Printer Friendly

Personal opinions and beliefs as determinants of collegiate football consumption for revered and hated teams.

Personal Opinions and Beliefs as Determinants of Collegiate Football Consumption for Revered and Hated Teams

Collegiate sports and affiliated pregame, game, and postgame behaviors and rituals are value-laden consumption activities. These exchanges are financially lucrative to local and national economies; for example, a number of universities earn upwards of $8 million per year from the sale of officially licensed merchandise (Fullerton, 2010), several universities generate between $88 million and $120 million in athletic-related revenue annually (SportsBusiness Journal, 2009), and businesses and universities benefit from local sponsorship opportunities (e.g., Dr Pepper Big 12 Championship, Pacific Life Holiday Bowl). The activities surrounding game day (e.g., purchasing school-related apparel, attending games, socializing with fellow fans) are embraced by a sundry and resolute set of aficionados including students, alumni, former players, media representatives, family, and friends.

Attending collegiate sporting events is highly sought after, especially for Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) games; in 2006 for example, attendance reached 36,814,468, a new record (Johnson, 2007). In the FBS, yearly contests branded The Civil War (Oregon vs. Oregon State) and The Backyard Brawl (Pittsburgh vs. West Virginia), to name a few, are eagerly anticipated. Although fans frequently engage in FBS-related discussion and behaviors rooted in personal beliefs (e.g., rituals and behaviors before a game influence game outcomes) and opinions (e.g., fans conveying knowledge about a favorite team's football tradition), research examining such factors as determinants of FBS consumption for loved and loathed teams is lacking.

Literature Review

Sport Consumption Motives

Factors found to influence game attendance, as well as memorabilia and officially licensed team-related purchases include family and friends (e.g., social networks) (Wakefield, 1995), sport and team interest (Mahoney et al., 2002; Robinson, Trail, & Kwon, 2004), entertainment value (Funk, Mahoney, & Ridinger, 2002), fan loyalty and involvement (Funk & James, 2001; Mahoney, Madrigal, & Howard, 2000), and team identification (Fisher & Wakefield, 1998; Mahoney et al., 2002; Matsuoka, Chelladurai, & Harada, 2003). In fact, team identification is a stronger determinant explaining sport consumption than team attractiveness and, fans with a self-defined relationship with a team will support that team regardless of win/loss record (Fisher & Wakefield, 1998).

Such motivating factors have been used to segment fans versus spectators (Robinson et al., 2005), distinguish levels of fan loyalty (Mahoney, Madrigal, & Howard, 2000), and discern tiers of psychological commitment (Funk & James, 2001). Differences between the emotionally attached fanatic (Koo & Hardin, 2008) and the mere spectator (Matsuoka, Chelladurai, & Harada, 2003) have also been noted with game aesthetics positively affecting fans and negatively affecting spectators (Trail et al., 2003).

To extend knowledge of sport consumption motives, we turn to a cognitive-based model (Funk & James, 2001) to explain collegiate football sport consumption. Specifically, internal locus of control, personal expertise, and attitudinal response are modeled as determinants of intentions to purchase sport products for both revered (Study 1) and hated (Study 2) teams. The model antecedents are now discussed.

Cognitive-Based Determinants of Sport Consumption

Locus of Control

Rooted in Social Learning Theory, locus of control, which varies by context, suggests that social outcomes are a result of one's own dispositions (e.g., individual effort) or extraneous forces (e.g., luck, others) (Rotter, 1966). For example, a football fan who espouses internal locus of control may opt to wear a certain shirt during a game because his/her team won their previous game when he/she wore that shirt. Likewise, a fan who espouses external locus of control may attribute a bad call by a referee (i.e., others) or a sheer luck play (e.g., a rival's Hail Mary pass that is completed) as reasons why his/her team loses a game.

Locus of control is viewed as a three-dimensional construct consisting of internal, others, and luck (Levenson, 1973). For this preliminary study, we opted to exclude the others and luck dimensions from the analysis; regarding the former, fans for the most part attribute game outcomes to other people (e.g., players, coaches, referees) (Wann & Dolan, 1994) and in terms of the latter, we intended to capture individually controlled, superstitious behaviors, rather than those of fate or chance. Therefore, we examine how fans' internal locus of control influences FBS consumption for loved and loathed teams.

Personal Expertise

According to Cognitive Skill Learning Theory, obtained knowledge influences choices and expectations (Anderson, 1982). This knowledge, which can be subjective or objective (Alba & Hutchinson, 1987), consists of cognitive structures (e.g., belief-based facts) and cognitive processes (e.g., decision rules based on these beliefs) (Lee & Olshavsky, 1994). Applied to our studied context, fans' cognitive structures (e.g., extensive knowledge of a rival's statistics and performance against a certain team) and cognitive processes (e.g., deciding to attend a game to root against this rival) may strongly influence FBS-related consumption.

