Florida State University Libraries

Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School

2012

Understanding the Role of ConsumerGoodwill in Sponsorship: An Application ofAppraisal TheoryYuko Sawatari

Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact lib-ir@fsu.edu

THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

UNDERSTANDING THE ROLE OF CONSUMER GOODWILL IN SPONSORSHIP:

AN APPLICATION OF APPRAISAL THEORY

By

YUKO SAWATARI

A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Sport and Recreation Management

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, β01β

ii

Yuko Sawatari defended this dissertation on March 19th, 2012. The members of the supervisory committee were:

Jeffrey D. James Professor Directing Dissertation

Robert C. Eklund University Representative

Michael Mondello Committee Member

Yu Kyoum Kim Committee Member

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above named committee members, and certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements.

iii

AKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I would like to acknowledge Dr. Jeffrey James, my major professor, for all of his

patience and assistance throughout my study in graduate school. The time discussing my work

with him were some of the most enjoyable and exciting moments in my graduate study. I really

appreciate the opportunity to work under his direction.

I am also very thankful for the help of Dr. Robert Eklund. His welcoming demeanor

always made me feel as though I had someone in my corner. The warm support and

encouragement I received from him constantly kept me motivated.

I would also like to express my deep appreciation to the other members of my committee:

Dr. Michael Mondello and Dr. Yu Kyoum Kim. Their insightful advice and suggestions were

indispensable for the improvement of my study.

A special thanks to my friends and colleagues at Florida State University, including Jun

Woo Kim, Priscila Alfaro, Jordan Bass, Young-Tae Kim, Jaeyeon Hwang, Young Do Kim,

Smith Claude, Jervonie Forde, Takahisa Emori and others who I cannot list.

Finally, and most importantly, I would like to express my sincere gratitude and love to

my family. They have been a consistent source of encouragement and support along the journey

to my goal. Without their support and contribution, my journey could not have been completed.

Now, I would like to be a cheerleader all of their journeys. Many thanks again.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... vii LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... ix ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... x INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 Purposes of the Study ......................................................................................................... 2 Conceptual Framework .................................................................................................... 2 Theoretical Framework .................................................................................................... 4

Statement of the problem ................................................................................................. 7 Research Questions .......................................................................................................... 9

Significance of the study .................................................................................................... 9 Limitations of the Study ................................................................................................... 11 Definition of Terms .......................................................................................................... 12 Overview of Chapters....................................................................................................... 14 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................ 15 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 15 The Sponsorship Literature............................................................................................... 16 Definition of Sponsorship .................................................................................... 16 Objectives of Sponsorship ................................................................................... 17 The underlying mechanisms of sponsorship and how they affect consumers …. 18 Image Transfer ………............................................................................. 18 Sponsorship Fit/Congruency .................................................................... 20 Balance Theory ………............................................................................ 20 Fan Involvement ……….......................................................................... 22 Attribution Theory …............................................................................... 23 Goodwill ……….............................................................................................................. 26 What Is Goodwill? ............................................................................................... 26 Social Aspect of Sponsorship .............................................................................. 26 Processes of Goodwill Generation ....................................................................... 27 Contingent Goodwill ………................................................................................ 28 A Moderating Factor of Goodwill – Involvement ………................................... 30 Measurement of Goodwill Generation ………..................................................... 32 Measuring Perceptions of Sponsor/Sponsorship ................................................. 33 Measuring the Feeling of Appreciation ............................................................... 45 Outcomes of Goodwill …………………………................................................. 46 Appraisal Theory ............................................................................................................. 53 Appraisals Approach in Marketing Research ...................................................... 54 Gratitude ..……………………..…….............................................................................. 56 Emotion of Gratitude ……………....................................................................... 56 Gratitude-Related Behaviors …………................................................................ 57 Exchange of Gratifications, Existential Folk Beliefs, Social Norm as a Reciprocal Behavior ............................................................................................. 58 Emotion of Gratitude in Marketing Research ...................................................... 60

v

Summary of the Literature Review …………….............................................................. 63 Research Hypotheses …………………………............................................................... 64 Introduction ……………….……………………............................................................. 64 Recognition ……………….……………………............................................................. 65 Appraisals to Gratitude ………………………………........................................ 70 Influence of Involvement ……………………………......................................... 75 Gratitude to Attitudinal and Behavioral Responses ……….…......................... 77 Mediating Role of Gratitude ………………………............................................ 80 METHODS …………………...................................................................................................... 82 Introduction ……………………..…................................................................................ 83 Pilot Study 1 ………......................................................................................................... 83 Purpose …………................................................................................................. 83 Procedure ……………......................................................................................... 83 Pilot Study β …………..................................................................................................... 84 Purpose …………................................................................................................. 84 Procedure ……………......................................................................................... 84 Main Study …………………………………………………........................................... 87 Research Design …………………………........................................................... 87 Participants ........................................................................................................... 88 Instrumentation …………………........................................................................ 89 Data Collection Procedures .................................................................................. 91 Data Analysis Procedures .................................................................................... 94 RESULTS …………………………………………………………………….……………… 97 Introduction ……………………..…................................................................................ 97 Pilot Study 1 ………......................................................................................................... 97 Purpose ……..……............................................................................................... 97 Data Collection ……............................................................................................ 97 Assessment of the Manipulation ……….............................................................. 98 Pilot Study β …………..................................................................................................... 99 Purpose …………................................................................................................. 99 Data Collection …….......................................................................................... 100 Data Screening and Assumption tests …............................................................ 100 Assessment of the Scales ………....................................................................... 101 Summary for the Pilot Studies ………............................................................... 105 Main Study .…..………………………………….......................................................... 105 Purpose ……………........................................................................................... 105 Data Collection …….......................................................................................... 106 Data Screening and Assumption Tests ………….............................................. 106 Assessment of the Measurement model …...…….............................................. 114 Stage 1 …………………………………………............................................................ 117 Assessment Tests for MANOVA and MANCOVA …….................................. 118 Result for Question 1 …..................................................................................... 121 Summary of Stage 1 Results ………………….................................................. 125 Stage 2 ………………………………..…….................................................................. 126 Results for Hypotheses ……………………….................................................. 126 Summary of Stage 2 Results ………………….................................................. 133

vi

Self Report about a Sponsor’s Contribution ………….………….…………………. 1γγ DISCUSSION …………………………………………………………….………………… 137 Introduction ……………………..….............................................................................. 137

Manipulation of the independent variable ………......................................................... 137 Discussion of Results: Main Study 1 …...…….............................................................. 138 Perceived Benefit ………................................................................................... 138 Perceived Necessity …....................................................................................... 140 Perceived Concern ……………….……............................................................ 141 Perceived Commercial Intent ……………….……............................................ 143 Discussion of Results: Main Study 2 …...…….............................................................. 144 Hypothesis 1, 2, 3, and 4 ………........................................................................ 144 Hypothesis 5, 6, and 7…..................................................................................... 148 Hypothesis 8 and 9 ……………….……............................................................ 151 Contributions of the Current Study ……………….……................................... 153 Limitations and Directions for Future Research ………………….……........... 158 Conclusion …………………………….………….……................................... 165 APENDIX A .............................................................................................................................. 167 APENDIX B .............................................................................................................................. 168 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 174 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ..................................................................................................... 185

vii

LIST OF TABLES

2.1 Scales for Goodwill or Goodwill-Related Constructs ......................................................... 40

2.2 Scales for Attitude toward the Sponsor: Assessing a company itself .................................. 48

2.3 Scales for Attitude toward the Sponsor: Assessing a company in terms of sponsorship activity .................................................................................................................................. 49 2.4 Scales for Purchase Intention ............................................................................................... 51

3.1 Organization of the Research ............................................................................................... 82

3.2 Measured Items .................................................................................................................... 90

3.3 Contents of the Scenario ...................................................................................................... 93

4.1 Monetary Support Scenario: Question Ratings …................................................................ 98 4.2 Non- monetary Support Scenario: Question Ratings ........................................................... 99 4.3 Comparisons between Question1 and Question2 ................................................................ 99

4.4 Measurement Model in Pilot Study 2 ................................................................................ 101

4.5 Assessment of Discriminant Validity ................................................................................ 104

4.6 Monetary Support Scenario: Question Ratings ….............................................................. 108 4.7 Non- monetary Support Scenario: Question Ratings ......................................................... 108 4.8 Comparisons between Question1 and Question2 .............................................................. 108

4.9 Demographic Characteristics of the Sample in Main Study .............................................. 110

4.10 Distribution: Testing for Normality for a Monetary Information Group .......................... 111

4.11 Distribution: Testing for Normality for a Non-monetary Information Group .................. 111

4.12 Distribution: Testing for Normality for a No-Information Group .................................... 112

4.13 Distribution: Testing for Normality for the Total Data ………………............................ 113

4.14 Descriptive Statistics …………………………………………………………................. 114

viii

4.15 Measurement Model in the Main Study ….…………………………………................... 115

4.16 Assessment of Discriminant Validity …………………………....................................... 117

4.17 Reliability of a Covariate ………………………………..……………............................ 118

4.18 Correlations between Dependent Variables ………..………………………………….. 119

4.19 Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances in MANOVA …...…………………........ 120

4.20 Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances in MANCOVA …………………............. 120

4.21 Descriptive Statistics …………………………………..……………............................... 121

4.22 MANOVA: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects …...…………………………………… 123

4.23 MANCOVA: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects …………..…...…………………........ 125

4.24 ANCOVAs: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects ………………..………………............. 125

4.25 Parameter Estimates for the Hypothesized Model .……………..………………............. 131

4.26 Self Report about a Sponsor’s Contribution to a Sponsored Property ….………............. 135

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

1.1 A hypothesized model of the relationships between consumer perceptions and emotion and consume outcomes ………………………………………………………………..…... 7

2.1 Previous Findings ............................................................................................................... 46

2.2 A Model Explaining a Role of a Sense of Appreciation in Sponsorship through Appraisal Theory ................................................................................................................................. 65 3.1 Experimental Research Design ............................................................................................ 88

4.1 A Structural Model …………............................................................................................ 127

x

ABSTRACT

Consumer goodwill is one of the unique effects differentiating sponsorship from other

marketing activities (Meenaghan, β001a; β001b). While other marketing communications tend to

be labeled as selfish (Meenaghan, β001a; β001b), designed merely to pursue advantages for a

company, sponsorship is recognized as a “good thing to do” (McDonald, 1999). People approve

of and generate positive attitudes toward sponsorship, believing it to be one of the activities

through which businesses contribute to society (Meenaghan, β001a; β001b). Throughout the

current study the idea of the process of goodwill generation and goodwill effect was assessed

based on the emotion of gratitude, utilizing the application of appraisal theory. This theory

focuses on a role of emotion. The theory’s central theme is that emotion is derived from

individuals’ subjective evaluations/appraisals of a stimulus (Scherer, 1999) or implications of a

situation (Smith & Kirby, β009). The emotions elicited through appraisal processes lead to

behavioral responses (Frijda, 1986; Johnson & Stewart, β005; Smith & Lazarus, 1990). The

current study included measures of the emotion of gratitude in order to understand how

consumers’ appreciation toward a sponsor works in the effectiveness of spectator sports

sponsorship.

Two issues were addressed in this study. The first issue dealt with whether a sponsor is

able to influence consumers’ perceptions in order to enhance consumers’ sense of appreciation

for a sponsor. Specifically, an effort was made to address the effect of information transmission

concerning a sponsor’s investment in a sponsored property (i.e., no information about a

sponsor’s investment, information about a sponsor’s monetary support, and information about a

sponsor’s non-monetary support) on consumers’ perceptions. The MANOVA and MANCOVA

results indicated that having access to the information concerning a sponsor’s investment

influenced participants’ perceptions about the sponsorship being beneficial to the property and

the sponsor having commercial intent. The information, on the other hand, did not influence

participants’ perceptions about the sponsorship being a necessity for the property nor the sponsor

being concerned about the property. Specifically, participants receiving information about a

sponsor’s monetary support perceived the sponsorship as more beneficial than participants

receiving no information. For commercial intent, participants receiving no information about a

xi

sponsor’s support perceived the sponsor having more commercial intent than participants

receiving information about the sponsor’s non-monetary support.

The second issue involved how gratitude operates in relation to sponsorship. Based on

appraisal theory, relationships among perceptions toward sponsorship, gratitude, and attitudinal

and behavioral outcome variables, were hypothesized. The results from Structural Equation

Modeling (SEM) indicated that perceived benefit, perceived necessity, and perceived commercial

intent predicted gratitude, while perceived concern did not predict gratitude. Gratitude did

predict attitude toward a sponsor, while gratitude did not influence purchase intent. Attitude

toward a sponsor also did not influence purchase intent. Gratitude was found to partially mediate

the influence of perceived benefit and perceived commercial intent on attitude toward a sponsor.

Additionally, gratitude fully mediated the influence of perceived necessity on attitude toward a

sponsor. The results from the current study confirmed a partial effect of gratitude, providing

managers with potential justification for the use of sponsorship in spectator sports, as well as

leading the research to offer suggestions to enhance consumers’ emotion of gratitude toward a

sponsor.

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The slump of the worldwide economy in recent years has had a severe impact on

businesses and their activities, including sponsorship activities. While worldwide sponsorship

spending has steadily grown over more than two decades from approximately $500 million in

198β (Lee, Shandler, & Shani, 1997) to approximately $ 46.γ billion in β010 (IEG, β011), the

growth rate slowed in β009 (only β.1%, IEG, β011). In the United State, sponsorship spending in

β009 declined by approximately $100 million compared to β008 (IEG, β011). This decline

represented the first reduction in sponsorship spending in the U.S. over the past β5 years (IEG,

β011). The influence of the economic downturn on sponsorship activities revealed the necessity

of reviewing and reconfirming whether and how sponsorship, in particular sport sponsorship,

brings returns to a sponsor.

A unique effect of sponsorship has been identified, particularly in comparison to

advertising. Meenaghan (β001a, β001b) argued that goodwill is a unique factor which

differentiates sponsorship from advertising. Advertising is characterized as selfish because it is

seen as existing only for the advertisers’ advantage (Meenaghan, β001b). Sponsorship is

characterized as beneficial to and concerned with society because a sponsor not only seeks its

own advantages, but also provides benefits to the sponsored property (Meenaghan, β001b).

Sport sponsorships, however, seem to receive less benefit from the goodwill effect

compared to other categories of sponsorship (e.g., social causes, arts, festivals, etc.) (Meenaghan

& Shipley, 1999). One possible reason for this limited impact is the perception that sport

sponsorships are highly commercialized (Meenaghan & Shipley, 1999). Sport sponsorships tend

to receive extensive media coverage (Erdogan & Kitchen, 1998), and athletes wearing uniforms

with the sponsors’ logos sometimes are considered a running billboard (Meenaghan, β001b).

Consumers may think of sport sponsorship as another type of advertising, subsequently

diminishing the goodwill effect.

The perception that sport sponsorships are overly commercialized may not be accurate.

An important issue to consider is whether individuals, particularly consumers realize the

importance of sponsors to sport properties. It is possible that without sponsors, some sporting

events might not take place. Numerous sporting events and young and/or amateur athletes cannot

2

survive without support from a sponsor (McDonald, 1999; Meenaghan, β001b). In addition, as

major sporting events have expanded their scale of operations, even those events are forced to

depend on sponsorship (Gwinner, 1997; Speed & Thompson, β000). The Olympic organizing

committee, in fact, generates its income through sponsorship. Sponsorship may contribute as

much as 50% of the budget required to produce Olympic events (Stotlar, β005). Although sport

sponsorship at some levels may be regarded as overly commercialized, it is an undeniable fact

that many sporting events and sport organizations depend on sponsorship to exist.

If consumers are cognizant of the benefit and necessity of sponsorship in many

instances, it is reasonable to expect that sponsors would benefit from the goodwill effect.

Furthermore, sponsors may be able to influence consumers’ beliefs concerning sponsorship

through education (Madrigal, β001). Communicating what a sponsor does and what benefits a

sponsor brings to a sponsored property may help to enhance consumer goodwill (Gwinner, 1997;

Madrigal, β001; McDonald, 1999). Therefore, in order for the goodwill effect to be operative,

there must be clear communication regarding how sponsors contribute to or benefit a sponsored

property.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the current study was twofold: First, assessing whether a sponsor is able

to influence consumers’ perceptions in order to enhance consumers’ appreciation for a sponsor.

In particular, an effort was made to explore the effect of information transmission about a

sponsor’s investment in a sponsored property on consumers’ perceptions. Second, the current

study was conducted to test a theoretical model explaining the role of a sense of appreciation in

consumer behavior (perceptions toward sponsorship a sense of appreciation consumer

outcomes). Whether consumers’ perception shapes their senses of appreciation and whether their

senses of appreciation affect consumer outcomes were examined.

Conceptual Framework

The concept of sponsorship involves a sponsor’s provision of valued resources to a

sponsored property. A sponsor’s investments in a property are multifaceted and could include

financial, material, and/or personnel support. The question becomes whether consumers

recognize what a sponsor provides to a property. Some consumers may only be aware of who is a

sponsor. McDonald (1999) argued that sponsorship is seen as advertising and/or recognized as

exploiting a property when consumers do not know what a sponsor does for the sport property.

3

This misunderstanding results in the loss of a goodwill effect for the sponsor (McDonald, 1999;

Meenaghan, β001b). Previous researchers (Gwinner, 1997; Madrigal, β001; McDonald, 1999)

have discussed the importance of communicating what a sponsor does in order to enhance

consumer’s beliefs concerning sponsorship. Therefore, the current research sought to control the

information about a sponsor’s investment: no information about a sponsor’s investment,

information about monetary support, and information about non-monetary support. Whether the

difference in information influenced individuals’ perceptions toward a sponsor/sponsorship was

explored.

The term goodwill has been used to explain individuals’ favorable attitude toward

sponsorship (Meenaghan, β001b). In a sponsorship context, goodwill is generated through an

individual’s recognition of and appreciation for the benefits a sponsorship deal provides to the

sponsored property (e.g., Meenaghan, β001a; β001b; McDonald, 1999). The extent to which a

consumer believes a sponsor provides meaningful benefits to a sponsored property is an

important antecedent of goodwill. Goodwill is context dependent; a sponsor’s perceived

behaviors encourage or discourage a sense of goodwill, hence the term contingent goodwill.

Researchers (Meenaghan, β001a; β001b; McDonald, 1999) have discussed two

contingent factors which influence goodwill. The first is perceived concern about a sponsored

property, “the extent to which a consumer believes a sponsor has a true caring concern for the

property beyond mere commercial interest” (Kim, β010, p. 1β7). The second is perceived

commercial intent, the extent to which consumers believe a sponsor seems more interested in

gaining commercial advantages from their sponsorship investment than helping a sponsored

property (Kim, β010). In addition to these two factors, a third contingent factor was proposed:

perceived necessity, the extent to which a consumer believes a sponsor’s help is necessary for a

sponsored property to operate and/or exist.

Perceived benefits and the three contingent factors (perceived concern about a property,

perceived commercial intent, and perceived necessity) are considered antecedents of goodwill

generation, which is a sense of appreciation, but do not in and of themselves indicate the

generation of goodwill. As explained above, goodwill is generated through “the appreciation of

individuals who recognize the benefits of sponsorship to activities with which they are involved”

(Meenaghan, β001a, p. 10β). Therefore, whether goodwill is generated through a sponsorship

activity may be determined by measuring their senses of appreciation, while a sense of

4

appreciation itself may not be goodwill. Although the term of goodwill was used interchangeably

with the term of gratitude (a sense of appreciation) in Meenaghan’s (β001a) study, those two

concepts may be distinct constructs. While the term of goodwill has not been clearly defined, it

has been used to explain consumers’ favorable attitude toward a sponsorship (Meenaghan,1991;

β001b). A sense of appreciation was, on the other hand, explained as driving goodwill in

Meenaghan’s (β001a) study.

The concept of a consumer’s sense of appreciation has been studied in consumer

marketing in relation to the emotion of gratitude toward a business (Morales, β005; Palmatier,

Jarvis, Bechkoff, & Kardes, β009; Soscia, β007). In the domain of sponsorship study, Kim,

Smith, and James (β010) examined the effect of gratitude in the participant sport sponsorship

context. Gratitude represents “(1) a warm sense of appreciation for somebody or something, (β) a

sense of goodwill toward that individual or thing, and (γ) a disposition to act which flows from

appreciation and goodwill” (Fitzgerald, 1998, p. 1β0). In the current study, the construct of

goodwill itself (Meenaghan,1999; β001b), was not measured. Instead, gratitude was included as

a measure of appreciation as a first step in examining the impact of gratitude on consumer

behavior.

Theoretical Framework

Appraisal theory of emotion is used as the basis for understanding the relationships

among consumer perceptions, feelings of gratitude, and attitudinal and behavioral outcomes. The

theory has been used to explain the role of emotions in consumer behavior by previous

researchers (e.g., Bagozzi, Gopinath, & Nyer, 1999; Johnson & Stewart, β005; Nyer, 1997;

Soscia, β007; Watson & Spence, β007). A central theme of appraisal theory is that emotion is

derived from individuals’ subjective evaluations/appraisals (Scherer, 1999) or implications of

(Smith & Kirby, β009) a stimulus. According to Frijda (1986), when someone is confronted with

a certain stimulus, he or she actively observes aspects of the stimulus. The observed aspects of a

stimulus are coded in terms of her or his personal characteristics such as personal beliefs, needs,

goals, resources, and abilities related to the stimulus (Smith & Kirby, β009). The information

which is obtained through observation with a filter of personal characteristics leads to an

emotional response through the process of appraisal (Smith & Kirby, β009; Smith & Lazarus,

1990). Lazarus (1991a) described the appraisal process as“… a continuing evaluation of the

significance of what is happening for one’s personal well being” (p. 144). The emotions which

5

were elicited through appraisal processes then eventually lead to behavioral responses (Frijda,

1986; Johnson & Stewart, β005; Smith & Lazarus, 1990). Appraisal theory explains a behavioral

response as a coping activity of emotion. Emotion is, however, considered as one of the factors

shaping the affective attitude (Edwards, 1990). The affective attitude is also acquired with

appraisal (Edwards, 1990). Thus, both attitudinal and behavioral responses may be considered

outcomes of emotion.

