Affinity and affiliation: the dual-carriage way to team identification.

Pritchard, Mark P. ; Stinson, Jeffrey ; Patton, Elizabeth 等

Affinity and Affiliation: The Dual-Carriage Way to Team Identification

The most visible thing in Portland, OR, is probably the Portland Trail Blazers on a national basis. This doesn't do our community any service. We're embarrassed. And we've got to work harder and do a better job. This needs to stop.--Trail Blazers team President Bob Whitsett after four Trail Blazer players were arrested in four days in 2002 (McAllister, 2002).

From Day One, the plan was to change the type of players we brought in. We were going to look at, not only talent, but also the character of the players. What a player could do off the floor was just as important as what he could do on the floor. We had to change on the floor, but we also had to get out into the community and allow them (fans) to get to know us.--Trail Blazers coach Nate McMillan on the team's response to rebuilding after the "Jail Blazer" years (Kelley, 2009).

Such quotes about rebuilding the image of the National Basketball Association's (NBA) Portland Trail Blazers underscore how important a team's public persona is to management. In this case, management's goal was to generate a positive impression of their product rather than have negative associations dominate their marketplace. When a team's personality or identity becomes tainted by ethical breaches as they did during the "Jail Blazers" years, fans tend to distance themselves from clubs. Other than a loss to an organization's morale, the downside of public embarrassment and negative publicity is that fans and sponsors want to dissociate and desert, cut their support and attend fewer games (Funk & Pritchard, 2006). In Portland, the Trail Blazers were forced to concentrate on rebuilding their public image so that they could reconnect with their fan base. Although research has explored how sport organizations might avoid or respond strategically to public relations "bombshells" like this (Burton & Howard, 2000, p. 44), questions still remain over the psychology of attachment and the attributes that enable fans to identify and continue with teams.

Identification

As a rule, individuals derive "strength and a sense of identity" from their connections to social groups (Kelman, 1961). Public connections or associations with certain brand images or sport teams are often used for the purpose of self-presentation (Cialdini & De Nicholas, 1989). When sport teams portray strength, teamwork, success or other desirable qualities, fans attracted to these attributes often attach themselves psychologically and identify with those teams (Fisher & Wakefield, 1998). Consumers who become attached to products for symbolic reasons use this purchase behavior as a vehicle for self-representation (Baumeister, 1982). Consumption here ultimately rests not so much on what a product is but on what its acquisition means as a subjective symbol to the consumer (Solomon, 1983).

The last 20 years has seen a significant amount of management inquiry focus on how people identify with organizations (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). A parallel vein of research in sports has stemmed primarily from the belief that highly identified dedicated fans directly impact the economic success of teams and leagues (Foster & Hyatt, 2007). Other benefits prioritize this characteristic as a desirable goal for practitioners. Strong levels of identification reportedly reduce levels of price sensitivity (Sutton et al., 1997), increase longevity of the fan's relationship and lifetime value to the organization (McDonald & Milne, 1997), decrease switching behavior (Harada & Matsuoka, 1999), foster resistance to negative press (Funk & Pritchard, 2006), and increase team-related consumptive behavior in fans (Trail, Fink, & Anderson, 2003). From a strategic standpoint, positive outcomes like these clearly emphasize how important it is that sport organizations understand the inner workings or DNA of identification in their fan base.

One early definition of the disposition describes identification as "the personal commitment and emotional involvement customers have with a sports organization" (Sutton et al., 1997, p. 15). Work since has gone beyond simply noting the construct in terms of its attitudinal correlates (Bhattacharya, Rao, & Glynn, 1995). Bergami and Bagozzi (2000, p. 557) attempted to isolate identification from both its emotional consequences and its underlying processes, by defining it as "a cognitive state of self-categorization." This paper adopts the same stance. Sport fans who identify should be able to self-categorize whether they hold a sense of "oneness or belongingness" with the team (Ashforth & Mael, 1989, p. 23).

The central tenant of identity construction in person-team relationships involves a cognitive evaluation. This "occurs through consumer comparison, ranging from an atomistic attribute-by-attribute process to a holistic match with their own defining characteristics (personality traits, values, etc.)" (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003, p. 77). Thus, fans that recognize traits or characteristics of a team as similar to their own will self-categorize their proximity (i.e., shared similarities) and identify more closely. Other theorists attempt to explain process in terms of a cognitive comparison. Citing organizational research, Foster and Hyatt (2007, p. 197) sum up this fan-team connection as an "alignment of an individual's cognitive schema" (image map of the self) with the schema (internal images) they hold of the organization. This means the closer the alignment between self and team schemas, the stronger the fan's identification with an organization becomes. In essence we believe two principle domains operate in a fan's evaluation of congruency, the proximity of the team's personality and image and whether the club's values match their own. These two tracks to identification have been labeled by others as affinity and affiliation.