With a host of easily accessible sport-related media outlets to peruse, fan expertise about teams, players, and coaches continues to intensify. For example, sports talk radio, blogs, and wireless media afford the ardent fan instant and continuous access to favored sports information. In the context of collegiate football, fans proudly display and proclaim their knowledge and expertise about a revered team, which may ultimately influence product purchases related to this team. As such, we examine how personal expertise about college football teams affects FBS consumption.

Attitudinal Response

Defined as a learned tendency to respond in either a positive or negative manner toward some environmental object (Hawkins, Mothersbaugh, & Best, 2007), consumer attitudinal responses are internal assessments of a certain stimulus (e.g., team, sport, coach) (Mitchell & Olson, 1981), which may originate from accepted social norms (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1970; Ryan, 1982). Moreover, attitudes are general overall assessments (e.g., degree of favorableness) toward specific stimuli (Sierra, Compton, & Frias-Gutierrez, 2008).

For this research, we assess fans' attitudes toward the head coach of either their favorite or least favorite collegiate football team. The average tenure of FBS head coaches is 3.9 seasons (Staples, 2010); yet, they represent their team more than any other constituent, hence, their importance to team-related consumption (Bruening & Lee, 2007). Also, college football head coaches have the capacity to affect brand image and equity components evident in their football program, the university community (e.g., students, faculty, alumni), and the surrounding community (e.g., fan clubs) (Bruening & Lee, 2007). Because of their significance to college football teams, we examine how fan attitudes toward the head coach of a revered or loathed college football team influences team-related consumption.

Study 1

Hypotheses

Superstitions (Joukhador, Blaszcyznski, & Maccallum, 2004) and hunches (Toneatto et al., 1997) rooted in irrational beliefs compel gamblers to believe that they can beat the system (Moore & Ohtsuka, 1999). In this sense, competitive environments lend themselves to perceptions that outcomes can be partially or fully controlled via participant behaviors and beliefs. Although our review of the sports marketing literature did not uncover investigations of locus of control dimensions, such as self-controlling superstition affecting sport consumption, it is plausible to suggest that these factors play a significant role in sport-related exchanges (Mowen & Carlson, 2003). In this sense, the more a fan perceives that his/her behavior prior to and during a game influences the game outcome, the more likely they are to engage in such behaviors and activities. For example, if a fan attends a game wearing a certain shirt and his/her favorite team wins, it is not far-fetched to hypothesize that when this fan attends another game involving this team, he/she will wear the same shirt.

Self-proclaimed personal expertise has shown to strongly influence consumer behavior across a broad range of decision settings (e.g., wagering, cheating, business-to-business, investment services, and brand evaluations via advertisements) (Bell & Eisingerich, 2007; Belonax, Newell, & Plank, 2007; Ceci & Liker, 1986; Nam & Sternthal, 2008; Pablo, 1997; Sierra & Hyman, 2006). Attempting to further generalize these findings, we expect fans who are self-assessed experts regarding a favorite team (e.g., knowledge about tradition, win/loss record, players, coaches) and closely follow such teams, may be more willing to attend games and purchase apparel of these schools than fans who do not consider themselves experts regarding collegiate football teams.

For the most part, consumer attitudes are strong influencers of purchase behaviors (Holmes & Crocker, 1987; Priester et al., 2004). For example, across a plethora of advertising contexts, attitude toward the brand relates positively to purchase intentions of the advertised brand (Brown & Stayman, 1992; MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989). As socially constructed brand attitudes are a foundation for consumer intentions and behaviors (Keller, 1993) and, attitudes toward college football head coaches influence perceptions of the football team brand (Bruening & Lee, 2007), we expect fan attitudes toward the head coach of their favorite collegiate football team to correlate positively with their willingness to attend games and purchase this team's apparel.

Based on the aforementioned, we propose the following two sets of hypotheses:

Set 1

H1a: The more (less) a college football fan espouses internal locus of control about game outcomes, the more (less) likely that fan is to attend games involving his/her favorite team.

H1b: The more (less) a college football fan is a self-assessed personal expert about his/her favorite team, the more (less) likely that fan is to attend games involving this team.

H1c: The more (less) favorable a college football fan's attitudes are about the head coach of their favorite football team, the more (less) likely that fan is to attend games involving this team.

Set 2

H2a: The more (less) a college football fan espouses internal locus of control about game outcomes, the more (less) likely that fan is to purchase apparel of his/her favorite team.

H2b: The more (less) a college football fan is a self-assessed personal expert about his/her favorite team, the more (less) likely that fan is to purchase apparel of this team.

H2c: The more (less) favorable a college football fan's attitudes are about the head coach of his/her favorite football team, the more (less) likely that fan is to purchase apparel of this team.