For example, an elderly lady driving a car lost control and her car hit a tree. A man

driving behind stops, and helps the lady get out of her car. He then calls 911 and waits with the

lady for the police. After a police officer arrives, the man leaves without giving his name. In this

case, a stimulus situation is the car accident. The scanned stimulus aspects are a man helping a

lady involved in the car accident and leaving without giving his name. The observed aspects are

perceived and coded in terms of the lady’s knowledge and belief about car accidents which is

developed by her previous experience and vicarious learning about car accidents. The coded

information is evaluated by the lady through appraisal processes; a stranger gave her some help.

The help was important and necessary to her, and was voluntarily and altruistically done

(appraisal processes). Through the evaluation, the lady may truly appreciate the help (eliciting an

emotion of gratitude) and may develop a positive attitude toward the man (affective attitude).

She may, then, ask a police officer to find out who he is and even send a gift to the man (a

behavioral response). As seen in this example, an individual’s emotional processes are explained

through appraisals (encountering a stimulus situation → observing and encoding stimulus

aspects → evaluating the collected information → eliciting an emotion → reacting with a

behavior).

In the current research, “gratitude” is considered an emotion which is expected to impact

consumer attitudes and purchase intentions. Gratitude has been studied in a consumer behavior

context (Morales, β005; Soscia, β007). Consumers feel grateful to companies when they perceive

that a company’s services are intentional (Heinder, 1958; Simmons, 1979), altruistic (Heinder,

1958; Simmons, 1979; Lazarus & Lazarus, 1994; Tesser, Gatewood, & Driver, 1968), voluntary

(Berger, 1975; Simmons, 1979), and when the services are provided at a high cost for the service

provider and are valuable to the consumers (Tesser et al., 1968). These criteria are considered

appraisal points of consumer gratitude, and the generated gratitude affects consumer responses.

Previous studies have provided evidence that consumers experience gratitude when the provided

6

benefits such as help and services from a company are altruistic (Morales, β005; Palmatier,

Jarvis, Bechkoff, & Kardes, β009; Tesser et al., 1968), voluntarily given, (Palmatier et al., β009),

valuable (Palmatier et al., β009; Tesser et al., 1968), positive (Soscia, β007), and costly for

providers (Tesser et al., 1968). Gratitude leads consumers to form a positive attitude toward a

company (Morales, β005) and positive behavioral intentions such as purchase intention

(Palmatier et al., β009; Soscia, β007).

In the current study, the stimulus situation is a sponsorship context. Consumers are

exposed to a sponsorship situation with their dispositional attitudes toward a sponsorship. The

information collected based on the observation may be evaluated through appraisal processes.

Based on the review of literature related to goodwill in sponsorship, four appraisal points are

hypothesized: perceived benefits, perceived necessity, perceived concern about a property, and

perceived commercial intent. These consumer perceptions are hypothesized to affect consumers’

gratitude, whose relationship is considered to be influenced by consumers’ attitude significance

toward a sponsored property. Most of the previous consumer behavior studies related to gratitude

(e.g., Kolyesnikova & Dodd, β008; Palmatier et al., β009) have focused on consumer gratitude in

the private reciprocity situation (receiving a service and help directly, such as a retail person

spending extra time to find a specific article of clothing for a consumer), but consumer gratitude

in the general reciprocity situation (receiving benefits indirectly, such as products being neatly

organized in a store; in this situation customers do not directly receive help or favor) has been

rarely studied. Only Morales (β005) examined the effects of gratitude in a general reciprocity

situation. Morales (β005) found that gratitude is experienced when consumers recognize the

extra effort put forth by staff members, such as neatly organizing products in the store, so long as

their motive is not perceived as persuasive. The emotion of gratitude results in the consumers’

increased willingness to buy a product from the store. In this consumption situation, consumers

did not receive any direct benefit from the store (such as individual supports to find a product)

but they may indirectly receive benefits from the effort of the store, such as finding products

easily and feeling comfortable in the store. Therefore, gratitude to the store may be generated

among consumers.

7

FIGURE 1.1

A hypothesized model of the relationships between consumer perceptions and emotion and consumer outcomes

In a sponsorship context, consumers who do not identify with a sponsored property

and/or do not consider the identity developed based on the relationship with a sponsored property

as psychologically significant and valuable, may not even see themselves as recipients of indirect

benefits from a sponsor through the sponsorship activity. Therefore, the influences of attitude

toward a sponsored property on the relationship between perceptions toward sponsorship and

gratitude must be considered. Once gratitude is generated, the gratitude is then hypothesized to

influence consumer outcomes, such as attitude toward a sponsor and purchase intentions. These

two outcomes have been considered consumers’ responses toward goodwill in sponsorship

(Meenaghan, β001a). In addition, it is hypothesized that there is some influence of the attitude on

purchase intentions. The relationship has been confirmed previously in sponsorship studies (e.g.,

Close, Finney, Lacey, & Sneath, β006; Kim, β010; Martensen, Gronholdt, Bendtsen, & Jensen,

β007). Furthermore, gratitude is hypothesized to mediate the relationship between perceptions

toward a sponsorship and consumer outcomes (attitude toward a sponsorship and purchase

intentions).

Statement of the Problem

The foci of the current research include exploring the effect of information transmission

concerning a sponsor’s investment in a property on consumers’ perceptions, and developing a

8

theoretical model explaining a role of consumers’ sense of appreciation in sponsorship. Before

addressing these interests, two common issues pertaining to consumer perceptions and consumer

goodwill have to be dealt with.

The first issue is the dimensionality of consumers’ perceptions/beliefs concerning a

sponsor. Three types of consumers’ perceptions toward a sponsor were discussed: perceived

benefits for the property, perceived concern about a property, and perceived commercial intent.

One issue to consider is whether these three perceptions should be consolidated into a single

dimension, or identified as multiple dimensions. Although Kim (β010) argued for multiple

dimensions of perception, other researchers (e.g., Alexandris et al., β007; Dee et al., β008;

Madrigal, β001) have treated perception as a single dimension.

Thinking conceptually, perception seems to have multiple dimensions. For example,

Coca-Cola may be perceived as bestowing great benefits to the Olympic Games, but consumers

may also assume Coca-Cola is expecting substantial returns. Whether consumers perceive Coca-

Cola to “care about” the Olympic Games is in question; the perception of Coca-Cola as a

“caring” company may be influenced by various factors such as the amount and type of

activation associated with the sponsorship, publicity, and the relationship between Coca-Cola

and the Olympic Games. These three perceptions may coexist. In addition, the influences of

perceived benefits or perceived concern about a property on consumers’ emotional, attitudinal, or

behavioral outcomes may differ from those of perceived commercial intent. Perceived benefits or

perceived concern may be linearly and positively related to emotional, attitudinal, or behavioral

outcome, while perceived commercial intent may not have a linear relationship with outcome

variables. Since a sponsor’s commercial intent from sponsorship activity is accepted on a certain

level (Meenaghan & Shipley, 1999), consumers may not react negatively to a sponsorship unless

the level of perceived commercial use is beyond their range of tolerance. Once the limit is

exceeded, there may be negative impacts. Considering those elements, the dimensionality of

perception is one issue which requires clarification. Furthermore, as Kim (β010) argued, when

consumers make inferences about a sponsor or sponsorship, they may not focus exclusively on a

sponsor’s motives in sponsorship but also may consider other aspects of sponsorship. Thus, how

consumers perceive a sponsor/sponsorship requires further review.

The second issue concerns the lack of an adequate measure related to appreciation or

gratitude. Previous studies including tests of consumer goodwill (e.g., Alexandris et al., β007;

9

Dee et al., β008) have only examined consumers’ perceptions toward a sponsor (perceived

benefits, perceived concern about a property, and/or perceived commercial intent) but, with the

exception of Kim and colleagues’ (β010) study, not whether consumers appreciate the help of the

sponsor based on those perceptions. In order to understand whether the effects of sponsorship are

explained by gratitude, the role of consumers’ sense of appreciation in sponsorship should be

examined.

In summary, there are issues which merit investigation related to consumers’ perceptions

about sponsorship activity, and in relation to the notion of consumer goodwill. The first issue is

the dimensionality of consumers’ perceptions about a sponsor/sponsorship. A second issue is the

measurement related to gratitude. Previous research has not yet associated consumers’ senses of

appreciation for a spectator sport sponsorship with the particular outcomes. It is necessary to deal

with these two issues for understanding how effectively sponsorship works.

Research Questions

The current study explored the effect of information transmission concerning a sponsor’s

investment in a property on consumers’ perceptions, and developing a theoretical model

explaining the role of a consumer’s sense of appreciation in sponsorship. The current research

was guided by the following questions:

RQ1 Does a sponsor’s communication about its investment in a sponsored property affect

consumer perceptions?

RQβ How do consumer perceptions of sponsorship affect their feelings of appreciation?

RQγ Do consumers’ feelings of appreciation lead to attitudinal and behavioral responses?

Significance of the Study

The current study provides academically and practically meaningful information

pertaining to sport sponsorship. Appraisal theory was included to specify the role of a

consumer’s sense of appreciation in relation to sponsorship. Sponsorship has been explained by

various theories, such as balance theory, schema congruity theory, meaning transfer model, and

attribution theory. These theories, however, have not provided theoretical support for consumer

appreciatoin. Kim (β010) used attribution theory and examined the influences of consumers’

attributions about a sponsor’s motives on their attitudinal and behavioral responses. Attribution

theory, however, is only applicable in “situations in which ambiguous information about

causality must be interpreted” (Johnson & Stewart, β005, p. 9). That means attribution theory is

10

used when the observed behavior is explained by alternative causal factors (Fishbein & Ajzen,

1975). In a sponsorship context, attribution theory can only explain consumers’ interpretations of

reasons why companies engage in sponsorship activity. In a sponsorship situation, consumers

may consciously or unconsciously assess benefits provided by a sponsor, as well as motives of

the sponsor. Such a perception of benefits elicits a consumer’s feeling of appreciation. Therefore,

attribution theory alone is insufficient for explaining a consumer’s full range of perceptions or

beliefs. In addition, attribution theory does not explain the relationship between consumers’

perceptions and their feelings of appreciation.

The economic downturn has pressured businesses to justify their sponsorship spending

(Sport business group, β009). Businesses who invest their resources in sponsorship instead of

other marketing promotions must expect various unique effects and returns. Consumer

appreciation is one of the most unique effects in sponsorship, and it prompts consumers’

affective (e.g., brand favorability and preference) and behavioral responses (e.g., purchase)

(Meenaghan, β001a). Dees and her colleagues (β008) reported empirical evidence of the

influence of goodwill (perceived benefits and perceived concern about a property) on consumers’

intentions to purchase a product from a sponsor. In order to justify a company’s sponsorship

spending, further theoretical and empirical support regarding the impact of consumer

appreciation is warranted.

The current research provides insights into how consumers respond to the information

about a sponsor’s investment in a property. Since consumer appreciation is generated when

consumers recognize benefits (Meenaghan, β001b), previous researchers (Gwinner, 1997;

Madrigal, β001; McDonald, 1999) have argued the importance of communicating what a sponsor

does for a property. The overall effect, however, has not been the focus of empirical examination.

In the market, two types of advertising have been used for leveraging sponsorship:

commercial-oriented advertising and corporate-oriented advertising. Commercial-oriented

advertising tends to mainly communicate product information, showing the logo of the

sponsored property in a corner of the advertising. Corporate-oriented advertising, in contrast,

tends to use the image of the sponsored property at the front of the advertising and to clearly

articulate their sponsorship relationships. Product information is treated as sub-information, if it

is even listed at all. Which advertising brings better returns within consumer responses has been

in question. With commercial-oriented advertising it is possible to clearly communicate product

11

information, even if the sponsorship effect is limited. Corporate-oriented advertising, on the

other hand, may not have any deep meaning unless consumers consider the sponsorship

relationship to be valuable. Therefore, understanding what kind of sponsorship information

effectively reaches consumers is important. Information about a sponsor’s investment may be

considered as one of the effective messages. With the support of the effect of communication

concerning a sponsor’s investment, organizations would be advised to develop corporate-

oriented advertising including information about investments.

Assessing whether there is a positive effect on a sense of appreciation from

communicating to consumers a sponsor’s investments in a property is helpful for organizations

and activities seeking a sponsor. There are many sporting properties which struggle to find a

sponsor (McDonald, 1999). In order for properties to attract potential sponsors, enhancing

sponsorship value may be crucial. Madrigal (β001) found the positive influence of consumers’

favorable beliefs about the benefits a sponsor brings to a sponsored property on their attitudes

toward purchasing a product from the sponsor. Based on the findings, Madrigal (β001) implied

that educating a relationship between a sponsor and a property (which may include the following

information: what a sponsor does for a property; what benefits a sponsor brings to a property)

would influence consumers’ beliefs concerning sponsorship. These beliefs would affect

consumers’ attitudes toward a sponsor, which are correspondingly related to their behaviors

(Madrigal, β008). Therefore, the communication of investments may bring advantages to a

sponsor. According to Simmons and Becker-Olsen’s (β006) study, the source of information

detailing the relationship between the sponsor and property impacts a sponsorship effect.

Compared with a sponsor’s message, a property’s message led to individuals possessing a greater

clarity of the sponsor’s position, more favorable attitudes toward the sponsorship, and higher

sponsor equity. Therefore, a sponsored property’s offer, such as the chance to have active

communication of a sponsor’s contributions (investments) in public, may enhance the value of

the sponsorship contract. That will attract future sponsors.

Limitations of the Study

The current study includes limitations which may influence the inferences that can be

made from results of the study. First, this study used a convenience sampling procedure. The

convenience sampling procedure is appropriate for the current study because this work represents

an initial attempt to test how consumers’ sense of appreciation works in the context of a spectator

12

sport sponsorship. Participants of the study were college students. The results of this study

cannot be generalized with the rest of the population. While the results of this study may be

possible to apply to a sponsorship of collage sports in other university, the application is limited

only within students.

Second, the outcomes of this study were consumer attitudes toward a sponsor and

purchase intentions. The effect of gratitude on purchase intentions is expected to be influenced

by the level of product involvement. According to the Elaborate Likelihood Model (ELM; Petty

& Cacioppo, 1986), individuals who are highly involved with a product are more likely to be

knowledgeable about the product, and they are more likely to have motives and the ability to

evaluate the information about the product (Bryant & Zillmann, β00β; Kardes, β00β). On the

other hand, individuals who are not involved in the product are likely to have little knowledge of

the product or low motivation to judge the information about the product and use simple

background cues, such as a celebrity endorser, to evaluate the product (Bryant & Zillmann, β00β;

Kardes, β00β). The concept of the ELM could be applied to a sponsorship context. It is assumed

that a sponsorship is more likely to be a determinant of individuals’ product choices when they

are unfamiliar with a sponsor’s products. Individuals having knowledge about a sponsor’s

products are more likely to use product related information than sponsorship information for

their product choice. In order to cover the loss from such a confounding effect, attitudes toward a

sponsor was examined as another consumer outcome. This factor was used to measure how a

sponsorship relationship may change a consumer’s attitude toward a sponsor. It can be concluded

that consumers’ attitudes may be influenced by a sponsorship activity but may be not influenced

by a product category.

Definition of Terms

The current study includes nine constructs: perceived benefits, perceived necessity,

perceived concern about a sponsored property, perceived commercial intent, gratitude, attitude

toward a sponsor, purchase intention, attitude importance toward a sponsored property, and

attitude toward a sponsorship.

Perceived Benefits:

“Perceived benefits” is defined as the extent to which a consumer believes sponsorship of

a company is beneficial to a sponsored property. In other words, applying the idea of outcome

desirability (Watson & Spence, β007) and goal congruency (Johnson & Stewart, β005), it is

13

defined as the extent to which a consumer believes sponsorship by a company has a positive

impact on the sponsored property. Although sponsors often offer direct support to communities

and fans of the sponsored activities, the current study provides limited information about a

sponsor’s support for a sponsored activity. Therefore, for the purposes of this study the definition

of perceived benefits is narrowed to support provided to a sponsored property

Perceived Necessity:

Definition of perceived necessity is established for this study. The defined is the extent to

which a consumer believes a sponsor’s help is necessary for a sponsored property to take place.

Perceived Concern about a Property:

Definition of perceived concern about a property is adapted from the concept of team-

serving intent developed by Kim (β010) and defined as “the extent to which a consumer believes

a sponsor has a true caring concern for [a sponsored property] beyond mere commercial interest”

(Kim, β010, p. 1β7)

Perceived Commercial Intent:

Based on the concept of firm-serving intent developed by Kim (β010), perceived

commercial intent is defined as the extent to which consumers believe a sponsor is interested in

gaining excessive commercial advantages from their sponsorship investment rather than helping

a sponsored property.

Gratitude:

Gratitude is defined as a positive emotion (Fredrickson, β004) and pleasant feeling

(Emmons & McCullough, β004). In the sponsorship context, gratitude is defined as

“[consumer’s] emotional appreciation for benefits received [from a sponsorship]” (Palmatier et

al., β009, p. 1). Three elements of gratitude are: “(1) a warm sense of appreciation for somebody

or something, (β) a sense of goodwill toward that individual or thing, and (γ) a disposition to act

which flows from appreciation and goodwill” (Fitzgerald, 1998, p. 1β0).

Goodwill:

The term of goodwill has been used to explain consumers’ favorable attitude toward

sponsorship in Meenaghan’s (β001b) study. Dee and colleagues (β008) were defined it as “the

positive attitude consumers convey toward a sponsor that supports and facilitates an event, team,

or cause in which they are passionate.”

14

Attitude toward the Sponsor:

Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) argued that the most commonly accepted description of

attitude is “a learned predisposition to respond in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner

with respect to a give object” (p. 6), and that an essential concept of attitude is its affective or

evaluative aspect (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). In the current study, attitude toward the sponsor is

defined as consumers’ evaluations of or affect toward a sponsor.

Purchase Intention:

Purchase intention is defined as the likelihood that a consumer intends to buy products

from a company sponsoring a property (Cazier, Corley, & Gora, β011).

Attitude Importance:

Attitude importance is defined as “a person’s perception of the psychological significance

and value he or she attaches to a [sponsored property]” (Gladden & Funk, β00β, p. 61).

Attitude toward a Sponsorship:

Attitude toward the sponsorship is defined as consumers’ evaluations of or affect toward

a sponsorship of a college football team.

Overview of Chapters

The current study is presented in five chapters. The following chapter (Chapter β)

presents a review of previous studies. The review covers four research areas: overview of

sponsorship, goodwill in sponsorship, appraisal theory, and emotion of gratitude. Based on those

reviews, research hypotheses are proposed. In Chapter γ, the research methods of the current

study are presented. In Chapter 4, data analysis and results of the pilot and main studies are

presented. Chapter 5 includes the interpretations of the results based on the findings of previous

studies and the current study’s research characteristics. Furthermore a guideline for future studies

is provided.

15

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

Researchers (e.g., Meenaghan, β001a; β001b; McDonald, 1991) have argued that

goodwill is a key factor which explains how sponsorship works. Dees et al. (β008) found that a

consumers’ sense of goodwill toward a sponsor has the most impact on their intentions to

purchase the sponsor’s product compared with other factors, such as consumers’ dispositional

attitudes toward a sponsor and the level of fan involvement. Although goodwill seems to play an

important role in sponsorship effectiveness, the idea of goodwill has not been thoroughly tested.

In particular, previous research has focused on cognitive components of goodwill generation,

such as consumers’ perceptions toward a sponsor’s investment and motives. These cognitive

factors, however, may not comprehensively explain the generation of consumers’ sense of

goodwill. Goodwill generation may be accounted for when consumers appreciate a sponsor’s

support through these cognitive evaluations. Therefore, examination of appreciation is crucial for

understanding consumers behavior.

Appreciation has been discussed as the emotion of gratitude within the research domains

of psychology, sociology, and anthropology (Komter, β004). Based on appraisal theory, gratitude

is elicited through appraisals of a stimulus. This elicited gratitude leads to behavioral responses.

In this research gratitude is applied to the sponsorship context. Consumers may feel gratitude

when they recognize benefits a sponsor brings to a sponsored property and positively evaluate it.

The feeling of gratitude may result in positive attitudes and behavioral intentions toward the

sponsor and sponsor’s products. The following section begins with an overview of previous

sponsorship research. Then, research focusing specifically on goodwill in sponsorship is

examined, followed by a review of work pertaining to gratitude. Studies related to goodwill were

reviewed to understand how consumers evaluate and/or feel appreciation toward a sponsor when

they identify a sponsor in a sponsored activity, and/or recognize what the sponsor does for the

activity. In contrast, studies related to gratitude were reviewed to support the conceptual and

operational development of goodwill generation and to understand the underlining mechanisms

for the consumers’ attitudinal and behavioral responses. In the end, the research hypotheses are

proposed based on the review of literature.

16

The Sponsorship Literature

Definition of Sponsorship

The origin of sponsorship is thought to be philanthropic activity (Abratt & Grobler, 1989)

and, in the distant past, the patronage system (Carrigan, 1997; Meenaghen, β001b). One motive

of philanthropic activity is altruism, which is “one-way giving without direct (economic or non-

economic) rewards” (Seitanidi & Ryan, β007, p. β48). While patronage is considered an altruistic

form of support, it involves an indirect and intangible return, such as developing a positive image

and enhancing social status. In the 1950s, marketing oriented sponsorship activity was launched

(Lazarus, 1984). In modern sponsorship activity which has been transformed into a marketing

promotional activity (Abratt & Grobler, 1989), the sponsor and the sponsored property develop a

mutually beneficial business relationship (Abratt & Grobler, 1989).

The mutual relationship between sponsor and sponsee is clearly expressed in the

definition of sponsorship. Sandler and Shani (1989) defined sponsorship as the following:

The provision of resources (e.g., money, people, equipment) by an organization directly

to an event or activity in exchange for a direct association to the event or activity. The

providing organization can then use this direct association to achieve either their

corporate, marketing, or media objectives. (p. 10)

The first part of the definition refers to what a sponsor does for a sponsored property. A sponsor’s

help should meet the needs of a property (O’Reilly & Madill, β007), and is directly provided to a

property (Lee, Sandler, & Shani, 1997). The second part of the definition refers to what a sponsor

receives from a deal, and how the deal contributes to achievement of the sponsor’s objectives.