A Dual Carriageway

While the "how" of identification involves self comparison and categorization, the "what" side of the judgment (i.e., factors operating in that process) also needs specification. Several investigators assert that identification with organizations develops along two basic paths. Foster and Hyatt (2007) believe identification evolves from two similar yet distinct antecedent processes: affinity and a sense of affiliation with the sport organization. Reports from brand personality research show how consumers develop a sense of personal affinity with brands whose images and personality are congruent with their own sense of self (Aaker, 1997; Sirgy & Samli, 1986). In essence, fans identify when they see images of themselves (actual-self) or qualities they aspire to (social-self) mirrored in a team. Although symbolic association is a powerful process, it does not work alone. In conjunction with it a second similar yet distinct effect (a desire to affiliate) operates when consumers believe an organization "emulates" or shares similar principles or values to their own (Foster & Hyatt, 2007, p. 197). O'Reilly and Chatman (1986, p. 493) detected that shared values led a person to a state of "internalization" and a desire to affiliate that ultimately prompts identification with an organization.

The goal of this study is to test if affinity and affiliation really do act as dual antecedents in a fan's identification with a team. Whether or not both paths alter the degree of attachment holds some practical significance. For example, a dual carriageway can describe how identification weakens yet does not dissolve when fans develop mixed impressions of a team and its management. Negative publicity about players, for instance, may cause some fans to reject any sense of affinity with the team. Conversely, some fans may also develop a sense of affiliation with the organization by sharing the values expressed in the franchise's response to the crisis. In different situations alternate mixes of affinity and affiliation can occur. One franchise's relocation in the National Hockey League resulted in a reverse (strong/weak) mix in the carriageway. Some fans maintained a degree of affinity with the team yet refused to affiliate as they "despised" the organization's lack of loyalty in moving (Foster & Hyatt, 2007, p. 194).

Bhattacharya and Sen (2003, p. 78) insist identity is "conveyed to consumers through a variety of communicators" (e.g., products, employees, management initiatives, and policies). In professional sport two primary communicators or "points of attachment" (Trail, Robinson, Dick, & Gillentine, 2003, p. 218), to the organization and team itself, are involved in the cognitive comparison that triggers identification. Our inquiry examines these proposed dual routes (see Figure 1) by testing whether affinity with a team and affiliation with its sponsoring organization activate identification in college students.

Hypothesis 1: The dual routes, team affinity and organizational affiliation, should have a significant effect on team identification.

Strategically, leveraging a team's positive attributes (creating affinity) and communicating strong organizational values (building affiliation) should not only prompt identification, but lead to increases in attendance. Figure 1 includes this causal link as several studies report significant ties between identification and behavioral outcomes like attendance (Fisher & Wakefield, 1998; Laverie & Arnett, 2000; O'Reilly & Chatman, 1986). Kahle, Kambara, and Rose (1996) for example, observed a capacity for college football attendance to be motivated by underlying desires for self-expression. Further discussion of identification's dual processes follows.

Hypothesis 2: Team identification will strengthen fan intentions to attend games.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Affinity

According to Foster and Hyatt (2007, p. 197), "affinity occurs when individuals find that they are associating and identifying with a [team] because it is similar to the individual in a particular way." However, to be more explicit congruity between a team's image and the fan's self-image is affinity's core process. Consumer researchers term this type of evaluation "self-congruity," and argue that it assesses the degree of similarity between "an individual's comparison of the image of themselves and ... the image of a brand" (Helgeson & Supphellen, 2004, p. 208). In retail settings, Sirgy, Grewal, and Mangleburg (2000) proposed patrons prefer to visit outlets whose image matches their own view of themselves. In participant sports, Kang (2002) examined self-image congruency and reported its connection to attitude toward and participation at a health club.

Hypothesis 3: In spectator sports, fans perceiving a match between team image and self-image should be more likely to develop strong levels of fan identification.

Much of the research examining self-congruity in consumer contexts has investigated congruity with brand personality (Phau & Lau, 2001). In her widely cited work on brand personality, Aaker (1997) identified five dimensions behind a brand's personality: sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication, and ruggedness. Each personality trait was made-up of several attributes (see Figure 2). Adapting this framework to assess self-congruity with a team would involve using all five dimensions to compare and contrast fan perceptions of the team's traits against their own personality (Sirgy et al., 2000). The more congruent each dimension is, the greater the consumer's affinity with the team would be. Potential does exist for team management to build a brand personality, through market communications or player recruitment, so that appeals to a team's fan base. Alternatively, management could take a more customer-centered approach and use its understanding of the perceived personality of their fans to create a similar image for the team (Rust, Zeithaml, & Lemon, 2004). Both strategies are apparent in professional sports.