Methodology

Scale Descriptions

The survey contained questions from five scales: internal locus of control ([Int.sub.LOC]; 2 items), personal expertise ([Per.sub.EXP]; 5 items), willingness to purchase apparel ([A.sub.PPAREL]; 4 items), willingness to attend games ([A.sub.TTEND]; 4 items), and attitude toward the head coach ([At.sub.COACH]; 4 items). Complete scale items are provided in the Appendix. Each of these scales is briefly described.

Internal Locus of Control

Bradley and Sparks (2002) examined locus of control in a service setting. The [Int.sub.LOC] items used in their study were adapted and measured fans' belief that they have some control or influence over game outcomes involving their favorite team.

Personal Expertise

Mitchell and Dacin (1996) and Oliver and Bearden (1985) investigated personal expertise regarding product familiarity in physical good settings. We adapted these items and measured fans' self-assessed personal expertise (e.g., knowledge regarding players, coaches, and team tradition) about their favorite college football team.

Willingness to Attend Games and Purchase Apparel

Holmes and Crocker (1987) examined consumer intentions to purchase high and low involvement products and, Mackenzie, Lutz, and Belch (1986) examined advertising effectiveness and its effect on purchase intentions. Items were adapted from each of these scales and measured fans' willingness to attend college football games involving their favorite team.

Attitude toward the Head Coach

Grier and Deshpande (2001) examined general attitudes or internal assessments (Mitchell & Olson, 1981) about an advertised brand. This scale was adapted and measured fans' general assessment of their favorite team's head coach (e.g., degree of favorableness).

Data Collection Procedure

Undergraduate business students at a southwest US university were solicited as respondents during regularly scheduled classes. At the onset of the questionnaire, students were asked if they were college football fans; students indicating no were excluded from study participation. For respondents answering yes, they were then asked to indicate their favorite college football team and how long in terms of years ([M.sub.FAV]=9.73 years, SD=6.39), they have felt this way. Subsequently, students answered seven-point Likert and semantic differential scale items for the studied constructs. Students were made aware that there were no right or wrong answers and that their responses were anonymous. In return for their participation, students received course extra credit.

Sample Profile

The mean age of respondents (N=174) is 21.57 (SD=2.05); males (64%) outnumber females. Whites (74%) and Hispanics (17.3%) are the main ethnic groups queried. Regarding class rank, juniors (45.3%) and seniors (33.7%) are most represented. Concerning respondents' favorite team, Texas (55.2%), Texas A&M (8.6%), Texas Tech (5.7%), Florida (3.4%), and LSU (2.9%) are most venerated.

Results

Factor Structure

Maximum likelihood estimation with direct oblimin rotation was used to assess the factor structure of the 19 items that comprised the five scales. Missing data were handled via pairwise deletion. The resulting five factor solution, in which each item loaded highly on the appropriate factor (i.e., greater than 0.575) with no meaningful cross loadings (i.e., 0.467 or less), accounted for 81.13% of the variance. Reliabilities for the five scales ranged from [alpha] = 0.706-0.959.

A measurement model was estimated with LISREL 8.72 and the 19 items comprising the five scales. The average variance extracted (AVE) values for each construct (i.e., [Int.sub.LOC]=58.58%, [Per.sub.EXP]=72.20%, [A.sub.PPAREL]=80.35%, [A.sub.TTEND]=80.53%, and [At.sub.COACH]=90.77%) exceed 50%, which provides additional evidence for convergent validity; also, the AVE values for each construct are greater than the squared correlations between each construct and the other constructs, which offers further evidence for discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2010). Estimation of the measurement model produced the following goodness-of-fit statistics: [chi square](142)=445.61 (P=0.00), CFI=0.94, NNFI=0.92, and SRMR=0.070, offering evidence of marginal model fit.

Structural Equation Model

The relationships shown in Figure 1 were tested using a structural equation model with LISREL 8.72. A covariance matrix and maximum likelihood estimation were used to estimate model parameters. Missing data were handled via pairwise deletion. The five constructs--internal locus of control, personal expertise, willingness to purchase apparel, willingness to attend games, and attitude toward the coach--with two, five, four, four, and four items, respectively, were included in the model. Two additional parameters that are consistent with the measurement theory and capture significant error covariance between two items within each the [Per.sub.EXP] and [A.sub.TTEND] factors, beyond that explained by the common factor, are included in the model. Model estimation produced the following goodness-of-fit statistics: [chi square](141)=336.76 (P=0.00), CFI=0.95, NNFI=0.94, and SRMR=0.074. Based on these statistics, model fit is interpreted as acceptable, and the model cannot be rejected based on these data.