As seen in the definition, modern sponsorship pursues a win-win relationship between a

sponsor and a sponsored property. Sponsorship research has sought to identify how sponsorship

can be strategically developed. Cornwell (1995) presented the sponsorship development model to

explain how businesses integrate sponsorship with their business and marketing strategies.

According to the model, sponsorship proceeds through five steps. First, a situational analysis is

conducted; this analysis includes the market, competitors, and the environment surrounding a

sponsorship. Second, the objectives of sponsorship are defined. Third, sponsorship-linked

marketing is strategically developed; clarifying a target market of an event and developing a

marketing mix, which works in conjunction with sponsorship. Fourth, a linkage between a

17

sponsor and a sponsored event is established. Fifth, the implementation and subsequent

evaluation of the sponsorship is conducted.

Fahy, Farrelly, and Quester (β004) explained the strategic role of sponsorship in

achieving a sponsor’s corporate and marketing objectives through the resource-based view

(RBV). According to the authors, sponsorship becomes a potential source of competitive

advantage when integrated with the sponsor’s other resources. Those resources are broadly

divided into three categories: tangible assets, intangible assets, and capabilities (Fahy et al.,

β004). Tangible assets are the financial resources which are necessary for conducting leveraging

activities such as advertising and sales promotions. Intangible assets are brand equity and brand

building skills. Capabilities incorporate three elements: experienced sponsorship managers,

market orientation skills, and organizational routines. Organizational routines are the capabilities

to build internal sponsorship disciplines over time instead of treating sponsorship as a transient

activity. Papadimitriou and Apostolopoulou (β009), based on the RBV in sponsorship, evaluated

how sponsors of the β004 Athens Olympic Games used their assets and capabilities in leveraging

their Olympic sponsorship. The researchers concluded leveraging activities supported by

sponsors’ resources maximize effectiveness of sponsorship and differentiate a competitive

advantage among the more active sponsors and the less active sponsors. While the researchers

from the studies cited above have discussed how sponsorship should be strategically developed,

others have discussed in detail what objectives sponsors have and whether sponsorship furthers

the achievement of a sponsor’s objectives.

Objectives of Sponsorship

Previous researchers (e.g., Cornwell, 1995; Dolphin, β00γ; Gardner & Shuman, 1988;

Walliser, β00γ) have discussed various objectives of sponsorship. Among those studies, the

research which most clearly explained those objectives is Gardner and Shuman’s (1988)

conceptual framework. The framework clarifies who the targets of the objectives are and how

these publics may react to the sponsorship. “[S]ponsorships affect a wide variety of publics in

several different ways” (Gardner & Shuman, 1988, p. 45). First, sponsorship increases awareness

and enhances the image of a sponsor. This enhancement influences consumers’ perceptions

toward the sponsor, which results in increased sales. Second, sponsorship increases awareness

among potential investors; that influences the decision making of financial institutions, which

results in increased capital. Third, sponsorship enhances the reputation of a sponsor. An

18

enhanced reputation influences community leaders, which results in the sponsor gaining

cooperation from community and government leaders. Finally, sponsorship increases positive

group spirit and enhances enthusiasm among employees and distribution channel members,

which in turn enhances productivity.

According to Cornwell (1995) and Shanklin and Kuzma (199β), based on the review of

previous studies, increasing awareness and enhancing corporate image have been considered the

two main objectives of sponsorship. Both are considered consumer-related objectives. Kim

(β010), however, argued that while studies of sponsorship awareness (recognition and recall) and

sponsor image were prevalent in the 1980s and 1990s, sponsorship awareness or sponsor image

do not confirm the effectiveness of sponsorship on consumers. Awareness and sponsor image are

affected not only by sponsorship but also by other marketing communications, such as

advertising (Kim, β010). In addition, whether awareness or image directly affects consumers’

attitudes and behaviors is questionable. In order to understand the effectiveness of sponsorship,

we must examine how sponsorship impacts consumers and subsequently (or not) impacts

behavior. How specifically a sponsorship activity affects consumers and how consumers respond

to a sponsor is important (Lee, Sandler, & Shani, 1997; Meenaghan, β001a). Therefore, the

underlying mechanisms of achievement of a sponsor’s consumer objectives should be assessed.

The Underlying Mechanisms of Sponsorship and How They Affect Consumers

Sponsorship involves three entities: a sponsored property, a sponsor, and a consumer.

How sponsorship impacts consumers has been discussed from various perspectives depending on

a focused entity or focused relationships among entities. Image transfer and sponsorship

fit/congruency (schema congruent theory) focus the relationship between a sponsored property

and sponsor. Balance theory and fan involvement (social identity theory) focus consumers’

dispositional attitudes toward a sponsored property. Balance theory enables us to analyze the

relationship among three entities based on the dispositional attitudes. Attribution theory

addresses consumers’ perceptions toward a sponsor in accordance with situational factors, such

as a sponsor’s behaviors. Consumers may infer reasons for a sponsor supporting a sponsored

entity. The following sections provide a review of each theory.

Image transfer (Meaning transfer). According to Meenaghan (198γ), “[i]ndividual

activities or events are possessed of particular personality attributes in the public mind and much

sponsorship activity is garnering a rub-off effect to the company or its products through

19

association with a particular sponsorship activity or event” (p. β9). That is, once individuals

identify the association of a sponsor with a sponsored activity, their dispositional images of the

activity are transferred to the sponsor. Based on McCracken’s (1989) research (meaning transfer

of a celebrity endorser to a brand) and Keller’s (199γ) research (brand equity), Gwinner (1997)

presented a model to explain how the image of a sponsored event could be developed in

consumers’ minds and how the developed image is transferred to the sponsoring brand.

According to Gwinner (1997), an event image is created by three factors: the event type (sports,

music, festival, fine arts, or trade show), event characteristics (event size, professional status,

event history, event venue, or promotional appearance), and individual factors (number of

meanings of an event for individuals, strength of meanings, and past history with an event). The

event image is transferred to a sponsoring brand image via four moderating factors: the degree of

similarity between an event and a sponsor, the level of sponsorship (single sponsor or multiple

sponsors with different level of sponsor contract), event frequency (a one-time or recurring based

event), and product involvement (low or high involvement product).

Previous research related to image transfer has only explored how a company’s image

differs when the company does or does not associate with an event. Meenaghan and Shipley

(1999) introduced Bachmayer’s (1986) case study, which examined the effect a soccer

sponsorship had on the image of the sponsor, Memphis Cigarettes. The researchers concluded

that the group which was exposed to the soccer sponsorship evaluated Memphis Cigarettes as

more young, masculine, and dynamic than the group which was not exposed. Gwinner and Eaton

(1999) found that personality components (e.g., calm, fast, wild, and masculine) of a sponsor and

a sponsored event were recognized as more similar when the participants of the study were

exposed to the sponsorship relationship. When they were not informed of the sponsorship

relationship, they did not associate the sponsor’s personality components and sponsored event as

strongly. Based on this result, the authors concluded that sponsorship can foster image transfer.

In addition, Gwinner and Eaton (1999) tested the moderating role of functional or image

similarity of a sponsor with a sponsored event in the image transfer processes. The study

revealed that when the functions or images of a sponsor and an event are similar, the process of

image transfer is facilitated. These previous studies confirmed the idea of image transfer from a

sponsored property to a sponsor. Based on the idea, it could be said that sponsors can expect to

enhance their image by associating with the right property for them. Image transfer, however,

20

does not explain how consumers are affected by and respond to association of the sponsor with

an event image.

Sponsorship fit/Congruency (Schema congruity theory). Sponsorship fit refers to the

congruency between a sponsored property and a sponsor’s function or image (Gwinner, 1997).

The preceding section included content which provides an explanation of the role of property-

sponsor similarity in the image transfer; studies of sponsorship fit/congruency address how

fit/congruency influences consumers’ responses. Schema congruity theory (Fiske, 198β; Fiske &

Taylor, 1991) has been used to explain the effects of fit/congruency in sponsorship research

(Musante, Milne, & McDonald, 1999; Roy & Cornwell, β00γ). A schema is “people’s cognitive

structures that represent knowledge about a concept or type of stimulus, including its attributes

and the relations among those attributes” (Fiske & Taylor, 1991, p. 1γ9). A schema is developed

by past experiences and it affects on subsequent encoding, memory, inference, and evaluation

(Fiske & Taylor, 1991). Consumers have a schema for a brand (Sujan & Bettman, 1989). Misra

and Beatty (1990) argued that when a schema for a brand and a schema for an endorser of the

brand are congruent, the endorsement relationship is effectively encoded which results in better

recall. In the sponsorship context, when consumers recognize the congruency of a schema of

sponsor/brand with a schema for a sponsored property, the sponsor is recognized as one of the

“better affiliates or partners” (Musante et al., 1999, p. γ7). The evaluation may lead to positive

responses from the consumer (Roy & Cornwell, β00γ). Previous researchers found when

individuals recognize a good fit between a sponsor and a sponsored activity, they pay attention to

a sponsor and its promotions (Speed & Thompson, β000), infer a sponsor’s altruistic/sincere

motive (Olson, β010; Rifon et al., β004), show high credibility to a sponsor (Rifon, Choi,

Trimble, & Li, β004), have favorable attitudes toward a sponsorship or sponsor (Olson, β010;

Roy & Cornwell, β00γ; Speed & Thompson, β000), and show some intention to use a sponsor’s

product (Speed & Thompson, β000). Although previous research found that sponsor-sponsored

property fit/congruency facilitates consumers’ positive responses, schema congruity theory does

not explain why sponsorship fit affects consumers’ positive attitudes and behaviors.

Balance theory. Heider’s (1958) balance theory explains that humans are likely to prefer

balanced and harmonious condition in their lives. When individuals encounter an imbalanced

condition, they tend to maintain their balance by changing their attitudes and/or behavior

(Dalakas & Levin, β005). Balance theory focuses on perceived triangular relationships among

21

three entities: two people (P & O) and the environment (stimulus/X). P is the focus of the

analysis; O represents the other person or entity; and X refers to an impersonal entity. Among the

entities, three positive connections, or two negative and one positive relation are considered to be

balanced. When individuals encounter cognitive imbalance, they reorganize the balance

expending as little effort as possible. If an individual (P) has a positive attitude toward O, the

person is likely to begin liking X, even if s/he originally did not like X in the presence of the

positive condition between O and X.

The three entities of sponsorship are the consumer, sponsored property, and sponsor

(Dean, β00β). The relationships between the consumer and the sponsored property, the sponsored

property and the sponsor, and the consumer and the sponsor, are taken into consideration for

balance theory. The relationship between a sponsor and a sponsored property is developed in a

sponsorship contract. The relationship may be considered positive when the sponsor is identified

as congruent with the sponsored property in its images or functions (sponsorship fit), or when the

sponsor is recognized as supportive of the sponsored property. Within the premise of this positive

relationship between the sponsor and the sponsored property, when a consumer’ dispositional

attitude toward the sponsored property is positive, s/he is likely to have a positive attitude toward

the sponsor (or change his/her dispositional negative attitude into a positive attitude). In contrast,

if a consumer’ dispositional attitude toward the sponsored property is negative, s/he is likely to

have a negative attitude toward the sponsor (or change it into a negative attitude) (Dean, β00β).

Dalakas and Levin (β005) tested balance theory among NASCAR fans. The authors argued that

fans who strongly like a certain driver would have positive attitudes toward a sponsor of the

driver. The authors also argued those same individuals would create unfavorable attitudes toward

a competing driver; those individuals would also have a negative attitude toward a sponsor of the

competing driver. The results provided confirmation of the authors’ hypotheses.

Unlike image transfer and sponsorship fit, balance theory explains how consumers

develop or change their attitudes toward a sponsor. The weakness of balance theory is that it only

explains the direction of attitude as positive or negative but does not specify how strong or weak

the attitude is (Dean, β00β). When applied to the former example, NASCAR fans who like a

certain driver would have positive attitudes toward the driver’s sponsors, but not all of them will

purchase the sponsor’s product; one of the determinants of the purchase behavior would be how

22

strong the attitude is. Therefore, balance theory does not explain how effective sponsorship is for

the achievement of a sponsor’s consumer objectives.

Fan involvement (Social identity theory). Fan involvement is defined as “… the extent to

which consumers identify with, and are motivated by, their engagement and affiliation with

particular leisure activities” (Meenaghan, β001a, p. 106). Highly involved/identified individuals

are likely to be knowledgeable about their involved activities and highly aware of sponsors for

the activities (Meenaghan, β001a). Furthermore, they are likely to develop positive attitudes

toward a sponsor of their involved/identified activity (Gwinner & Swanson, β00γ; McDonald,

1991; Meenaghan, β001a).

The effect of fan involvement in sponsorship may be explained by social identity theory.

Based on Tajfel’s (1981) study, Hogg and Abrams (1988) stated that social identity is “the

individual’s knowledge that he belongs to certain social groups together with some emotional

and value significance to him of the group membership” (p. 7). Social identity theory proposes

that individuals establish self-concepts and definitions through their affiliation or connection

with particular social groups to which they belong to (Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Mael & Ashforth,

199β). Building a sense of oneness with and belonging to a social group helps an individual to

enhance his or her self-esteem. The process by which individuals develop self-esteem is

explained by the theory of social comparison, which discusses a sense of in-group and out-group.

“People tend to classify others on the basis of their similarities and differences to self; they

constantly perceive others as members of the same category as self (in-group members) or as

members of different category to self (out-group members)” (Hogg & Abrams, 1988, p. β1).

Thus a group and its members, with whom individuals feel a sense of belonging and oneness, are

all considered part of the in-group. In particular, highly identified individuals actively observe

and carefully identify the differences between groups (Abrams & Hogg, 1990). In general,

individuals are likely to emphasize the positive aspects of an in-group and minimize negative

information (Wann & Branscombe, 1995). Highly identified individuals are more likely to

positively evaluate in-group members than out-group members (Wann & Branscombe, 1995).

This positive bias toward an in-group helps develop an individual’s self-esteem.

The notion of in-group versus out-group enables us to understand how individuals’

involvement in a sponsored activity influences perceptions and attitudinal and behavioral

responses toward a sponsor/sponsorship. Gwinner and Swanson (β00γ) proposed that individuals

23

who are highly involved with and attached to a sponsored activity or organization (team) may

soon recognize which people and entities are in-group members. A sponsor working around the

activity may be classified as in-group or out-group. A sponsor which brings benefits to the

favored activities or organization (team) may be recognized as an in-group member (Gwinner &

Swanson, β00γ). Once a sponsor is recognized as an in-group member, in-group/positive bias

may favorably work for a sponsor, resulting in a positive attitude toward the sponsor (Gwinner &

Swanson, β00γ).

Previous research supported this idea. Individuals who are highly involved in/identified

with a team reported higher recognition of a sponsor (Gwinner & Swanson, β00γ), more positive

attitudes toward a sponsor (Gwinner & Swanson, β00γ; Madrigal, β001), and stronger intentions

to purchase products or services from sponsors of the team (Dees et al., β008; Gwinner &

Swanson, β00γ; Zhang, Won, & Pastore, β005). Fan involvement explains the influence of the

involvement level on individuals’ attitudes and behavioral responses toward a sponsorship, but

fan involvement is not concerned with the influence of situational factors. For example, even if

consumers are highly involved in a sponsored event, they may negatively respond to a

sponsorship due to a sponsor’s excessive selfish behaviors.

Attribution theory. According to Folkes (1988), in order to address consumer behavior

issues, “understanding consumers’ perceptions of cause-and-effect relationships would seem to

be central” (p. 548). To help understand consumer’s perceptions, attribution theory is used.

Attribution theory is a general conception of the methods people use to think about and analyze

cause-effect data when they observe and experience a certain event (Kelley, 197γ). According to

Kelley (197γ), attribution theory addresses the following questions: “how people make causal

explanation[s]” (p. 107) and “how they answer questions beginning with “why?” (p. 107). The

kinds of information people use for making a causal inference and how people respond to the

information are central issues in attribution theory (Kelley, 197γ). According to Kelley and

Michela (1980), people generate or change their attitudes and behaviors in subsequent response

to their causal inferences.

Attribution theory has been used for explaining the effectiveness of sponsorship (e.g.,

Dean, β00β; Kim, β010; Rifon et al., β004). Consumers’ perceptions of a sponsor’s motives have

been the focus of a discussion of attribution. Consumers consider why a sponsor has provided

money (or other resources) to a sponsored property, in an attempt to find a commonsense

24

explanation for the sponsorship, and make causal inferences based on their attributions (Dean,

β00β). In the mind of consumers, two types of motives may emerge: 1) corporate altruism

(intrinsic motive) or β) corporate self-interest (extrinsic motive) (Dean, β00β). Corporate

altruism may occur when consumers consider that firms are supporting a property because the

firms consider the property a worthy cause. Corporate self-interest may come from consumers’

skepticism toward firms’ hidden objectives, such as profit generation and image enhancement

(Dean, β00β; Rifon et al., β004). The motive attributed will impact a consumer’s response to a

sponsor. Based on the discounting principle (Kelley, 197γ), Dean (β00β) and Rifon et al. (β004)

argued that once consumers recognize a sponsor’s extrinsic motives, they emphasize the extrinsic

motives and discount the intrinsic motives, which results in negative responses toward the

sponsorship. Rifon et al. (β004) found the congruence of a sponsor and a sponsored cause leads

to consumers’ inferences of altruism. This results in higher credibility and favorable attitudes

toward a sponsor. However, sponsorship activity emphasizing their brand information did not

lead to consumers’ self-serving motives. Dean (β00β) also found an altruism motive positively

related to consumers’ evaluations of a sponsor, while anti-altruism did not relate to their

evaluations.

Kim (β010), on the other hand, discussed consumers’ attributions toward sponsorship in

accordance with the idea of compatibility of intrinsic and extrinsic motives in commercial

sponsorship. Commercial sponsorship is developed based on the mutually beneficial relationship

between a sponsor and a sponsored property. Consumers, especially in sport sponsorship,

recognize and accept a sponsor’s commercial intent (Meenaghan & Shiple, 1999). They

negatively respond, however, to a sponsor which excessively utilizes sponsorship for commercial

intent with little or no regard (a lack of caring about) a sponsored property (Meenaghan, β001b).

Kim (β010) treated these motives as a multidimensional factor, separating them into team-

serving motive (intrinsic) and firm-serving motive (extrinsic). Team-serving is an individual’s

perception that a sponsor is genuinely supportive of the property. Firm-serving is an individual’s

perception that an organization engages in sponsorship solely for the organization’s benefit. Kim

(β010) found that a sponsor of multiple teams was perceived as having a firm-serving motive to a

greater extent compared to a single team sponsor. A single team sponsor was perceived to a

greater extent as having a team-serving compared to a multiple team sponsor. The perception that

25

a sponsor had a team-serving motive was significantly related to a favorable attitude toward a

sponsor, while perception of a firm-serving motive did was not significantly related to attitude.

Attribution theory elucidates the underlining mechanisms of consumers’ perceptions and

responses toward sponsorship. Attribution theory, however, is not specifically designed for

addressing the emotional reactions generated by cognitive causal inferences; however, the

relationship between a cognitive inference and emotion has been empirically examined (Johnson

& Stewart, β005). The causes and consequences of emotion are not predicted by attribution

theory (Johnson & Stewart, β005).

In summary, previous studies have used various theories to explain the effects of

sponsorship on consumers’ attitudinal and behavioral responses. Image transfer explains how a

sponsored property’s images are transferred to a sponsor. Sponsorship fit/congruency (schema

congruent theory) addresses the influence of sponsor-sponsored property fit on consumers’

responses. Balance theory explains consumers’ responses toward a sponsor based on the

relationships between a consumer and a sponsored property and between a sponsor and a

sponsored property. Fan involvement (social identity theory) explains how consumers’

dispositional attitudes toward a sponsored property influence their responses toward a sponsor.

Finally, attribution theory explains how consumers perceive and subsequently response toward a

sponsorship in accordance with their attributions of situational factors, such as a sponsor’s

behaviors.

Although the results from previous studies have provided some explanation of the

effectiveness of sponsorship on consumer responses based on the theories discussed above, none

of the theories address consumers’ emotional responses toward sponsorship. Previous researchers

(e.g., McDonald, 1999; Meenaghan, β001b, β001b) have argued that consumers’ appreciation for

a sponsor’s investment in a sponsored property would shape their positive attitudinal and

behavioral responses, which is called the goodwill effect. Although the idea of goodwill has been

discussed in sponsorship research, the role of goodwill in sponsorship effectiveness has not

theoretically supported.

In the next section, the previous goodwill research in sponsorship is reviewed. The

review also addresses the measurement issue of the constructs related to goodwill. In order to

explain the process of, and to better understand the role of a consumer’s sense of appreciation in

sponsorship, appraisal theory and the emotion of gratitude are introduced.

26

Goodwill

What Is Goodwill?

Goodwill has been expressed with two key words: approval and favorable attitude.

McDonald (1991) explained that goodwill is what a sponsor acquires from consumers’ approval

of its sponsorship activity; consumers’ perception of sponsorship such as a “good thing to do”

benefits to a sponsor. People are likely to approve of a sponsorship when they recognize “what a

sponsorship deal is” or “what a sponsor does” (McDonald, 1991, p. γ5). According to McDonald

(1991), “… a substantial number of people already approve of their sport being sponsored, and

feel favorably disposed to sponsoring companies” (p. γγ). Meenaghan (β001b), on the other

hand, used the term of goodwill for explaining the consumers’ favorable attitude toward

sponsorship. The reason for a sponsorship earning consumers’ approval and favorable attitude

has been explained by the social aspect of sponsorship.