For example, many teams use market communications to strategically reinforce certain important brand personality (image) elements they feel are important. The case of the Portland Trail Blazers touched on at the outset of this article suggests management intervention must come when a team's brand personality no longer appeals or is congruent with the team's fan base. This situation and the necessity of putting an attractive product on the floor led that franchise to reposition, hire, and re-align the team's image with the character and performance of new incoming players.

We believe understanding and developing self-congruity and team affinity in the marketplace requires a customer-centered approach. The Seattle Sounders, a 2009 expansion team in Major League Soccer (MLS), proactively developed a strong affinity for their team by conducting research on which brand personality traits were attractive and congruent with their fan base (Sounders, 2009). Based on fan input the franchise went on to launch and anchor its description of the team to four traits "passion, community, courage and excellence," the heart of what they felt their Seattle fans were about. Further alignment with fans occurred when they were allowed to select the team name (voting in the Sounders even though it was not on the original list of names submitted to fans by the team), and participate in team charitable activities throughout the community. The end result was over 20,000 season tickets sold (more season tickets than any other MLS team in the league's 13-year history) before the team even played its inaugural game.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Affiliation

A second antecedent process in team identification is affiliation. In sport, the need to affiliate and "include oneself in a particular group" has long been considered a motive for fandom (Pons, Mourali, & Nyeck, 2006, p. 278). Many of the social motives reported in fan behavior describe how fan attachment with social groups or sport organizations develops (Trail, Robinson et al., 2003; Wann, 1995). In fact, the desire to affiliate and become attached reportedly "reflects the degree to which an individual internalizes or adopts characteristics or perspectives of the organization" (O'Reilly & Chatman 1986, p. 493). Foster and Hyatt (2007) believe fans affiliate with sport organizations that emulate the same values they hold. We believe a sense of shared values between the person and the organization acts by building identification with the organization's principle "communicator," the team. In consumer contexts, this sequence would depict affiliation's sense of shared values with the company cultivating a willingness to identify with the company's primary product (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003). For example, a patron in Seattle who shares the civic values Starbucks' displays in their community would be more willing to affiliate with the company and identify themselves as fans of the brand.

Hypothesis 4: In spectator sports, fans that affiliate with a sport organization by sharing the same values will hold stronger levels of identification with that organization's team.

Community relations activities undertaken by franchises in their local area and the organization's mission statements on their websites are some of the many ways companies convey their primary values. As with the management of brand image, the development of organizational attachment and affiliation in patrons is also partly under the purview of the brand manager. Strategies designed to align organizational values with fan priorities can increase the fan base's involvement in the organization. For example, some colleges and universities have developed "clubs" that provide special perks designed to strengthen the affiliation of fans with the athletic department (Howard & Crompton, 2003). In professional settings some franchises have engineered events and activities that allow fans to affiliate and become attached to the organization. For example, borrowing a strategy from European football teams, the Seattle Sounders of the MLS created a club for all season ticket holders. The club has the ability to vote the general manager out, giving the fan a degree of ownership in the team. Further to this, the club is actively developing youth and community soccer leagues, thereby allowing fans to increase their involvement and attachment to the organization. The purpose of the current study is to examine the role team affinity and organizational affiliation play in team identification. A description of the sample and the method used to test Figure 1's four links follows.

Methodology

A stratified random selection of classes at a large, public university in the Southwest was used to collect the data for this study. Three freshman, three sophomore, four junior, five senior, and five graduate classes were randomly chosen during the fall semester. Of the 430 respondents who completed the survey, 51% were female and 33.2% freshmen. Almost one-third (32.3%) of the respondents were student ticket holders for the football season, but over half (57.7%) did not attend football game during the season. Table 1 provides a fuller description of the student sample used for addressing the study hypotheses.

Respondents completed a six-page self-administered questionnaire that was divided into four sections: demographics; game attendance; attitude statements about the university and its football team; and perceptions of self-image. Measures of organizational affiliation, identification, behavioral intentions, and brand personality were all adapted from previous studies (see Appendix A). Eight items from O'Reilly and Chatman's (1986) scale of attachment were used to assess student affiliation with the university. Six items developed to measure the organizational identification of alumni were adapted to assess student dispositions toward the institution's football team (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Finally, a purchase behavior scale was adjusted to judge student intentions to attend games (Grewel, Monroe, & Krishnan, 1998). Each of the statements representing organizational affiliation (OA) and team identification (ID) were attached to 5-point Likert scales that ranged from strongly agree (1) to strongly disagree (5). Whereas 7-point bi-polar scales, ranging from "Very Low" (1) to "Very High" (7), were attached to each of the three behavioral likelihood statements of game attendance (GA).