The structural equation model's path coefficients are used to evaluate the hypotheses. The t statistics associated with the path coefficients for H1a-c and H2a are significant at the P<0.01 level, although H2b and H2c are not supported at the P<0.05 level (see Figure 1). Specifically, fans' internal locus of control about game outcomes (H1a), personal expertise about their favorite football team (H1b), and attitude toward the coach of their favorite football team (H1c), relate positively to their willingness to attend games involving their favorite collegiate football team; also, fans' internal locus of control regarding game outcomes relates positively to their willingness to purchase their favorite team's apparel (H2a). However, fans' personal expertise about their favorite team (H2b) and their attitude toward their favorite team's coach (H2c) are not significantly related to their willingness to purchase their favorite team's apparel. Plausible explanations for the H2b and H2c findings are that knowledge of a team and attitudes toward a coach are not influenced by merely purchasing sports team-related apparel.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Study 2

To offer additional insight to Study 1, we examine personal belief determinants of sport consumption involving hated teams. Specifically, we model internal locus of control, personal expertise, and attitude toward the coach as antecedents of fans' willingness to attend games involving their least favorite collegiate football team.

For fans, rooting against a least favorite team involves the hope for their tribulation in the form of losing a game. This pleasant feeling resulting from an out-group's misfortune has been called schadenfreude and has surfaced with Dutch subjects delighting in Germany soccer losses (Leach et al., 2003). Similarly, the Disposition Theory of Entertainment (Zillmann, 1980) posits that consumers may view characters in an unfavorable light, leading to hopefulness of misfortune for such characters; in contexts such as reality television (Dalakas & Langenderfer, 2007) and sports (Zillmann, Bryant, & Sapolsky, 1989), viewers and fans derived satisfaction and enjoyment from the viewing experience when abhorred characters failed in some capacity. These frameworks offer insight why collegiate football fans may attend games involving their least favorite team.

Hypotheses

Study 1 confirms the importance of personal opinions and beliefs within a football-related sport consumption context, as cognitive dimensions including locus of control, personal expertise, and attitudinal response influence fan purchases of their favorite collegiate football team. We expect then, that these three cognitive antecedents will show some explanatory power pertaining to fan intentions to attend games involving their least favorite collegiate football team. For example, fans that partake in pregame rituals, where such acts are meant to result in a loathed team losing (e.g., Nebraska fans ordering a buffalo burger at a local pub the day NU plays Colorado), may be inclined to attend games involving this team to see a potential loss and thus, experience schadenfreude (Leach et al., 2003). Also, although fans may show disgust toward a hated rival, respecting and liking a rival coach, as a result of their good sportsmanship on and off the field, may lead fans to attend this team's games. Therefore, we posit with the following three hypotheses that locus of control, personal expertise, and attitudinal response, when directed at hated teams will positively influence fans' willingness to attend this team's games.

H3a: The more (less) a college football fan espouses internal locus of control about game outcomes, the more (less) likely that fan is to attend games involving his/her least favorite team.

H3b: The more (less) a college football fan is a self-assessed personal expert about his/her least favorite team, the more (less) likely that fan is to attend games involving this team.

H3c: The more (less) favorable a college football fan's attitudes are about the head coach of his/her least favorite football team, the more (less) likely that fan is to attend games involving this team.

Scale Descriptions

The survey contained questions from four scales: internal locus of control ([Int.sub.LOC]; 2 items), personal expertise ([Per.sub.EXP]; 5 items), willingness to attend games ([A.sub.TTEND]; 4 items), and attitude toward the coach ([At.sub.COACH]; 4 items). All scales were adapted from those used in Study 1. Complete scale items are provided in the Appendix.

Data Collection Procedure

At a southwest U.S. university, undergraduate business students, who did not participate in Study 1, were solicited as respondents during regularly scheduled classes. At the onset of the questionnaire, students were asked if they were college football fans; students who indicated no were precluded from the study. For respondents who answered yes, they were then asked to indicate their least favorite college football team and how long in terms of years they have felt this way ([M.sub.LEASTFAV]=9 years, SD=6). Subsequently, students answered seven-point Likert and semantic differential scale items regarding the studied constructs. Students were made aware that there were no right or wrong answers and that their responses were anonymous. In return for providing the requisite data, students received course extra credit.

Sample Profile

The mean age of the sample (N=155) is 21.85 (SD=2.4); males (66.7%) outnumber females. Whites (76.7%) and Hispanics (14 %) are the main ethnic groups studied. In terms of class standing, juniors (37.8%) and seniors (36.5%) are most represented. Regarding teams loathed, Texas A&M (21.9%), Oklahoma (21.3%), Texas (11%), Texas Tech (9%), and USC (8.4%) are least regarded.

Results

Factor Structure

Maximum likelihood estimation with direct oblimin rotation was used to assess the factor structure of the 15 items that comprised the four scales. Missing data were handled via pairwise deletion. The resulting four factor solution, in which each item loaded highly on the appropriate factor (i.e., greater than 0.545) with no meaningful cross loadings (i.e., 0.40 or less), accounted for 77.13% of the variance. Reliabilities for the four scales ranged from [alpha]=0.686-0.952.