Social Aspect of Sponsorship

Businesses are thought to have the responsibility of taking care of society, which has

been academically discussed in the area of corporate social responsibility (CSR). The roots of

CSR are present in the beliefs of theologians and religious thinkers of the early twentieth century

(Lantos, β001). Based on religious thinking, CSR is explained by two concepts: the stewardship

principle and the charity principle (Lantos, β001). The stewardship principle refers to the idea

that business organizations and wealthy individuals are required “… to see themselves as

stewards or caretakers, not just of shareholders’ financial resources, but also of society’s

economic resources, holding their property in trust for the benefit of society as a whole” (Lantos,

β001, p. 598). In contrast, the charity principle refers to the notion that the more fortunate

individuals are required to support the less fortunate members of society. The concept was

sometimes applied to businesses. Businesses were expected to charitably provide their resources

to help the unfortunate. Those two ideas were conceptualized as the core concepts of corporate

social contract/responsibility during the latter half of twentieth century (Lantos, β001).

Over time, however, CSR activity has transformed from a benevolent philanthropic

activity to strategic philanthropic activity. In a strategic philanthropic activity, businesses seek to

achieve both social and organizational benefits and use their corporate resources and core

competencies/knowledge to address the interests, needs, and problems of key stakeholders,

including employees, customers, business partners, their community, and society (McAlister &

27

Ferrell, β00β). What is the difference between strategic philanthropic activity and sponsorship?

Porter and Kramer (β00β) argued that strategic philanthropy is concerned with how companies’

activities impact society and how this social impact influences their competitive advantages

within a market. Sponsorship is, on the other hand, concerned with their publicity and the

generation of consumers’ goodwill rather than the social impact of their activities.

Sponsorship is involved in various types of social concerns, such as environmental

issues, and also involved in diverse activities, such as sports, entertainment tours, festivals, arts,

etc. While addressing social causes is important for maintaining our human lives, sport also plays

an important role in society, which includes maintaining, developing, and reflecting the social

system, supporting a capitalist economy, and meeting people’s physical and mental needs and

interests (Frey & Eitzen, 1991). McDonald (1991) described the social aspects of sponsorship as

“… [helping] the weak who lack resources, those with potential who have not yet got started…”

(p. γ6). In this case, investment by a sponsor in a property is seen as necessary and essential for

the survival of a sponsored activity more than seen as desirable and good (McDonald, 1991). For

sports, the help of a sponsor is sometimes crucial for the survival of “the young, amateurs, those

without training facilities, etc…” (McDonald, 1991, p. γ6). Therefore, sponsorship is recognized

as a “good thing to do,” and people approve of and generate positive attitudes toward

sponsorship as one of the activities by which businesses contribute to society.

A positive view of sponsorship as a “good thing to do” brings further advantages to

sponsors. Consumers may infer that a sponsor has a desire to gain some advantage and return

from the sponsorship contract (McDonald, 1991: Meenaghan, β001a). However, even though

consumers recognize a company’s financial desire, they perceive sponsorship differently from

advertising and other promotions. Sponsorship is seen as beneficial to society and sponsorship

also works to the sponsor’s advantage, while advertising is seen as selfish because it is seen as

existing only for the advertisers’ advantage while providing no benefit to society. The marketing

message behind sponsorship is seen as subtle and its commercial intent is disguised (Meenaghan,

β001a: β001b). Meenaghan (β001a: β001b) call this a “halo of goodwill,” which lowers

consumers’ defense mechanisms toward marketing communications involved in sponsorship.

Processes of Goodwill Generation

Meenaghan (β001a) wrote that “… goodwill was believed to be driven by the

appreciation of individuals who recognize the benefits of sponsorship to activities with which

28

they are involved” (p. 10β). Therefore, goodwill is aroused when individuals recognize and

appreciate a company providing a benefit to an activity with a sponsorship deal. Examples of

perceived benefits are “… helping the team, making an event possible, promoting an event,

helping the community, etc.” (Alexandris et al., β007, p. 1γβ).

According to Meenaghan (β001a) individuals might perceive sponsorship’s benefits at

three different levels: a generic level, a category level, and/or an individual activity level. At the

generic level, individuals abstractly perceive some benefit to society, because they recognize a

sponsor’s consideration for and doing something good to society. At the category level,

individuals perceive benefits to a certain sponsored area, such as social causes, sports, and arts.

According to Meenaghan (β001a) and Meenaghan and Shipley (1999), the degree to which

individuals perceive benefits and feel goodwill toward sponsorship varies across the categories

of sponsorship. The categories in which consumers believe sponsors gain considerable

commercial advantages from their investment accordingly receive lower levels of goodwill.

Therefore, highly commercialized categories of sponsorship will receive fewer benefits. In

general, social causes and environmental programs are seen as delivering greater benefits and

thus acquire greater goodwill than sports and popular arts (Meenaghan & Shipley, 1999). At the

individual activity level, individuals perceive benefits to a certain sponsored activity. Individuals

generally perceive more benefits and feel greater goodwill toward sponsorship when a sponsor

brings benefits to an activity with which they are involved and have an intense emotional

relationship (Meenaghan, β001a). These discussions about consumers’ perception of benefits

reveal the fluid nature of goodwill; whether consumers perceive benefits at a generic level, a

category level, and/or an individual activity level differentiates the degree of their perceived

goodwill.

Contingent Goodwill

The notion of contingent goodwill is that “… goodwill is earned by the total behavior of

the sponsor toward all aspects of the sponsored activity and this is registered and judged by fans

of that activity” (Meenaghan, β001a, p. 109). Although goodwill is generated when individuals

recognize and appreciate a company providing a benefit, their senses of goodwill change based

on sponsors’ behaviors in a sponsored activity. Meenaghan (β001a) introduced sponsors’

behaviors which influence goodwill, such as “the sponsorship choice, the time of entry, the time

and manner of exiting, the level of overt sponsor commitment, the nature of caring displayed

29

toward the activity and its fans, and the interplay between these factors” (p. 109). These listed

behaviors could be divided into two types.

The first type is sponsor’s behaviors, such as “the sponsorship choice, the time of entry,

and the time and manner of exiting” (Meenaghan, β001a, p. 15). Those behaviors may illustrate

the sponsor’s intentions of exploitation. For instance, a company may choose sponsorship of a

professional football team instead of a high school football team, and the company sign a

sponsorship contract right after a team becomes a league champion, or on the other end terminate

a deal after a bad season. Such sponsor behaviors may be seen as calculating and exploitive

because the sponsor is trying to gain an advantage by associating with a successful team.

As discussed in the category level of perceived goodwill, goodwill is reduced when

highly commercialized categories of sponsorship are chosen as a sponsored activity. That means

consumers are sensitive to excessive exploitation of sponsorship, which create greater benefits

for the sponsor rather than the sponsored activity. In such a case, the benefit bestowed on a

sponsored activity is considered as the “lower levels of clean benefit.” Then the discouraged

benefit results in lower levels of goodwill (Meenaghan, β001b). Further, excessive exploitation

of sponsorship could even generate negative attitudes toward a sponsor (Meenaghan, β001a).

One issue which has to be made sure is that consumers negatively respond only when a sponsor

“excessively” utilizes sponsorship. Sponsorship involved in marketing communication activities

includes commercial intent, unlike philanthropic activities; some level of exploitation may be

acceptable and to be expected.

Meenaghan and Shipley (1999) proposed that individuals better tolerate exploitation of

sponsorship for certain categories of sponsorship. Sports and mass arts are more favored than

environmental programs and social causes. The reason for the difference is that individuals

perceive sports and art sponsorships as having a nature that complements advertising, while

environmental program and social causes do not. Thus, categories such as sports and mass arts

allow for exploitation of sponsorship without offending sensibilities, although those sponsorships

will still receive lower levels of goodwill. In contrast, while sponsorships in the categories such

as environmental program and social causes acquire higher level of goodwill, exploitations of

those sponsorships must be limited to avoid causing anxiety and reactance in observers.

The acceptable levels of exploitation, however, may differ depending on the level of

activities even among sports. Lee, Shadler, and Shani (1997) discussed the commercialization of

30

sport, noting how sponsorship of the Olympic Games has accelerated commercialization and

reduced amateurism of the event. If consumers have a strong sense of anti-commercialism for the

Olympics, even sport sponsorship may cause a negative reaction due to the commercial intents.

Zhang and his colleagues’ (β005) research revealed that subjects who had negative attitudes

toward the commercialization of college sports, regardless of their level of team identification,

had relatively low behavioral intentions, including intentions to purchase. Whether sponsored

sport events and teams are professional or amateur may be one of the determinants of the

acceptance of sponsorship exploitation.

The second type of sponsor’s behavior is “the level of overt sponsor commitment” and

“the nature of caring displayed toward the activity and its fans” (Meenaghan, β001a, p. 15),

which may demonstrate the sponsor’s relationship with a sponsored property. Commitment of a

sponsor is considered as more than a financial contribution, it involves development of a

mutually beneficial and collaborative relationship with a sponsored property, such as a team and

event (Chadwick, β00β). Meenaghan (β001a) argues that sponsor commitment is acknowledged

when individuals perceive a sponsor going beyond commercial concerns and truly caring about

an activity. For example, fans who highly identify with a sponsored team reward a sponsor

perceived as being greatly interested in the team and concerned about what is best for the team.

This is because the fans feel oneness with their team; therefore the sponsor’s care extends to

them as well. It could be said that goodwill, which is favorable attitude toward a sponsorship, is

enhanced or discouraged depending on sponsors’ commercial intent or nature of concerning

about an activity.

A Moderating Factor of Goodwill – Involvement

Involvement has been conceptualized as personal relevance and defined as “…the

strength or extent of the cognitive linkage between the self and a stimulus object. This is

indicated by expressions stressing the extent of an object’s relatedness, connections, or

engagement to an individual’s self-concept, needs, and values” (Kyle, Absher, Norman,

Hammitt, & Jodice, β007, p. γ99). Johnson and Eagly (1989), on the other hand, “define[d]

involvement as a motivational state induced by an association between an activated attitude and

the self-concept” (p. β90). According Johnson and Eagly (1989), there are three types of

involvement, each of which is dependent on different self-concepts of the individual. The first

type is value-relevant involvement, which is developed based on the activation of individuals’

31

enduring values. The second type is outcome-relevant involvement, which is created based on

the activation of individuals’ ability to get desirable outcomes. The third type is impression-

relevant involvement, which is generated based on the activation of impression individuals create

on others.

In goodwill research, involvement has not been discussed using such a classification.

Meenaghan (β001a; β001b), in his goodwill research, described involvement as emotional

involvement and explained it as a state in which individuals become emotionally involved with a

sponsored property. Involvement with sponsored activities such as sport and art is then called fan

involvement. Fan involvement is defined as individuals’ identification with and motivation to

engage in and affiliate with a particular activity (Meenaghan, β001a). Although the definition

includes a broad range of meanings due to the terms of identification and affiliation, involvement

discussed in the goodwill context is supposed to be value-relevant involvement.

Sponsorship researchers have assessed involvement as fan involvement, domain

involvement, and activity involvement (e.g., Alexandris et al., β007; Gwinner & Swanson, β00γ).

Domain involvement and activity involvement are defined as individuals’ interest in and deep

personal bond with a specific type of activity (e.g., specific dance, music, and sport) (Alexandris

et al., β007; Gwinner & Swanson, β00γ). Team identification has been used as a surrogate for

involvement in sponsorship research. Team identification has been included in research assessing

team sponsorship (e.g., Gwinner & Swanson, β00γ; Kim, β010). In a discussion of the

Psychological Continuum Model, Funk and James (β001) suggest that the level and facets of

involvement express progress and a stage upon which individuals build a psychological

connection to sports or sport teams. Individuals who are highly attached to a specific team or

sport show high levels of involvement with certain facets, such as “centrality” and “sign.” Thus,

involvement and identification/attachment may be used to measure the degree to which

individuals have a psychological connection with a sponsored activity or specific team.

Involvement is considered to be a moderating factor of goodwill generation (Meenaghan,

β001b). Goodwill is generated when individuals recognize and appreciate a sponsor providing a

benefit to a sponsored activity with which they are involved. This means an individuals’ level of

involvement in the sponsored activity may differentiate their goodwill generations. Individuals

approve of the sponsorship of socially valuable activities, even if those activities are not

interesting to them (McDonald, 1991). Individuals, however, who are emotionally involved in or

32

identified with a sponsored issue, event, team, and so on, have more favorable attitudes toward

sponsorship of the activity than those who are less involved in or less identified with a sponsored

activity (McDonald, 1991; Meenaghan, β001a; β001b). Those highly involved individuals are

likely to be knowledgeable about their involved activities and highly aware of sponsors

(Meenaghan, β001a). Furthermore, the individuals carefully look at sponsors’ behaviors toward

their favored activities, such as how sponsors treat those activities. Among highly involved

individuals, a sponsor’s supportive and beneficial behaviors toward an activity are appreciated

and result in the generation of greater goodwill. Those individuals are also sensitive and weary of

excessive commercially motivated behaviors (exploitation), which result in negative attitudes

toward a sponsor (Meenaghan, β001a). In contrast, individuals who are less involved in a

sponsored activity are less sensitive to both the sponsor’s benefits and exploitation. This results

in a muted positive or negative attitude toward a sponsor causing these individuals to possess

little goodwill or little hostility (Meenaghan, β001a).

Kim (β010) addressed college team sponsorship and examined how the subjects’ team

identification toward the team differentiated their perceptions of a sponsor’s motive within single

or multiple sponsorship contexts. The researcher found that the subjects who are highly

identified with the team perceived the sponsor’s single sponsorship behavior as having a genuine

concern for the property, beyond getting a commercial advantage. Subjects characterized by a

lower level of identification less likely to perceive the sponsor as having a genuine concern for

the team. The subjects who are highly and lower identified with the team, however, equally

perceived the sponsor’s multiple sponsorship behavior as the sponsor having excessive

commercial interests beyond concern for the property. These results partially confirmed

Meenaghan’s (β001a) argument; highly identified individuals more positively acknowledged a

sponsor’s favored behavior than lower identified individuals, but their perceptions toward a

sponsor’s un-favored behavior were as equally negative as those of lower identified individuals.

Kim’s (β010) study is the only research examining the influence of identification (involvement)

on individuals’ perceptions. No research, however, has been done to examine whether or how

individuals’ involvement differentiates their feelings of appreciation toward a sponsor.

Measurement of Goodwill

Although the concept of goodwill in sponsorship has been discussed from the 1990s

through β000s, only one study (Dees et al., β008) reported on development of a tool to measure

33

goodwill. As discussed, the term of goodwill has been used for explaining the consumers’

favorable attitude toward a sponsorship, and it is generated when individuals recognize and

appreciate the benefits of sponsorship to society, a particular category (e.g., sport and art), or a

sponsored property (Meenaghan, β001a; β001b). That means goodwill generation involves two

stages: recognition of benefits and appreciation for the benefits. Individuals’ perception of

benefits could be an antecedent of their feelings of appreciation. In the stage of recognition,

evaluating the degree to which individuals perceive a sponsorship provides benefits is key. In

addition, one must take into consideration whether or how individuals perceive a sponsor’s

behaviors should be examined. As discussed in the section of contingent goodwill, excessive

commercial intent and the concern about an activity (a sponsored property) may be two

significant factors which influence goodwill generation. The two factors may encourage or

discourage individuals’ sense of appreciation toward a sponsor. In contrast, the stage of

appreciation is concerned with whether individuals appreciate benefits provided by a sponsor to

a society, a sponsored category, and/or sponsored property. Therefore, the generation of goodwill

should be examined through a two step process: measuring perception and measuring feelings of

appreciation.

Previous researchers (Alexandris et al., β007; Dees et al., β008; Kim, β010; Kim et al.,

β010; Madrigal, β001; Speed & Thompson, β000) have examined consumers’ perception toward

sponsors or sponsorship. The feeling of appreciation for benefits, in contrast, has been examined

only in Kim and his colleagues’ (β010) research. The following section assesses how consumers’

perception toward sponsor or sponsorship is measured in the previous studies.

Measuring Perceptions of Sponsor/Sponsorship

Beliefs about sponsorship. Alexandris and his colleagues (β007) developed a scale of

belief about sponsorship. The scale was developed based on the concept discussed by Madrigal

(β001) and McDonald (1991). Individuals generally appreciate and generate positive attitudes

toward sponsorship because of the benefits which a sponsor bestows on an activity. On the other

hand, individuals show negative attitudes toward sponsorship when they perceive that

sponsorship is used for a sponsors’ commercial reasons, “because consumers associate

sponsorship with commercialization” (Alexandris et al., β007, p. 1γγ). Thus, beliefs about

sponsorship were measured by asking about sponsor’s benefits and commercialization. The

sponsored activity used in the Alexandris et al. (β007) study was an all-star basketball game in

34

Greece. The measurement consisted of four items: 1) Sponsorship is necessary for sport events

such as an all-star game to take place, β) Sponsorship offers valuable financial support to events

such as an all-star game, γ) Sponsorship helps events such as an all-star game to be successful,

and 4) Sponsorship increases commercialization of events such as the all–star game. This scale

measures dispositional beliefs about sponsorship instead of contingent goodwill, so that the

subject of every item is “sponsorship.” The first three items address benefits of sponsorship

toward the activity. The last item deals with the influence of sponsorship on commercialization

of a sponsored property. Alexandris and colleagues (β007) found that the attitude subjects had

towards sponsorship positively influenced their images of a sponsor, word of mouth

communications about a sponsor’s product, and intentions to purchase a sponsor’s product.

Beliefs about the benefits of sponsorship. Madrigal (β001) developed a scale of beliefs

about the benefits of sponsorship. This scale measures individuals’ dispositional belief whether

sponsorship of The Ohio State University’s athletic teams brings benefits to the teams, attendees,

or sponsors. The scale consists of three items: 1) Sponsorship makes some events possible that

would not otherwise take place; β) Sponsorship lowers ticket prices for attendees; and γ)

Sponsorship improves a company’s image. The first item addresses a benefit for the activity. The

second item addresses fans/spectators’ benefit. The item is asking about specific benefits which

spectators may receive (reduced ticket prices). A concern with the scale is whether items should

measure specific benefits of spectators, particularly when there are many possible benefits. If

specific benefits are measured, all of the possible benefits may need to be thoroughly identified

and measured. The third item is an ambiguous statement and could be interpreted into two ways.

One may interpret this item as sponsor’s commercial intent such as a sponsor having a desire to

enhance its image from a sponsorship. Others may perceive this item as the subjects’ evaluations

of company image. In other words, the item seems to ask whether subjects improve their images

of a sponsor because of the sponsorship. In this case, this item is not asking about the benefits of

sponsorship. If subjects interpret the item as a commercial intent, the item may negatively

influence outcome variables, such as the attitude toward purchasing intention. In contrast, if

subjects interpret the item as an evaluation of a sponsor’s image, the item does not necessarily

have a negative influence on outcome variables. Madrigal’s (β001) research showed subjects’

beliefs of sponsorship reducing ticket prices (the second item) and improving a company’s image

35

(the third item) positively influenced their attitudes toward purchasing a product from a sponsor.

Belief that sponsorship makes events possible, however, did not influence attitudes.

Attitude toward the sponsor (image). Alexandris and his colleagues (β007) developed a

scale assessing the image of a sponsor. Those authors clearly differentiate dispositional goodwill

and contingent goodwill. According to Alexandris et al. (β007), the effects of dispositional

goodwill are maximized when the goodwill is transferred to a sponsor. When an organization is

perceived as a “good” sponsor, who brings benefits to activities or teams, sponsorship may work.

The scale consists of three items: 1) The [company name] offers valuable help for the success of

basketball events such as the all-star game; β) The [company name] really cares about the

development of basketball; and γ) The [company name] cares more about its promotion than the

success of events, such as the basketball all-star game. The first item addresses benefits to the

activity. The second item addresses a sponsor’s sense of caring specifically for a certain sport.

One question to be asked is why the authors specifically asked about a sponsor’s caring for the

development of basketball instead of caring for the basketball event; although there may be

multiple concerns that a sponsor cares about, caring about a sponsored event may be the first

concern in sponsorship. The third item addresses commercial intent of a sponsor. An important

issue for measuring the commercial intent of a sponsor may be whether benefits a sponsor seeks

to gain from sponsorship are perceived as greater than the benefits a property receives.

Goodwill. Dees and her colleagues (β008) developed a scale for evaluating goodwill.

Those authors define goodwill as “…the positive attitude consumers convey toward a sponsor

that supports and facilitates an event, team, or cause in which they are passionate” (p. 81). Based

on Meenaghan’s (β001a; β001b) idea, Dees et al. (β008) proposed that sponsorship contributes to

a sponsored activity and its surroundings in various ways: providing benefits including monetary

funding to sponsored organizations, events, and stadiums, promoting the event, and bring a direct

impact on local economies. Those sponsors’ supports are recognized and appreciated by

consumers, which generates goodwill. Thus, this goodwill measure includes perceived sponsors’

contributions toward a variety of sites. The sponsored activity which was used in this study was

an elite intercollegiate football program. The measurement consists of four items: 1) [University]

football sponsors are involved with their community; β) Corporate sponsors try to improve

[university] football; γ) This sporting event benefits from corporate sponsors; and 4) Corporate

sponsors care about the fans of [university] football. The first item addresses sponsors’

36

contributions toward a community. The wording of “involved” is ambiguous; whether it

expresses benefits a community receives from sponsors or sponsors’ concerns about a

community is unclear. The second item addresses sponsors’ contribution toward a sponsored

program. The authors used the wording “try to improve.” Whether it expresses benefits toward a

football program or sponsors’ concerns about the football program is unclear. The third item

addresses benefits of a sponsored event. The fourth item addresses sponsors’ sense of caring for

fans. The question is whether only fans are cared for by the sponsor. Does the sponsor not care

about the community, the football program, or events? Although this scale addresses sponsors’

contribution to a variety of places, perceived benefits and concerns should be clearly separated

within an item. In addition, the places where benefits and concerns are directed should be

thoroughly identified. In Dees and colleague’s (β008) study, the measured goodwill positively

influenced purchase intention.

