveiling the process of
identification formation (Saldana 2003), the longitudinal
data collected in the CSA were essential to building an initial
model (Otnes et al. 2006). We sampled people who were
first-time members and, thus, relatively unfamiliar with the
CSA phenomenon. We also wanted to capture unanticipated
dimensions of variation, given the paucity of dynamic perspectives on behaviors associated with identification.

Household income
(in thousands)

6090

Primary reason for joining CSA

Wanted to support her community
Wanted to support local farmers
Wanted to support sustainable
agriculture
Wanted fresh vegetables
Concerned about having vegetables around
Concerned about peak oil prices

The six first-time CSA members varied on demographic

criteria, including age, income, education, and employment
(see table 1). Because the purpose of this study is to comprehend a phenomenon, variation among informants usefully foregrounds unanticipated factors that affect the focal
constructs under investigation.
Interviews were treated as individual cases and analyzed
in two ways. Initially, all the interviews from a specific time
were analyzed for themes related to key constructs at this
point in time. In the second pass, all three interviews for
each individual were analyzed for themes that changed over
time (Eisenhardt 1989). Two-step analysis shed light on
common themes at each time period as identification developed for the group and allowed the researchers to isolate
changes reported by each informant.

Context 2: The Advertising Agency

We collected data at a full-service high-tech advertising
agency that is also an entrepreneurial start-up, which we
call BLAM. This site was purposively sampled for three
reasons. First, like the CSA, the company forwards a strong
value statement and overtly uses company values to drive
the culture (Cedant 2009). Second, high-tech organizations
are considered good sites for studying identification because
of common attributes of the employees who work there,
including high levels of education, job mobility, professional affiliation and the flattening of organizational hierarchies. The . . . workers employed in such high-tech organizations have proven to be particularly susceptible to
ideological and value-based systems of control that produce
high levels of commitment (Larson and Pepper 2003, 534).
BLAM employees seem to fit this description. BLAM is
well respected by others in the field and considered a prestigious place to work. The organization encourages and rewards employee initiative and creativity. This organization
exhibits apparent similarities to other organizations in which
culture is central to the organizational mission (e.g., Zappos
[Jacobs 2009] and IDEO [Kelley and Littman 2001]). Finally, researchers employing qualitative data are exhorted
to triangulate across contexts to increase the theoretical generativity of their work (Price et al. 2006; Wallendorf and
Belk 1989). Thus, we sampled BLAM because we wanted
to examine a context in which, like in other culture-driven

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

654

organizations (e.g., Harley-Davidson), we speculated that

employees might form strong organizational attachments.
BLAM employs about 150 staff. We conducted 1-hour
interviews with 41 employees (30% of employees; see
table 2) of varying tenure with the organization. Tenure
differences were important to allow room for all paths to
identification to manifest, if indeed they were present. BLAM
data were analyzed using thematic categories developed
from the CSA data as a guide to categorization and construct
development.
Trustworthiness of data analysis from the CSA context
was assessed through member checks with all six informants. In the agency, credibility and verisimilitude of the
data were checked through discussion of a summary report
with the chief of staff and the CEO of the organization.
Results were also presented at a company meeting. Informants did not dispute the descriptive veracity of our findings.

FINDINGS
In this section, we report results of our analysis of the two
organizational contexts. First, we discuss the facilitating
conduits through which identification forms. Second, we
show evidence of identification. Then, we discuss the three
paths to identification that we uncovered. Finally, we highlight effects of identification on constituents as evidenced
by changes in their consumer values and behaviors.

Formal and Informal Facilitating Conduits

In the following section, we develop elements of a processual view of identification and its consequences. In both
contexts, formal and informal facilitating conduits provide

the means through which identification becomes possible

(see fig. 1).
Two facilitating conduits emerged in our data. Each has
a site of origin, a specific purpose, and various instantiations.
The site of origin for formal conduits is management. The
purpose of formal conduits is to carry sensegiving information about preferred organizational realities from management to constituents. Sensegiving provides organizationally sanctioned answers to questions of how to behave
and appropriate goals and values (Ashforth et al. 2008; Pratt
2000). At the CSA, instantiations of formal conduits include
the newsletter, produce pickup, and workdays. At BLAM,
instantiations of formal conduits include employee training,
the company Web site, and company and small group meetings.
Informal facilitating conduits complement formal conduits. The site of origin for informal conduits is outside
management but in dialogue with it. Informal conduits can
be found among constituents, between constituents and nonconstituents, and in individual constituent actions. Informal
conduits provide opportunities for constituents to interpret
information they receive through formal conduits, receive
feedback on behaviors, and develop a meaningful framework to understand the nature of the organization and their
role in it. Informal conduits span a continuum from hybrid
sensegiving and sensemaking efforts to pure sensemaking.
Instantiations of informal conduits in the CSA include casual
communication with other CSA constituents at pickup, and
productive consumption such as experimenting with produce
in the kitchen, and additional information searches to learn
how to use unfamiliar vegetables or access other local food
sources. In the agency context, informal conduits include
casual contact with coworkers and clients, continuous learn-

TABLE 2
BLAM INFORMANT PROFILES
Name

Tenure at organization
(years)

Ethan
Logan
Evan
Isabella
Olivia
Kate
Sara
Sophia
Leah
Tyler
Alexa
Henry
Charlie
Becca
Natalie
Joy
Eli
Sean
Claire
Jack
Isaac

2
2
2
2
1
2
6
2
2
10
1
2
10
9
3
3
2
2
2
3
3

Age range, if known

30
20
Unassigned
Unassigned
Unassigned
40
Unassigned
30
Unassigned
50
30
30
40
Unassigned
30
Unassigned
30
30
Unassigned
30
Unassigned

Name

Tenure at organization
(years)

Zach
Owen
Nate
Mia
Brooke
Molly
Nancy
Bryce
Paige
Brady
Jeremy
Dominic
Zoe
Jason
Liz
Bailey
John
Joe
Ian
Jordan

2
2
1
3
2
3
1
2
10
2
1
2
6
3
1
3
3
4
9
10

Age range, if known

30
Unassigned
Unassigned
Unassigned
30
30
30
Unassigned
40
30
Unassigned
30
40
30
30
Unassigned
40
40
40
40

HOW ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION FORMS

655
FIGURE 1

FACILITATING CONDUITS FOR IDENTIFICATION FORMATION

ing, and personal exploration and innovation in consumer

behaviors inside and outside of work. Some of these are
activities that traditionally fall into the domain of nonwork,
or leisure, consumption but that are incorporated into agency
work routines and structure participation within the agency.
Sensegiving through the informal conduit happens through
feedback about promoted values and behaviors. Instantiations of sensegiving through informal conduits could include
sharing a recipe in the CSA or positive feedback on an action
or project from coworkers at BLAM or even positive feedback about BLAM that may come from friends outside the
organization. Sensemaking is observed primarily through
actions (Ashforth et al. 2008), specifically, through narrative
expressions and productive consumption, but could also include other activities that are idealized in the organizational
culture. Thus, the informal conduits are filled with improvised exchanges, plans, actions, and conversations about the
organization that may engage nonconstituents as well.