Using LISREL 8.72, a measurement model was estimated with the 15 items comprising the four scales. The average variance extracted (AVE) values for each construct (i.e., [Int.sub.LOC]=59.33%, [Per.sub.EXP]=58.66%, [A.sub.TTEND]=80.42%, and [At.sub.COACH]=86.07%) exceed 50%. Also, the AVE values for each construct are greater than the squared correlations between each construct and the other constructs.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Structural Equation Model

The relationships shown in Figure 2 were tested using a structural equation model with LISREL 8.72. A covariance matrix and maximum likelihood estimation were used to estimate model parameters. Missing data were handled with pairwise deletion. The four constructs--internal locus of control, personal expertise, willingness to attend games, and attitudes toward the coach--with two, five, four, and four items, respectively, were included in the model. Model estimation produced the following goodness-of-fit statistics: [chi square](84)=291.33 (P=0.00), CFI=0.91, NNFI=0.89, and SRMR=0.067, which are akin to the values for the measurement model fit indices. Based on these statistics, model fit is interpreted as marginally adequate, and the model cannot be rejected based on these data.

The structural equation model's path coefficients are used to evaluate the hypotheses (see Figure 2), in which there is partial support. Specifically, fans' internal locus of control regarding game outcomes involving their least favorite team is positively related at the P<0.05 level, to their intentions to attend games featuring this team (H3a); also, fans' attitude toward the coach of their least favorite team is positively related at the P<0.01 level, to their willingness to attend games featuring this team (H3c). However, the positive posited relationship between fans' personal expertise about their least favorite team and their willingness to attend their games is not supported at the P<0.05 level (H3b). A plausible explanation for this non-significant finding is fan knowledge of a least favorite team is not augmented by attending games involving this team (direct acquisition), but rather through various media sources (indirect acquisition); because this knowledge pertains to a loathed team, fans would rather gain this comprehension indirectly than directly.

Discussion

Previous research has revealed various fan motives, both cognitive (e.g., identification) and emotive (e.g., aesthetics, eustress), influence sport-related consumption (e.g., Kwon, 2001). The studies here are grounded in a cognitive framework (Funk & James, 2001) that uncovers important drivers of collegiate football game attendance and purchase intentions of football team apparel; as a result, the efficacy of cognitive-based responses toward both revered and hated college football teams is confirmed. Specifically, Study 1 shows that fans' internal locus of control for game outcomes, self-assessed personal expertise about a team, and attitude toward the head coach are positively related to their willingness to attend games involving their favorite collegiate football team; also, internal locus of control relates positively to intentions to purchase apparel of a favorite team.

In such cases, it appears that self-controlled superstitions (Mowen & Carlson, 2003) (e.g., wearing a lucky shirt as a pregame ritual) motivate fans to attend games and purchase apparel of their favorite team; these fans believe that they have some control over, or an ability to influence game outcomes. This intriguing, irrational mindset is often used by athletes and gamblers (Joukhador, Blaszcyznski, & Maccallum, 2004; Langer, 1975); our research generalizes this phenomenon to fans of college football.

Additionally, as fan knowledge of tradition, players, and coaches of a collegiate football team increases, they show stronger intentions to attend this team's games; hence, team contact points, both outside and within the stadium, should contain a plethora of information regarding the football program as a means to further enhance team-related fan knowledge. The same can be said of promoting the head coach, as our findings indicate a positive relationship between attitude toward the coach and game attendance. Hence, sports promoters should augment favorable publicity and suppress any negative hearsay about the coach in an effort to generate favorable fan responses toward the coach.

Results from Study 2 indicate that internal locus of control regarding game outcomes and attitude toward the coach are positive correlates of fans' willingness to attend games involving their least favorite team. Hence, fans seem to espouse a mindset that their behaviors prior to and during a game actually influence the likelihood that a loathed team will lose; hence, when rituals are effectively executed, attending games involving this team increases because a loss is expected. Also, fans' attitude toward a reviled team's head coach correlates positively to attending games involving this team. In this sense, even though fans despise a team and hope it loses, their respect and favorable perception of its head coach leads such fans to attend this team's games. By offering a preliminary examination of cognitive responses to both revered and hated collegiate football teams, the studies here offer a more complete understanding of sport consumption determinants.

Implications

Our findings are applicable to sport marketers' event promotions and sponsorship programs. For example, assorted forms of promotional media (e.g., press releases, blogs, text messages) that increase fan knowledge of, and identification with players, coaches, and/or programs of adored teams should increase game attendance. Also, tying team promotions to fan involvement and partial responsibility for team success (e.g., wearing a red or white shirt to a home game to create a "Red Out" or a "White Out" in the stands, participating in a pep rally, maintaining positivity during a game) should help increase game attendance and team-related purchases for loved and loathed teams (especially if they are playing a loved team).