To assess team affinity (TA) subjects were first asked to rate themselves and later in the questionnaire the team on the 20 personality traits noted in Figure 2. Each attribute was attached to a 7-point bipolar response scale ranging from "extremely descriptive" (1) to "not at all descriptive" (7). The personality attributes, adapted directly from Aaker's (1997) brand personality scale, first determined the fan's self-perception of their own personality and then assessed the fan's perception of the team's personality. According to theorists, the type of comparative evaluation that comprises affinity is known as a self-congruity estimate (Helgeson & Supphellen, 2004). As explained earlier, this estimate assesses similarity between an individual's comparison of the image of themselves and the image of a brand, or in this case the team. A traditional method using "discrepancy scores" was adopted from Sirgy et al. (1997, p. 229) to determine image congruence. Their formula scores team and self-image congruity in the following manner:

Ti - Si, where

Ti = rating of team image along image attribute i, and

Si = rating of self-image along image attribute i.

Ti - Si difference scores were created by taking the absolute value of an individual's self-image attribute rating and subtracted from the team rating for that attribute. Incorporating all the personality attributes shown in Figure 2 created 20 difference scores. These data were then submitted for further analysis, generating a summary scale to represent the degree of affinity fans expressed toward the team.

Analysis

Developing and Refining the Measures

The discrepancy scores used to represent team affinity were submitted to Principle Axis Factoring with an oblique rotation. As proposed in Figure 2, five factors (eigen values > 1.0) emerged from responses to the image attributes, explaining 68.66% of the variance in the scores (see Table 2). The personality trait "Sincerity" was the dominant factor in perceptions of image congruity between the team and the students (eigen value = 3.773). Consistent item-factor loadings and sound internal validity coefficients for each of the five dimensions allowed factor scores to act as team affinity indicators in subsequent analyses (loadings > .50; [alpha]'s > .70).

Gerbing and Anderson's (1988, p. 191) "two-step" recommendation calls for unidimensional scale refinement prior to any structural analysis. Consequently, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted with affinity's five factor scores and the three other constructs. Results from the four-factor 22-item measurement model were encouraging ([chi square] = 689.7, df= 203); see significant individual item loadings and reliability coefficients shown in Appendix A. The CFA's Squared Root Mean Residual (SRMR=.05) and Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation (RMSEA=.07) gave a paired-index test of "close fit" (Hu & Bentler, 1999, p. 1). However, there was some room for improving the measures. This involved simplifying organizational affiliation and team identity scales with a procedure that reduces the number of scale items by creating paired "parallel indicators of the construct" (c.f. Mathieu & Farr, 1991, p. 128). The advantage of refining established measures this way is that the estimate does not eliminate data (i.e., weaker indicators) but retains the whole tool; combining and condensing all of the scale's original items according to their factor loadings (see Appendix A).

Significant factor correlations in Table 3 show positive links between all four constructs. Concerns over the discrete nature of the four constructs were alleviated by a model testing procedure that fixes covariance estimates between each of the construct pairs to 1.0 (cf. Hightower, Brady, & Barker, 2002). Support was determined if the fix significantly reduced the fit reported in the baseline CFA (i.e., [DELTA][chi square] > 3.84, p < .05). Shown above the diagonal in Table 3, the smallest chi-square difference observed from this procedure ([DELTA][chi square] = 36.5, df= 1) showed significantly diminished fit, providing strong evidence of each construct's discriminant validity. Contrasting each construct's PVE estimate (i.e., < .50 benchmark) against the square of its respective correlations with other factors (on and below diagonal in Table 3) lends further support to claims that valid and distinct scales were indeed in hand (Pons et al., 2006).

Testing the Dual Carriageway Model

With valid and reliable measures in hand, a structural test of Figure 1 was conducted. Responses from respondents to each construct were submitted to a path analysis program (Arbuckle, 1994). Several diagnostic indicators noted the integrity of the model ([X.sup.2] = 191.6, df = 86, p < .01). The Goodness of Fit (GFI = .94) and Adjusted Goodness of Fit Indices (AGFI = .92) both provided evidence that the data fit the specified parameters effectively (i.e. > .90 benchmark). Each item loaded significantly, contributing to reliable estimates of their respective constructs ([alpha]'s > .80). A paired-index test recommend by Hu and Bentler (1999) also supported model acceptance (SRMR=.05; RMSEA=.05). Overall justification of Figure 1 addresses the first hypothesis on the presence of dual routes, as both affinity and affiliation processes were related (r = .43, p<.001) psychological mechanisms in ID's formation (see results in Table 4).