Conduits in Action
CSA. We now look at the formal and informal conduits
in action, exploring how they work in the two contexts. In
the CSA, for example, Web sites and newsletters are examples of formal conduits through which CSA values and
behavioral norms are expressed: We, your farm and farmers, are dedicated to working with nature and our community
in the creation of delicious and meaningful food. We practice
farming with quality, quantity and health in mind. We are
a certified organic farm working to reduce the dependency

on global food systems by collaborating with other local

food producers to bring you the best this region has to offer
(excerpt from CSA Web site). Okay, okayso it seems
everyone has had enough parsnips. How about asparagus?
Im sure this will make everyone excited about cooking
dinner tonight! Asparagus is a picking commitment, every
morning and every evening. Walking beside the beds, we
check each and every spear for the perfect time to be harvested (excerpt from CSA Web site). CSA promotes work
on the land (see asparagus picking above) in order to produce meaningful organic food in harmony with natural
cycles and natural balances. CSA promotes the values of
stewardship, community building, collaborating, and intergenerational equity as against values associated with the
global food system (see also Thompson and CoskunerBalli 2007).
In time 1 interviews, discussions of pickup days show
informants engaging with the formal conduits. Many informants refer to their unfamiliarity with the produce and speak
favorably of the informational benefits the CSA provides
through pickup, the shop, and the newsletter. But their engagement is relatively noncommittal: the last people to go,
its nice, only child whos tried anything, almost got
out there, didnt really intend to . . . buy.
By the second interview, things changed. For example,
Mitch had engaged with his weekly CSA newsletter, a formal conduit archived on the CSAs Web site: The newsletter that [the farmers] do for [the CSA] has a lot of thoughtful kinds of discussions in there. . . . [The] piece about the
fall coming and life changes from the summer to the fall,

656

I was reading again last night. Its quite beautiful. I guess

I just think that its bringing people together, helping to
prepare the food that they are all eating together (time 2).
Mitch takes sensegiving representations provided through
formal conduits and personalizes them as he works to assimilate them. In making sense of the newsletter, Mitch first
connects local farmers to CSA, as formal agents who do
for CSA members. From his comment, we also learn that
he believes the newsletter suggests how constituents might
want to think about the changing of the seasons, as well as
how the CSA is bringing people together, as excerpts from
the Web sites above also suggest. Mitch indirectly refers to
recipes in the newsletter as helping to prepare the food that
CSA members eat together, figuratively speaking. Thus,
he highlights his understanding of the communitarian goals
of CSA, feelings of connection to the farm, and others (see
Pratt 2000 for a parallel).
Mitch tells us that he rereads the newsletter, an indicator
of sensemaking. The CSA does not organize this activity.
Through the informal conduit of reading again, Mitch
connects the formally sanctioned information with his world,
highlighting elements salient to him: the fall coming, life
changes, togetherness; elements Mitch characterizes as
beautiful. The story Mitch tells the interviewer is, as previous research contends (Burke 1973; Gioia and Chittipeddi
1991; Larson and Pepper 2003), also a story he tells himself
in building a relationship with CSA. Mitch states, Weve
actually done more . . . looking at cookbooks during the
summer than we would have otherwise, quite a bit actually
and then experimenting in cooking (time 3). Participation
in these informal conduits produces value for the CSA but
also increases the value of the CSA for Mitch, raising its
status from a way to procure food to an opportunity to
reexamine his life (i.e., engage in sensemaking): I think
the CSA . . . has been an important milepost for me to take
a little bit more time . . . to go to the Unitarian Church and
think about why you do the things that you do . . . take a
little bit more time to play music (time 3).
Sensemaking generally does not originate through formal
conduits but through informal conduits. Because CSA constituents demonstrate the most nuanced use of these conduits
in their third interviews, we present data from those interviews. Tony points to a variety of informal conduits and
their role in fostering identification. He recalls seeking information from his mother about preparing unfamiliar produce: I actually did call my mom and say, What do you
do with a rutabaga? or something like that. I would say
my relationship [with my mother] has always been strong,
but now I realize shes a treasure trove of vegetable knowledge. So thats good, and I get advice from her on what do
with certain things (Tony, time 3).
Tony uses available resources to make sense of CSA produce, which brings the CSA deeper into his life. That is,
Tony enlists informal conduits that affirm his status as a
CSA member, and by tapping into his mothers knowledge,
he strengthens their relationship. Tonys mothers vegetable
knowledge is revalorized as a salient cultural resource. Ex-

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

plicitly here, Tony consumes cultural resources to engage

in new sensemaking (and meal making) and thus expands
the reach of the CSA into other areas of his life. The third
interviews show that over time, formal and informal conduits provide CSA members like Mitch and Tony with the
contact and context necessary to build greater continuity
between their ideas about CSA and how CSA fits into their
lives.
BLAM. As in the CSA, BLAM communicates organizational values through formal conduits (e.g., the Web site,
the tenth anniversary book [Cedent 2009], training, and evaluations). For example, a query about company values on
its Web site yields the following response: Integrity, quality,
innovation, courage, passion, kindness, collaboration, perspective, trust, balance, discipline results and responsibility.
[BLAM] does not value politics, greed, unhealthy clients,
cynicism, burnout individual agendas/ego, jealousy, whining. Top management enunciates the same values in employee orientation. This sensegiving effort offers constituents a detailed description of the preferred organizational
reality, and a prescriptive model for behavior:
I do the history and values orientation [and share this story].
. . . I had conflict with [a] client that became a problem.
. . . I was upset, and [the CEO] pulled me aside one day
and he said, I really dont know whats happening on the
account, but I think you have not lived up to one of the
values that we wrote. . . . It was a way for him to say to
me, You helped write these, you aspire to them, and I can
see from where I am, its not happening. . . . This is one
example, and every new employee hears that example, that
specific one. We kept it in there, because its true. It was the
first test I had. It was the first time someone used [the List
of Values] to help me [COO and founder]. (Tyler)

Significantly, these values are also enunciated by employees, showing the transfer of information from sensegiving to
sensemaking efforts. This illustrates that constituents understand the values, take on the preferred organizational reality,
and engage in interpersonal sensemaking efforts (including
retelling of the trainers story during our interview), such
as, My favorite part of the values is basically to treat others
like you would want to be treated, and that we dont value
politics, we value honesty; we value our list of values. . . .
We really try, and if youre catching anybody being really
cynical, you just call them out on it saying, You know,
thats not part of BLAM values, and theres a way to phrase
that so youre not sounding like, Youre not being BLAM
values (Becca). Not only does Becca know what BLAM
values are, she states that one can in fact be BLAM values;
she has incorporated the values into her aspirations. Becca
uses narrative to show us she understands that the values
are alive and available to be used as a friendly guide for
behavior toward organizational coworkers. Significantly, she
embellishes the narrative, identifying her favorite part of the
values and including an example of how to use the values
in daily interactions. BLAM did not mandate her to think
about how to use the values or to be prepared to use them

HOW ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION FORMS

to monitor behavior. Rather, informal conduits (e.g., how

others use the values in daily interactions and feedback on
her own use of the values) provided her with a model of
preferred behavior (Ashforth et al. 2008; Burke 1973; Weick
1995), which she now performs. As this excerpt suggests,
constituents at BLAM (like those in the CSA) also appropriate information they gather through formal conduits, personalize it, use it as a guide for behavior, and through sensemaking connect more deeply with the organization.
Just as Mitch and Tonys sensemaking blurs the boundaries between the sphere of CSA and home, BLAM employees blur work and nonwork boundaries in their sensemaking efforts: I tell my girlfriends about what my day is
like at [BLAM], and they are so jealous, because I have
dogs running around, because you can bring your dog to
work and that we have beer in the refrigerator upstairs, and
we can have a beer with a coworker after work, and all
these things (Molly). People are getting a lot of work done,
but its like fun completely mixed in there all of the time,
and I love that. I have a very hard time separating out, Now
its professional time, and now, its fun time. Its very
integrated, and it means the personality of BLAM altogether.
I would like to be friends with BLAM, if BLAM was a
person (Olivia). These quotations highlight leisurelike consumption experiences: have a beer, fun time, and the
blurring of boundaries between work life and social life and
work identity and nonwork identity (du Gay and Salaman
1992). As Mill (1884) suggested, consumption produces the
culture of the firm, which then produces value for the clients,
in addition to informing constituents identity projects.
Participants claim it is their distinctive way of working
and their particular form of creativity that enables them to
coproduce value for their clients. Molly engages in several
organizational identification behaviors (DiSanza and Bullis
1999), including bragging and using the pronoun we. Olivia also speaks to the blurring of boundaries between professional time and fun time, and yet, she makes the point
that people produce high-quality work. Olivia may be using
informal conduits to clarify the confusion she feels about
this lack of separation, and yet, she personifies and claims
genuinely to like the organization. Thus, these efforts are a
blend between sensegiving and sensemaking. Constituents
learn appropriate behaviors from other constituents and rehearse these among nonconstituent friends and in their interviews with the researchers (Ashforth et al. 2008; du Gay
and Salaman 1992). Both the actions constituents engage in
and their retelling help frame their understanding of the
organization (Burke 1973).
While the specific opportunities for engagement differ
across contexts, the facilitating conduits provide structure
for information transfer in each organization. Through the
sensegiving efforts of the organization, individuals learn organizational values, receive suggestions about how to perform them, and develop organizationally sanctioned skills.
Through the informal conduits, individuals receive feedback
and develop an ability to assess and interpret available cultural resources; they rehearse and perform the preferred or-

657

ganizational reality and find ways to develop meaningful

relationships with the organization that stretch into other
areas of their personal lives.
In the next sections, we discuss identification in more
detail. First, we provide additional evidence that identification between constituents and organizations develops.
Then, we present three distinct paths of identification formation: epiphany, emulation, and exploration. Next, we discuss effects of organizational identification on constituents
reported consumer values and behaviors. As above, we discuss findings based on longitudinal data collected from the
CSA and strengthen these findings with cross-sectional data
collected at BLAM.

Identification
CSA. As shown above, over time informants became
more involved with the CSA. During the first interview,
informants talked mostly about the logistics of CSA involvement and did not necessarily display indicators of identification. However, by the third interview, they talked about
the CSA with conviction and a sense of ownership. For
example, Sandra claims her behavior and sense of self
changed as a result of her relationship with the CSA: [I
feel part of the farm] because I eat the food from there and
its in my life and because of the time I spent doing productive things there. It started with a CSA membership. Our
[living] Christmas tree came from the farm. . . . This is
finally [the] year we didnt just cut the tree down. I bought
one thats a huge ball, and now its like stored, and hopefully
it will make it through the winter, and well get it in the
ground. Why do I feel a part of it? Because its now in my
life (time 3; emphasis added). Sandra uses a narrative of
productive consumption to show the evolution of her relationship with the CSA. Her narrative reflects the stewardship
toward nature expressed in the Web site and reflects a lifestyle in touch with the productive rhythms of the farm.
She indicates that the CSA assumed a larger role in her life;
by purchasing a living Christmas tree from the farm, she
shows how CSA entered her familys ritual calendar. She
highlights the importance of productive consumption in her
sensemaking efforts. The time she spent at the CSA contributed not only to the production of produce and her later
consumption of that produce but also to her understanding
of the CSA and CSA values in her life. Now, Sandra claims
some ownership over the organization and its place in her
life.
Similarly in another example, Emily shows an evolution
in her thinking about the CSA: I think the different way
of interacting with the people who are supplying the things
that you need rather than you hand somebody the cash and
you get something . . . Like if we get weird weather Im
going, What is that going to do to the crops? . . . I feel
a lot more invested (time 3). In her sensemaking narrative,
Emily notes that the CSA opens new possibilities for commercial relationships in her life. She worries about the effects of bad weather and rehearses the core CSA value of
caring for community. During Emilys tenure as a CSA

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

658

member, she has become more concerned about the organization and increased her indirect engagement to include
values promoted by CSA, such as buying locally produced
items and shopping at locally owned shops.
BLAM. Taking the model from the CSA data, we see
similar evidence for identification with BLAM, as employees talk about the organization as part of themselves and
even part of their family. For example, Like, when theyre
[laying off so many people], you start to think that no one
is safe, per se. And, I definitely feel like, Oh, I would not
want to leave BLAM. It would be so much more than just
losing a job. It would be like losing my identity and my
family, and it would be just horrible (Sara). The fear of
losing her job is not constructed in terms of formal conduits;
that is, Sara does not mention work duties or salary. Rather,
her focus is on the relationships she has developed with
coworkers and the identity she has built within the organization. This quotation illustrates how constituents use narrative to explore the emotional connection with the organization, how sensemaking escalates as they identify with
it (Dutton et al. 1994, 254), and how engaging with the
organization affects personal identity projects.

Paths to Identification Formation

An intriguing emergent finding is evidence of three distinct paths to identification. We identified these paths in the
longitudinal data from the CSA and subsequently found
them in the agency data. That these paths were discovered
in both contexts emboldens us to assert that the process of
identification formation can happen similarly across consumer and employee contexts. As illustrated in figure 2, we
found that identification developed along three different
pathways: as epiphany, as emulation, and as exploration.
Epiphany. Epiphany happens instantly. Some constituents feel a connection with the organization the first time
[they] walked in or during their early days with the or-

ganization. As Ashforth (2001), Ashforth et al. (2008), and

Pratt (1998) suggest, this instantaneous recognition could
occur because individuals already identified similarities between themselves and the organization that were confirmed
upon contact. After the epiphany moment, constituents seem
to easily adapt to the organizations cultural norms, adopting
organizational values as their own. Behavior change quickly
follows as constituents are exposed to idealized organizational values through formal conduits and engage sensemaking efforts through informal conduits to match lifestyles
with the values the organization espouses. In the epiphany
path to identification, enacting organizational behaviors and
values elicits feedback from the organization (or additional
sensegiving efforts), which further shape subsequent behavior (Ashforth et al. 2008). CSA constituent Tony illustrated this path when explaining during our first meeting
that his worldview had changed: I also feel good about
contributing to the local economy. Like sometimes I look
at the price of the block of cheese Im buying in the [farm]
store and Im like, man, this is five bucks. But, you know,
its going to some [local] lady . . . and not to like, ADM.
So its kind of worth it to me because, um, if Im helping
my community, Im helping myself. . . . So it did start out
as a concern with oil depletion, but now its sort of become,
I think, a quality of life issue (time 1).
Thus, in his consumer behavior, Tony moved quickly from
focusing on the money he was spending to focusing on value
for the community, relating that directly to his quality of
life. He also reported, I had snap peas this morning instead
of a Hershey bar out of the vending machine, and so, yeah,
my eating habits have changed (time 1): bringing (rather
than buying) his lunch and seeking out opportunities to purchase local foods within the first 3 weeks of the CSA. These
changes reported in the first interview were stable across all
three interviews.
Informants in BLAM also revealed epiphanies. Several
say that from their employment interview forward they felt
like part of the team and the BLAM family. For example,