Sports promoters have been capitalizing on the adoration of and enthusiasm for venerated teams for some time. The results here suggest extending these efforts to loathed teams as well, as fans' opinions and beliefs directed toward rival teams increase game attendance involving these combatants. Such behaviors may be explained by segmented lineage theory (Sahlins, 1961), which offers insight to predatory behavior of tribes, where tribes are more energized by threat than by cohesive social structure. Hence, opposing groups (e.g., rival teams and fans) are seen as barriers to societal advancement. As a result, when travel time and expenses are reasonable, fans of a team band together and attend games of abhorrent foes to root against them.

Additionally, sports marketers should continuously strive to build support and veneration for the favorite local team, which may lead to an increase of significance placed on rivalry games and intercollegiate competition. Among others, such communicative strategies should highlight team-related information to ameliorate fan knowledge (e.g., scholarship offers extended to recruits, offensive and defensive statistics), fan responsibility for team success (e.g., wear your 'luckiest' shirt on game day), and program, team, and player achievements (e.g., number of academic All-Americans, percentage of players graduated). Such strategies, as our findings indicate, may lead to an increase in sport-related purchases.

Limitations and Future Research

Our research is not without limitations. First, business student samples from a southwest university provided data about their favorite and least favorite college football team; collecting additional data in different regions, with non-business students or non-student samples, for sundry teams across multiple sports would help generalize the findings (Winer, 1999). Second, the scales used to measure the studied constructs may not be equally valid across various samples and sport contexts, which may affect the measurement properties of the underlying constructs and their relationships with one another.

To provide further insight into fans' responses to collegiate sports, additional factors could be modeled. For example, future research could explore the effect of demographic factors such as ethnicity (Kwon, 2001) and gender on sport consumption. Psychographic determinants of sport purchases could be examined, including anticipated emotions about a team winning or losing, luck-oriented locus of control about game outcomes, attitudes toward the university, athletic director, or football program, and team brand association (Ross, Bang, & Lee, 2007). The situational context may also play a role in fans' behavioral response to sports and teams. For example, are fans more willing to attend a home rivalry game versus an away rivalry game? Also, does the number of games in a season affect fans' willingness to attend games? Alternative research tools, such as interpretive methods, could be used to examine the effects of fan opinions and beliefs on their sports-laden purchases. Additionally, the impact of social media and networks on collegiate sport transactions warrants inquiry (Wakefield, 1995); for example, would a Twitter posting urging fans to attend a game lead to an increase in attendance?

Appendix

Scale Items--Study 1 (Favorite Team)

Internal Locus of Control ([alpha]=0.706): (Seven-point Likert scale, 1-SD to 7-SA) The amount of effort that I put into pregame rituals affects if my favorite team will win. My ability to remain positive during the game affects if my favorite team will win.

Personal Expertise ([alpha]=0.913): (Seven-point Likert scale, 1-SD to 7-SA)

(1) I know a lot about my favorite football team.

(2) I am very familiar with the players on my favorite football team.

(3) I am very familiar with the coaches of my favorite football team.

(4) When it comes to my favorite football team, I am highly informed about their tradition.

(5) Relative to other fans, I am very knowledgeable about my favorite football team.

Willingness to Purchase Apparel ([alpha]=0.919): (Seven-point Semantic Differential scale)

(1) Would not seek out / Would seek out

(2) Not very likely / Very likely

(3) Improbable / Probable

(4) Unwilling / Willing

Willingness to Attend Games ([alpha]=0.913): (Seven-point Semantic Differential scale)

(1) Would not seek out / Would seek out

(2) Not very likely / Very likely

(3) Improbable / Probable

(4) Unwilling / Willing

Attitude toward the Head Coach ([alpha]=0.959): (Seven-point Semantic Differential scale)

(1) Unfavorable / Favorable

(2) Bad / Good

(3) Unpleasant / Pleasant

(4) Negative / Positive

Scale Items--Study 2 (Least Favorite Team)

Internal Locus of Control ([alpha]=0.686): (Seven-point Likert scale, 1-SD to 7-SA)

(1) The amount of effort that I put into pregame rituals affects if my least favorite team will win.

(2) My ability to remain positive during the game affects if my least favorite team will win.

Personal Expertise ([alpha]=0.860): (Seven-point Likert scale, 1-SD to 7-SA)

(1) I know a lot about my least favorite football team.

(2) I am very familiar with the players on my least favorite football team.

(3) I am very familiar with the coaches of my least favorite football team.

(4) When it comes to my least favorite football team, I am highly informed about their tradition.

(5) Relative to other fans, I am very knowledgeable about my least favorite football team.