Perceived sincerity. Speed and Thompson (β000) developed a scale measuring

sponsors’ perceived sincerity. Those authors, in accordance with references of Armstrong (1987),

argued that when individuals encounter a sponsorship, they try to determine why a company

sponsors an activity. If the observers believe the sponsorship comes from the sponsors’ sincerity

and philanthropic motives, the sponsor will engender more favorable responses than if the

sponsorship is perceived as existing solely for a company’s commercial benefit. Thus, this scale

measures perceptions toward a sponsor’s motives and behaviors. The sponsored activity used in

this study was sporting events. The scale consists of four items: 1) The sport would benefit from

this sponsorship at the grassroots level; β) The main reason the sponsor would be involved in the

event is because the sponsor believes the event deserves support; γ) This sponsor would be likely

to have the best interests of the sport at heart; and 4) This sponsor would probably support the

event even if it had a much lower profile.

The first item addresses the benefit of a sponsored sport. Of the listed items, only this

item measures individuals’ perceptions toward a benefit. Although the item specifically focuses

on a benefit to sport, the sponsored events may be a key receiver of the benefits. In addition, one

question is why a perceived benefit is included in this scale. This scale measures sponsors’

motives of sponsorship. Although the benefits which a sponsored property receives may become

clues to the motives of sponsors, perceived benefits and motives may exist in different

dimensions of the same construct. Some individuals are not concerned with sponsors’ motives

37

(concerns) and may favorably respond to sponsorship as long as a sponsored activity receives

benefits.

The second and third items measure the sponsor’s perceived pure motives for helping a

sponsored event. Those perceived pure motives may be substituted for perceived cares. When

individuals think that a sponsors’ motive toward sponsorship is to ensure the success of an event,

they may believe the sponsors truly care about the event.

The fourth item, the sponsor supports an event even if it has a much lower profile,

measures a perceived sponsor’s behavior. This sponsor’s behavior could be interpreted in two

ways. The first is that the sponsor concerns about the event. The second is that the sponsor does

not have a commercial concern. The first issue is what the item measures is unclear; is it the

sense of care or commercial concern? The second concern is whether those two, the sense of care

and commercial intent, exist in polar points on a continuum or in the different dimension. Speed

and Thompson (β000) seems to believe that those two are on a same continuum. Commercial

sponsorship, however, does not need to be exclusively altruistic. Concerning about a sponsored

property and commercial intent of the company could be compatible. Therefore, those two may

be measured separately. Furthermore, a scale of commercial concerns should measure overt and

excessive commercial concerns. Speed and Thompson (β000) found that subjects’ perceived

sincerity of a sponsor predicted their interests to the sponsor and its other promotions, the

favorable attitudes toward the sponsor, and willingness to purchase products from the sponsor.

Sponsor motives or intent. Kim (β010) developed a measurement of sponsor motives or

intents, which “… assess[es] consumers’ attributions about sponsor motives or intent behind

commercial sport sponsorship” (p. 1β4). The research addressed sponsorship of a sport team.

Based on Meenaghan’s (β001a) argument, the author contended that consumers would infer two

types of sponsor motives when they encounter a sport team sponsorship.

The first motive factor is firm-serving intent, which is “… the extent to which a

consumer believes a sponsor is likely to prioritize the interests of the organization ahead of the

interests of the sponsored property” (Kim, β010, p. 1β7). The firm-serving motive is measured

with five items: 1) This sponsor is likely to be only interested in making money; β) This sponsor

is likely to place profit above all else; γ) This sponsor seems to care more about promoting itself

than about the team; 4) This sponsor seems to care more about its promotions than the success of

the team; and 5) Making money from this deal seems to be the primary reason the company

38

sponsors the team. The five items measure the sponsor’s perceived motives for generating their

own benefits instead of caring for the team or helping the team. As Kim (β010) mentioned, those

perceived profit motives of the sponsor are closely related to the concept of a sponsor’s excessive

commercial intent.

The second motive factor is team-serving intent, which is “… the extent to which a

consumer believes a sponsor has a true caring concern for the property beyond mere commercial

intent” (Kim, β010, p. 1β7). The team-serving motive is measured by three items: 1) This

sponsor seems to be concerned about what is best for the team; β) This sponsor seems to have a

genuine interest in the team; and γ) This sponsor seems to really care about the team. The three

items measure the sponsor’s perceived pure motives for helping a sponsored team. Those

perceived pure motives may be substituted for perceived concerns about a property.

Although Kim (β010) finalized these two factors as perceived sponsor motives (team-

serving motive and firm-serving motive), he originally found a third factor in the process of the

scale development. The third factor included items expressing sponsor-oriented behavioral

tendency, which was considered as a sub-dimension of the firm-serving motive (Kim, β010).

Items included in the third factor were 1) This sponsor is likely to support only a successful

team; β) This sponsor seems to exploit the team; and γ) This sponsor seems to be opportunistic.

These three items express the sponsor’s commercial intent through their behaviors but do not

explain consequences of those behaviors, such as benefits brought to a sponsor. That may

differentiate this behavior factor from the first factor (firm-serving motives). Although Kim

(β010) eliminated this third factor from his study due to low reliability, he argued for the

necessity of future investigation into this factor.

Kim’s (β010) study showed that subjects’ perceptions toward a sponsor’s team-serving

motive positively affected their attitude toward the sponsor. Furthermore, the subjects’ attitudes

influenced their intentions to purchase products from the sponsor. The subjects’ perceptions

toward a sponsor’s firm-serving motive, however, did not affect their attitude toward the sponsor.

As potential reasons for the non-significant relationship of the firm-serving motive, Kim (β010)

cited a measurement issue with the items assessing firm-serving motive, an overlap between

team-serving and firm-serving motive, and method variance bias which includes “positive bias,

halo effect, and scale format/length bias” (p. 195).

39

Consumer perceptions of sponsorship. Kim and his colleagues (β010) measured three

dimensions of consumers’ perception: perceived intent, perceived value, and perceived

investment. Perceived intent is referred to as “the extent to which the participants deem the

sponsor’s motivations to be of a benevolent (as opposed to a profit-driven) nature” (Kim et al.,

β010, p. 59). Perceived intent is measured by three items: 1) [Selected sponsor] was motivated

by a sincere desire to benefit [participant sport organization] by providing support to [participant

sport organization]; β) [Selected sponsor] would likely have the best interests of [participant

sport organization] at heart; and γ) [Selected sponsor] is primarily concerned with benefiting

[participant sport organization]. As seen in the definition, Kim and his colleagues seem to

consider a sponsor’s benevolent motive to be located at the opposite extreme of a profit-driven

motive, and the three items of perceived intent solely represent a sponsor’s perceived pure

motives for helping a sponsored property. In the sponsorship context, however, individuals could

simultaneously attribute both a sponsor’s sincere concerns about a property and a sponsor’s

desire to make profits from a sponsorship. Even individuals who perceive a sponsor’s sincere

concerns about a property could recognize the sponsor’s desire to make profits from the

sponsorship. Therefore, a sponsor’s benevolent motive and a profit-driven motive may need to be

examined separately.

Perceived value is measured by three items: 1) The benefit of [selected sponsor]’s

sponsorship is important for [participant sport organization]; β) The benefit of [selected

sponsor]’s sponsorship is valuable for [participant sport organization]; and γ) The benefit of

[selected sponsor]’s sponsorship is essential for [participant sport organization]. Based on these

three items, perceived value may be defined as the extent to which individuals deem the benefit a

sponsor provides as important, valuable, and essential for a sponsored property.

Perceived investment is referred to as the extent to which individuals believe a sponsor’s

investment to a property is costly for the sponsor (Kim et al., β010). The measurement items are:

1) The amount of effort invested by [selected sponsor] into sponsoring [participant sport

organization] seems to be a great deal; β) The amount of time invested by [selected sponsor] into

sponsoring [participant sport organization] seems to be a great deal; and γ) The amount of money

invested by [selected sponsor] into sponsoring [participant sport organization] seems to be a

great deal. Sponsor’ investment is expressed as effort, time, and money, in the items. Although

Kim and his colleagues (β010) developed this construct based on research of the emotion of

40

gratitude, the influence of perceived investment on goodwill has not been discussed in the area of

sponsorship.

Kim and colleagues (β010) found that perceived intent and perceived value affect the

emotion of gratitude, while perceived investment did not affect it. Further, gratitude positively

influenced purchase intention, and gratitude fully mediated the relationships between perceived

intent/value and purchase intention.

TABLE 2.1

Scales for Goodwill or Goodwill-Related Constructs

Perceived benefits

Perceived concerns about a property

Perceived commercial

intent

Beliefs about sponsorship (Alexandris et al., 2007)

1) Sponsorship is necessary for sport events such as an all-star game to take place

x

β) Sponsorship offers valuable financial support to events such as the all-star game

x

γ) Sponsorship helps events such as the all-star game to be successful x

4) Sponsorship increases commercialization of events such as the all–star game

N/A

Beliefs about the benefits of sponsorship (Madrigal, 2001)

1) Sponsorship makes some events possible that would not otherwise take place

x

β) Sponsorship lowers ticket prices for attendees x

γ) Sponsorship improves a company's image Ambiguous

41

Table 2.1—continued

Perceived benefits

Perceived concerns about a property

Perceived commercial

intent

Attitude toward the sponsor (image) (Alexandris et al., 2007) 1) The [company name] offers valuable help for the success of basketball events such as the all-star game

x

β) The [company name] really cares about the development of basketball x

γ) The [company name] cares more about its promotion than the success of events, such as the basketball all-star game

x

Goodwill (Dees et al., 2008) 1) [university] football sponsors are involved with their community

Ambiguous

β) Corporate sponsors try to improve [university] football Ambiguous

γ) This sporting event benefits from corporate sponsors

x

4) Corporate sponsors care about the fans of [university] football x

Perceived sincerity (Speed, & Thompson, 2000) 1) The sport would benefit from this sponsorship at the grassroots level x

β) The main reason the sponsor would be involved in the event is because the sponsor believes the event deserves support

x

γ) This sponsor would be likely to have the best interests of the sport at heart x

4) This sponsor would probably support the event even if it had a much lower profile

Ambiguous

Sponsor motives or intent (Kim, 2010)

Firm-serving motive

1) This sponsor seems to be concerned about what is best for the team

x

β) This sponsor seems to have a genuine interest in the team

x

γ) This sponsor seems to really care about the team x

42

Table 2.1—continued

Perceived benefits

Perceived concerns about a property

Perceived commercial

intent

Team-serving motive

4) This sponsor is likely to be only interested in making money

x

5) This sponsor is likely to place profit above all else

x

6) This sponsor seems to care more about promoting itself than about the team

x

7) This sponsor seems to care more about its promotions than the success of the team

x

8) Making money from this deal seems to be the primary reason the company sponsors the team

x

Consumer perceptions of sponsorship (Kim et al., 2010) Perceived intent

1) [Selected sponsor] was motivated by a sincere desire to benefit [participant sport organization] by providing support to [participant sport organization].

x

2) [Selected sponsor] would likely have the best interest of [participant sport organization] at heart. x

3) [Selected sponsor] is primarily concerned with benefiting [participant sport organization]. x

Perceived value

4) The benefit of [selected sponsor]’s sponsorship is important for [participant sport organization]. N/A

5) The benefit of [selected sponsor]’s sponsorship is valuable for [participant sport organization]. N/A

6) The benefit of [selected sponsor]’s sponsorship is essential for [participant sport organization]. N/A

Perceived investment 7) The amount of effort invested by [selected sponsor]

into sponsoring [participant sport organization] seems to be a great deal.

N/A

8) The amount of time invested by [selected sponsor] into sponsoring [participant sport organization] seems to be a great deal.

N/A

9) The amount of money invested by [selected sponsor] into sponsoring [participant sport organization] seems to be a great deal.

N/A

43

As seen in the measurements used in the previous studies, previous researchers (e.g.,

Alexandris et al., β007; Dees et al., β008; Kim, β010; Speed, & Thompson, β000) have mainly

focused on one or multiple elements of individuals’ perception toward a sponsor or sponsorship:

perceived benefits, perceived excessive commercial intent, and/or perceived concern about a

sponsored property, while Kim and colleagues (β010) introduced other unique perceptions such

as the value of benefits and a sponsor’s investment. The review of the measurements related to

perception revealed three significant issues.

The first issue is the dimensionality of the components of consumer perception. As

mentioned above, the three components of contingent goodwill are independent factors within

the same construct. All of the measures of perception reviewed in this chapter are composed of a

single dimension except studies of Kim (β010) and Kim et al. (β010), even though the respective

scales include some of the three components of perception. Perceived benefits should be clearly

separated from the other factors. Perceived benefits are the main factor which shapes an

individuals’ goodwill. Some individuals may not pay attention to sponsors’ concern for a

sponsored property and may generate favorable attitudes toward the sponsorship as long as the

sponsored activity receives benefits. Other individuals may not concern themselves with

sponsors’ commercial intent and benefits the sponsor experiences, as long as a sponsored

property receives benefits. Shandler and Shani’s (199γ) research showed that 58.6 percent of

subjects agreed with the following statement (14% of subject disagreed): I do not care why

companies spend their money on sponsorship as long as they help the Olympic Games.

The sponsors’ concern about a sponsored property and commercial intent should be

clearly differentiated. These two factors are not polar points on a continuum like altruism and

selfishness. Since commercial sponsorship is not a philanthropic activity, commercial intent and

concern about a property could be compatible. It is not reasonable to expect that when

individuals perceive a high sense of caring, it naturally follows that commercial intent is low, and

vice versa. In addition, if individuals perceive sponsors’ commercial intent and benefits as

acceptable, it may not affect an individuals’ attitude toward a sponsor. When the perceived

commercial intent and benefits experienced by the sponsor are, however, overt and excessive,

compared with the concern about and benefits of sponsored properties, individuals’ attitudes

toward sponsorship may be negatively affected. Therefore perceived excessive commercial intent

should be measured separately from perceived concern about a property.

44

The second issue is the directions of benefits and concerns who or which entities receive

benefits and/or concerns. A variety of targets receive benefits and care. The benefits of

sponsorship are perceived at three different levels (Meenaghan, β001a): generic, category, and

the individual activity. The generic level concerns whether society receives benefits; the category

level concerns whether a sponsored category such as sport or art receives benefits; and at the

individual activity level is focused on whether a sponsored activity, certain types of sport/art, and

fans of an activity benefits. The attachment points at which individuals perceive benefits and

care of sponsorship may differ depending on the context of sponsorship such as cause and sport

sponsorship and also depending on individuals’ involvement in a sponsored property. The

previous measurements are likely to randomly include various targets which receive benefits and

care, such as a sponsored property, fans/spectators, and people in the event host community. In

addition, the type of benefits and care varies. Examples are making an event possible, lowering

ticket prices, caring about the development of a certain sport, caring about the fans, and being

involved with a community. One solution may be that scale items focus on a target who receives

benefits and cares about a sponsored property. Because a sponsorship is a contract between a

sponsor and a sponsored property, participants in a study may easily understand a sponsor doing

something for or with a sponsored property even if they do not know exactly what the sponsor is

doing. Another solution may be that every imaginable benefit and care is included in a scale

appropriate to the context. In this case, a major response gap may occur between individuals who

thoroughly understand what a sponsor does and individuals who are unfamiliar with the

sponsor’s activities. In either case, it is necessary to identify what kinds of sponsorship activities

participants of a study recognize.

The third issue is the measure of perceived benefits. Items assessing perceived benefits in

the measurements reviewed above are likely to include two different concepts. The first of these

concepts is whether a sponsor helps a sponsored property or whether a sponsored property

experiences benefits from a sponsor. The first concept determines whether a company’s

sponsorship brings positive effects to a sponsored property. The second concept is, on the other

hand, the necessity of a sponsor’s help; whether a sponsor’s help is necessary for a sponsored

event to take place. As discussed in the section detailing the social aspects of sponsorship,

individuals are likely to credit a sponsor which helps the weak who need assistance for their

survival (McDonald, 1991). When individuals acknowledge that a sponsored property requires a

45

sponsor’s help, stronger appreciation toward the sponsor may be generated. Appreciation may

not be generated if there is no recognition of the necessity of a sponsor’s help. In Meenaghan’s

(β001b) study, some of the interviewees expressed their goodwill toward a sponsor because of

the sponsorship helping minority sports and athletes who do not have enough funding. Although

previous studies (e.g., McDonald, 1991) have discussed the necessity of help only for weak

entities, even apparently mature entities find help necessary and valuable. For example, while the

Olympic Games are assessed as a matured event, the Games require a lot of help from other

entities. A sponsor has offered a high-tech system for security. The system is crucial for the safe

organization of the Olympic Games. In this case, the sponsor’s help may be recognized as

necessary, and consumers may appreciate the help.

As discussed, the two concepts (whether a sponsor brings positive effects to a sponsored

property and whether the help is necessary to or valuable for the sponsored property) have

different meanings. Therefore, previous measurement of perceived benefits should be separated

into two concepts: perceived benefits and perceived necessity. Perceived value, which is

elucidated by Kim and his colleagues (β010), is a similar construct to perceived necessity. The

term “value,” however, may sometimes be interpreted differently depending on the individuals.

For example, a sponsor’s support of $1 million to a sponsored property may be perceived as

more valuable than a support of $10 million. A sponsor’s support of $1 million, however, may be

perceived as necessary for a sponsored property as much as a support of $10 million. Perceived

necessity precisely focuses on individuals’ perception toward the necessity of the sponsor’s

support.

Measuring a Sense of Appreciation

Previous sponsorship research for the most part has not addressed consumers’ feelings of

appreciation toward a sponsor. Only Kim and colleagues (β010) measured a feeling of

appreciation in the domain of sponsorship, they measured whether participants of a triathlon

competition felt gratitude for a sponsor of the competition. The measurement items were 1) I am

grateful for [selected sponsor]; β) I am thankful for [selected sponsor]; and γ) I appreciate

[selected sponsor]. These items were adapted from the scale of Palmatier, Jarvis, Bechkoff, and

Kardes (β009).

46

Outcomes of Gratitude

Meenaghan (β001a) discussed how goodwill (gratitude) triggers consumers’ favorability,

brand preference, and purchasing of a sponsor’s product. As discussed previously, most of the

existing research (Dees et al., β008; Kim, β010; Kim et al. (β010); Speed & Thompson, β000)

has included an examination of the direct influence of individuals’ perceptions toward a

sponsorship on outcome variables, while Kim et al. (β010) examined the meditational role of

gratitude in the relationship between perceptions and purchase intention. The findings from the

previous studies are presented in Figure β.1. As seen in Figure β.1, in order to thoroughly

understand the gratitude, the relationships among three constructs should be clarified, including

perceptions, feeling of appreciation, and consumer outcomes. The following section reviews two

of the potential outcome variables in sponsorship: attitude toward a sponsor and purchase

intention.

Figure 2.1

Previous Findings

47

Attitude toward a sponsor. Attitude has been discussed using two different perspectives:

the multidimensional/tripartite view and a unidemensional view (Fishbein, 1967). The

multidimensional perspective is conceptualized with three dimensions: affect, cognition, and

conation. With the unidimensional perspective, only affect is recognized as attitude, and is

conceptualized as feelings and evaluation. Cognition and conation are recognized as belief and

behavioral intentions respectively (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Belief and behavioral intention are

considered as a determinant or consequent of attitude (Fishbein, 1967; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975).

While the differing perspectives have led to a diverse range of definitions, Fishbein and Ajzen

(1975) argued that the most commonly accepted description of attitude is “a learned

predisposition to respond in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner with respect to a

give object” (p. 6), and that an essential concept of attitude is its affective or evaluative aspect

(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Thus, attitude is likely to be measured using individuals’ evaluations

of or affects toward an object (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975).

In the sponsorship research, consumers’ attitudes toward a sponsor have been frequently

examined as an outcome variable. Attitude toward a sponsor could be defined as a consumer’s

evaluation of a sponsor. Some of the previous sponsorship studies (e.g., Gwinner & Swanson,

β00γ; Rifon et al., β004; Simmons & Becker-Olsen, β006) have measured attitude toward a

sponsor based on a unidimensional view, which assesses individuals’ affective evaluations

toward a sponsor (see Table β.β). Other studies (e.g., Martensen et al., β007) have measured

attitude based on a multidimensional perspective, which includes the assessment of cognition,

affect, and behavioral intention (see Table β.β). In order to assess how gratitude works in

sponsorship, understanding the relationships among belief (perception), emotion, attitude, and

intention may be required. Therefore, attitude toward a sponsor is better treated by using a

unidimensional perspective.

In addition, some of the previous sponsorship studies (e.g., Gwinner & Swanson, β00γ;

Martensen et al., β007; Rifon et al., β004; Simmons & Becker-Olsen, β006) have measured

attitude toward a sponsor as individuals’ evaluations toward a company itself (see Table β.β).

Other studies (e.g., Irwin, Lachowetz, Cornwell, & Clark, β00γ; Speed & Thompson, β000), in

contrast, have assessed attitude toward a sponsor as how individuals evaluate a company in terms

of a company’s engagement in a sponsorship activity (see Table β.γ). Assessing the attitude of a

sponsor itself is appropriate when the relationships of attitude with other antecedent and

48

consequent factors are examined, because in terms of sponsorship engagement the assessment

includes a causal influence of a sponsorship activity on attitude within the item. Assessing the

attitude of a company in terms of a sponsorship engagement is appropriate when the attitudes are

compared between different groups.

TABLE 2.2

Scales for Attitude toward the Sponsor: Assessing a company itself Unidimensional Perspective

Author(s) Measure Findings Original Measure

Gwinner and Swanson (β00γ)

A seven-point semantic differential scale with three components. Overall impression of firms that sponsor (university name) football is: good/bad, favorable/unfavorable, and unsatisfactory/satisfactory. (α= .94)

Fan identification positively affects attitude toward sponsors.

Lafferty & Goldsmith (1999) (α=.96)

Rifon et al. (β004) A seven-point semantic differential scale with three components: good/bad, pleasant/unpleasant, and favorable/unfavorable. (α= .90)

Congruence between a sponsor and sponsored property positively influences altruism attribution and sponsor credibility. The sponsor credibility then positively influences attitudes toward the sponsor.

Mackenzie and Lutz (1989) (α=.77)

Simmons and Becker-Olsen (β006)

A seven-point semantic differential scale (for firm equity and for attitude toward sponsorship) with three components: good / bad, favorable/unfavorable, and positive/negative.