The second hypothesis was also supported by the positive link between team identification and game attendance ([beta] = .58), reported in Table 4. ID explained a significant proportion of this behavior in fans ([R.sup.2] = .34). Standardized regression coefficients also significantly linked both organizational affiliation (p = .62) and team affinity ([beta] = .17) to the explanation of team identification ([R.sup.2] = .50). This supports the third and fourth hypotheses, as both elements in the dual carriageway played strong but not equal roles in ID. A sense of affiliation with the university proved to be the dominant process at work in this particular sample's ID; whether or not this would be so in non-collegiate settings (e.g., professional football) remains to be seen.

Discussion

The study re-affirmed that a dual carriage-way operates in identification with a sports team. Both affiliation and affinity processes demonstrated a significant influence on the formation of ID. This finding is wholly consistent with previous research (e.g., Foster et al., 2007). In this case, however, the affiliation process, measured by shared values and organizational attachment to the university was the strongest contributor. Situational influences may dictate which of the affiliation or affinity processes are most relevant to the formation of ID. In the current study, students have a multi-faceted relationship with the focal organization, of which the football program is only one potential "communicator" and point of connection (Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003, p. 78). Thus, sharing the values and sense of mission as a student with the university is closely related to the ability to connect and identify with the institution's football team. Quite possibly in other contexts organizational affiliation may prove weaker and affinity processes dominant. One possible application would be ID with professional sports teams. Many professional sports fans may not have strong, multi-faceted connections to the organization or franchise managing the team. In the absence of strong organizational connections, affinity may be a stronger contributor to fan identification.

Weak connections with professional sport organizations and a diminished desire to affiliate can originate for a variety of reasons. Foster and Hyatt (2007) relate one such scenario, where team relocation in the NHL generated disavowal of the franchise's management. Connections with other franchises can suffer from a lack of communication and awareness in the fan base of who they are and what they stand for (i.e., their core values and mission). The Seattle Seahawks are one organization in the NFL that communicates a basis for affiliation by clearly publicizing its mission (Seahawks, 2009). Employee vision there is dedicated to a culture of service that values Passion (Football is our passion), Character (Character is our commitment), 12th Man (The 12th Man is our focus), and Excellence (Excellence is our goal). Other clubs use the presence of strong leadership to transmit a basis for affiliation with the franchise. A good example of this is Mark Cuban's leadership at the helm of the NBA's Dallas Mavericks. Strong leadership values in this organization are evident both from the owner's on-court behavior and his direction of the club's community relations activities (e.g., Mavs Foundation; Cuban's Fallen Patriot Fund). Of course not all leaders in sport organizations inspire a desire in fans to affiliate with their organization. In fact, some fans may develop negative views of an owner's management that repel any notion of affiliation or ID.

Implications for Strategy

Understanding if weak points of attachment exist in a fan base is crucial to the management of ID (Trail, Robinson et al., 2003; Woo et al., 2009). Some teams may significantly benefit by developing strategies that cultivate stronger organizational connections in their fans. For example, some franchises may benefit from pursuing club models more commonly found in European leagues. Many teams on the other side of the Atlantic build attachment and community by sponsoring competition at various levels (youth, recreational), instead of focusing solely on elite performance. Broadening the relationship fans have with an organization (supporter and recreational participant) may fuel ID and increase patronage (e.g., attendance, purchase behavior).

Strategically, the dual route finding is consistent with the thinking of brand tacticians, that the right mix of brand image and organizational values builds brand equity. Still, devising the correct formula entails undertaking customer-centered research that avoids "blind spots" and "statistically links customer equity drivers to customer lifetime value" (Rust et al., 2004, p. 116). The study's connection between ID and fan behavior gives credence to this and corroborates prior ties reported between strong attitude and spectator consumption (Trail, Fink, & Anderson, 2003). Importantly, the attractiveness of a team's image or the desire to identify is not solely determined by team performance or win/loss records (Fisher & Wakefield, 1998). This implies that a host of marketing schemes well within the realm of a sport marketer's control (uniforms, logos, advertising, corporate PR, community relations, etc.) can be used to appeal and leverage ID into ongoing patronage.