Willingness to Attend Games ([alpha]=0.904): (Seven-point Semantic Differential scale)

(1) Would not seek out / Would seek out

(2) Not very likely / Very likely

(3) Improbable / Probable

(4) Unwilling / Willing

Attitude toward the Coach ([alpha]=0.952): (Seven-point Semantic Differential scale)

Unfavorable / Favorable

Bad / Good

Unpleasant / Pleasant

Negative / Positive

References

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1970). The prediction of behavior from attitudinal and normative behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 6(4), 466-487.

Alba, J. W., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1987). Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(4), 411-54.

Anderson, J. R. (1982). Acquisition of cognitive skill. Psychological Review, 89(4), 369-06.

Bell, S. J., & Eisingerich, A. B. (2007). The paradox of customer education: Customer expertise and loyalty in the financial services industry. European Journal of Marketing, 41(5/6), 466-486.

Belonax, J. J. Jr., Newell, S. J., & Plank, R. E. (2007). The role of purchase importance on buyer perceptions of the trust and expertise components of supplier and salesperson credibility in business-to-business relationships. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 27(3), 247-258.

Bradley, G. L., & Sparks, B. A. (2002). Service locus of control: Its conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Services Research, 4(4), 312-324.

Brown, S. P., & Stayman, D. M. (1992). Antecedents and consequences of attitude toward the ad: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(1), 34-51.

Bruening, J. E., & Lee, M. Y. (2007). The University of Notre Dame: An examination of the impact and evaluation of brand equity in NCAA Division I-A football. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 16(1), 38-8.

Ceci, S. J., & Liker, J. K. (1986). A day at the races: A study of IQ, expertise, and cognitive complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115(3), 255-266.

Dalakas, V., & Langenderfer, J. (2007). Consumer satisfaction with television viewing: Insight for the entertainment industry. Services Marketing Quarterly, 29(1), 47-59.

Fisher, R. J., & Wakefield, K. (1998). Factors leading to group identification: A field study of winners and losers. Psychology & Marketing, 15(1), 23-40.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50.

Fullerton, S. (2010). Sports marketing. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Funk, D. C., & James, J. (2001). The psychological continuum model: A conceptual framework for understanding an individual's psychological connection to sport. Sport Management Review, 4(2), 119-150.

Funk, D. C., Mahoney, D. F, & Ridinger, L. L. (2002). Characterizing consumer motivation as individual difference factor: Augmenting the sport interest inventory (SII) to explain level of spectator support. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11(1), 33-3.

Grier, S. A., & Deshpande, R. (2001). Social dimensions of consumer distinctiveness: The influence of social status of group identity and advertising persuasion. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 216-224.

Hair, J. F. Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hawkins, D. I., Mothersbaugh, D. L., & Best, R. J. (2007). Consumer behavior: Building marketing strategy. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Holmes, J. H., & Crocker, K. E. (1987). Predispositions and the comparative effectiveness of rational, emotional, and discrepant appeals for both high involvement and low involvement products. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 15(1), 27-35.

Johnson, G. K. (2007, February 12). College football basks in glow of record setting attendance for 2006 season. NCAA. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org

Joukhador, J., Blaszczynski, A., & Maccallum, F. (2004). Superstitious beliefs in gambling among problem and non-problem gamblers: Preliminary data. Journal of Gambling Studies, 20(2), 171-180.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22.

Koo, G-Y., & Hardin, R. (2008). Difference in interrelationship between spectator's motives and behavioral intentions based on emotional attachment. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 17(1), 30-43.

Kwon, H. (2001). Sport fan motivation: A comparison of American students and international students. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 10(2), 147-155.

Langer, E. J. (1975). The illusion of control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32(2), 311-328.

Leach, C. W., Spears, R., Branscombe, N. R., & Doosje, B. (2003). Malicious pleasure: Schadenfreude at the suffering of another group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(5), 932-943.

Lee, D. H., & Olshavsky, R. W. (1994). Toward a predictive model of the consumer inference process: The role of expertise. Psychology & Marketing, 11(2), 109-127.

Levenson, H. (1973). Multidimensional locus on control in psychiatric patients. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 41 (3) 397-404.

Mackenzie, S. B., & Lutz, R. J. (1989). An empirical examination of the structural antecedents of attitude toward the ad in an advertising pretesting context. Journal of Marketing, 53(2), 48-65.

MacKenzie, S. B., Lutz, R. J., & Belch, G. E. (1986). The role of attitude toward the ad as a mediator of advertising effectiveness: A test of competing explanations. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(2), 130-143.

Mahoney, D. F., Madrigal, R., & Howard, D. (2000). Using the psychological commitment to a team (PCT) scale to segment sport consumers based on loyalty. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 9(1), 15-25.

Mahoney, D. F., Nakazawa, M., Funk, D. C., James, J. D., & Gladden, J. M. (2002). Motivational factors influencing the behavior of J. league spectators. Sport Management Review, 5(1), 1-24.

Matsuoka, H., Chelladurai, P., & Harada, M. (2003). Direct and interaction effects of team identification and satisfaction on intention to attend games. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12(4), 244-253.