Congruence between a sponsor and sponsored property positively influences the clarity of a sponsors’ positioning in the sponsorship and also positively influences attitude toward the sponsorship. The clarity of positioning and attitude toward the sponsorship positively influence the firm equity.

49

Table 2.2 ---continued

Tripartite Perspective

Auther(s) Measure Fundings

Martensen et al. (β007)

A five point, nine items: (α< .70) 1) I think that B&O is a good brand. 2) I think that B&O has some advantageous characteristics

compared to other similar brands within the relevant product category.

3) I have a positive attitude toward B&O. 4) Buying B&O is a good decision. 5) I am willing to pay a higher price for B&O than for other

similar products within the product category. 6) B&O is better quality than other similar brands within the

product category. 7) I think that B&O is a reliable and credible brand. 8) I am interested in B&O. 9) I am interested in knowing more about B&O.

Positive brand emotion, negative brand emotion, and event attitude influence brand attitude. Brand attitude positively influences buying intention.

TABLE 2.3

Scales for Attitude toward the Sponsor: Assessing a company in terms of sponsorship activity

Author(s) Measure Findings / Conclusion

Irwin et al. (β00γ) A five point Likert-type scale: 1) I am impressed with a company that commits to a

cause for more than a year. 2) FedEx’s sponsorship of this golf tournament

improves my impression of the company. 3) I like to see companies supporting meaningful

causes.

Item 1) --- 87% of the subjects agreed or strongly agreed. Item β) --- 78% of the subject agreed or strongly agreed. Item γ) --- 89% of the subjects agreed or strongly agreed.

Speed and Thompson (β000)

A seven point Likert-type scale: (α=.95) 1) This sponsorship makes me feel more favorable

toward the sponsor. 2) This sponsorship would improve my perception of

the sponsor. 3) This sponsorship would make me like the sponsor

more.

Dispositional attitude toward a sponsor, sponsor-event fit, perceived ubiquity, event status, perceived sincerity, fit*personal liking, and fit*status predict attitude toward a sponsor.

Purchase intention. Purchase intention has been discussed as behavioral intention in the

area of social psychology. “Intentions are assumed to capture the motivational factors that

influence a behavior; they are indications of how hard people are willing to try, of how much of

an effort they are planning to exert, in order to perform the behavior” (Ajzen, 1991, p. 181).

Intention is assessed based on the strength of the intention (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Some

50

researchers (Sheppard, Hartwick, & Warshaw, 1988; Wright & MacRae, β007) examined the

difference in a measure of intention and a measure of estimation/probability of behavior because

these two measures have been interchangeably used to measure individuals’ behavioral intention.

While a measure of intention assesses what individuals intend to do, a measure of estimation

assesses what individuals actually expect to do (Sheppard et al., 1988). Intention is a

motivational state induced by attitudes, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control

(Ajzen, 1991). Estimation is derived with consideration for various situational factors in addition

to these three factors and intention (Sheppard et al., 1988).

An example of an intention question is, “assessing your intention to buy a certain

product (e.g., a cell phone).” The response could be categorized as likely or unlikely. An example

of an estimation question is, “assessing the prospect of your buying a certain product sometime

during the next week.” The response could be categorized as definitely won’t buy and definitely

will buy. An individual asked the intention question may answer it based on their attitude toward

a brand, subjective norms, and/or behavioral control, while an individual asked the estimation

question may answer it based on the price and necessity of the product. This individual would

also take into consideration the schedule for the next week as well as his own attitude toward a

product. Sheppard and colleagues’ (1988) meta-analysis revealed that the relationship between

intention and actual behavior is stronger when estimation was asked than when intention was

asked. The relationship between attitude/subjective norm and intention, on the other hand, was

stronger when intention was asked than when estimation was asked.

In sponsorship, one goal is to increase sales (Gardner & Shuman, 1988). Individuals’

intentions to purchase a sponsor’s products have been assessed in previous studies (e.g.,

Alexandris et al., β007; Dees et al., β008; Kim, β010; Kim et al., β010; Madrigal, β001;

Simmons & Becker-Olsen, β006; Speed & Thompson, β000). The purchase intention in

sponsorship could be defined as “consumers’ intentions to purchase specific products or services

from a particular vendor” (Cazier, Corley, & Gora, β011). Table β.4 shows scales used to

measure intention to purchase a product from a sponsor.

51

TABLE 2.4

Scales for Purchase Intention

Author(s) Measure Findings Original Measure Alexandris et al. (β007)

Five-point Likert-type scale anchored by very unlikely (1) to Very Likely (5) (α=.80) How likely it is that you would… 1) Think to buy products from the

sponsor 2) Try to buy products from the sponsor 3) Buy products from the sponsor

Attitude toward the event and belief about sponsorship influence purchase intention.

Madrigal (β001)

Kim et al. (β010)

Seven-point Likert-type scale anchored by strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7) (α=.81) 1) I am likely to continue to buy

products and services from [selected sponsor] sponsoring [participant sport organization].

2) I am likely to buy more products and services from [selected sponsor] sponsoring [participant sport organization].

3) I am likely to consider [selected sponsor] as my first choice when purchasing similar types of products and services.

Gratitude toward a sponsor influences purchase intention.

Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman (1996)

Simmons and Becker-Olsen (β006)

Seven point Likert-type scale with rating agreement level (α=.96) “If you or a friend had the need to buy the kind of products sold by a [sponsor], how likely would you be to …?” 1) consider 2) purchase 3) recommend

The clarity of a sponsors’ positioning in the sponsorship and attitude toward the sponsorship influences firm equity (affective attitude and behavioral intention).

All of the scales use likelihood anchors. None of the scales assess the estimation of purchasing a

product within a specific period of time, but at the same time, estimation scales do not

specifically ask about the intention to purchase a sponsor’s product. Kim and colleagues (β010)

measured the likelihood of repeat purchase. Alexandris et al. (β007) and Simmons and Becker-

Olsen (β006) measured likelihood with three gradational anchors such as think, try, and buy, or

consider, purchase, and recommend. The measures such as repeated purchase and likelihood of

recommendation are inappropriate in a context where individuals have never known the sponsor

and have never used the sponsored product before. In addition, experimental research sometimes

uses a fictitious sponsor in order to avoid the influence of dispositional attitude toward a sponsor

52

subjects may have. With fictitious or hypothetical scenarios, subjects do not have knowledge

about a sponsor’s products such as price and quality; this makes it difficult to estimate their

probability to purchase a sponsor’s products. Measures of intention, on the other hand, may be

better assessed using those subjects’ intentions to purchase a sponsor’s products because

intention is supposed to be predicted based on attitudes toward a sponsor without the

consideration of various situational factors.

In summary, previous studies (e.g., Meenaghan, β001a; β001b) proposed that consumer

appreciation is generated through individuals’ recognition of the benefits of sponsorship toward

sponsored properties. The key to consumer appreciation is the individuals’ perception of benefits

derived by a sponsorship. Whether the benefits are necessary for a sponsored property may also

influence the generation of goodwill. In addition, based on the previous studies (e.g.,

Meenaghan, β001a; β001b; McDonald, 1991), it could be said that excessive commercial intent

and the concern about a sponsored property are the two most significant factors which influence

appreciation. Therefore, a measure of perception toward a sponsor/sponsorship should include at

least these four components: perceived benefits, perceived necessary, excessive commercial

intent, and perceived concern about a sponsored property. It should also be mentioned that the

four factors are not the only perceptions toward a sponsor/sponsorship; there may be other

factors. Previous measures of perception of a sponsor/sponsorship (Alexandris et al., β007; Dees

et al., β008; Kim, β010; Kim et al., β010; Madrigal, β001; Speed & Thompson, β000) include

one or multiple elements of these four factors. Kim and his colleagues (β010) introduced two

other factors including perceived value and perceived investment. Individuals’ perceptions of a

sponsor/sponsorship are considered antecedents of appreciation, but do not in and of themselves

indicate appreciation. Whether individuals appreciate a sponsor or sponsorship should be

measured after the evaluations of the perceptions. A sense of appreciation has been measured as

gratitude by Kim and colleagues (β010) in the field of sponsorship research.

A feeling of appreciation is a factor of emotion. In the research domains of psychology,

sociology, and anthropology, the emotion of appreciation has been discussed as gratitude

(Komter, β004). Therefore, in the next section, the role of emotion, in particular emotion of

gratitude, in consumer behaviors is discussed based on appraisal theory.

53

Appraisal Theory

Appraisal theory of emotion has been gradually recognized as a prominent approach in

the study of emotion over the last three decades (Smith & Kirby, β009). The origin of appraisal

theory is cognitive theory, which is based on the idea that appraisal of a stimulus situation is an

initial step of emotion (Schorr, β001). The theory is categorized as a cognitive theory of emotion

(Scherer, 1999). A central theme of appraisal theory is that emotion is derived from individuals’

subjective evaluations/appraisals (Scherer, 1999) or implications of (Smith & Kirby, β009) a

stimulus. The development of appraisals and the relationship between appraisals and emotions

are explained by the relational models of appraisal and the structural models of appraisal

respectively.

The antecedent of appraisals is composed of two factors: construed characteristics of

stimulus and individuals’ dispositional characteristics (Lazarus, β001; Smith & Kirby, β009;

Smith & Lazarus, 1990). Characteristics of stimulus are obtained based on the observation of a

stimulus (Smith & Kirby, β009; Smith & Lazarus, 1990). Individuals’ characteristics include

various elements such as their personal beliefs, needs, goals, resources, and abilities related to

the stimulus (Smith & Kirby, β009). Johnson and Stewart (β005) specifically focused on

individuals’ knowledge as an antecedent of appraisals, which includes “expectations and beliefs

about the [stimulus] situation and relevant goals in the situation” (p. 1β). Such knowledge may

be acquired from individuals’ previous experiences with similar situations, vicarious learning

from others, or information from other sources (Johnson & Stewart, β005). The relational model

of appraisal explains these two types of antecedent relate to and interact with each other and then

generate components of appraisals (criteria of evaluation) (Smith & Kirby, β009). The base of

the models is the idea, “emotions are always about personal-environment relationships”

(Lazarus, 1991b, p.819). For example, when a person who has motivational orientation toward

success encounters a success-related situation, one of the appraisals generated in this situation

will be motivational relevance. Smith and Kirby (β009) confirmed the relational model of

appraisal by reviewing previous studies; while personal motivational orientation predicted

appraisal of motivational relevance, the relationship was partially mediated by perceived

situational relevance of motivation. The appraisal of motivational relevance then elicited

emotions.

54

The structural models of appraisal, on the other hand, explain the relationship between

appraisals and emotions. Emotion is elicited through a process of appraisal of a stimulus (e.g.,

Lazarus, 198β, β001; Scherer, 1999; Smith & Kirby, β009; Smith & Lazarus, 1990). Frijda

(1986) explained the appraisal process as “considering and evaluating aspects and implications

of the stimulus event, and comparing these to the satisfaction conditions of concerns” (p. 468).

Lazarus (1991a), on the other hand, described appraisal as “… a continuing evaluation of the

significance of what is happening for one’s personal wellbeing” (p. 144). The meanings of a

certain stimulus will differ depending on the individual. Previous researchers (e.g., Smith &

Lazarus, 1990; Smith & Kirby, β009) argued that even if individuals view a particular stimulus

similarly, they may have different emotions deriving from their views. The different emotions are

caused by each individual’s appraisal, which is the evaluation and implication of the stimulus in

terms of their personal significance of the stimulus (Scherer, 1999; Smith & Kirby, β009; Smith

& Lazarus, 1990). The types of appraisal are diverse (e.g., goal relevance, goal congruence, and

ego-involvement). Different appraisals result in different emotions; which emotions will be

elicited is predicted based on the appraisals and vice-versa (Smith & Kirby, β009). Recent

studies (e.g., Roseman & Evdokas, β004; Tong, Bishop, Enkelmann, Why, Diong, Khader, &

Ang, β007) confirmed a causal relationship of appraisals on emotions.

Emotions which were elicited through appraisal processes eventually lead to behavioral

responses (coping activities). Coping activities are not the end of the emotional processes, but the

activities continuously influence re-appraisal processes (Frijda, 1986; Johnson & Stewart, β005;

Lazarus, β001; Smith & Lazarus, 1990). Watson and Spence (β007) clarified three issues which

appraisal theory is used to explain: “1) To elucidate what are the underlying characteristics

inherent in events that are evaluated or appraised,” β) “What, if any, emotions are experienced as

a result of this appraisal process,” and γ)”What are the behavioral responses to the experienced

emotions” (p. 488). Appraisal theory explains a behavioral response as a coping activity of

emotion. Emotion is, however, considered as one of the factors shaping the affective attitude

(Edwards, 1990). The affective attitude is also acquired with appraisal (Edwards, 1990). Thus,

both attitudinal and behavioral responses could be considered outcomes of emotion.

Appraisals Approach in Marketing Research

Appraisal theory has been used to explain the role of emotion in the context of consumer

behavior by previous researchers (e.g., Bagozzi et al., 1999; Nyer, 1997; Soscia, β007; Watson &

55

Spence, β007). When consumers purchase goods or services, they cognitively evaluate stimulus

elements in goods, services, or consumption situations through the appraisal processes. Based on

a review of previous research, Watson and Spence (β007) introduced four key appraisals which

elicit consumption emotions within the marketing context: outcome desirability, agency, fairness,

and certainty. Outcome desirability is defined as “whether the outcome of a situation is good or

bad (positive or negative) with respect to personal well-being” (Watson & Spence, β007, p. 491).

In some cases, consumers have a certain stake in the outcome, so they evaluate the outcome in

light of their goal (this process is called goal congruency or motivational response). In this case,

to what extent the goal is achieved and how important the goal is for the individuals may also be

appraisals of the outcome (Johnson & Stewart, β005). In another case, outcome is assessed based

on the pleasantness of a stimulus event.

Agency is referred to as who or which entity causes, has control over, or is responsible

for the stimulus situation (self, other, or circumstance-caused), which is explained based on

attribution theory (Watson & Spence, β007). Certainty is the “perceived likelihood of a particular

event” (Watson & Spence, β007, p. 497). In the consumption context, certainty may work as a

form of appraisal when consumers make a decision to purchase a product or service whose

quality and effectiveness are unknown. Fairness is referred as “how morally appropriate one

perceives an event to be” (Watson & Spence, β007, p. 497). Consumers may use fairness

appraisal when they contact a customer service representative after receiving bad service; if the

customer service representative does not handle the situation well (socially inappropriate), it

angers consumers. These appraisals elicit consumption emotions such as gratitude, happiness,

guilt, anger, pride, and sadness (Soscia, β007). As part of their coping strategies, consumers react

by returning products, complaining about bad service, spreading positive or negative word of

mouth, and (re)purchasing products (Nyer, 1997).

Nyer (1997) and Soscia’s (β007) research indicated that even if consumers are confronted

with the same stimulus situation, their elicited consumption emotions differ depending on their

appraisals. Their different consumption emotions then result in different types of reactions. There

is, however, a conflict between these two studies; Nyer’s (1997) research revealed that emotions

fully mediated relationships between appraisals and behaviors, while Soscia’s (β007) research

indicated a role of partial mediation. According to Watson and Spence (β007), although

emotions’ mediational role in the relationship between appraisals and behavioral outcomes has

56

been conceptually and empirically supported, the direct influence of cognition on behavioral

outcomes has also been revealed by previous studies. Therefore, whether emotion fully or

partially mediates the relationship between appraisals and behavioral outcomes must be reviewed

further in future research (Watson & Spence, β007).

Gratitude

Emotion of Gratitude

“The word gratitude is derived from the Latin gratia, meaning favor, and gratus,

meaning pleasing” (Emmons, β004, p. 4). Gratitude is explained as both a positive emotion

(Fredrickson, β004) and pleasant feelings (Emmons & McCullough, β004). A core theme related

to gratitude is “appreciation for an altruistic gift that provides personal benefit” (Lazarus, β001,

p. 64). Gratitude is composed of three elements: “(1) a warm sense of appreciation for somebody

or something, (β) a sense of goodwill toward that individual or thing, and (γ) a disposition to act

which flows from appreciation and goodwill” (Fitzgerald, 1998, p. 1β0). According to

Fredrickson (β004), “typically, an emotion process begins with an individual’s assessment of the

personal meaning of some antecedent event” (p. 146). The emotion of gratitude is evoked when

individuals (beneficiary) obtain or receive a positive outcome, such as a gift or benefit, from

others (benefactor) (Emmons & McCullough, β00γ). Emmons and McCullough (β00γ) broke

down this cognitive process into two stages: recognizing the attainment of a positive outcome

and recognizing the existence of an external source for this positive outcome. As explained by

appraisal theory, while this cognitive process is an initial and crucial incident of generation of

gratitude, the development of gratitude involves evaluations of the stimulus events and

situations, such as the relationship between the benefactor and beneficiary (appraisal processes).

That is, the recognition of a positive outcome (benefits or favors from a benefactor) does not

always result in the generation of gratitude but depends on the beneficiary’s appraisals. Previous

studies introduced various appraisals, which we will discuss.

The first appraisal is intentionality; beneficiaries feel grateful when they perceive that a

benefit is intentionally provided by benefactors to enhance the beneficiaries’ well-being and did

not happen by accident (Heinder, 1958; Simmons, 1979). The second appraisal is altruism

(motive); beneficiaries only appreciate a gift which is perceived as altruistically given, but they

do not feel grateful for a gift which is given because of perceived extrinsic motives, such as

expecting something in return (Heinder, 1958; Lazarus & Lazarus, 1994; Simmons, 1979; Tesser

57

et al., 1968). The third appraisal is value; beneficiaries feel grateful when a benefit is valuable to

them (Tesser et al., 1968). Simmons (1979) used the term “want” and McConnell (199γ) used the

term “acceptance” instead of value. The fourth condition is voluntariness; beneficiaries feel

grateful when a benefit is voluntarily given from a benefactor, but not when a benefactor is

forced to provide it by others entities (Berger, 1975; Simmons, 1979). The fifth appraisal is cost;

the cost amount which a benefactor spends to provide a benefit to a beneficiary influences the

beneficiary’s feeling of gratitude. Tesser and his colleagues (1968) empirically examined

whether three appraisals - motive, value, and cost - influence a beneficiary’s feeling of gratitude.

The results indicate positive relations among the three appraisals and the beneficiary’s feeling of

gratitude.

Gratitude-Related Behaviors

As supported by appraisal theory, gratitude is frequently discussed with its associated

behaviors because gratitude works as a motivator of behaviors (Bartlett & DeSteno, β006;

Fredrickson, β004; Komter, β004; McCullough, Kilpatrick, Emmons, & Larson, β001).

McCullough et al. (β001) introduced the processes by which the emotion of gratitude is

transferred to behaviors. When an individual (beneficiary) recognizes someone’s (benefactor)

behaviors which enhance the beneficiary’s well-being, such as help and beneficial gifts, the

beneficiary feels appreciation for and generates gratitude toward the benefactor. The feeling of

gratitude motivates the beneficiary to express her/his gratefulness and contribute to the

benefactor’s well-being, which results in reciprocal behaviors. The expressed gratitude further

reinforces the benefactor’s future behavior. As seen in this explanation, gratitude sustains “a

cycle of gift and counter gift” and plays “a part of the chain of reciprocity” (Komter, β004, p.

195). Some researchers (e.g., Gouldner, 1960; Komter, β004) describe gratitude-related behavior

as reciprocal behavior, which is “a mutual contingent exchange of benefits between two or more

units” (Gouldner, 1960, p. 164).

Although the reciprocal tendency of gratitude-related behavior was addressed,

researchers (e.g., Fredrickson, β004; McCullough et al., β001) have also frequently discussed the

social role of gratitude and gratitude-related behavior. They recognize the behavior as

moral/social actions (Fredrickson, β004; McCullough et al., β001) and refer to it as prosocial

behavior (Bartlett & DeSteno, β006; Emmons & Mccullough, β00γ; Fredrickson, β004;

McCullough et al., β001). Prosocial behavior is defined as “the broad range of actions intended

58

to benefit one or more people other than oneself --- behaviors such as helping, comforting,

sharing, and cooperating” (Batson & Powell, β00γ, p. 46γ). Gratitude increases within

interpersonal, communicative, and situational contexts (Buck, β004), so behaviors in those

contexts followed by gratitude are not completed by the actor of the behavior but instead involve

another entity. Gratitude encourages and reinforces moral/social actions between a benefactor

and beneficiary (Fredrickson, β004) and develops and strengthens friendships and social bonds

(Komter, β004) and civil communities (Fredrickson, β004). Therefore, gratitude plays a

fundamental role in human interaction within a moral society and becomes essential to sustaining

social community (Bartlett & DeSteno, β006; Komter, β004).

Exchange of Gratifications, Existential Folk beliefs, or Social Norm as a Reciprocal Behavior

In the preceding paragraphs, reciprocal behavior and prosocial behavior have been

discussed as behaviors motivated by the emotion of gratitude. Those behaviors, however, may

not only be motivated by genuine gratitude, but also motivated by other factors. Gouldner (1960)

categorized reciprocal behaviors into three types: 1) the exchange of gratifications, β) the

existential or folk belief in reciprocity, and γ) the generalized moral norm of reciprocity.

First, reciprocal behavior motivated by exchange of gratifications is explained as “a

pattern of mutually contingent exchange of gratifications” (Gouldner, 1960, p. 161). In this

reciprocal behavior, a relationship between a benefactor and a beneficiary is in “interdependence,

which involves mutual and complementary arrangements” (Cropanzano & Michell, β005, p.