Conclusion

Although the current study has made some progress toward describing the formation of ID, a lot remains to be done. Confirming the role of affinity and affiliation, and Figure 1 for that matter, in other spectator contexts is essential to establishing external validity (Winer, 1999). In our minds, conducting a similar study in the context of a professional football team (e.g., an NFL or MLS team) would constitute an important next step in this direction. Another area worth focusing on are the "variety of communicators" said to cue the potential development of identification (e.g., Bhattacharya et al., 2003). What was encouraging from our findings was that our two antecedent processes did in fact explain a significant portion of ID. Yet, this explanation was not complete, suggesting that other factors are unaccounted for in the model. Several variables come to mind for future inquiry; two of them, on-field performance and in-park service (Fisher et al., 1998; Hightower et al., 2002), have the potential to diminish or improve the spectator experience and perhaps their willingness to identify. Using research to understand ID and take stock of its potential correlates (Bhattacharya et al., 1995) will help the sports marketer diagnose what may be best for their organization in their particular market. While our study indicates there are some common processes at work, just assuming that attachment develops in the same manner each time may not be wise.

Appendix A

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Results: Scale Items & Standardized
Loadings(b's)

Organizational Affiliation (OA): 8 Items ([alpha] = .87) (a) [beta]'s

1. Since enrolling at--, I have come to share many of .78
the school's values.

2. The reason I prefer--to other universities is .78
because of what it stands for, its values.

3. My attachment to--is primarily based on similarity .79
of my values and those represented by--.

4. What--stands for is important to me. .73

5. Rather than just being a student, I feel a sense of .68
ownership with--.

6. If the values of--were different, I would not be as .53
attached to this school.

7. I am proud to tell others that I am a student at--. .57

8. I talk up the university to my friends as a great school .57
to attend.

Team Identification (ID): 6 Items ([alpha] = .88) (b)

1. When someone criticizes--football, it feels like a .75
personal insult.

2. I am interested in what others think about the-- .74
football team.

3. The--football team's successes are my successes. .77

4. When someone praises the--football team, it feels .79
like a personal compliment.

5. I would be upset if a story in the media criticized the-- .76
football team.

6. When I talk about the--football team, I usually .67
say we rather than they.

Game Attendance (GA): 3 Items ( = .90) (c)

1. All things being equal, the probability that I would .81
attend--football games is ...

2. The likelihood that I would attend an--football .92
game over another event is ...

3. The probability of my purchasing--football tickets .87
rather than tickets to another event is ...

Source: (a) O'Reilly & Chatman (1986), (b) Mael & Ashforth
(1992), (c) Grewal, Monroe, & Krishnan (1998).

References

Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 347-356.

Arbuckle, J. L. (1994). AMOS: Analysis of moment structures. Psychometrika, 59, 135-137.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20-39.

Baumeister, R. F. (1982, January). Self-presentation view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 3-26.

Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). Self-categorization, affective commitment and group self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39(4), 555-577.

Bhattacharya, C. B., Rao, H., & Glynn, M. A. (1995). Understanding the bond of identification: An investigation of its correlates among art museum members. Journal of Marketing, 59(4), 46-57.

Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company identification: A framework for understanding consumers' relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67(2), 76-88.

Burton, R., & Howard, D. (2000, Spring). Recovery strategies for sports. Marketing Management, 42-49.

Cialdini, R. B., & De Nicholas, M. E. (1989). Self-presentation by association. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(4), 626-631.

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

Foster, W. M., & Hyatt, C. (2007). I despise them! I detest them! Franchise relocation and the expanded model of organizational identification. Journal of Sport Management, 21, 194-212.

Funk, D. C., & Pritchard, M. P. (2006). Sport publicity: Commitment's moderation of message effects. Journal of Business Research, 59, 613-621.

Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2), 186-192.

Grewal, D., Monroe, K. B., & Krishnan, R. (1998). The effects of price-comparison advertising on buyers' perceptions of acquisition value, transaction value, and behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 46-59.

Harada, M., & Matsuoka, H. (1999). The influence of new team entry upon brand switching in the J-League. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 8(1), 21-30.

Helgeson, J. G., & Supphellen, M. (2004). A conceptual and measurement comparison of self-congruity and brand personality. International Journal of Marketing Research, 46(2), 205-233.

Hightower, R., Brady, M. K., & Barker, T. L. (2002). Investigating the role of the physical environment in hedonic service consumption: An exploratory study of sporting events. Journal of Business Research, 55, 697-707.

Howard, D. R., & Crompton, J. L. (2003). Financing sport (2nd ed.). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology.

Hu, L. T, & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling, 6(1), 1-55.

Kahle, L. R., Kambara, K. M., & Rose, G. M. (1996). A functional model of fan attendance motivations for college football. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 5(4), 51-60.

Kang, J. H. (2002). A structural model of image-based and utilitarian decision-making processes for participant sport consumption. Journal of Sport Management, 16, 173-189.

Kelley, S. (2009, February 22). Brandon Roy is just what Portland needed. The Seattle Times.

Kelman, H. C. (1961). Process of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 57-78.

Laverie, D. A., & Arnett, D. B. (2000). Factors affecting fan attendance: The influence of identity salience and satisfaction. Journal of Leisure Research, 32(2), 225-246.

Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103-123.

Mathieu, J. E., & Farr, J. L. (1991). Further evidence for the discriminant validity of measures of organizational commitment, job involvement, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(1), 127-133.

McAllister, M. (2002, December 7). Trailblazers' brass vows to be cleanup crew. The Dallas Morning News.

McDonald, M. A., & Milne, G. R. (1997). A conceptual framework for evaluating marketing relationships in professional sport franchises. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 6(1), 27-32.

O'Reilly III, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 492-499.

Phau, I., & Lao, K. C. (2001). Brand personality and consumer self-expression: Single or dual carriageway? Brand Management, 8(6), 428-444.

Pons, F., Mourali, M., & Nyeck, S. (2006). Consumer orientation toward sporting events: Scale development and validation. Journal of Service Research, 8(3), 276-287.

Rust, R. T., Zeithaml, V. A., & Lemon, K. N. (2004). Customer-centered brand management. Harvard Business Review, 82(9), 110-118.

Seahawks (n.d.). Employment: Our mission. Retrieved from http://www.seahawks.com/about-us/employment.html

Sirgy, J. M., & Samli, C. A. (1986). A path analytic model of store loyalty involving self-concept, store image, geographic loyalty and socioeconomic status. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, 13(3), 265-291.

Sirgy, J. M., Grewal, D., Mangleberg, T., Park, J., Chon, K., Claiborne, C. B., Johar, J. S., & Berkman, H. (1997). Assessing the predictive validity of two methods of measuring self-image congruence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, 25(3), 229-241.

Sirgy, J. M., Grewal, D., & Mangleburg, T. (2000). Retail environment, self-congruity, and retail patronage: An integrative model and a research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 49(2), 127-138.

Solomon, M. R. (1983, December). The role of products as social stimuli: A symbolic interactionist perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 319-329.

Sounders (n.d.). The team: About us. Retrieved from http://www.soundersfc.com/Team/About-Us.aspx

Sutton, W. A., McDonald, M. A., Milne, G. R., & Cimperman, J. (1997). Creating and fostering fan identification in professional sports. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 6(1), 15-22.

Trail, G. T., Fink, J. S., & Anderson, D. F. (2003). Sport spectator consumption behavior. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12(1), 8-17.

Trail, G. T., Robinson, M. J., Dick, R. J., & Gillentine, A. J. (2003). Motives and points of attachment: Fans versus spectators in intercollegiate athletics. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12(4), 217-227.

Wann, D. L. (1995). Preliminary validation of the sport fan motivation scale. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 19, 377-396.

Woo, B., Trail, G. T., Kwon, H. H., & Anderson, D. (2009). Testing models of motives and points of attachment among spectators in college football. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 18(1), 38-53.

Authors' Note

Data used in this manuscript were collected as part of Elizabeth Patton's master's thesis at Arizona State University.

Mark P. Pritchard, PhD, is a professor and director of the Northwest Centre for Sport Business at Central Washington University. His research interests include consumer attachment and branding in sport. Jeffrey Stinson, PhD, is an assistant professor and associate director of the Northwest Centre for Sport Business at Central Washington University. His research interests include charitable giving, intercollegiate athletics, and sport branding. Elizabeth Patton received her master's degree from Arizona State University.

Table 1.

Sample Demographics (n=430)

Gender

 48.7% male
 51.3% female

Academic Level

 33.2% freshman
 21.0% sophomores
 25.9% juniors
 16.1% seniors
 3.7% post-graduate

Full or Part-time Student

 94% full-time
 6% part-time students

Fraternity or Sorority Involvement

 15.5% members
 84.5% nonmembers

Games attended

 57.9% 0 games
 11.7% 1 game
 7.5% 2 games
 6.5% 3 games
 16.4% 4+ games

Residential Proximity

 28.9% live on campus
 15.9% < 1 mile from campus
 26.3% 1-5 miles from campus
 28.9% > 5 miles from campus