FIGURE 2
THREE PATHS TO IDENTIFICATION FORMATION

HOW ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION FORMS

I walked in the door; I felt at home; I fit the culture, that

laid-back atmospherethe bar was an awesome thing for
me to seejust the free spirit of the company, getting to
talk with the CEO, just asking general questions, doing coffee with them, talking, and from that, I felt a part of the
team immediately. . . . From day one, I just felt like this
was home for me. If I had my way, I would never want to
leave. I enjoy it here; I want to make a career out of being
here; I care that much about the company. That truly is my
home (Zach). Zach reports that when he first walked into
the office, which is a breathtaking space, he felt at home.
It could be that his expectations were confirmed when he
saw physical expression of the congruence he already felt
with the organization. As his employment evolved, his connection to the organization deepened, but the memory of
his epiphany remains a salient base for further reinforcement
of identification.
BLAM employees consistently point to productive consumption as a key part of their sensemaking efforts. This
includes informal meetings and places to celebrate, the availability of the executive team for informal communication,
and company consumption rituals, all of which produce the
culture of the organization and bring meaning into the employees lives. For instance, a freshly graduated masters
student who joined BLAM remarked: I felt like part of
[this organization] immediately. My first week, they put a
bunch of Jagermeister shots on my desk, and its like this
teasing thing and said, Come on. And, I was like proud,
Ill do it. Ill do it. So, I had a whole bunch of Jager shots
my first week, like one oclock, during the day (Liz). The
cool, edgy material experience of the office space and the
blurring of work and consumption, coupled with the laidback atmosphere, seem to play a key role in the epiphany
experience, much like being in the natural space of the
farm in the CSA context.
Emulation. The emulation (Pratt 1998) path to identification is different. This path refers to a gradual process that
may involve multiple iterations between formal and informal
conduits, with ample opportunity to receive added sensegiving information and to engage in a variety of sensemaking efforts (Ashforth et al. 2008). In this path, individuals
gradually adopt organizational values. For example, through
what she learned via formal and informal conduits (e.g., the
CSA newsletters, farmers, and other members), Sandra
changed her thinking about food in general (The food on
our shelves that looked so wholesome to me 68 months
ago doesnt [now]; time 3). She started to question why
she was not able to eat more local produce (Why does food
have to come from California? . . . Its stupid when [it]
could come from my back yard or . . . from the farmer;
time 3) and in her third interview revealed a commitment
to try to make 90% of her diet locally grown.
People in the agency recounted emulating the values of
the organization and organizational mentors and, over time,
began to identify with them. That is, they used the information they received through sensegiving efforts to help
formulate a vision of the organization that they molded

659

themselves to. For example, The most interesting culture

at [the agency], is that work hard, play hard. I think people
take it to such extremes, and I think [the CEO] takes it to
the ultimate extreme, where its justIve never seen anybody work harder or play harderand its fun, in a lot of
senses, and I have worked harder at this job than any other
job that Ive ever had. . . . Ive been inspired to have more
fun in this job than any job that Ive ever had (Alexa).
Alexa shows how she started to try on the values of the
organization as she worked there, illustrating how her sensemaking efforts exhibit themselves through her behavior at
work. She takes inspiration from the CEOs behavior to
work hard and to have more fun at work.
Exploration. Identification through exploration also forms
over time. But unlike emulation, in this path individuals weigh
the sensegiving and sensemaking efforts they experience
through the conduits against their current life positions.
Through this intellectual and emotional exercise, comparisons are made between an ideal represented by the organization and the constituents life as a whole. In addition,
constituents use the organizational model and relationships
as a lens through which to search for deeper life meaning
and identity as previously suggested (Ibarra 1999; Pratt 2000;
Pratt, Rockmann, and Kaufmann 2006).
In the CSA, Mitch actively engaged in sensemaking efforts, recognizing the importance of the feelings of community, relaxation, working together, and being social he
experienced while engaging in on-farm workdays, a formal
conduit activity. These experiences were deepened by effortful sensemaking in the form of impromptu conversations
when he picked up his produce, conversations at home with
his family, and reflections on how he would prefer to live.
As recounted in the third interview, he gradually began to
use narrative sensemaking to benchmark the rest of his life:
The CSA has been one of those things out there that has
reminded me personally there is a lot more to life than racing
through this and being [at work] most of the time. And again,
being [at work] most of the time, sometimes looking back
on it, not thinking Im spending my time on what is really
that important in the big picture . . . Im a pretty intense
workaholic type, and Im going to ease up on that just a little,
and Im going to be intense still, but let me be intense on
the right things. And the CSA has helped to keep that in
front of me a little bit in an interesting way. (Mitch, time 3)

By the third interview, Mitchs sensemaking extends beyond the organizational structure of the CSA, which, let us
recall, is at the core just an alternate channel for obtaining
produce. Specifically, Mitch contrasts his workaholic tendencies with the relaxed support, camaraderie, and awe of
nature he experienced through formal conduits (e.g., workdays, the newsletter, pickup days). This sensemakingreminded me, looking back, keep that in front of me
leads Mitch to reflect on how he might incorporate those
feelings he experiences with the CSA into other areas of his
life, for example, with his family when he takes time to
prepare CSA food. As he retells how he brought these ex-

660

periences into his life, he attributes new mindfulness and

new actions (e.g., cutting back on work obligations, spending more time in community activities) to CSA involvement.
Exploration leads Mitch both to identification with the CSA
and to significant behavior changes beyond CSA boundaries.
As in the CSA, some employees at the advertising agency
used the values of and examples in the organization to remake their work and nonwork identities. For example, [A
few months after I started working here] I ended up coming
out to my mom and sister, and I think its because the culture
here . . . was so like, Hey, welcome; youre fun; were
glad youre here. . . . It was kind of like a breath of fresh
air, no preconceived notions, people didnt think one way,
or I had to explain that I was another, or anything like that.
. . . Its funny to say, but working here played a significant
role. It really did (Brady). Bradys narrative is that BLAMs
opennessa breath of fresh airleads to a major life
change, coming out. Brady talks as if it were an inevitable
consequence of being an employee. Through formal and
informal conduits, Brady took on organizational values (here
the salient values are individuality, openness, respect for
self and others). He used values expressed through formal
conduits plus experiences of informal conduits (e.g., how
coworkers approached one another and him) to build his
new behavioral model. Resolving identity conflicts, like the
one Brady experienced, is reinforced through formal and
informal conduits (Ibarra 1999; Pratt et al. 2006). Later in
his interview, Brady reiterated the deep connection he developed with BLAM.
None of these paths to identification should be seen as
exclusive. It is possible that a constituent could experience
one or multiple paths but that key experiences of one particular path remain most salient in constituents narratives.
Over the course of her 3-year tenure with the agency, Natalie
reports both emulation and exploration. In addition, she
states that a certain level of value congruence existed even
before she was hired: Ive gotten to take those skills and
values that I had coming in, and just like take it to the
extreme in a good way. . . . Other goals, would be like not
settlingoutside of this officethat has also transferred
into my personal life; not settling on a particular partner
that may not be the best match for me . . . and paying off
debt; that was a huge one coming here [with] a lot of debt.
I have worked with Paige one on one [to pay off my debt]
(Natalie).
Natalie uses her role model Paige to work through longstanding personal issues. Paige was BLAMs very first employee; many employees point to her as the Culture
Keeper and name Paige as a role model for how to express
BLAM values. Paige is a crossover figure between formal
and informal conduits. Paige is a prominent figure in the
organization, facilitating company meetings but also walking desk to desk for informal check-ins. Here, Natalie describes how she has used the organizations formally stated
values with Paiges support to help her develop appropriate
goals both inside and outside the office (see also Pratt 2000).
She has used BLAMs behavioral ideals to reform both her

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

relationship choices and a related problem of accumulating

significant consumer debt. Conflict with ideals she experienced at work led Natalie to make specific changes in her
consumption choices.
The CSA does not directly encourage Mitchs improved
work/life balance, nor does BLAM directly encourage Bradys
recognition of his sexual identity or Natalies improved
credit performance or personal choices in partners, but membership status, plus the sensegiving and sensemaking efforts
they engage with through formal and informal conduits, has
led each to explore such choices. Thus, in the exploration
path of identification, the values and behaviors experienced
at the organization become a benchmark for changes in
extraorganizational values and behavior constituents see as
conflicting with organizational ideals.