Mitchell, A. A., & Dacin, P. A. (1996). The assessment of alternative measures of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 23(3), 219-239.

Mitchell, A. A., & Olson, J. C. (1981). Are product beliefs the only mediator of advertising effect on brand attitude? Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 318-332.

Moore, S. M., & Ohtsuka, K. (1999). Beliefs about control over gambling among young people, and their relation to problem gambling. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 13(4), 339-347.

Mowen, J. C., & Carlson, B. (2003). Exploring the antecedents and consumer behavior consequences of the trait of superstition. Psychology & Marketing, 20(12), 1045-1065.

Nam, M., & Sternthal, B. (2008). The effects of a different category context on target brand evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(4), 668-679.

Oliver, R. L., & Bearden, W. O. (1985). Crossover effects in the theory of reasoned action: A moderating influence attempt. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 324-340.

Pablo, A. L. (1997). Reconciling predictions of decision making under risk. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 12(1), 4-20.

Priester, J. R., Nayakankuppam, D., Fleming, M. A., & Godek, J. (2004). The A2SC2 model: The influence of attitudes and attitudes strength on consideration and choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(4), 574-587.

Robinson, M. J., Trail, G. T., Dick, R. J., & Gillentine, A. J. (2005). Fans vs. spectators: An analysis of those who attend intercollegiate football games. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 14(1), 43-53.

Robinson, M. J., Trail, G. T., & Kwon, H. (2004). Motives and points of attachment of professional golf spectators. Sport Management Review, 7(2), 167-192.

Ross, S. D., Bang, H., & Lee, S. (2007). Assessing brand associations for intercollegiate ice hockey. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 16(2), 106-114.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(1, Whole No. 609), 1-28.

Ryan, M. J. (1982). Behavioral intention formation: The interdependency of attitudinal and social influence variables. Journal of Consumer Research, 9(3), 263-278.

Sahlins, M. D. (1961). The segmentary lineage: An organization of predatory expansion. American Anthropologist, 63(2), 332-345.

Sierra, J. J., Compton, N., & Frias-Gutierrez, K. M. (2008). Brand response-effects of perceived sexual harassment in the workplace. Journal of Business and Management, 14(2), 175-197.

Sierra, J. J., & Hyman, M. R. (2006). A dual-process model of cheating intentions. Journal of Marketing Education, 28(3), 193-204.

SportsBusiness Journal (2009, June 15). Top revenue producers in college athletics. Retrieved from http://sportsbusinessjournal.com

Staples, Andy (2010, January 20). College football head coach is most dangerous job in sports. Sports Illustrated. Retrieved from http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/andy_staples/01/19/coaches.danger/1 .html

Toneatto, T., Blitz-Miller, T., Calderwood, K., Dragonetti, R., & Tsanos, A. (1997). Brief report: Cognitive distortions in heavy gambling. Journal of Gambling Studies, 13(3), 253-266.

Trail, G. T., Robinson, M. J., Dick, R. J., & Gillentine, A. J. (2003). Motives and points of attachment: Fans vs. spectators in intercollegiate athletics. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12(1), 217-227.

Wakefield, K. L. (1995). The pervasive effects of social influence on sporting event attendance. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 19(4), 335-351.

Wann, D. L., & Dolan, T. J. (1994). Attributions of highly identified sports spectators. Journal of Social Psychology, 134(6), 783-792.

Winer, R. S. (1999). Experimentation in the 21st century: The importance of external validity. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(3), 349-358.

Zillmann, D. (1980). Anatomy of suspense. In P. H. Tannenbaum (Ed.), The entertainment functions of television, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 133-163.

Zillmann, D., Bryant, J., & Sapolsky, B. S. (1989). Enjoyment from sports spectatorship. In J. H. Goldstein (Ed.), Sports, games, and play: Social and psychological viewpoints, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 241-278.

Jeremy J. Sierra, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Marketing at Texas State University--San Marcos. His research interests include advertising effects, consumer behavior, marketing ethics, and services marketing.

Harry A. Taute, PhD, is an assistant professor of marketing in the Woodbury School of Business at Utah Valley University. His research interests include consumer use of emotions in advertising response, sport marketing, brand management, and pro-social markets.

Robert S. Heiser, PhD, is an assistant professor of marketing in the School of Business at the University of Southern Maine. His research interests include advertising, branding, professional selling, and structural equation modeling.
COPYRIGHT 2010 Fitness Information Technology Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2010 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Sport Consumption
Author:Sierra, Jeremy J.; Taute, Harry A.; Heiser, Robert S.
Publication:Sport Marketing Quarterly
Date:Sep 1, 2010
Words:6821
Previous Article:The use of sport celebrities in advertising: a replication and extension.
Next Article:Does service matter? An examination of donor perceptions of service quality in college athletics.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters