The impact of relationship quality on attitude toward a ...

The impact of relationship quality on attitude toward a sponsor Yu Kyoum Kim Department of Sport Management, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA

Yong Jae Ko Department of Sport Management, Florida State University, Gainesville, Florida, USA, and

Jeffery James Department of Sport Management, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA

Abstract Purpose – The purpose of the current study is to advance understanding of sponsorship effectiveness by investigating the impact of the quality of the relationship between a consumer and a sport property on sponsorship effectiveness. Design/methodology/approach – A model was developed to examine linkages among relationship quality, sincerity, attitude toward sponsor and intention to purchase a sponsor’s product. The measurement model was tested using confirmatory factory analysis. The relationships in the hypothesized model were tested using simultaneous equations. Findings – The results indicate that positive attitude toward a sponsor and intention to purchase said sponsor’s product(s) are more likely to occur among the customers who perceive a higher degree of relationship quality with the sport property and believe the sponsor motives are sincere. Research limitations/implications – A conceptual model of sponsorship effectiveness was developed and empirically tested. The tested model provides an expanded view of relationship quality and its impact on key variables of sponsorship effectiveness. Practical implications – Provided in this study is a framework for both sponsors and sport teams that can be used to understand some of the ways in which sponsorship works. The findings suggest that sponsors should leverage their activities to communicate sincere motives, not just “doing business”. For the sport property, the implication is developing quality relationships with consumers, and being able to promote such relationships to prospective sponsors. Originality/value – Relationship quality has been previously shown to influence various behavioral aspects related to partners in business-to-business relationships. This study extends the literature by examining the effect of business-to-consumer relationship quality on the expected outcomes associated with a business-to-business relationship. Keywords Relationship quality, Sincerity, Sport sponsorship, Sponsorship effectiveness, Sports, Sponsorship Paper type Research paper

continued investment in sponsorship is one indicator of the confidence organizations place in the tool to achieve marketing objectives. In today’s harsh economic environment, however, sponsors and prospective sponsors are scrutinizing their expenditures more carefully and making harder decisions about whether to engage or continue in sponsorship activity. Accordingly, several theoretical and empirical works, which provide insights to evaluate the effectiveness of sponsorship activity are merited. Although a considerable amount of literature on sponsorship effectiveness has been accumulated, Cornwell et al. (2005) explained that, “Many investigations of sponsorship effects have not posited any theoretical explanation of how sponsorship works in the mind of the consumer, or have posited a theoretical process but have not directly investigated it per se” (p. 22). A sport property may benefit from sponsorship activity through financial, media, in-

Introduction Sponsorship is a unique business-to-business activity that brings a sport property and sponsor together for the mutual benefit of both organizations. Billions of dollars are spent annually by corporate sponsors. In 2008, worldwide sponsorship spending reached $43.1 billion (IEG, 2009). In the midst of a severe economic recession, with companies reducing marketing expenditures, sponsorship spending overall is still projected to rise 3.9 percent in 2009 (IEG, 2009). The primary recipient of sponsorship spending is sport properties. Approximately 70 percent of all sponsorship spending is directed to sport properties (IEG, 2009). The The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0885-8624.htm

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 26/8 (2011) 566– 576 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited [ISSN 0885-8624] [DOI 10.1108/08858621111179840]

Received: 25 May 2009 Revised: 22 July 2009 Accepted: 24 July 2010

566

The impact of relationship quality on attitude toward a sponsor

Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing

Yu Kyoum Kim, Yong Jae Ko and Jeffery James

Volume 26 · Number 8 · 2011 · 566 –576

kind resources, or an image association with a sponsor. The benefits for a sponsor include, but are not limited to, increased awareness, product trial and sales opportunities, image enhancement, and hospitality opportunities. Ultimately organizations engage in sponsorship to impact their bottom line. A key way in which sponsors attempt to impact consumer behavior is through the positive association between a sponsor and a sport property. On one level, sponsorship activity enables a sponsor to foster a positive attitude toward the organization (i.e. sponsor) through the pre-existing association between consumers and a sport property. A positive attitude toward an organization is acknowledged as an important element influencing consumer purchase intentions and ultimately consumer behavior (Ajzen, 2001; Ajzen and Fischbein, 1980). While there seems to be general agreement that the positive association between a consumer and a sport property may engender a positive association between a consumer and a sponsor, additional empirical research is needed to substantiate the idea. The positive association between a sport property and consumers may be examined through the notion of relationship quality, a global evaluation of the strength of a relationship (Palmatier et al., 2006). The measure of relationship quality may then be examined with respect to a consumer’s attitude toward a sponsor. This study attempts to further advance our understanding of sponsorship effectiveness. Specifically, this study has two main objectives: 1 the first is to theoretically and empirically investigate linkages between relationship quality, attitude toward sponsor, and behavioral intention; and 2 the second objective is to examine the mediating role of sincerity on the linkage between the relationship quality and the attitude toward sponsors.

identification have been examined in the context of sport sponsorship. In general, researchers have reported that consumers with a high level of identification with a sport property are more likely to show a positive response to sponsorship stimuli (Cornwell and Coote, 2005; Madrigal, 2000; Madrigal, 2001). A unidimensional approach, however, does not effectively capture the multifaceted nature of a sport consumer’s relationship with his or her favorite team. To more fully understand the impact of the relationship between a sport consumer and a sport property in sponsorship process, a multidimensional approach should be utilized (Meenaghan, 2001). One multidimensional approach to consider is relationship quality. Relationship quality Relationship quality has received considerable attention as one alternative concept that may be used to encapsulate the unique psychological bonds formed between a sport consumer and a team. In this study, relationship quality is defined as the “overall assessment of the strength of a relationship, conceptualized as a composite or multidimensional construct capturing the different but related facets of a relationship” (Palmatier et al., 2006, p. 138). Achieving a better understanding of relationship quality is critical for several reasons. First, relationship quality offers a tool for diagnosing the pitfalls in building and maintaining a relationship with customers; it can also be used to devise effective and efficient remedies for those same problems (Roberts et al., 2003). Second, relationship quality can be used to systematically condense a wide array of relational constructs into a single conceptual framework (Fournier, 1996). Third, relationship quality is regarded as a key component of the customer equity, which is an essential piece of information when making investment and price decisions (Wiesel et al., 2008). Further, Kim (2009) proposed a conceptual framework of relationship quality and tested a model in the context of sport consumption behavior. Kim found that sport consumers who perceive higher degree of relationship quality are more likely to attend a team’s game, consume a team’s media product, and purchase licensed team merchandise. The role of the sport consumer’s relationship quality with sport teams or other entities, however, has not been examined in the context of evaluating sponsorship effectiveness. The effectiveness of sponsorship activity will be influenced in part by a consumer’s attitude toward a sponsor. The quality of the relationship between a consumer and a sport property (e.g. a sports team) has the potential to mediate a positive attitude toward a sponsor of the property. Thus, there needs to be further expansion of sponsorship research using the relationship quality construct in order to better understand sponsorship effectiveness. A research model was developed to delineate the theoretical relationships between relationship quality and three salient variables: sincerity, attitude toward sponsor’s brand, and future purchase intention. Figure 1 illustrates the hypothesized relationships in the model. Herein, a sport consumer’s relationship quality with a particular sport organization or event directly influences their perceptions of sincerity and attitude toward the sponsor as well as their intention to purchase a sponsor’s products. Heightened levels of sincerity perceptions and positive attitude toward a sponsor were hypothesized to predict a higher level of purchase