Changes in Consumer Behavior and Values

Data from these two contexts allowed us to develop a
dynamic understanding of identification formation. However, this model is not deterministic. That is, the specific
outcomes in terms of values, behaviors, and beliefs are not
predicated on the fact that there are changes. Value change
was not like a simple dependent variable but part of the
iterative process of identification formation. Aside from the
examples discussed above, we can report further evidence
that identification between an individual and an organization
resulted in individuals consumer values and behaviors
aligning with those of the organization (Ashforth and Mael
1989; Bhattacharya et al. 1995; Dutton et al. 1994). Longitudinal data from the CSA allowed us to track reported
behaviors over time. As mentioned above, during our first
meeting, Tony claimed instantaneous change in consumer
behavior through engagement with the CSA (Its funny,
Ive seen like my worldview change. Im willing to spend
the little extra money for the increase in quality; time 1).
In later interviews, Tonys focus broadened from product
quality to include concern for its provenance and the health
and community benefits of purchasing meat directly from a
farmer. He also elaborated how his CSA involvement empowered him to make changes in consumer behaviors that
he believed could have long-lasting health effects (My
mom had colon cancer, and it sort of made me think, well,
if I eat healthier food I can reduce the likelihood or reduce
the severity when or if that times comes; time 2). In his
third interview responses, Tony evoked certain values of the
CSA and even took a pedagogical tone with the interviewer.
Intangible attributes of the CSA assume precedence over an
assessment of intrinsic product attributes: There is another
farmer that comes by [the farm] and she sells . . . beef and
pork, and I like buying stuff from her. I dont mind paying
a little more for her stuff because its not factory farmed.
. . . I think it may be more expensive than what we see in
a supermarket, but its better quality stuff. Its not injected
full of antibiotics (time 3). Tony has built CSA values into
his meal choices (including snacks and lunch) and into his
negative assessment of products at the supermarket (where
he used to purchase everything), opting for more local al-

HOW ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION FORMS

ternatives. Tony has integrated the CSA into his self-concept.

For her part, Emilys interview narrative reveals changes
to her household shopping and cooking habits. During the
time 2 interview, Emily went into detail, highlighting that
food in her household was not an activity she engaged in
with her husband: Weve gotten very compartmentalized.
We use different sides of the refrigerator. . . . The people
in the grocery store think were insane. We come in as a
couple, and we shop together, and then we have two separate
grocery orders. Theyre like, Its not together? No. It has
been together a lot more lately, which is kind of fun (time
2). During the third interview, Emily is dismissive of the
separate shopping and eating habits, indicating they are a
thing of the past. She tries to make sense of why things
have changed over the year of her involvement with the
CSA: Its completely together now. We like to go buy the
groceries together. . . . Before we joined the CSA, he had
gone on this really drastic diet and wouldnt eat new things.
. . . I think hes kind of opened up his diet a little bit more.
He will try more things that Im having . . . because of the
CSA . . . and like a whole new range of things to cook
(Emily, time 3). At the time 3 interview, Emily indicates
that we joined the CSA, a change from the time 2 interview when the CSA was considered her food and her
husband avoided eating it. The progression in the interviews
shows how food from the CSA changed household rituals
and hints that both Emily and her husband engaged in effortful sensemaking surrounding food.
Finally, through formal and informal conduits, Mary
found ways to store local foods for later productive consumption (You can have all the little tidbit apples, you
know the uglies, . . . so we took a bunch of them and . . .
made . . . apple butter; time 3), salvaged less desirable
vegetables for productive consumption (They had these old
tomatoes that werent very pretty, and we froze those and
made salsa out of them; time 3), and changed how she
thought about convenience ([Compared to the Wal-Mart
Supercenter], I dont think [the CSA] is the most convenient
thing, but [we made] a lifestyle change and [got] something
good out of it; time 3). Ultimately, through sensegiving
and sensemaking efforts, constituent consumers values
evolved to display greater congruence with those of the
CSA, and their behaviors changed to reflect those values
generally. Mitch cut his job responsibilities so he could
spend more time with his family, Emily became a more
adventurous cook and looked for new opportunities to buy
locally made products, and Tony stopped eating convenience food and started paying more for higher-quality
products. Members used the values of the CSA to reflect
on their own lives, choices, and activities as they moved
toward identification. In other words, between sensegiving
and sensemaking, constituents began to internalize organizational values that affected their consumer behaviors (Bhattacharya et al. 1995; Dutton et al. 1994).
Because we did not collect longitudinal data in the agency
context, we assessed value and behavior change indirectly.

661

As in the CSA, in the agency context, informants demonstrated internalizing organizational values: for example, Oh,
Ive gotten much better at my job since I started. Theyve
trained me to do all kinds of different methods, all kinds of
different ways of thinking. . . . [The agencys] brand is
. . . not that were crazy scientists on a lot of this, but were
supposed to look different . . . not supposed to be buttoned
up. Were supposed to look stylish but casual (Liz). This
informant highlights sensegiving activities (e.g., training and
socialization, consumer and other behaviors) in which we
are supposed to engage. She highlights how she has been
trained to think about things and how she observes and
learns to express her organizationally sanctioned individuality.
In addition, conforming to organizational dress codes is a
recognized way constituents express identification (DiSanza
and Bullis 1999).
Another informant talked about the evolution in her outlook and behaviors over her 2 years of employment, as she
bought in: Ive never been a get pumped kind of person.
. . . But now Im a little bit more bought into that because
it makes such a difference in like how you feel about your
work. . . . It has a profound effect on the clients that you
work with if you feel jazzed about what you are doing, and
I am jazzed about what I am doing. Its not disingenuous
for me to be excited about giving a presentation about what
I do and what I found and what I think you should do. I
like telling people what I think they should do. . . . Im
bought in, and I am totally like drinking the Kool-Aid
(Kate). Kate gives an account of the evolution in her approach to client meetings that occurred through iterations
of sensegiving and sensemaking. She observed how her coworkers acted with clients, and at first that felt disingenuous
and inauthentic. However, she also saw that clients responded to her coworkers excitement, and she spent time
considering how she really felt about her work. Finally,
sensemaking (e.g., watching clients and coworkers, assessing how she felt, trying out excitement, getting positive
feedback, reassessing how she felt) led her to the conclusion
that it was alright for her to express excitement too. Ultimately, she refers to herself as drinking the Kool-Aid, a
telling consumption metaphor that several employees used
to describe their internalization of organizational values.
In accounting for these changes, constituents tend to emphasize informal conduits, especially productive consumption, over formal conduits. For example, BLAM informants
mention the English muffins and orange juice available in
the kitchen, beer in the refrigerator, the bar, having dogs
present, and work/life balance, rather than formal sensegiving such as meetings, training sessions, and official e-mails.
Food, drink, and pets seem to provide material for sensemaking. The informal conduits help create a fun environment where award-winning work is produced and where
productive consumption increases not only company value
but also the value of individual employees.

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

662

DISCUSSION
We do not wish to present identification as a celebratory
construct, but our informants use the metaphor of having
drunk the Kool-Aid; we think that in some cases they have.
We know that the process of identification is conducted
primarily with language, and the product of identification
is expressed primarily with language (Cheney and Tompkins 1987, 11; see also Burke 1973). Thus, their celebratory
speech may be an example of the continuous building and
rebuilding of the relationship between the constituent and
the organization. As Ashforth et al. (2008) suggest, constituents reinforce their own identification through sensemaking narratives of organizational experience.
Our research addressed three primary questions. First, we
asked how organizational identification develops. That is,
what is the process that previous research has neglected but
scholars have flagged as the least understood of all the
central questions of organizational identification (Pratt
1998, 200)? In answering this question, we revive the process view of identification, that is, the view that identification develops and that it leads to individual transformation
(Kagan 1958; Kelman 1958; Sanford 1955). Unlike most
research that measures the identification construct (e.g.,
Bhattacharya et al. 1995; Mael and Ashforth 1992; Riketta
2005), we unpack significant dimensions of identification
formation, the facilitating conduits, productive consumption
behaviors, and the three paths that the static construct ignores.
As shown in figure 1, we found that across organizational
contexts, formal (sensegiving) and informal (sensemaking)
conduits facilitate individuals understanding of organizations, including how to enact preferred organizational values
and behaviors. We show that in the CSA these conduits
break down internal/external organizational boundaries, and
members tout the benefits of their consumption, both for
cognitive consonance (further developing identification) and
for the CSA. At BLAM, the conduits break down work/
leisure boundaries, and we see evidence of work (internal)
and nonwork (external) identities becoming blurred (du Gay
and Salaman 1992) as opportunities to engage and create
new spaces for engagement are created by employees in
their roles as sovereign consumers of the organization
(Burke 1973; du Gay and Salaman 1992). In both cases,
identification develops from meanings channeled through
formal and informal conduits.
Longitudinal CSA data capture the temporally evolving
aspects of th[e] value system (Thompson and Troester
2002, 569) associated with CSA. Data from the CSA allowed us to develop the dynamic understanding of the identification process shown in figure 1. That is, we identified
two facilitating conduits differentiated in form, content, and
examples and observed temporally unfolding paths that lead
to and reinforce identification. Data from BLAM allowed
us to look closely at the interplay of formal and informal
conduits. In the agency context, constituents informal
sensemaking in response to managerial sensegiving led them
to form organizationally sanctioned but informal socializing

projects, to engage productive consumption at the company

bar as well as work at their desks, and to perform the ethos
(work hard, play [i.e., consume] hard) modeled by Paige
and the CEO.
We show that sensegiving and sensemaking play complementary roles in the identification process, helping constituents internalize the consumer values and behaviors that
form and reinforce organizational culture. Prior research on
sensemaking has emphasized the narrative, cognitive aspects
of identification and paid less attention to its behavioral
manifestations. We offer evidence that behavioral processes
engage material resources in productive consumption that
influences constituent outcomes. We suggest that productive
consumption constitutes behaviors that produce value for
both constituents and organizations and that it entails performances congruent with preferred organizational values
and behaviors. We found ample examples of such behaviors
across contexts. For example, a mother and daughter, choosing old tomatoes that werent very pretty and . . . made
salsa out of them, were enacting the valuing of natural,
local produce. Or a very recent employee accepting a bunch
of Jagermeister shots on [her] desk, and its like this teasing
thing, thus, performs the work hard, play hard, nonserious,
serious fun ethos BLAM espouses. In this way, we show
how a focus on productive consumption processes may help
clarify the relationships between contemporary workplace
and consumer identities (du Gay 1996; du Gay and Salaman
1992; Tian and Belk 2005). In addition, we provide evidence
for the blurring of hard distinctions between employee
and consumer and, thus, use an alternative construct, organizational constituent.
One of our contributions to organizational identification
formation is the emergent result that three paths to identification can be identified empirically. We show that they are
distinct from on another, and we suggest that they are not
mutually exclusive. That is, constituents may go down the
exploration path and then encounter a turning point (Ashforth 2001) that instantly changes their relationship with the
organization (see Denzin 2001 on epiphany). In another scenario, one may experience the epiphany path to identification
and then begin to emulate the organizations values or perhaps engage in exploration activities. However, when recalling their early contact with the organization, the epiphany experience may remain most salient.
Epiphany may be the weakest path to identification, or it
could be a first step toward deep identification. It could be
that when an individual who already feels an affinity for the
organization (Pratt 1998) or was already partially identified
with the organization (Mael and Ashforth 1992) first comes
into direct contact with it as a constituent, profound expectation confirmation sparks epiphany. It could also be that
the critical incidents that constituents experience (see also
McAlexander et al. 2002) are interpreted in new ways as
the individual becomes more familiar with the organization.
If the salient attributes of the organization that led to identification in the first place are reinforced, then epiphany may
lead to emulation. However, if they are not reinforced, the

HOW ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION FORMS

individual may disidentify and ultimately break contact with

the organization (Ashforth 1998).
The larger agency data set allowed us to look into whether
each path developed under particular circumstances. It appears that this is the case with epiphany and exploration.
Epiphanies are reported by people who are in transitional
moments (Pratt 2000), or actively seeking change, and often
occur early in ones engagement (Ashforth 2001). For example, before joining the CSA, Tony wanted to improve his
health and eat more vegetables but had previously taken
little action. Likewise, at BLAM, Zach was recently married,
and Liz recently finished graduate school; both were transitioning into a new phase of life. Thus, across contexts, the
epiphany path to identification seemed to occur in individuals in transition. It may occur because they are looking for
an identity anchor during this transition or searching for a
value system that fits their desired life position.
Exploration seems to occur when someone is actively
wrestling with an existential problem. Mitch experienced
little work/life balance and used the serenity he felt at the
CSA to help him work through that issue. In the agency
setting, Natalie was trying to resolve ongoing issues of financial irresponsibility and poor relationship choices. Likewise, Brady was grappling with his closeted sexuality. Constituents used the values of the organization to help name
and resolve tensions in their lives. The cultural resources
available to them through formal and informal conduits
clearly stated values, individual role models, and reinforcement for enacting those valueshelped facilitate constituents personal growth (Pratt 2000).
Emulation did not seem to be associated with any particular event or life stage. It could be that constituents who
experienced the emulation path to identification are more
cautious or deliberate in forming opinions or building relationships in general, but we do not have evidence that
clearly sets them apart. We have illustrated that the three
paths to organizational identification (epiphany, exploration,
and emulation) are represented in similar ways in two different organizational contexts. Figures 1 and 2 provide a
generative framework that can be used in both organizational
and consumer research to understand different ways that
individuals may progress toward organizational identification.
In addition, in contrast to most prior consumer behavior
literature, we have shown that identification forms through
relatively mundane processes, as participating in CSA workdays, cooking odd CSA veggies, or going for coffee with
BLAM management illustrates. Of course we do not deny
that spectacular experiences also inspire organizational identification.
A second question we posed was what the consequences
of identification are, and we found that constituent values
and behaviors evolved through sensegiving and sensemaking. Through formal and informal conduits, contact with the
CSA and BLAM resulted in our informants values shifting
toward greater congruence with organizational values. This
congruence has been proposed in conceptual papers (e.g.,

663

Bhattacharya and Sen 2003; Dutton et al. 1994; Pratt 1998),

documented as an outcome at the group level in the organizational literature (e.g., Mael and Ashforth 1992; Pratt
2000), and illustrated in brand communities (Borghini et al.
2009; McAlexander et al. 2002). We have shown how this
happens and how value congruence can lead to a range of
consumer outcomes at the individual level. Key consumer
outcomes for CSA constituents ranged from a deeper knowledge of the food system, to changes in relationships to the
food they eat, altered priorities in what they pay for when
they buy produce, and new ideas about how to spend money
to express emergent values. Thus, through iterative interactions with the organization, consumer-to-consumer interactions, and experiences with products, constituents change
their consumer behavior to align with organizational values
and behavioral norms. Our cross-sectional data from BLAM
also indicate that identification resulted in changes in individuals values and behaviors becoming more congruent
with those management espoused. Key outcomes for BLAM
constituents included making friends, feeling empowered
and creative, continuous learning and intellectual stimulation, gaining confidence, and developing a greater sense of
personal authenticity.
In direct contrast to previous work, we found that constituents who identified with these organizations actually
sought out, rather than avoided, opportunities to frequent
other similar organizations, particularly those that promoted
similar values. In addition, in a contribution that extends
previous work, we found that in both contexts, the individual
value and behavior change extended beyond organizational
boundaries, touching fundamental aspects of individuals
identities such as striving for work/life balance, socialization
of children, sexual identification, and preferences in intimate
partners.
Of course, it should be noted that outcomes of identification are not necessarily positive. Dark outcomes of identification have been identified in the managerial literature
but largely ignored in the marketing literature (Dukerich,
Kramer, and Parks 1998). All the informants from the CSA
and 40 out of the 41 informants from BLAM had identified
with the organization; thus, we are not well positioned to
discuss negative cases. Our data only hinted at dark outcomes, with some evidence of dissonance. Informants spend
time trying to figure out if CSA membership is worth it
in financial terms, thus, suggesting some lingering doubt
about the organizations value proposition. One informant
at BLAM expressed underidentification (Dukerich et al.
1998). He spoke plainly about his relationship with BLAM
extending only as far as his paycheck, complained about the
pay and benefits, and made fun of the office antics, mentioning that he did not have time to partake even if he wanted
to. Interestingly, this employee was hired in a push to develop a very technical aspect of the business; the cultural
fit may not have been as important.
We encountered one other dark-outcome example, which
could be classed as schizoidentification (Dukerich et al.
1998, 249) by an employee who left BLAM a few months

664

after the main interviews were completed. She told us she

drank the Kool-Aid; however, she felt she was being asked
to do too much in too little time and was working too many
overtime hours. She ended up quitting her job and became
a self-employed consultant. Consistent with the schizoidentification concept, however, BLAM was one of her first clients. The choice to leave could be seen as a continuation
of her sensemaking efforts, indicating that the relationship
was no longer supporting what originally attracted her to it.
The final question we asked was whether identification
formation happens in parallel fashion across contexts. Indeed, we found that identification does seem to form in the
same manner across consumer and employee contexts; however, there are important differences in the contexts that
should be noted. First, informal conduits are experienced
differently in the two contexts. In the CSA, informal conduits are primarily experienced by individuals outside the
organizational context. This may result in a more abstract
understanding of CSA values, inducing members to buy local
foods or to spend more money on locally made products
generally. However, employees at BLAM have many opportunities for sensemaking that involve other employees. This
could lead to a more organization-centric understanding of
BLAM values, where employees are more focused on organizational outcomes. The CSA example shows that informal conduits are mostly outside the CSA. More corporately
controlled consumer contexts, such as Jeepfest (McAlexander
et al. 2002), are more like an employment context, offering
extensive sensegiving and sensemaking opportunities. Second, in the employee context, individuals have regular contact with managerial role models, increasing the opportunity
for role slippage, out-of-role behavior, and good and bad
experiences, which may affect identification formation (Ashforth 2001). In contrast, CSA members do not have much
contact with the farmers, and when they do, the farmers are
in a performative space (at pickup days, at the farmers
market). Third, governance has different implications in the
two contexts. In the CSA context, there is no policing. Members of the CSA are welcome to use or waste their produce
as they like. There are no organizationally instituted consequences for members. By contrast, there are many governance
tools in the employment context; both self-monitoring and
organizational monitoring affect employee behavior. In addition, employees will feel consequences (from reprimands
to firing) if they fail to meet behavioral expectations.
The transformational consequences of constituents involvement with values-driven organizations invite future research into why and how these transformations take place.
Do these transformations of values and behaviors generally
occur instantly as epiphanies, or do they generally come
slowly with cadence and care through emulation? What is
the role of individual difference variables in fostering emulation and exploration? Do organizational constituents experience a desire for change that leads to emulation, or do
they find themselves in situations that somehow feel right,
and change happens somewhat more passively as they explore organizational values? Further, we might like to know

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

what organizational characteristics differentially favor each

path to identification. Conversely, we might ask whether
there are differential outcomes for firms from variation in
individuals paths to identification. Also, what happens if
the salient attributes of the organization that led to identification are not reinforced? When and under what conditions
do individuals disidentify and ultimately break contact with
the organization (Ashforth 1998)whether employer, membership organization, or consumption or brand community
and when identification fails, which paths are most vulnerable? On another tack, many cocreative activities identified in previous consumer research may conform to our
definition of productive consumption, such as writing custom computer code, making sacrificial art, and crafting fan
fiction, and others may not (Kozinets 2002; Muniz and
Schau 2005; Schau, Muniz, and Arnould 2009). Finally,
further research might ask which kinds of productive consumption are most likely to be associated with particular
paths to identification or which kinds of production consumption are most likely to lead to identification.

REFERENCES
Ahearne, Michael, C. B. Bhattacharya, and Thomas W. Gruen
(2005), Antecedents and Consequences of Customer-Company Identification: Expanding the Role of Relationship Marketing, Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (3), 57485.
Ashforth, Blake E. (1998), Epilogue: What Have We Learned,
and Where Do We Go from Here? in Identity in Organizations: Building Theory through Conversations, ed. David
A. Whetten and Paul C. Godfrey, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage,
26872.
(2001), Role Transitions in Organizational Life: An Identity-Based Perspective, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ashforth, Blake E., Spencer H. Harrison, and Kevin G. Corley
(2008), Identification in Organizations: An Examination of
Four Fundamental Questions, Journal of Management, 34
(June), 32574.
Ashforth, Blake E. and Fred Mael (1989), Social Identity Theory
and the Organization, Academy of Management Review, 14
(1), 2039.
Bagozzi, Richard P. and Utpal M. Dholakia (2006), Antecedents
and Purchase Consequences of Customer Participation in
Small Group Brand Communities, International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 23 (1), 4561.
Bhattacharya, C. B., Hayagreeva Rao, and Mary Ann Glynn
(1995), Understanding the Bond of Identification: An Investigation of Its Correlates among Art Museum Members,
Journal of Marketing, 59 (October), 4657.
Bhattacharya, C. B. and Sankar Sen (2003), Consumer-Company
Identification: A Framework for Understanding Consumers
Relationships with Companies, Journal of Marketing, 67
(April), 7688.
Borghini, Stefania, Nina Diamond, Robert V. Kozinets, Mary Ann
McGrath, Albert M. Muniz, and John F. Sherry (2009), Why
Are Themed Brandstores So Powerful? Retail Brand Ideology
at American Girl Place, Journal of Retailing, 85 (September),
36375.
Burke, Kenneth (1973), The Rhetorical Situation, in Communication: Ethical and Moral Issues, ed. Lee Thayer, London:
Gordon & Breach, 26375.

HOW ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTIFICATION FORMS

Cedant, L. Blue (2009), BLAM, New York: Valleytown.
Cheney, George (1983), On the Various and Changing Means of
Organizational Membership: Field Study of Organizational
Identification, Communication Monographs, 50 (December),
34362.
Cheney, George and Phillip K. Tompkins (1987), Coming to
Terms with Organizational Identification and Commitment,
Central States Speech Journal, 38 (Spring), 115.
Denzin, Norman K. (2001), Interpretive Interactionism, Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
DiSanza, James R. and Connie Bullis (1999), Everybody Identifies with Smokey the Bear: Employee Responses to Newsletter Identification Inducements at the U.S. Forest Service,
Management Communication Quarterly, 12 (3), 34799.
du Gay, Paul (1996), Consumption and Identity at Work, London:
Sage.
du Gay, Paul and Graeme Salaman (1992), The Cult(ure) of the
Consumer, Journal of Management Studies, 29 (September),
61533.
Dukerich, Janet M., Roderick Kramer, and Judi M. Parks (1998),
The Dark Side of Organizational Identification, in Identity
in Organizations: Building Theory through Conversations, ed.
David A. Whetten and Paul C. Godfrey, Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage, 24556.
Dutton, Jane E., Janet M. Dukerich, and Celia V. Harquail (1994),
Organizational Images and Member Identification, Administrative Science Quarterly, 39 (June), 23963.
Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. (1989), Building Theories from Case
Study Research, Academy of Management Review, 14 (October), 53250.
Fournier, Susan (1998), Consumers and Their Brands: Developing
Relationship Theory in Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (March), 34373.
Franke, Nikolaus and Martin Schreier (2006), I Made It Myself!
Exploring Process Utility in Mass Customization, 2006 AMA
Educators Proceedings, 17 (Summer), http://www.marketing
power.com/Community/ARC/Gated/Documents/Connections/
ARC_AMA_SUMMER2006.pdf.
Gioia, Dennis A. and Kumar Chittipeddi (1991), Sensemaking
and Sensegiving in Strategic Change Initiation, Strategic
Management Journal, 12 (September), 43348.
Handelman, Jay M. (2006), Corporate Identity and the Societal
Constituent, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
34 (Spring), 10714.
Holt, Douglas B. (1998), Does Cultural Capital Structure American Consumption? Journal of Consumer Research, 25 (June),
125.
Ibarra, Herminia (1999), Provisional Selves: Experimenting with
Image and Identity in Professional Adaptation, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (December), 76491.
Jacobs, Alexandra (2009), Happy Feet: Inside the Online Shoe
Utopia, New Yorker (September 14), 6680.
Kagan, Jerome (1958), The Concept of Identification, Psychological Review, 65 (September), 296305.
Kelley, Tom and Jonathan Littman (2001), The Art of Innovation:
Lessons in Creativity from IDEO, Americas Leading Design
Firm, New York: Random House.
Kelman, Herbert C. (1958), Compliance, Identification, and Internalization: Three Processes of Attitude Change, Journal
of Conflict Resolution, 2 (1), 5160.
Kozinets, Robert V. (2002), Can Consumers Escape the Market?
Emancipatory Illuminations from Burning Man, Journal of
Consumer Research, 29 (June), 2038.

665
Larson, Gregory S. and Gerald L. Pepper (2003), Strategies for
Managing Multiple Organizational Identifications: A Case of
Competing Identities, Management Communication Quarterly, 16 (4), 52857.
Lichtenstein, Donald R., Richard G. Netemeyer, and James G.
Maxham III (2010), The Relationships among Manager-,
Employee-, and Customer-Company Identification: Implications for Retail Store Financial Performance, Journal of Retailing, 86 (1), 8593.
Mael, Fred and Blake E. Ashforth (1992), Alumni and Their Alma
Mater: A Partial Test of the Reformulated Model of Organizational Identification, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13 (2), 10323.
McAlexander, James H., John W. Schouten, and Harold Koenig
(2002), Building Brand Community, Journal of Marketing,
66 (January), 3854.
Mill, John Stuart (1884), Principles of Political Economy, New
York: Appleton.
Muniz, Albert and Hope Schau (2005), Religiosity in the Abandoned Apple Newton Brand Community, Journal of Consumer Research, 31 (March), 73747.
Otnes, Cele C., Julie A. Ruth, Tina M. Lowrey, and Suraj Commuri
(2006), Capturing Time, in Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods in Marketing, ed. Russell W. Belk, Cheltenham: Elgar, 38799.
Pratt, Michael G. (1998), To Be or Not to Be: Central Questions
in Organizational Identification, in Identity in Organizations:
Building Theory through Conversations, ed. David A. Whetten and Paul C. Godfrey, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 171
208.
(2000), The Good, the Bad, and the Ambivalent: Managing Identification among Amway Distributors, Administrative Science Quarterly, 45 (September), 45693.
Pratt, Michael G., Kevin W. Rockmann, and Jeffery B. Kaufmann
(2006), Constructing Professional Identity: The Role of Work
and Identity Learning Cycles in the Customization of Identity
among Medical Residents, Academy of Management Journal, 49 (April), 23562.
Price, Linda, Eric J. Arnould, and Risto Moisio (2006), Context
Matters: Selecting Research Contexts for Theoretical and
Managerial Insights, in Handbook of Qualitative Research
Methods in Marketing, ed. Russell W. Belk, Cheltenham: Elgar, 10625.
Riketta, Michael (2005), Organizational Identification: A Metaanalysis, Journal of Vocational Behavior 66 (April), 358
84.
Ritzer, George (2010), Focusing on the Prosumer: On Correcting
an Error in the History of Social Theory, in Prosumer Revisited, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften, 6180.
Saldana, Johnny (2003), Longitudinal Qualitative Research: Analyzing Change through Time, Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira.
Sanford, Nevitt (1955), The Dynamics of Identification, Psychological Review, 62 (March), 10618.
Schau, Hope Jensen, Mary C. Gilly, and Mary Wolfinbarger
(2009), Consumer Identity Renaissance: The Resurgence of
Identity-Inspired Consumption in Retirement, Journal of
Consumer Research, 36 (August), 25576.
Schau, Hope Jensen, Albert Muniz Jr., and Eric J. Arnould (2009),
How Brand Communities Create Value, Journal of Marketing, 73 (September), 3051.
Schouten, John W. and James H. McAlexander (1995), Subcultures of Consumption: An Ethnography of the New Bikers,
Journal of Consumer Research, 22 (June), 4361.

666
Stebbins, Robert A. (1982), Serious Leisure: A Conceptual Statement, Pacific Sociological Review, 25 (2), 25172.
Thompson, Craig J. and Gokcen Coskuner-Balli (2007), Countervailing Market Responses to Corporate Co-optation and
the Ideological Recruitment of Consumption Communities,
Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (2), 13552.
Thompson, Craig J. and Maura Troester (2002), Consumer Value
Systems in the Age of Postmodern Fragmentation: The Case
of the Natural Health Microculture, Journal of Consumer
Research, 28 (March), 55071.

JOURNAL OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

Tian, Kelly and Russell W. Belk (2005), Extended Self and Possessions in the Workplace, Journal of Consumer Research,
32 (September), 297310.
Wallendorf, Melanie and Russell W. Belk (1989), Assessing Trustworthiness in Interpretive Consumer Research, in Interpretive Consumer Research, ed. Elizabeth C. Hirschman, Provo,
UT: Association for Consumer Research, 6984.
Weick, Carl E. (1995), Sensemaking in Organizations, Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.