876). Gouldner (1960) explained this relationship involving “the ecological concept of

symbiosis” (p. 170). A beneficial action of one party causes a gratitude related response of

another party, whose mutual contingent exchange becomes a consequential action (Fropanzano

& Michell, β005). Second, existential or folk belief about reciprocity, which is a cultural

expectation (Cropanzano & Michell, β005), causes a reciprocal behavior. Gouldner (1960)

described folk beliefs about reciprocity, in accordance with Malinowski’s (19γβ) reference, such

as “(a) in the long run the mutual exchange of goods and services will balance out; or (b) if

people do not aid those who helped them certain penalties will be imposed upon them; or (c)

“those whom they have helped can be expected to help them” (Gouldner, 1960, p. 170). These

folk beliefs are sometimes used when individuals receive something from others and lead to a

reciprocal behavior. Third, the generalized moral norm, which is a cultural mandate (Cropanzano

& Mitchell, β005), causes reciprocal behavior. Individuals sometimes demonstrate a reciprocal

59

behavior because of the pressure of the moral norm of reciprocity, which is expressed as “you

should give benefits to those who give you benefits” (Gouldner, 1960, p. 170). This evokes

obligation toward a benefactor to induce repayment (Gouldner, 1960). Some individuals

prosocially reciprocate benefits received from someone, even if they do not feel appreciation for

those benefits. Previous researchers (e.g., Gouldner, 1960; Komter, β004) contended that

gratitude becomes “an imperative force” (Komter, β004, p. 165) compelling a beneficiary to

reciprocate benefits. In this case, “gratitude” is not expressed from positive emotion but from a

feeling of duty and indebtedness. “The focus of indebtedness is on (a) one’s obligation to repay

someone who has acted intentionally on one’s behalf, (b) fear of being unable to repay, and (c)

worries about how one might actually go about repaying” (McCullough et al., β001). Therefore,

although those three types of reciprocal behaviors may look superficially similar to each other,

mechanisms which lead to a reciprocal behavior are different.

Bartlett and DeSteno (β006) empirically revealed the difference of gratitude related

reciprocal behavior from moral norm-related reciprocal behavior. Bartlett and DeSteno (β006)

examined how individuals, who are in the feeling of gratitude, amusement, or a neutral emotion,

behave differently when they have been helped from the other person. The research showed that

participants who feel gratitude (having received help from a person) made more of an effort to

return the favor and help their benefactor than participants who were amused or felt no strong

emotions. Furthermore, the grateful participants even helped a stranger in a parallel effort while

helping the benefactor. The behavior of helping a stranger is not explained based on the social

norm of reciprocity, because no obligation to return help incurs in the situation. The helping

behavior is only explained based on a reciprocity stemming from feeling of grateful and

appreciation.

Kolyesnikova and Dodd’s (β008) research also clarified that the gratitude construct

conceptually and operationally differed from obligation. These authors argued that visitors to a

winery would buy wine and/or souvenirs to express their gratitude for the hospitality of the staff

and the services they received (gratitude based behavior) or out of the necessity to reciprocate

obligation due to the free tasting and the tour (obligation: moral norm of reciprocity). The

exploratory factor analysis found two common factors in the consumption emotions of winery

visitors: gratitude and obligation. Consumers who feel gratitude make purchase decisions out of

“(a) desire to say “thank you” to the staff, (b) appreciation of the wine testing, and (c)

60

appreciation of the tour” (Kolyesnikova & Dodd, β008, p. 108). Consumers, who feel obligated,

buy wine because of their “(a) feelings of ethical indebtedness to buy wine, (b) purchase

expectation from the winery personnel, and (c) normative pressure to buy wine” (Kolyesnikova

& Dodd, β008, p. 108). The research found that the more winery visitors felt gratitude (r = .51)

and obligation (r = .γ6), the more the total dollars spent at wineries increased. Therefore,

gratitude-based reciprocal behavior and moral norm-related reciprocal behavior have been

conceptually and empirically differentiated.

In summary, gratitude is a positive emotion (Fredrickson, β004) and pleasant feelings

(Emmons & McCullough, β004), such as gratefulness and appreciation toward someone or some

entity (benefactor) that brings benefits. Recognition of these benefits, however, does not always

result in the generation of gratitude. Gratitude generation depends on different conditions, such

as intentionality, altruism (motivation), the value of a benefit, voluntariness, and the cost of a

benefit. Once individuals who received the benefits (beneficiary) and felt gratefulness toward the

benefactor, they develop a disposition to express the feeling of appreciation (Fitzgerald, 1998).

The gratitude-related action is called a reciprocal behavior (Gouldner, 1960; Komter, β004) and

prococial behavior (Bartlett & DeSteno, β006; Emmons & Mccullough, β00γ; Fredrickson,

β004; McCullough et al., β001). Such a reciprocal or prosocial behavior, however, does not

always rise from emotion of gratitude but sometime occurs from some moral/social principle or

norm. Although previous articles have not clearly differentiated reciprocal behaviors rising from

different motives, those reciprocal behaviors may be categorized into three types based on the

review of the previous articles: a reciprocal behavior as exchange of gratifications , a reciprocal

behavior as the existential or folk belief, and a reciprocal behavior as the generalized moral

norm. Although those behaviors look superficially similar, the underlying mechanisms which

lead to a reciprocal behavior are different. Therefore, in order to further confirm whether the

emotion of gratitude, but not folk belief and the moral norm, leads to reciprocal behaviors, the

relationships between the folk belief or the moral norm and a reciprocal behavior as well as the

relationship between gratitude and a reciprocal behavior may need to be examined in gratitude

research.

Emotion of Gratitude in Marketing Research

The emotion of gratitude has been little studied and rarely used in marketing research

(c.f., Morales, β005; Soscia, β007). Morales (β005) introduced the idea of gratitude in her

61

marketing research. Morales (β005) argued that consumers would reward companies, whose staff

provides an extra effort, such as maintaining a store clean, displaying products in an interesting

manner, and organizing products neatly. The idea is conceptualized based on attribution theory

and the notion of general reciprocity. When consumers realize the extra effort staff members

provide, they infer reasons/motives for the effort. Once the effort is recognized as a controllable

(voluntarily performed) behavior, which is considered a morally responsible behavior, consumers

feel gratitude, which in turns shapes consumers’ motivation to reward the company (Morales,

β005). However, if consumers attribute the extra effort to the company’s persuasion motives,

they do not feel gratitude and do not reward the company. This idea is conceptualized based on

the persuasion knowledge model.

Morales’s (β005) study showed that when subjects did not attribute an extra effort to the

company’s persuasion motives, the perceived extra effort positively influenced subjects’

willingness to pay, willingness to shop at the company’s stores, and overall ratings toward a

company, which was mediated by gratitude. On the other hand, when subjects perceive

persuasion motives in an extra effort, no associations were formed between the extra effort and

subject’s feeling of gratitude and their behavioral intentions. In addition, Morales (β005)

examined the effect of a company’s direct favor, which is directly provided to individual

customers (a real estate agent creates a review list of apartments, which is tailored to individual

customers) on the consumers’ attitudes toward a company. In the personal reciprocity situation,

while the perceived company’s favor positively influences subjects’ attitudes toward the

company (in no persuasion motive condition), the relationship was fully mediated by both

gratitude and indebtedness (guilt). In the general reciprocity situation (e.g., a store organizes

products neatly), in contrast, subjects did not show feelings of indebtedness.

Palmatier, Jarvis, Bechkoff, and Kardes (β009) addressed the role of consumer gratitude

in relationship marketing (RM). Palmatier and his colleagues argued that although previous

research explained the mediation role of trust and commitment on the relationships between RM

investment and seller performance outcomes, such as consumers’ intentions of purchase, trust

and commitment seemed insufficient for explaining the relationships. Palmatier and his

colleagues (β009) proposed that consumers would appreciate a company’s relationship marketing

investments, such as customer support, extra effort, and policy enhancement. The feeling of

62

appreciation would positively influence consumers’ “both affective (feelings of gratitude) and

behavioral (gratitude-based reciprocal behavior) responses” (p. 1).

Palmatier and his colleagues examined whether a retail person’s behaviors in a clothing

store (behaviors for building a relationship with a customer, such as selecting an outfit with using

time and effort) (RM investment) affect consumers’ feelings of gratitude to the retail person and

whether the feelings of gratitude lead to consumers’ intentions to purchase a product in the store.

The research confirmed the idea; participants of the research generated feelings of gratitude

toward the RM investments, and the gratitude led to their purchase intentions. Furthermore, the

research revealed that feelings of gratitude increased when the following three conditions were

met: when the participants perceive the retailer’s service behavior as 1) originating from the

retailer’s free will (voluntarily), β) motivated by the retailer’s benevolence (altruism), or γ)

matching with the participants need (need). In addition, Palmatier et al. (β009) examined whether

participants’ feelings of guilt and norms of reciprocity influence their intentions to purchase a

product in the store. The results showed that only feelings of guilt influenced purchase

intentions.

Soscia (β007) addressed how individuals’ goal congruence appraisal and agent appraisal

influence their emotions of gratitude. In Soscia’s (β007) research, participants read a scenario.

The scenario mentioned that a girl wanted to lose weight. She decided to become a member of a

very expensive fitness center and attended step aerobics classes. In goal (in)congruence

appraisal, the girl could (could not) lose weight after several months of exercise. In the agent

appraisal, three different conditions were included in a scenario: other caused, self caused, or

environment caused. The research results indicated that participants who read a scenario which

was goal congruent (successfully lost weight) with other caused (an aerobics instructor motivates

the girl well in a class) context, believed gratitude would be generated within the girl in the

scenario than the other participants who read a goal incongruent scenario or a goal congruent

with self or environment caused scenario. Furthermore, the research indicated that when

participants believed the girl generated gratitude, they also predicted the girl’s repurchase

intention of membership and positive word of mouth of the club and class. That is, gratitude

influenced behavioral intentions.

In summary, previous research (e.g., Kolyesnikova & Dodd, β008; Morales, β005;

Palmatier et al., β009; Soscia, β007) revealed that the concept of gratitude and reciprocal

63

behavior could be applied to consumers’ consumption context. The emotion of gratitude is

generated among consumers not only in the private reciprocity situation (such as directly

providing help to individual customers) but also in general reciprocity situations (such as

organizing products neatly; customers do not directly receive anything). Then, the generated

feeling of gratitude positively influences consumers’ attitudinal outcomes, such as willingness to

pay, store choice, overall ratings toward a company, spread word of mouth, and purchase

intention. Those studies empirically indicated that consumers increase feeling of gratitude as they

perceive the received benefits as voluntary and altruistic (Morales, β005; Palmatier et al., β009),

meeting the needs of the recipient (Palmatier et al., β009), and goal congruence (Soscia, β007).

Then the gratitude results in a positive attitude toward the company (Morales, β005) and higher

intention to purchase a product form a benefactor (Palmatier et al., β009).

Summary of the Literature Review

Consumers’ sense of appreciation differentiates sponsorship from other marketing

communications (Meenaghan, β001a; β001b). While other marketing communications tend to be

considered selfish, crafted only to pursue further advantages for a company, sponsorship is

recognized as a “good thing to do,” and people approve of and generate positive attitudes toward

sponsorship as one of the activities by which businesses contribute to society (Meenaghan,

β001a; β001b). Gratitude is generated through individuals’ recognition of and appreciation for

the benefits of sponsorship toward sponsored properties (e.g., Meenaghan, β001a; β001b;

McDonald, 1999). Gratitude then results in consumers developing favorable attitudes toward a

sponsor, and intentions to purchase a product or service of the sponsor (Meenaghan, β001). The

generation of gratitude is thought to involve two stages: recognition of benefits and appreciation

of the benefits. Individuals’ perception of benefits could be an antecedent of their feelings of

appreciation. Although previous sponsorship studies (e.g., Dee et al., β008; Kim, β010) have

discussed and empirically tested the effects of goodwill, most of these studies have focused on

the possible antecedent factors of appreciation such as perceived benefits, perceived necessity,

perceived concern about a property, and perceived excessive commercial intent. However,

whether those antecedent factors lead to feeling appreciation toward a sponsor has been little

understood. Only Kim and colleagues (β010) measured the feeling of appreciation as gratitude.

The emotion of appreciation has been discussed as gratitude within the research domains

of psychology, sociology, and anthropology (Komter, β004). Based on appraisal theory, it is

64

explained that the emotion of gratitude connects appraisals to behavioral reactions. Recognition

of attainment of a positive outcome, such as a gift, favor, and benefit, becomes the catalyst for

the generation of gratitude through processes of appraisals. The elicited gratitude leads to

positive behavioral responses. In the current study, these processes (appraisals, the emotion of

gratitude, and attitudinal/behavioral response) were applied to the sponsorship context.

Research Hypotheses

Introduction

In this section hypotheses about how consumers’ emotions are processed in the

sponsorship context based on appraisal theory (see Figure β.β) are introduced. Before applying

appraisal theory to the sponsorship context, one issue must be addressed: most of the previous

research concerning gratitude has been conducted in the personal reciprocity situation in which a

person directly receives a benefit. Therefore, appraisals toward benefits which they received

could directly affect the emotion of gratitude. In the spectator sport sponsorship and team

sponsorship context, however, consumers generally do not directly receive favors or benefits.

Sponsorship is the contract between a sponsor and a sponsored event or team, so that the entity

receiving benefits is mainly the sponsored event or team, not fans, spectators, communities, or

consumers. As a part of the sponsorship deal, however, sponsors sometimes conduct some

complementary activities which support the community for the host event and fans. Individuals

who benefit from these side activities of the sponsor may recognize the direct benefit they

receive. Such a side effect of sponsorship, however, is not an interest of the current study. The

interest of the proposed study is whether consumers feel appreciation for sponsor’s help provided

to a sponsored property even if they do not directly receive any benefits from the sponsor.

One relevant study examining the gratitude of individuals who do not directly receive

benefits may be Morales’s (β005) research. Morale’s research revealed that when a store made

high extra efforts, such as displaying products neatly, consumers generated higher gratitude for

the efforts, showed higher willingness to pay for products from the store, and were more likely to

revisit the store than when the extra efforts are low. The research indicated that even if

consumers did not receive direct favors, they could appreciate extra service or effort from a

company’s staff. Following the result and conceptual argument of goodwill research, the current

study supposes consumers could feel appreciation for a sponsor’s help toward a sponsored

activity, even if they do not directly receive benefits from the sponsor.

65

FIGURE 2.2

A model explaining gratitude toward sponsorship through appraisal theory Recognition

Consumers’ perceptions of sponsorship are discussed based on appraisal theory. In a

sponsorship context, stimulus is the “sponsorship activity” of a certain company. Consumers

recognize that a sponsor is involved with a sponsored property. The noticeable aspects,

promotional activities by the property and leveraging activities by the sponsor, are coded in

terms of their knowledge about sponsorship and implications of the observed sponsorship

activity. The coded information becomes a determinant of emotion through appraisals, which

have been discussed as consumers’ perceptions in the goodwill research. Thus, it could be said

that consumers’ perceptions toward a sponsor/sponsorship are built through the appraisal process

based on their knowledge about sponsorship and observation of a sponsorship activity. Fishbein

and Ajzen (1975) call this kind of perception (whose formation is evaluation basis) an inferential

belief as opposed to descriptive belief, which is formed based on individuals’ careful observation

66

and what occurred in the observed situation. The question to consider is what information do

consumers get from the observation of a particular sponsorship situation. Some consumers may

recognize who is a sponsor as well as what the sponsor does for a property. Others may only

know a sponsor name. Although previous sponsorship studies (e.g., Dees et al., β008; Kim et al.,

β010; Speed & Thompson, β000) have assessed consumers’ perceptions toward a

sponsor/sponsorship, those studies did not reveal what kind of observed information consumers

utilize in order to build their perceptions.

A sponsor may be able to influence consumers’ beliefs concerning sponsorship through

education (Madrigal, β001), but it has nothing to do with consumers’ prior sponsorship

experiences. Previous researchers (e.g., Gwinner, 1997; Madrigal, β001; McDonald, 1991)

suggested showing or educating sponsor’s beneficial role in the operation of a sponsored activity

for improving consumers’ beliefs concerning sponsorship. Madrigal (β001) found the positive

influence of consumers’ favorable beliefs about the benefits a sponsor brings to a sponsored

property on their attitudes toward purchasing a product from the sponsor. Based on the finding,

Madrigal (β008) implied that educating a relationship between a sponsor and a property (which

may include the following information: what a sponsor does for a property; what a sponsor

invest to a property) would influence consumers’ beliefs concerning sponsorship. These beliefs

would affect consumers’ attitudes toward a sponsor, which are correspondingly related to their

behaviors (Madrigal, β008).

Previous sponsorship research has not examined the effect of information transmission

about a sponsor’s investment on consumers’ perceptions toward a sponsor/sponsorship.

Furthermore, although the influence of a type of investment (monetary support and non-

monetary support, which includes personnel, material, and technological supports) on perception

has not been discussed previously, there may be differences in perceptions. For example, when

information concerning a sponsor’s specific technological support to a sponsored property is

provided, individuals may more easily visualize a situation in which the property is operated

without the specific technological support and realize how much the support contributes to the

property. If information about technological support is not provided or withheld, these

individuals cannot understand what the support contributes to the sponsored property.

Simmons and Becker-Olsen (β006) argued the effect of product-related donation (social

sponsorship) in terms of the sponsor-property fit. Their example story is that while there is no

67

salient natural connection between Ford Motor Company and a national park (a sponsor and a

sponsored property), Ford’s support, such as helping maintain a bus used in the national park,

creates a connection between Ford and the park (a sponsor and property). Such a connection

created by a product supply would clarify the sponsor’s positioning in the sponsorship, improve

individuals’ attitude toward the sponsorship, and generate equity for the firm (Simmons &

Becker-Olsen, β006). In Simmons and Becker-Olsen’s (β006) study, the subject received one of

two scenarios: one scenario which only explained the fact that a pet food brand sponsors the

Special Olympics (no natural connection) and another scenario creating a congruency between

the sponsor and the property. The second scenario informed the subjects that the sponsor

provides a pet-related gift to participants in the Special Olympics. It also explained that “caring

for pets increases the self-esteem of mentally disabled children” (p. 161). The results confirmed

their argument and the researchers concluded a sponsorship with created fit was more positively

evaluated in the positioning of the sponsor in the sponsorship, attitude toward the sponsorship,

and equity toward the sponsor than a sponsorship with no created fit. Therefore, information

about a non-monetary support (e.g., providing products) may differently affect individuals’

perceptions toward a sponsor/sponsorship compared to information about a monetary support

and no information about support in terms of the sponsor-property fit nor the easy visualization

of sponsor’s contributions.

Perceived benefits. It is expected that consumers may perceive sponsorship as more

beneficial to a sponsored property when they know about a sponsor’s investment (monetary and

non-monetary support) than when they do not have any information about a sponsor’s

investment. When a sponsor’s investment is clearly explained, consumers may acknowledge the

sponsor as at least having some positive impact on a sponsored property. When, however, there is

no information about a sponsor’s investment, consumers may not even pay attention to what a

sponsor does. When consumers do not know what a sponsor does, consumers are likely to

misinterpret sponsorship as advertising (McDonald, 1991). Advertising tends to be perceived as

selfish (Meenaghan, β001a; β001b), which leads to perceptions such as a sponsor providing

nothing good to a property.

Perceived necessity. Whether consumers perceive a sponsorship as necessary for a

sponsored property may be the most significant influential factor determining the perception of

necessity. The information about a sponsor’s investment, however, also may or may not

68

influence on consumers’ perception toward necessity of a sponsor’s help for operating a

sponsored property. It is expected that a consumer may not know how a sponsor’s help is

necessary for a sponsored property without any information about a sponsor’s investment, while

consumers may presume to what extent a sponsor’s help is necessary for a sponsored property

when they acknowledge a sponsor’s investment (a monetary and non-monetary support). In the

case of non-monetary support, consumers may easily visualize the tough conditions under which

the sponsored property is operated without certain kinds of help.

Perceived concern about a sponsored property and perceived excessive commercial

intent. Meenaghan (β001a) argued that how consumers attribute a sponsor’s motives of

sponsorship is based on a sponsor’s behaviors toward a sponsored activity. Kim (β010) found

that team-serving motive (concern about team) is more attributed in a single team sponsorship

context than in a multiple team sponsorship context. In contrast, firm-serving motive (getting

advantages from sponsorship) is more attributed in a multiple team sponsorship context. The

question is whether or how consumers make an inference concerning a sponsor’s motives of

sponsorship if they have no information about a specific sponsor’s behavior except sponsor’s

investment. They may or may not infer a sponsor’s motives with relying on their own knowledge

and experiences about previous sponsorship or previous behaviors of a sponsor. When there is no

contextual information about a sponsor’s behaviors, the information about a sponsor’s

investment may or may not be an influential factor in shaping consumers’ perceptions of a

sponsor’s concern about a property and commercial intent. As explained above, a sponsor’s non-

monetary support connects a sponsor with a property; the relationship between the sponsor and

the property is perceived as fit. A sponsor-property fit infers a sponsor’s altruistic or sincere

motive (Olson, β010; Rifon et al., β004). Therefore, it is expected consumers who know about a

sponsor’s non-monetary support are more likely to perceive the sponsorship as being concerning

about a property than the consumers who know about a sponsor’s monetary support or the

consumers who do not know about a sponsor’s investment. In the situation where no information

is supplied, if consumers confuse sponsorship with other marketing promotions which provide

no benefit to a property, their perceptions of concern about a property may be lower rated and

perceptions of commercial intent may be highly rated.

In addition, since consumers’ perceptions are supposed to be built through the appraisal

process based on their knowledge about sponsorship and observed information, the influence of

69

consumers’ dispositional attitudes toward sponsorship is taken into consideration when the

effects of providing information about a sponsor’s investment on perceptions are examined.

Consumers may generate dispositional attitudes toward sponsorship based on their own market

experiences. Consumers may also use information related to sponsorship included in various

sources such as advertising and publications. Alexandris et al. (β007) found that dispositional

beliefs about sponsorship of participants in the research positively influenced their sponsor’s

image (perceived benefits, concern, and commercial intent), word of mouth (probability to say

positive comments toward sponsored products), and purchase intentions (intentions to purchase

sponsored products).

According to Alexandris and colleagues’ (β007) study, positive belief about sponsorship

is constructed based on the benefits driven by a sponsor. Negative belief about sponsorship is, in

contrast, induced by the acceleration of a property’s commercialization due to the sponsorship.