In the following section the conceptual framework and the proposed hypotheses are presented. Following the discussion of the hypotheses the research methods are presented, then the data analysis and results are reported. The final section includes a discussion of the results, implications, and an explanation of limitations associated with the study.

Theoretical framework and research hypotheses Sponsorship effectiveness Because prediction and evaluation of the investment outcome are two of the most important elements in a business decision, sponsorship effectiveness has gained substantial attention in the sponsorship research (Cornwell and Maignan, 1998; Cuneen and Hannan, 1993; Higham, 1997; Ko et al., 2008; Meenaghan, 2001). Prior research has focused on various topics of sponsorship effectiveness such as sponsor-sponsee fit (Rifon et al., 2004), image transfer (Gwinner, 1997), articulation (Conrwell et al., 2006), and media effects (Meenaghan and Shipley, 1999). Few studies though have examined the role of the association between consumers and sponsored properties in sponsorship effectiveness and even less studies have provided theoretical account for how the consumer-sponsored property association influences the consumers’ responses to the sponsorship or the sponsors. In an effort to incorporate the consumer-sponsored object relationship into sponsorship effectiveness research framework, consumers’ social and/or organizational 567




Volume 26 · Number 8 · 2011 · 566 –576

Figure 1 Proposed model and hypotheses

intention. A consumer’s attitude toward a sponsor is directly influenced by his or her perception of the sponsor’s sincerity. Relationship quality is conceptualized in this study as a higher-order latent construct underlying four related but distinct relationship constructs (i.e. Trust, Commitment, Self-Connection, and Reciprocity). Current sponsorship literature (Cornwell and Coote, 2005; Madrigal, 2000, 2001) contains suggestions from researchers that a consumer’s identification, which parallels self-connection in the current study, is an important predictor of key sponsorship outcomes. Cornwell and Coote (2005), for example, applied social identity theory to examine consumers’ willingness to purchase the products of a firm that sponsor nonprofit organizations and found that there was a positive relation between the two constructs. Similarly, Madrigal (2000) examined how social alliances between sports fans and teams influence consumer purchase intentions toward a sponsor’s products. He found that high sport team identification was positively related to a consumer’s intentions to purchase a sponsor’s product. A consumer’s is more likely to have a favorable purchase intention when such an intention is perceived as important to other members of the team. In addition, Gwinner and Swanson (2003) reported that identification positively influenced sponsor recognition, attitude toward a sponsor, sponsor patronage, and satisfaction with a sponsor. Madrigal (2001) also examined the moderating role of team identification and found that attitude toward purchasing a sponsor’s products was more highly related to purchase intention for the low identification group than for the high identification group. Further, Madrigal suggested that among those with an unfavorable attitude, high identifiers had significantly more positive intentions to purchase than did the low identification group. In extension of prior research efforts, relationship quality, which represents relational constructs such as trust, commitment, identification, and reciprocity, may also influence fans’ attitudes toward firms sponsoring the team as well as fans’ intention to purchase sponsors’ products. Thus, we hypothesize: H1.

H2.

A consumer’s relationship quality with a sport team is positively related to their intention to purchase a sponsor’s products.

Sincerity In addition to hypothesizing a direct relationship between relationship quality and attitude and purchase intention, sincerity was proposed as a mediator providing a theoretical explanation how relationship quality influence attitude toward a sponsor and the intention to purchase the sponsor’s product(s). Meenaghan (2001) suggested that the strength of the relationship between the consumer and the sponsored object positively affected the consumer’s reaction to the sponsorships. This point can be extended to the consumer’s perception of the motive for sponsorship. It is anticipated that consumers who have a strong psychological connection with the sponsored object (e.g. a high level of identification with a sports team) will tend to positively judge and evaluate a sponsor’s motives. MacKenzie and Lutz (1989) suggested that ad credibility, perceptions of ads, attitude toward the advertiser, and attitude toward advertising are important antecedent variables of attitude toward a specific advertisement. Similarly, the sponsorship literature suggests that a consumer’s response toward sponsorship is affected by his or her perceptions of the sponsor. Speed and Thompson (2000), for example, found a positive association between a consumer’s perceived sincerity of the sponsor and his or her response to sponsorship activity. When consumers perceive sponsors to be a sincere partner of the respective entity, compared to the perception that a sponsor is just involved to “sell me something,” these individuals are likely to show interest, favorability toward the sponsor, and a willingness to consider a sponsor’s product. In addition, consumers develop positive attitudes and report a likely purchase intention when sponsors have a philanthropic motivation rather than when sponsors are purely motivated by commercial considerations (D’Astous and Blitz, 1995; Rifon et al., 2004). For example, Rifon et al. (2004) found that if consumers believe the sponsor’s motivation is less altruistic or more profit oriented, they might perceive the sponsor as being less credible. They also

A consumer’s relationship quality with a sport team is positively related to their attitude toward a sponsor of the team. 568




Volume 26 · Number 8 · 2011 · 566 –576

found that credibility is a significant predictor of consumers’ attitudes toward a sponsor. This is particularly true in causerelated sponsorship marketing (Pitts, 1998; Rifon et al., 2004; Stipp and Schiavone, 1996). Hence, we hypothesize:

indicators of how sponsorship impacts future sales (Howard and Crompton, 2005). Various studies have shown that consumer attitude is an important predictor of behavioral intentions (e.g. Ajzen, 2001; MacKenzie and Lutz, 1989; MacKenzie et al., 1989; Shimp, 1981). According to MacKenzie and Lutz (1989), attitude toward advertising is one of five antecedent variables (ad credibility, perceptions of ads, attitude toward the advertiser, attitude toward advertising, and mood) that may influence attitude toward a specific advertisement. Therefore, attitude toward the advertisement has a significant and positive influence on attitude toward the brand. Attitude toward the advertisement indirectly affects purchase intention through attitude toward the brand (MacKenzie et al., 1989), or at least acts as an important mediator variable on brand choice (Shimp, 1981). Recently, Karson and Fisher (2005) extended the research model employed by MacKenzie et al. by including a direct link between attitude toward the advertisement and purchase intentions in an online advertising context. They found a significant association between attitude toward the advertisement and purchase intention. Thus, we hypothesize:

H3.