State Resident

 20.1% < 1 year
 14.5% 1-2 years
 9.8% 3-4 years
 55.5% > 5 years

Semesters on Campus

 47.3% 1-2 semesters
 23.1% 3-4 semesters
 17.4% 5-6 semesters
 12.2% > 7 semesters

Ticket Holder Status

 32.3% season ticket holders
 67.7% not a ticket holder

Table 2. Assessing Team Affinity: Exploratory Factor Analysis of
Personality (T-S) Difference Scores (a)

 5-Factor Solution of Traits

Image Attributes (i) F1 F2 F3
 Sincerity Sophistication Competence

Down-to-earth .737 .153 .237
Honest .769 .183 .324
Sincere .796 .127 .265
Wholesome .771 .268 .102
Cheerful .554 .301 -.028
Daring .019 .205 .131
Exciting .160 .253 .242
Spirited .165 .005 .089
Imaginative .384 .354 .241
Up-to-date .378 .370 .254
Reliable .500 .094 .668
Competent .398 .337 .684
Intelligent .250 .410 .695
Successful .246 .454 .585
Upper-class .123 .722 .350
Sophisticated .280 .752 .286
Charming .279 .746 .205
Outdoorsy .231 .472 -.175
Rugged .006 .117 .044
Tough .062 -.071 .114
Eigen Value 3.773 2.984 2.480
Variance Explained % 18.86 14.92 12.40

 5-Factor Solution of Traits

Image Attributes (i) F4 F5
 Excitement Ruggedness

Down-to-earth .136 .045
Honest .116 .101
Sincere .160 .088
Wholesome .063 .032
Cheerful .467 -.045
Daring .559 .405
Exciting .768 .109
Spirited .815 .121
Imaginative .413 -.018
Up-to-date .347 .008
Reliable .115 .146
Competent .198 .009
Intelligent .189 .069
Successful .287 .007
Upper-class .175 .121
Sophisticated .145 .099
Charming .135 .016
Outdoorsy .122 .497
Rugged .048 .894
Tough .173 .870
Eigen Value 2.425 2.070
Variance Explained % 12.12 10.35

(a) Ti--Si differences, derived from ratings of Ti = team-image and
Si = self-image on attributes (i).

Table 3. Correlations and Chi-Square Difference Results (n = 430) (abc)

 TA OA ID GA

TA .51 136.0 109.3 105.7

OA .44 .66 65.8 85.4

ID .43 .72 .70 36.5

GA .27 .40 .57 .75

(a) Percent of Variance Extracted, PVE =
([chi][SIGMA][[lambda].sup.2]) /
(([SIGMA][[lambda].sup.2]) + [SIGMA] errors), in bold on diagonal.

(b) Factor correlations from CFA below the diagonal.

(c) [DELTA][chi square] test from paired unity correlations above the
diagonal.

Table 4.

Path Analysis of the Dual Carriage-Way Model (n=430)

MEASUREMENT

Constructs/Items Mean(a) [lambda]

Org. Affiliation (a=.88)
 OA1 2.95 .73
 OA2 2.85 .88
 OA3 2.70 .84
 OA4 2.93 .79

Team ID (a=.88)
 ID1 3.11 .84
 ID2 3.48 .85
 ID3 3.28 .83

Team Affinity (a=.81)
 TA1 Sincerity 1.89 .78
 TA2 Excitement 1.56 .73
 TA3 Competence 2.09 .85
 TA4 Sophistication 4.09 .74 Adjusted
 TA5 Ruggedness 1.94 .36

Game Attendance (a = .90)
 GA1 2.69 .81
 GA2 3.04 .91
 GA3 3.05 .87

STRUCTURE
 [beta] P [less
Path Relationships /r than or
 equal to]

Affinity [left and right arrow]
 Affiliation .43 .001
Affinity [right arrow]
 Identification .17 .001
Affiliation [right arrow]
 Identification .62 .001
Identification [right arrow]
 Game Attendance .58 .001
Squared Multiple Correlations [R.sup.2] P [less
 than or
 equal to]
Team Identification .50 .001
Game Attendance .34 .001

Model Fit Diagnostics

[chi square] test = 191.6 (df = 86; p<.01)

Goodness-of-Fit-Index = .94
Goodness-of-Fit-Index = .92

Paired Fit-Test
RMSEA = .05 SRMR = .05

(a) Implied mean estimates shown. In saturated models, a model-implied
item mean is the same as the sample mean. For over-identified models
(one with positive degrees of freedom), the implied mean of a measured
variable can differ from the sample mean. In that situation, if the
model is correct, which is true in the case above, the implied mean
offers a better estimate of the population mean than the sample mean.