H4.

H5.

A consumer’s relationship quality with a sport team is positively related to their perception of a corporate sponsor’s sincerity. A consumer’s perception of a corporate sponsor’s sincerity is positively related to their attitude toward the sponsor. A consumer’s perception of a corporate sponsor’s sincerity is positively related to intention to purchase a sponsor’s products.

Attitude toward a sponsor and intention to purchase sponsor’s product Attitude is defined as “a learned predisposition to respond in a consistently favorable manner with respect to a given object” (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975, p. 6). It is an individual’s overall evaluation of an object, issue, or person and the primary goal of sponsorship is typically to create consumer’s positive attitude toward sponsor (Cornwell and Maignan, 1998). Accordingly, a consumer’s attitude toward a sponsor or its brand has been a major target of evaluation by researchers. Previous studies have highlighted the importance of measuring attitude toward the sponsor as an important indicator of sponsorship effect (Javalgi et al., 1994; Lee et al., 1997; Sandler and Shani, 1993; Speed and Thompson, 2000). Intention to purchase a sponsor’s product was included as the dependent variable of all the variables of interest in the current study (i.e. relationship quality, sincerity, and attitude). All the research variables were hypothesized to be positively associated with purchase intention. Numerous studies concerned with the prediction of human behavior have relied on the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen and Fischbein, 1980) and the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991). According to Ajzen (1991, 2001), people act in accordance with their intentions and perceptions of control over their behavior, and intentions are influenced by attitudes toward the behavior, perceptions of behavioral control, and subjective norms. A number of studies have included results, which have supported the belief that intentions play an important role in guiding actual behavior (Ajzen, 2001; Bassili, 1995; Kendzierski and Whitaker, 1997; Sheeran and Orbell, 1998). Future purchase intention can be a strong indicator of sponsorship effectiveness, particularly when a corporate sponsor participates in sport events targeted at sports fans who share a unique identity (Ko et al., 2008). The mere presence of a sponsorship can influence an individual’s perceptions of the sponsor (Dean, 2002) as well as his or her intention to purchase a sponsor’s products (Pitts, 1998). Additionally, Howard and Crompton (2005) noted that a stage-based perspective in the communication process could be measured to evaluate sponsorship effectiveness. This approach is used to suggest that individuals go through a series of stages, such as first becoming aware of a company to finally making a purchase decision. More specifically, potential customers move from awareness to interest to intent to purchase before investing in a sales action. Hence, future purchase intention may be one of the most useful

H6.

Attitude toward the sponsor is positively related to future purchase intention.

Research method Data collection and sample The study was conducted in the context of collegiate sports because firms are increasingly recognizing the fan bases of collegiate sport teams as valuable target markets. Firms seek to reach these fan bases through sponsorship, which has been indicated by the tremendous growth of sponsorship in this segment of sport industry over the last two decades (Masterralexis et al., 2009). A baseball team from a Division I-A university was chosen as the focal sport team of the study. Firms in various industries were selected as focal sponsors in order to reduce the industry-specific characteristics that might have an undesirable impact on the hypothesized relationship between the constructs of research interest. The target population for this study was college students in an NCAA Division I-A university. The sampling population was chosen because student populations are a major part of a collegiate sport teams’ fan base; they have also become an important consumer market segment (Sabri et al., 2008). The choice for the sampling population was similar to samples used in previous sport sponsorship studies (McDaniel, 1999; Lee and Cho, 2009). The sample for this study was drawn using the judgmental sampling method. This method is a type of non-probability sampling in which researchers choose a sample to be studied based on the researchers’ knowledge and judgment about the population, its elements, and the purpose of the study. This type of sampling method is considered to be a valid alternative to probability samplings when it is unrealistic to obtain a truly random sample and when the researchers reasonably assume that the selected sample is representative of the entire population according to their knowledge of the population (Babbie, 2007). Participants were recruited via visiting undergraduate and graduate classes in the months of March and April 2009. Data was obtained through self-administered questionnaires 569




Volume 26 · Number 8 · 2011 · 566 –576

distributed by research assistants. The research assistants told the potential participants that involvement in the study was voluntary and thereafter distributed the informed consent. This form was completed by all participants in compliance with the Institutional Review Board’s protocol. After the initial contact, the participants were given a brief explanation of the purpose of the research and instructions about how to properly fill out the survey. On average, it took approximately 10 minutes for the participants to complete the questionnaire. No compensation was provided to the survey participants. A total of 510 questionnaires were completed. Of the forms 36 were deemed unusable due to invalid responses (e.g. blank, double answers, etc) and were therefore eliminated, leaving 474 usable surveys. Demographic statistics are provided in Table I. Of the remaining participants, 63 percent were male and 37 percent were female. The participants ranged in age from 18 to 47 years (M ¼ 21:64, S:D: ¼ 2:69). The participants were relatively affluent as more than 40 percent reported and estimated annual household income over $100,000. Of the respondents, 4 percent were Asian, 7 percent African-American, 26 percent Hispanic, 62 percent White, and 2 percent other.

were taken from Speed and Thompson (2000). Four items from Lee and Cho (2009) were used to measure Attitude toward Sponsors. Four items from Ko et al. (2008) were modified to measure Purchase Intention for Sponsor Product.

Data analysis and results Measurement model analysis and results The total of 474 cases is greater than the generally recommended minimum sample size of 200 (Weston and Gore, 2006) when utilizing structural equation modeling (SEM). Also, the ratio of cases-to-observed variables was 16:1, which was more than adequate for the subsequent usage of SEM (Bollen, 1989; Kline, 2005; Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). The data reasonably met the all the assumptions for SEM analyses except the multivariate normality assumption. Nineteen out of 29 observed variables were significantly skewed ( p , 0.01) and 14 out of 29 observed variables revealed significant kurtosis ( p , 0.01). In addition, Mardia’s (1985) Normalized Coefficient of both skewness (z ¼ 44:00) and kurtosis (z ¼ 24:33) were significant ( p , 0.01). Therefore, Satorra-Bentler’s (1994) scaling method was used for the ensuing SEM analyses to reduce the potential occurrence of problems commonly associated with nonnormality (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2007). The data were first subjected to further scale purification using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Based on the assessment of psychometric properties, theoretical relevance of the items and scale parsimony, eight items were dropped, leaving a final set of 21 items. After the scale purification process, the CFA was conducted using Mplus 5.2 program (Mutheń and Mutheń, 2008) to evaluate the measurement model. The correlation matrix for observed variables is presented in Table II. The global fit indices indicate good fit between the hypothesized measurement model and the observed data (x2/df ¼ 307.14/168 ¼ 1.83, RMSEA ¼ 0.04, CFI ¼ 0.97, SRMR ¼ 0.04, TLI ¼ 0.97) based on guidelines of global model fit assessment (Hu and Bentler, 1999; McDonald and Ho, 2002; Weston and Gore, 2006). Table III displays the factor loadings, average variance extracted (AVE) and reliability coefficients. With the exception of three variables, all factor loadings were greater than 0.70. In addition, the AVE values all exceeded 0.50; they ranged from 0.50 for Sincerity to 0.85 for Commitment. All reliability coefficients exceeded 0.70; the factors ranged from 0.75 for Sincerity to 0.94 for Commitment. A structural equation modeling method developed by Raykov (1997, 2001) was used instead of Cronbach’s coefficient alpha (Cronbach, 1951) for estimating the scale reliability coefficient because the current measurement model is not essentially t-equivalent, but congeneric (Graham, 2006). Taken together, the results include evidence for convergent validity of the measurement scales (Hair et al., 2005). Discriminant validity was assessed by testing x2-difference between two nested models for each pair of latent factors in which either the correlation between two factors was constrained to be unity (i.e. the two factors are perfectly correlated) or the correlation was allowed to be free (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988, Kline, 2005). All the x2differences between the constrained and unconstrained models were significant with one degree of freedom rendering support for the discriminant validity between constructs in the measurement model.

Measures The selection of the measures utilized in the study was a three-step process. First, the extant scales of focal constructs were collected from the relevant literature. Second, the scales were assessed by a panel of scholars who have expertise in relationship marketing and sport sponsorship content. Various items in the scales were dropped or revised based on the feedback from the panel of scholars. After the expert review, a total of 29 items were retained to measure the nine constructs. Each construct was measured using multiple items and a seven-point Likert-type scale (i.e. 1 ¼ Strong disagreement, 4 ¼ Neutral and 7 ¼ Strong agreement). Measures for Trust (four items), Commitment (four items), Self-connection (four items) and Reciprocity (four items) were adapted from Kim’s (2009) Sport Consumer-Team Relationship Quality scale. Measures of Sincerity (four items)

Table I Demographic characteristics of participants Variable

Group

n

%

Gender

Male Female

295 174

62.9 37.1

Age

18-21 22-25 26-30 30+

295 146 16 4

63.9 31.6 3.6 0.9

Ethnicity

Asian African-American Hispanic White Other

18 32 114 276 9

4.0 7.1 25.4 61.5 2.0

Income

Below $ 40,000 $40,000-$99,999 $100,000-$149,999 $150,000-$199,999 $200,000 or above

156 116 71 53 57

34.4 25.6 15.7 11.7 12.6

570




Volume 26 · Number 8 · 2011 · 566 –576

Table II Correlation matrix Variables Trust1 Trust2 Trust3 Commitment1 Commitment2 Commitment3 Self1 Self2 Self3 Reciprocity1 Reciprocity2 Reciprocity3 Attitude1 Attitude2 Attitude3 Sincerity1 Sincerity2 Sincerity3 Purchase1 Purchase2 Purchase3 Mean SD

1

2

3

4

5

1.00 0.43 0.58 0.43 0.44 0.48 0.34 0.38 0.42 0.32 0.36 0.33 0.21 0.21 0.23 0.34 0.37 0.25 0.25 0.21 0.17 4.58 1.32

1.00 0.62 0.46 0.46 0.48 0.30 0.33 0.38 0.31 0.33 0.34 0.24 0.30 0.31 0.34 0.32 0.22 0.28 0.26 0.22 4.72 1.31

1.00 0.48 0.52 0.53 0.38 0.44 0.45 0.39 0.41 0.39 0.24 0.31 0.29 0.34 0.35 0.28 0.31 0.27 0.28 4.35 1.17

1.00 0.80 0.84 0.66 0.64 0.64 0.39 0.50 0.46 0.14 0.13 0.13 0.33 0.33 0.27 0.30 0.26 0.15 3.77 1.77

1.00 0.89 0.65 0.64 0.65 0.48 0.61 0.61 0.08 0.11 0.13 0.30 0.33 0.27 0.26 0.27 0.18 3.57 1.76

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

1.00 0.63 1.00 0.61 0.73 1.00 0.61 0.71 0.73 1.00 0.42 0.47 0.49 0.49 1.00 0.58 0.52 0.55 0.58 0.55 1.00 0.55 0.51 0.53 0.55 0.51 0.73 1.00 0.09 20.01 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.01 1.00 0.12 0.03 0.04 0.11 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.64 1.00 0.14 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.62 0.86 1.00 0.31 0.27 0.30 0.40 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.25 0.32 0.29 1.00 0.35 0.26 0.29 0.39 0.14 0.28 0.25 0.27 0.29 0.33 0.54 1.00 0.27 0.27 0.23 0.29 0.17 0.25 0.24 0.14 0.27 0.24 0.41 0.52 0.27 0.22 0.27 0.26 0.14 0.17 0.11 0.45 0.43 0.38 0.37 0.33 0.28 0.17 0.20 0.22 0.07 0.17 0.14 0.41 0.36 0.36 0.26 0.34 0.17 0.12 0.16 0.14 0.08 0.10 0.09 0.39 0.47 0.46 0.27 0.26 3.60 3.01 3.28 3.40 3.20 3.43 3.24 6.08 5.83 5.83 4.55 4.42 1.79 1.75 1.66 1.56 1.50 1.43 1.55 1.34 1.38 1.36 1.50 1.56

18

19

1.00 0.31 0.22 0.19 4.28 1.59

1.00 0.49 0.51 5.08 1.54

20

21

1.00 0.59 1.00 4.69 5.25 1.54 1.41

Quality to Attitude toward Sponsor was not significant (H1: standardized g ¼ 20.12, S.E. ¼ 0.06); this indicates full mediation. More precisely, the mediation effect accounted for 84 percent of variance of Attitude toward Sponsor as explained by Relationship Quality. In a similar manner, the direct path from Sincerity to Attitude toward Sponsor was positive and significant (standardized g ¼ 0.50, S.E. ¼ 0.06) and the direct path from Attitude toward Sponsor to Purchase Intention was also positive and significant (H6: standardized b ¼ 0.50, S.E. ¼ 0.06). An indirect path from Sincerity through Attitude toward Sponsor to Purchase Intention was significant (standardized g ¼ 0.25, S.E. ¼ 0.03). This finding provides support for Attitude mediating the relationship between Sincerity and Purchase Intention (Iacobucci et al., 2007). Even so, when statistically controlling for Attitude toward Sponsor, the direct path from Sincerity to Purchase Intention was also found to be positive and significant (H5: standardized g ¼ 0.23, S.E. ¼ 0.07). This finding indicates partial mediation. Specifically, the mediation effect accounted for 54 percent of variance of Attitude toward Sponsor explained by Relationship Quality. Finally, the direct path from Relationship Quality to Purchase Intention was positive and significant (H2: standardized g ¼ 0.16, S.E. ¼ 0.06) and explained approximately 3 percent of Purchase Intention variance.

Structural model analysis and results The relationships in the hypothesized model were tested using simultaneous equations. Specifically, the structural model depicted in Figure 1 was estimated using Mplus 5.2 (Mutheń and Mutheń, 2008). The global fit indices indicate that the hypothesized model is consistent with the data (x2/ df ¼ 380.684/179 ¼ 2.12, RMSEA ¼ 0.05, CFI ¼ 0.96, SRMR ¼ 0.06, TLI ¼ 0.96). Relationship quality was operationalized as a second-order construct with four subdimensions of Trust, Commitment, Self-Connection and Reciprocity. All the loadings for the first-order on the secondorder factor were significant and greater than 0.70. These factors ranged from 0.73 for Trust to 0.90 for SelfConnection. This provides support for the belief that Relation Quality is a second-order factor containing four related but distinct relational facets. Parameter estimates of the structural model are presented in Table IV. The direct path from Relationship Quality to Sincerity was positive and significant (H3: standardized g ¼ 0.55, S.E. ¼ 0.05). The direct path from Sincerity to Attitude toward Sponsor was also positive and significant (H4: standardized b ¼ 0.50, S.E. ¼ 0.06). The indirect path from Relationship Quality through Sincerity to Attitude toward Sponsor was significant (standardized g ¼ 0.28, S.E. ¼ 0.04) and positive as well. This result indicates that the strength of the indirect path from Relationship Quality through Sincerity to Attitude toward Sponsor was significantly greater than the direct path from Relationship Quality to Attitude toward Sponsor. These results provide support that Sincerity mediates the relationship between Relationship Quality and Attitude toward Sponsors (Iacobucci et al., 2007). Furthermore, when statistically controlling for Sincerity, the direct path from Relationship

Discussion With H1 and H2 it was proposed that relationship quality would have a direct and positive influence on attitude toward sponsors and future intentions to purchase sponsors products. In support of H2, the results show sport consumers who reported a higher level of relationship quality intended to purchase the sponsor’s products. This is consistent with prior 571




Volume 26 · Number 8 · 2011 · 566 –576

Table III Summary results for confirmatory factor analysis Factors and items

l

S.E.

Trust I can count on the team A The team A has integrity The team A is reliable

0.68 0.72 0.85

0.04 0.03 0.02

Commitment I am devoted to the team A I am dedicated to the team A I am committed to the team A

0.88 0.94 0.95

0.01 0.01 0.01

Self-connection The team A reminds me of who I am The team A and I have a lot in common The team A’s image and my self-image are similar in a lot of ways

0.84 0.85 0.86

0.02 0.02 0.02

Reciprocity The team A pays attention to what I get relative to what I give them The team A constantly returns the favor when I do something good for it. The team A would notice if I did something that benefited the team

0.65 0.87 0.83

0.03 0.02 0.02

Sincerity The main reason this firm would sponsor the team A is because the firm believes the team A deserves support This firm would be likely to have the best interest of the team A at heart This firm would probably support the team A even if it had much lower profile

0.69 0.78 0.63

0.03 0.03 0.04

Attitude Overall my attitude toward this firm is Unfavorable(1), Favorable (7) Overall, my attitude toward this firm is Bad (1), Good (7) Overall, my attitude toward this firm is Dislikable (1), Likable (7)

0.69 0.93 0.91

0.03 0.01 0.02

Purchase I am willing to buy the product/service of this firm I seek out the product/service of this firm I am willing to try the product/service of this firm

0.70 0.73 0.76

0.03 0.03 0.03

sponsorship studies that highlighted the importance of such psychological variables as involvement (Ko et al., 2008) and identification (Madrigal, 2000, 2001) in predicting sponsorship outcomes. Despite the lack of support for H1, which proposed a direct effect of relationship quality on attitude toward the sponsor, the verification of relationship quality’s indirect impact on the attitude toward the sponsor suggests that positive attitudes toward a sponsor are developed through an image change process in which beneficial images perceived by consumer transfer from the sponsored object to the sponsors (Smith, 2004). In addition, full mediation, indicated by the non-significant direct impact of relationship quality on attitude toward the sponsor, is suggestive of the important role of sincerity as a mediator in transferring a sport consumers’ psychological bond from a sport property to a sponsor. H3 proposed that relationship quality influences sincerity and H4 proposed that sincerity influences attitude. Empirical support was found for these hypotheses. Sports consumers who had a stronger relational bond with the sponsored team were found to be more likely to believe the sponsor motive for supporting their team was sincere. This result was consistent with Meenaghan’s (2001) suggestion that the strength of relationship between the consumers and a sponsored-object had a positive influence on the consumers’ reaction to the various

r

AVE

0.78

0.57

0.94

0.85

0.89

0.72

0.82

0.62

0.75

0.50

0.89

0.73

0.77

0.53

sponsorships. Fournier (1998) noted that relationship quality could positively bias the perception, attributional judgment, and devaluation of relationship partners. The results from this study further expanded Fournier’s finding in that relationship quality between relationship partners (i.e. team and sport consumers) influence attributional judgment on not only the relationship partners, but also the third party (i.e. sponsor) affiliated with the relationship partners. This finding sheds light onto the capability and importance of relationship quality when trying to explain various sports consumer behaviors. The results can also be used to suggest that sport consumers who perceived the motive of a sponsor as sincere developed a more positive attitude toward the sponsor. This finding provides empirical support for previous research that a consumer’s perception of a sponsor’s product will play a major role in explaining sponsorship outcomes (MacKenzie and Lutz, 1989; Rifon et al., 2004; Speed and Thompson, 2000). As a marketing communication tool, sponsorship is considered to have a key advantage in that when encountering sponsorship activity, consumers are likely to have lowered defense mechanisms compared to advertising. One implication from the results is that when a consumer believes the motive of a sponsor is not just for commercial gain and the sponsorship is beneficial for the sport property, a consumer’s defense mechanism regarding marketing 572




Volume 26 · Number 8 · 2011 · 566 –576

Table IV Loadings, path coefficients, and residual variances for the hypothesized model Parameter

Loadings on Second-Order RQ RQ ! Trust RQ ! Self Connection RQ ! Commitment RQ ! Reciprocity

Unstandardized

S.E.

Standardized

S.E.

1.00 2.13 * 2.03 * 1.20 *

– 0.18 0.18 0.12

0.73 * 0.89 * 0.90 * 0.82 *

0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03

Direct Path Coefficients RQ ! Sincerity RQ ! Attitude Sincerity ! Attitude RQ ! Purchase Sincerity ! Purchase Attitude ! Purchase

0.88 * 2 0.17 0.45 * 0.26 * 0.24 * 0.57 *

0.10 0.09 0.07 0.10 0.08 0.07

0.55 * 2 0.12 0.50 * 0.16 * 0.23 * 0.50 *

0.05 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.06

Indirect Path Coefficients RQ ! Sincerity ! Attitude RQ ! Sincerity ! Purchase RQ ! Attitude ! Purchase Sincerity ! Attitude ! Purchase RQ ! Sincerity ! Attitude ! Purchase

0.40 * 0.22 * 2 0.10 * 0.26 * 0.23 *

0.08 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.05

0.28 * 0.13 * 2 0.06 0.25 * 0.14 *

0.04 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.05

0.37 * 0.48 * 0.42 * 0.31 * 0.73 * 0.68 * 0.57 *

0.06 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.73 0.68 0.57

0.48 * 0.20 * 0.20 * 0.33 * 0.69 * 0.80 * 0.50 *

0.04 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.05

Residual variances Trust Commitment Self-connection Reciprocity Sincerity Attitude Purchase Notes: *p , 0.05

communications is at a low state of alertness (Meenaghan, 2001). In other words, if the consumer believes a sponsor’s motives are sincere and supportive of the property, they are more apt to receive and process marketing communications. As such, the notion of sincerity may be useful for not only better understanding sponsorship effectiveness, but also for helping a sponsor structure marketing activities to communicate sincerity and support. Sincerity was also found to mediate the link between relationship quality and attitude toward sponsor. This result provides an explanation about how the psychological association between a sport consumer and a sport property may affect the sponsorship outcomes. Extant research has suggested that the psychological association between sport consumers and a sport property, which was typically assessed through identification, had a positive impact on the sponsorship outcomes. These outcomes included sponsor recognition, attitude toward sponsor, sponsor patronage, and satisfaction with sponsors (Gwinner and Swanson, 2003; Madrigal, 2000). The findings from this study further expand the understanding of the link between a sport consumers’ psychological connection with a sport property and the sponsorship outcomes. This expansion was made possible through identifying sincerity as a mediator intervening between relationship quality and attitude toward sponsor, which are two important components in understanding sponsorship effectiveness.

Through H5 and H6, it was proposed that sincerity and attitude toward a sponsor each have a direct and positive impact on intention to purchase a sponsor’s product(s). Empirical support was found for both hypotheses. Sport consumers who perceived the motive of a sponsor as sincere were more likely to purchase the product of sponsor; this finding supports H5. The finding is in line with previous research pertaining to sponsorship outcomes (MacKenzie and Lutz, 1989; Rifon et al., 2004; Speed and Thompson, 2000). As expected, a positive attitude increased intention to purchase the sponsor’s product(s); this finding provides support for H6. The linkage between attitude and the purchase intention has been well established in the literature. Previous research efforts have highlighted the value of forming a positive attitude among key target markets as an important predictor of behavioral intentions (Ajzen, 2001; MacKenzie and Lutz, 1989; MacKenzie et al., 1989; Shimp, 1981). Overall, these findings provide empirical evidence that support the theoretical relationships in the proposed research model. In particular, the results illustrate the significant role relationship quality may play in the effectiveness of sponsorship activity. Managerial implications In order to develop and maintain healthy business-to-business relationships, it is essential that exchange partners provide tangible and intangible benefits in return for partner 573




Volume 26 · Number 8 · 2011 · 566 –576

investments (Eyuboglu and Buja, 1993; Palmatier, 2008). It is easy to see how the sponsored property benefits from a sponsor-sponsee relationship. Sport properties receive financial, media, and in-kind resources from sponsor. However, the benefits of sponsor from sponsorship relationship are often not easily assessed. A critical issue for mutually beneficial sponsorship might be using sponsorship effectiveness as a marketing communication tool for sponsors. Findings from this study provide a conceptual basis for both sponsors and sport teams to better understand how sponsorship works as well as how to effectively achieve marketing communication objectives through sponsorship. Despite massive spending in sponsorship activity, sponsorship objectives in terms of marketing communication are often not fully realized. A common assumption is that consumer’s judgment on the sponsors’ motives for the sponsorship activity is homogeneously positive (Rifon et al., 2004). The findings from this study indicate that the assumption does not hold. The sport consumers varied in attributing the motives of sponsors and this attribution was positively biased by the sport consumers’ level of relationship quality with the sponsored team. The firms want to justify the considerable sponsorship spending by maximizing communication effectiveness. In economic environments where spending by organizations on sponsorship activity is at best curtailed and at worst stopped, it is imperative to provide empirical evidence of the effectiveness of sponsorship spending. The findings from this study suggest that firms should partner with sport teams that maintain good relationships with their fans, relationships that are characterized by trust, commitment, self-connection, and reciprocity. In order to maximize sponsorship effectiveness, the findings also suggest that a sponsor strive to be seen as genuinely concerned about the sport, team, and fans. Sport teams concerned with soliciting and maintaining sponsors should be able to offer benefits and values to the sponsors. Increasingly, sponsors and organizations considering becoming sponsors are concerned about the benefits receive from the activity. The concerns are magnified in times such as these when a recession has a strong grip on the economy. Based on the findings from this study, a sport property can provide evidence of the benefits of sponsorship activity; important benefits such as positive attitude and intention to purchase can be achieved by fostering a strong and healthy relationship with fans. A good relationship with fans not only encourages sport consumption behavior related to the team, but also helps induce the purchase of the sponsor’s product. In addition, sport teams should actively communicate with their fans how support from the sponsors can benefit both the teams and the fan. The goodwill generated by such communication should lower consumers’ defense mechanism against marketing communication messages and consequently make the sponsorship a more effective communication tool than other forms of promotion such as advertising.

experimental design can provide more convincing evidence about the direction of influence between factors to support causal relations in the hypothesized model. Second, selfreported measures were used to measure the constructs of research interest, which reflects widespread use of the approach in extant literature examining the Relationship quality, Sincerity, Attitude, and Intention. However, selfreported measures might introduce response biases including extreme and central tendency, acquiescence, social desirability, and negative affectivity. Although no statistical evidence of these biases were found and all the measures used in this study showed good psychometric properties, potential problems of these biases should be taken into consideration when interpreting the results. Third, this study is confined to a specific group of people (i.e. college students), sport (i.e. college baseball), and country (i.e. the United States); this limits the ability of researchers to generalize the results from this study. These limitations also bring forth some fruitful and interesting potential avenues for future research. First, it would be worthwhile to identify unique characteristics of different sports that might alter the nature of relationship among relationship quality, sincerity, attitude toward sponsor, and purchase intention. For example, sincerity may not play as important role in explaining attitude toward sponsor and purchase intention in sponsorship of field hockey. Sincerity of the sponsorship for field hockey is less likely to be suspected by consumers because field hockey is not typically considered to have a large and strong enough fan base that the corporate sponsors want to take advantage for marketing purposes. That is, the perceived level of sponsor’s sincerity might only slightly vary among consumers and therefore the sincerity would not be an influential construct to account for the variation on attitude toward sponsor and purchase intention in field hockey, but this remains an empirical questions. Second, it would be interesting to investigate potential differences in the findings of the currents study across different countries. For example, in Korea, the linkages between relationship quality and other constructs might be even stronger because the level of collectivism is higher in Korea than in the US and therefore the sense of social belonging to groups and teams is perhaps more instrumental in the process of consumers’ attitude and behavior formation. Only additional research though can confirm or disconfirm this assumption. Accordingly, replicating this study with a broader and wider sampling frame in various contexts could help build more robust models about the influence of relationship quality on sponsorship effectiveness.

Conclusion The primary purpose of this study was to better understand the role of relationship quality on sponsorship effectiveness. We developed and empirically tested a model that specified direct and indirect relationships among the sport propertyconsumer relationship quality, sincerity, and consumer’s attitude toward sponsor, and behavioral intention. The results of this study suggest that consumers who perceive higher level of relationship quality with the sport property are more likely to believe that the sponsor’s motives are sincere, and consequently they will develop a positive attitude and greater purchase intention. The significant contributions of this study are two-fold. One significant contribution lies in

Limitations and future research As for the research limitations, a cross-sectional research design was implemented to test the hypothesized model using structural equation modeling. Although the direction of influences between constructs were justified based on the theoretical works on the model’s constructs in the current study, a longitudinal investigation combined with 574




Volume 26 · Number 8 · 2011 · 566 –576

establishing the importance of relationship quality for a successful sponsorship. Next, this study provides a theoretical explanation about how business-to-consumer relationship quality influences the expected outcomes associated with a business-to-business relationship. Although this study has made several advancements in the knowledge of relationship quality and sponsorship effectiveness, much more work needs to be done. Our model and findings demand further evaluation, replication, extension, application, and development.

Eyuboglu, N. and Buja, A. (1993), “Dynamics of channel negotiations: contention and reciprocity”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 47-65. Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction To Theory And Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. Fournier, S.M. (1996), “A consumer-brand relationship framework for strategic brand management”, PhD dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Fournier, S.M. (1998), “Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research”, Journal of Consumer Research., Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-73. Graham, J.M. (2006), “Congeneric and (essentially) tauequivalent estimates of score reliability: what they are and how to use them”, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 66 No. 6, pp. 930-44. Gwinner, K. (1997), “A model of image creation and image transfer in event sponsorship”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 145-58. Gwinner, K.G. and Swanson, S.R. (2003), “A model of identification and antecedents and sponsorship outcomes”, Journal of services marketing, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 275-94. Hair, J.F., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2005), Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed., Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Higham, N. (1997), “Volatile sponsorship sector must find a measure of effectiveness”, Marketing Week, Vol. 20, pp. 17-18, November 27. Howard, D. and Crompton, J. (2005), Financing Sport, 2nd ed., Fitness Information Technology, Morgantown, WV. Hu, L. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55. Iacobucci, D., Saldanha, N. and Deng, X. (2007), “A mediation on mediation: evidence that structural equations models perform better that regressions”, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 139-53. IEG (2009), “Sponsorship spending to rise 2.2% in 2009”, available at: www.sponsorship.com/About-IEG/Press-Room/ Sponsorship-Spending-To-Rise-2.2-Percent-in-2009.aspx (accessed 11 February 2009). Javalgi, R.G., Traylor, M.B., Gorss, A.C. and Lampman, E. (1994), “Awareness of sponsorship and corporate image: an empirical investigation”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 47-58. Karson, E.J. and Fisher, R.J. (2005), “Reexamining and extending the Dual Mediation Hypothesis in an on-line advertising context”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 333-51. Kendzierski, D. and Whitaker, D.J. (1997), “The role of selfschema in linking intentions with behavior”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 139-47. Kim, Y.K. (2009), “A relationship framework in sport management: how relationship quality affects sport consumption behaviors”, PhD dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Kline, R.B. (2005), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed., Guilford, New York, NY. Ko, Y.J., Kim, K., Claussen, C.L. and Kim, T.H. (2008), “The effect of sport involvement, sponsor awareness, and corporate image on intention to purchase sponsors’

References Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211. Ajzen, I. (2001), “Nature and operation of attitudes”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 27-58. Ajzen, I. and Fischbein, M. (1980), Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-23. Babbie, E. (2007), The Practice of Social Research, 11th ed., Thomson, Belmont, CA. Bassili, J.N. (1995), “Response latency and the accessibility of voting intentions: what contributes to accessibility and how it affects vote choice”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 686-95. Bollen, K.A. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Cornwell, T.B. and Coote, L.V. (2005), “Corporate sponsorship of a cause: the role of identification in purchase intent”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 3, pp. 268-76. Cornwell, T.B. and Maignan, I. (1998), “An international review of sponsorship research”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 1-27. Cornwell, T.B., Weeks, C.S. and Roy, D.P. (2005), “Sponsorship-linked marketing: opening the black box”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 21-42. Conrwell, T.B., Humphreys, M.S., Maguire, A.M., Weeks, C.S. and Ellegen, C.L. (2006), “Sponsorship-linked marketing: the role of articulation in memory”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 312-21. Cronbach, L.J. (1951), “Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of a test”, Psychometrika, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 297-334. Cuneen, J. and Hannan, M.J. (1993), “Intermediate measures and recognition testing of sponsorship advertising at an LPGA tournament”, Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 47-56. D’Astous, A. and Blitz, P. (1995), “Consumer evaluations of sponsorship programmes”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 12, pp. 6-22. Dean, D.H. (2002), “Associating the corporation with a charitable event through sponsorship: measuring the effects on corporate community relations”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 77-87. 575




Volume 26 · Number 8 · 2011 · 566 –576

products”, International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 79-94. Lee, H. and Cho, C. (2009), “The matching effect of brand sponsorship event personality: sponsorship implications”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 41-64. Lee, M., Sandler, D.M. and Shani, D. (1997), “Attitudinal constructs toward sponsorship: scale development using three global sporting events”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 159-69. McDaniel, S.R. (1999), “An investigation of matching up effects in sport sponsorship advertising: the implications of consumer advertising schemas”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 163-84. McDonald, R.P. and Ho, M.R. (2002), “Principles and practices in reporting structural equation analyses”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 64-82. MacKenzie, S.B. and Lutz, R.J. (1989), “An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 48-65. MacKenzie, S.B., Lutz, R.J. and Belch, G.E. (1989), “The role of attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: a test of competing explanations”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 130-43. Madrigal, R. (2000), “The influence of social alliances with sports teams on intentions to purchase corporate sponsors’ products”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 13-24. Madrigal, R. (2001), “Social identity effects in a beliefattitude-intentions hierarchy: implications for corporate sponsorship”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 145-65. Mardia, K.V. (1985), “Mardia’s test of multivariate normality”, in Kotz, S. and Johnson, N.L. (Eds), Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 217-21. Masterralexis, L.P., Barr, C.A. and Hums, M.A. (2009), Principles and Practices of Sport Management, 3rd ed., Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, MA. Meenaghan, T. (2001), “Understanding sponsorship effects”, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 95-122. Meenaghan, T. and Shipley, D. (1999), “Media effect in commercial sponsorship”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33 Nos 3/4, pp. 328-47. Mutheń, L.K. and Mutheń, O.M. (2008), Mplus (Version 5.2) (computer software), Mutheń & Mutheń, Los Angeles, CA. Palmatier, R.W. (2008), “Interfirm relational drivers of customer value”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 72 No. 4, pp. 76-89. Palmatier, R.W., Dant, R.P., Grewal, D. and Evans, K. (2006), “Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship marketing: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 70 No. 4, pp. 136-53. Pitts, B.G. (1998), “An analysis of sponsorship recall during Gay Games IV”, Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 11-18. Raykov, T. (1997), “Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures”, Applied Psychological Measurement, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 173-84. Raykov, T. (2001), “Estimation of congeneric scale reliability using covariance structure analysis with nonlinear

constraints”, British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 315-23. Rifon, N.J., Choi, S.M., Trimble, C.S. and Li, H. (2004), “Congruence effects in sponsorship: the mediating role of sponsor credibility and consumer attributions of sponsor motive”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 29-42. Roberts, K., Varki, S. and Brodie, R. (2003), “Measuring the quality of relationships in consumer services: an empirical study”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 1/2, pp. 160-96. Sabri, M.F., MacDonald, M., Masud, J., Paim, L., Hira, T.K. and Othman, M.A. (2008), “Financial behavior and problems among college students in Malaysia: research and education implication”, Consumer Interests Annual, Vol. 54, pp. 166-70. Sandler, D.M. and Shani, D. (1993), “Sponsorship and the Olympic games: the consumers’ perspectives”, Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 38-43. Satorra, A. and Bentler, P.M. (1994), “Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis”, in von Eye, A. and Clogg, C.C. (Eds), Latent Variables Analysis: Applications for Developmental Research, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 399-419. Sheeran, P. and Orbell, S. (1998), “Social cognition: self, attitudes and attributions”, in Scott, P.J. and Spencer, C.P. (Eds), The Blackwells Introduction to Psychology, Blackwells, Oxford, pp. 425-66. Shimp, T.A. (1981), “Attitude toward the ad as a mediator of consumer brand choice”, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 9-15. Smith, G. (2004), “Brand image transfer through sponsorship: a consumer learning perspective”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 20 Nos 3/4, pp. 457-74. Speed, R. and Thompson, P. (2000), “Determinants of sports sponsorship response”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 226-38. Stipp, H. and Schiavone, N.P. (1996), “Modeling the impact of Olympic sponsorship on corporate image”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 22-8. Tabachnick, B.G. and Fidell, L.S. (2007), Using Multivariate Statistics, Allyn and Bacon, Boston, MA. Weston, R. and Gore, P.A. (2006), “A brief guide to structural equation modeling”, The Counseling Psychologist, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 719-51. Wiesel, T., Skiera, B. and Villanueva, J. (2008), “Customer equity: an integral part of financing report”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 72 No. 2, pp. 1-14.

Further reading Johar, G.V. and Pham, M.T. (1999), “Relatedness, prominence, and constructive sponsor identification”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 299-312.

Corresponding author Yu Kyoum Kim can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

576