Greenberg and Hertzfeld (199β) defined commercialization as “a process that will lead to

private-sector investment that will result in the marketing and sale of goods and/or services by

the private sector” (p. γγ4). In the domain of sport, the term commercialization is used to explain

the transformation of sport from a mutual quest for excellence into a commodity, which is

marketed sports shown to a mass audience (Simon, β004), and is a form of mass media

entertainment (Hughes & Coakley, 1984). The commercialization of the intercollegiate sports is

one of the controversial issues (e.g., Benford, β007; McAllister, 1998). Zhang and his colleagues

(1997) focused on consumers’ acceptance of the commercialization of college sports due to the

sponsorship. Those authors examined how the consumers’ acceptances influence their intentions

to buy a sponsor’s product and found the positive influence of acceptance of commercialization

on purchase intentions. If consumers accept commercialization, they have stronger intentions to

purchase a product from a sponsor. The relationship was also moderated by the level of team

identification; the relationship is more prominent among high-id individuals than among low-id

individuals.

In addition to such a benefit of sponsorship and commercialization resulting from

sponsorship, whether individuals believe sponsorship is necessary for a sponsored property may

be a determinant of attitude toward a sponsorship. In Meenaghan’s (β001b) study, some

individuals attending a focus group made positive comments about sponsorship because they

believed sponsorship could help an entity that cannot survive without a support. Thus, based on

70

these previous studies (Alexandris et al., β007; Meenaghan, β001b; Zhang et al., 1997), it is

presumed that individuals’ dispositional attitudes toward sponsorship may consist of beliefs

about the benefit of sponsorship, the acceptability of sponsorship, and the necessity of

sponsorship. Dispositional attitudes toward sponsorship would influence their assessments

toward a sponsor/sponsorship when they encounter a particular sponsorship context.

The current study included an exploration of the effects of information transmission

about a sponsor’s investment on perceptions toward a sponsor/sponsorship. The effects, however,

may be confounded by a consumer’s dispositional attitude toward sponsorship. Individuals’

dispositional attitudes may shape their perceptions toward a sponsor/sponsorship in a particular

sponsorship context regardless of the information about a sponsor’s investment. Therefore, the

following question is explored:

Question1: Do consumers have different perceptions about a sponsorship depending on the

information received?

For the purpose of this question, provided information was a sponsor’s monetary

investment, non-monetary investment, or no investment information. The consumers’

perceptions included perceived benefits to the property, perceived necessity of the sponsorship

deal, perceived concern about a sponsored property, and perceived commercial intent of the

sponsor. In addition to the main effects of information about a sponsor’s investment, the effects

were examined while controlling dispositional attitude toward sponsorship.

Appraisals to Gratitude

According to the research of gratitude, when an individual (beneficiary) recognizes

someone’s (benefactor) favor and gifts which enhance the beneficiary’s well-being, the

beneficiary feels appreciation for and generates gratitude toward the benefactor through the

processes of appraisals of the sponsorship activity. In the sponsorship context, once consumers

recognize a sponsor as bringing benefits to a sponsored property, they may feel appreciation and

gratefulness toward the sponsor through the process of appraisals. Therefore, the first appraisal is

“perceived benefits”. “Perceived benefits” are different from recognition of a sponsorship

activity or what a sponsor is doing. While the recognition of sponsorship and its activities is

acknowledgment of the sponsor’s actions, “perceived benefits” involves a specific type of

71

evaluation; whether a sponsor brings something good and positive or something bad and

negative to a sponsored property. Watson and Spence (β007) discussed it as outcome desirability;

whether the outcome driven by an activity is positive or negative. Johnson and Stewart (β005)

discussed it as a direction of goal congruence; whether the driven information (stimulus

situation) facilitates or hinders one’s goal achievement; the congruence or incongruence of the

information with the goal elicits positive or negative emotion. Soscia (β007) provided evidence

that goal congruence leads to generation of gratitude. Subjects in the research read a scenario in

which a girl with the desire to lose weight successfully achieved (or did not achieve) weight loss

with the help of an aerobics instructor. Those subjects who read a goal achievement scenario

believed the girl would feel more gratitude than the subjects who read a goal incongruent

scenario. In the sponsorship context, it is to be expected that when consumers perceive a sponsor

as providing a sponsored property with something positive or helpful, consumers may appreciate

it. In contrast, if the sponsorship activity is recognized as negative or unhelpful to the sponsored

property, consumers may not appreciate the sponsor. Therefore, the following hypothesis is

proposed:

Hypothesis 1: Consumers’ perception that sponsorship is beneficial to a property would

positively influence their emotion of gratitude.

The second appraisal is the perceived necessity of a sponsor’s support. Palmatier et al.

(β009) argued that when a help is needed by its receiver, the help is acknowledged as valuable

and appreciated. Tesser et al. (1968) discussed it as value of benefit; that is, how valuable the

benefits are. Johnson and Stewart (β005) call it as goal importance and the degree of goal

congruence; how important the goal achievement is and to what extent the goal is achieved.

Although the first and second appraisals are similar and may be highly correlated, those two

appraisals have different meanings; “perceived benefits” is whether the outcome which is

brought by a sponsorship activity is good or bad (positive or negative) for organizing the

sponsored property; perceived necessity is whether the benefits is a necessary or valuable for

operating the sponsored property. Johnson and Stewart (β005) argued that appraisals of goal

importance and the degree of goal congruence affect the intensity of emotions. The more

important the goal achievement is and the more valuable the driven information (stimulus

72

situation) is to attain the goal, the more strong emotional intensity becomes (Johnson & Stewart,

β005). The emotional intensity differs from just positive or negative emotion.

In the sponsorship context, the necessity of sponsor’s investment seemed to be

considered as one of the important antecedent factors of contingent goodwill, because

sponsorship is sometimes evaluated by how necessary and essential a sponsor’s investment is for

the survival of sponsored properties (McDonald, 1991; Meenaghan, β001b). One of the

interviewees of Meenaghan’s (β001b) research showed his approval of sport sponsorship using

an example of a sponsorship of minority sports, which cannot be sustained without sponsorship.

McDonald (1991) argued that sponsorship of individuals who have potential but limited

resources prompts people’s goodwill generation. In the sponsorship context, it is to be expected

that consumers more greatly appreciate a sponsor when consumers perceive a sponsor’s help as

crucial for sustaining a sponsored property, than if the help is perceived as less important to

survival of the property. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis β: Consumers’ perception that sponsorship is a necessity for a property would

positively influence their emotion of gratitude

The third appraisal is perceived concern about a sponsored property. The fourth appraisal

is perceived commercial intent. The reason for discussing these two appraisals together is that

both of them are recognized as a component of a sponsor’s motive. The benefactor’s motive has

been treated as a unidimensional concept in gratitude research; the other end of altruism is

recognized as anti-altruism. Previous researchers (e.g., Lazarus & Lazarus, 1994; Tesser,

Gatewood, & Driver, 1968) have argued that beneficiaries feel gratitude when a benefit is driven

by altruistic or benevolent motives. Empirical studies (Morales, β005; Palmatier et al., β009;

Tesser et al., 1968) also support the influence of altruistic motive on gratitude. In commercial

sponsorship, however, the sponsor’s motive for concerning about a sponsored activity (which

may be considered as altruistic) and sponsor’s motive of commercial intent (which may be

recognized as anti-altruistic) are compatible, because commercial sponsorship is not a

philanthropy activity. In particular, within the context of sport sponsorship, consumers better

tolerate exploitation of sponsorship, although a sponsor of sport properties accordingly receives

lower levels of goodwill (Meenaghan & Shipley, 1999). However, excessive commercial intent

73

of a sponsor in which a sponsor put marketing advantage above consideration for a sponsored

property is negatively perceived (Meenaghan, β001a). Therefore, it could be conclude that the

general expectation (the less altruistic a benefactor’s motive is, the less appreciation consumers

feel) is not applied to a sponsorship context.

The compatible feature of two different types of motive has also discussed in the research

of concerning strategic corporate social responsibility and cause related marketing. Webb and

Mohr (1998) and Ellen, Webb, and Mohr (β006) argued that consumers could compatibly infer

two different types of sponsor’s motives (self-centered motive and other-centered motive)

simultaneously when considering the company’s CRM or CSR activities. Furthermore, Ellen et

al. (β006) contend that self-centered motive can be further divided into two different types of

motives: strategic and egoistic. Strategic motive refers to attracting and keeping customers for

making sales which foster the long-term survival of a company. Egoistic motive refers to taking

advantage of a cause. Other-centered motive is also composed of two types of motives: values-

driven and stakeholder-driven. Values-driven refers to concern about a cause. Stakeholder-driven

refers to a response designed to meet the expectations and requirements of stakeholders. Ellen

and her colleagues’ (β006) study revealed that consumers who believed a company’s motives

were mixed more positively responded to the company than consumers who regarded the

motives as self- or other-centered. Furthermore, the research found that strategic and values-

driven attributions positively influenced consumers’ purchase intentions, while egoistic and

stakeholder-driven negatively influenced them. Based on the results, it could be said that even if

consumers recognize mixed attributions (self- and other-centered) for CSR, their response to

CSR will become positive if those attributions are strategic and value-driven.

Applying Ellen and her colleagues’ argument to the sponsorship context, strategic

motives may be the sponsor’s motive to help a sponsored activity. These stem from the belief

that the activity is important and meaningful for consumers and people in the society. These

strategic motives also capitalize upon the sponsorship activity, thereby maintaining profitability.

In this case, the sponsor must know that helping the activity leads to consumers’ positive

responses toward the company. Egoistic motive, in contrast, may be the sponsor’s motive to turn

a profit without any sincere concerns for the activity and society. On the other hand, value-driven

motive may be a sponsor’s motive to help a sponsored activity because a sponsor believes the

help to be important and meaningful for the activity and society, and the company does not

74

expect to gain benefits from the sponsorship. Stakeholder-driven motive is a sponsor’s motive to

meet the expectations and requirements of stakeholders, such as a stockholder, consumers, and

employees. That is, the sponsorship activity is not done by the will of the company but is a result

of pressure from other entities. Applying these sponsor’s motives to Ellen and her colleagues’

argument in CSR research, it is to be expected that consumers may positively respond when a

sponsor conducts sponsorship to help a sponsored property with having sincere considerations

for the sponsored property (value-driven). Furthermore, even if the sponsor expects some return

from the sponsorship, consumers may positively respond if they perceive that the company

sponsors the activity because the activity is important and meaningful for consumers and people

in society (strategic motive). This expectation is the same as the expectation based on the

research of sponsorship (motive of concern about a property and commercial intent are

compatible). Consumers, on the other hand, may negatively respond when a sponsor conducts a

sponsorship in order to make a profit without concerning about the sponsored property (egoistic

motive) or because of pressures from outside (Stakeholder-driven). This former case is similar to

the idea of perceived excessive commercial intent in the sponsorship research. The latter case is

consistent with the idea of voluntariness in appraisal; if a favor brought by a benefactor is

provided due to pressure from outside, a receiver of the favor will not appreciate it.

In a sponsorship context, a few sponsorship studies have examined the influence of

sponsor’s concern about a property and excessive commercial intent on consumers’ attitudes and

behavioral intentions; Speed and Thompson’s (β000) research revealed that a sponsor’s sincerity

toward a sponsored event positively influenced consumers’ attitudes and behavioral intentions.

Kim (β010) also found that team-serving intent (concern about a sponsored team) positively and

directly influenced consumers’ attitudes toward the sponsor and indirectly influenced their

purchase intentions. Unexpectedly, firm-serving intent (excessive sponsor’s commercial intent),

however, did not affect sponsor favorability. As a response to these unexpected results, Kim

(β010) discussed three possible reasons: the problem in measuring firm-serving intent, overlap

between firm-serving intent and team-serving intent, and method variance bias. Kim (β010) then

argued for the necessity of further investigation of the role of firm-serving intent in sponsorship.

Kim and his colleague (β010), on the other hand, examined the relationship between perceived

intent, whose content is the same as perceived concern about a property, and gratitude. The

75

researchers found that perceived intent among the participants of a triathlon competition

positively influenced their gratitude toward a sponsor of the competition.

As explained above, while there is not enough empirical sponsorship research, the

influence of consumers’ attributions to sponsor’s motives on their attitudinal and behavioral

responses is conceptually supported based on sponsorship, CSR, and CRM studies. Kim and

colleagues’ (β010) found the influence of perceived intent (which is perceived concern about a

property) on gratitude. In the current research, the influence of consumers’ attributions to

sponsor’s motives on consumers’ emotional responses was examined. Based on appraisal theory,

it is expected that the more consumers perceive a sponsor as concerning about a sponsored

property, the more consumers feel appreciation for the sponsor, and that the more consumers

perceive a sponsor excessively taking commercial advantage from the sponsorship, the less

appreciation the consumers feel for the sponsor. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis γ: Consumers’ perception that a sponsor concerns about a property would positively

influence their emotion of gratitude.

Hypothesis 4: Consumers’ perception that a sponsor has excessive commercial intent would

negatively influence their emotion of gratitude.

Influence of Involvement

Based on gratitude and goodwill research, it was expected that the emotion of gratitude

would be generated among consumers who recognize a company’s investment in a sponsored

property through the processes of appraisals. One may question whether all of the consumers

equally feel appreciation toward a sponsor when they perceive a sponsorship as beneficial to a

property, when they perceive a sponsorship is necessary for a property, and when they perceive

the sponsor as being concerned about a property. Whether all of the consumers equally

appreciate a sponsor less when they perceive the sponsor as taking an excessive commercial

advantage is in question. According to appraisal theory, individuals’ appraisals of a stimulus

depend on their personal relevance and significance (subjective wellbeing) to the stimulus. If the

stimulus is not personally significant, emotion is not derived (Lazarus & Lazarus, 1994). In a

sponsorship context, however, the main receiver of benefits from a sponsorship is a sponsored

76

property rather than consumers. When consumers make appraisals about a sponsor/sponsorship,

they may assess how much a sponsorship positively impacts a property rather than them or how

necessary a sponsorship is for a property rather than them. That means consumers’ appraisals

may be based on a property’s wellbeing instead of their own wellbeing. However, even if

consumers may not directly receive benefits from a sponsor and appraisals may be based on a

property’s wellbeing, consumers may still feel appreciation in accordance with their personal

relevance to the stimulus.

Meenaghan (β001a; β00b) argued that appreciation is generated when individuals

recognize a sponsor’s benefits which are brought to their involved activities. That means an

individual’s involvement with the activity seems to be a key in developing a feeling of

appreciation. Meenaghan (β001a) further contended that highly involved individuals are highly

aware of sponsors and sensitive to sponsors’ behaviors toward their favored activities, like how

sponsors treat those activities. Sponsor’s supportive and beneficial behaviors toward an activity

are appreciated and result in the generation of greater goodwill. Excessive commercially

intended behaviors (exploitation) result in negative attitudes toward a sponsor. In contrast,

individuals who are not or only a little involved in a sponsored activity, are less sensitive to both

sponsor’s benefits and exploitation, resulting in muted positive or negative response toward a

sponsor, such as little goodwill or little hostility (Meenaghan, β001a). Based on Meenaghan’s

(β001a) arguments, it could be implied that compared with lower involved individuals, highly

involved individuals will express stronger emotional responses even if they perceive a

sponsorship similarly. This suggests that consumers’ involvement in a sponsored property may

moderate the influence of consumers’ perceptions on their emotions. No research, however, has

been done to examine the influence of involvement in the emotional processes in sponsorship.

Therefore, at this point, instead of examining a moderation effect of involvement, influence of

consumers’ perceptions on gratitude was examined with a control of the influence of

involvement.

One concern is the construct of involvement. According to Johnson and Eagly (1989),

involvement is “a motivational state induced by an association between an activated attitude and

the self-concept” (p. β90). In particular, an involvement induced by an attitude activated based

on individuals’ enduring values is called as value-relevant involvement (Johson & Eagly, 1989).

Funk and James (β004) argued that while attitude is conceptualized by various structural

77

properties (e.g., extremity, accessibility, and intensity), importance is the most relevant attitude

property in a sport context. According to the Fan Attitude Network (FAN) Model developed by

Funk and James (β004), individuals’ sport identities (which are developed through the

internalization of a sport object to their self-concepts) predict their “attitude importance” to the

sport object. The “attitude importance” of a sport object is “a person’s perception of the

psychological significance and value he or she attaches to a sports [object]” (Gladden & Funk,

β00β, p. 61). The “attitude importance” then leads attitudinal and/or behavioral maintenance

and/or change to the sport object (Funk & James, β004). Although attitude differs from

involvement, which is a motivational state, attitude importance may become a core part of the

development of value-relevant involvement. Therefore, instead of involvement, “attitude

importance” was controlled in the examination of the influence of consumers’ perceptions on

gratitude.

Gratitude to Attitudinal/Behavioral Responses

The current research chooses two consumers’ responses from various outcomes variables

of sponsorship (e.g., interest toward sponsorship, sponsor favorability, word of mouth, use of the

sponsor’s products, and purchase intention). These responses are attitude toward a sponsor and

purchase intention.

Previous gratitude research in the consumer behavior context has revealed various

consumers’ reactions to benefits which were brought by sellers. Morales (β005) found that when

consumers generated gratitude toward the extra effort staff members of a company provide, they

had a higher willingness to visit the store and purchase products. In addition, the research

indicated that when consumers received an individualized help from a company and appreciated

the help, they highly evaluated the company. Palmatier et al. (β009) revealed that when

consumers received services from a retail person who made an effort to build a good relationship

with them and appreciated the services, they would have higher intentions to purchase a product

from a store where the retail person works. Kolyesnikova and Dodd (β008) found that visitors to

a winery who felt more gratitude toward a staff member, the wine testing, and the winery tour,

went on to spend more money at vineries. In the goodwill research of sponsorship, Meenaghan

(β001a) argued that goodwill prompts consumers’ positive affective and behavioral responses,

such as favorable attitude toward a sponsor and intention to purchase a product from a sponsor.

Previous sponsorship research, however, has little empirically confirmed the Meenaghan’s

78

(β001a) argument due to the lack of the research concerning gratitude in the sponsorship area.

Only Kim and colleagues (β010) examined the influence of gratitude toward a sponsor on the

intention to purchase a product from the sponsor. The researchers found that gratitude predicted

purchase intention. Martensen and colleagues’ study (β007) examined the relationship between

emotion and attitude in the domain of sponsorship. The research found that individuals’ positive

(negative) emotions toward a sponsored event influenced their positive (negative) emotions

toward a brand (sponsor) (e.g., positive emotions such as joy, success, and fine / negative

emotions such as sad, boring, and annoyed). These positive (negative) brand emotions then

positively (negatively) influenced the brand attitude. Since gratitude is a positive emotion, the

positive emotion toward a sponsor may become a trigger of positive judgment of the sponsor.

Based on these previous gratitude and goodwill studies (e.g., Kim et al., β010;

Kolyesnikova & Dodd, β008; Meenaghan, β001a, β00b; Morales, β005; Palmatier et al., β009), it

is presumed that individuals who appreciate a sponsor’s help toward a sponsored property may

have positive attitudes toward a sponsor. These individuals may reciprocate the help to the

sponsor in the form of purchasing the sponsor’s products. Therefore, the following hypotheses

are proposed:

Hypothesis 5: Gratitude toward a sponsor would positively influence a consumer’s attitude

toward the sponsor.

Hypothesis 6: Gratitude toward a sponsor would positively influence a consumer’s intention to

purchase a product from the sponsor.

Including attitude in the current study is important because attitude has been considered

as an antecedent of behavior mediated by behavioral intention (Fishbein, 1967; Lutz, 1981).

According to the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and the theory of planned

behavior (Ajzen, 1991), an individual’s attitude toward performing the behavior is one of the

predictors of the actual behavior, which is mediated by intention to perform the behavior.

Fishbein (1967) and Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) contended that the attitude toward the behavior

better predicts the actual behavior than the general attitude toward an object. For example, some

individual may have a favorable attitude toward NFL games but has never gone to the games

79

because the ticket price might be too expensive or the stadium might be too far away. In this

case, the individual’s attitude toward NFL games seems not to be a good predictor of his or her

behavior or behavioral intention (watching games at the stadium). The person’s attitude toward

watching games at a stadium, on the other hand, may better predict behavior. Madrigal (β001)

empirically confirmed Fishbein’s (1967) argument that intention to purchase products from

sponsors is predicted by the attitude toward a purchasing behavior. Madrigal’s research, however,

did not test the influence of attitude toward the sponsor on purchase intention.

The current study, however, includes the favorable attitude toward a sponsor instead of

the attitude toward the purchasing behavior. The reason is that purchase intentions may be

influenced by consumers’ involvement with a product. According to the Elaborate Likelihood

Model (ELM), individuals who are highly familiar with a product are likely to be more

knowledgeable about the product, and they are likely to have more motives and will be better

able to evaluate the information about the product. Individuals, on the other hand, who are not

familiar with the product, are likely to have little thought/ability or low motivation to judge the

information about the product and use simple background cues, such as a celebrity endorser, to

evaluate the product (Bryant & Zillmann, β00β; Kardes, β00β). That means consumers use

different cues depending on their involvement level with a product. In the sponsorship context,

both attitude toward the purchasing behavior and purchase intention toward a sponsor’s product

may be influenced by individuals’ involvement with the sponsor’s product; individuals who are

not familiar with the sponsor’s product may be more influenced by the sponsorship, but highly

involved individuals may be less influenced by the sponsorship. In contrast, attitudes toward a

sponsor may be less influenced by a product type, because attitude toward a sponsor is an

evaluation about the company which sponsored a property but is unrelated to the evaluation of

the sponsor’s product. Therefore, the attitude toward a sponsor could be released from the bias of

consumers’ product involvement, and will become a pure outcome of the sponsorship effect.

Fishbein (1967) and Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) argued that an attitude toward the object

is less influential on behavioral intention, but previous research in sponsorship (e.g., Close et al.,

β006; Kim, β010; Martensen et al., β007) has revealed the positive influence of the attitude

toward a sponsor on purchase intention. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed:

80

Hypothesis 7: A favorable attitude toward a sponsor would positively influence a consumer’s

intention to purchase a product from the sponsor.

Mediating Role of Gratitude

According to Preacher and Hayes (β008), “[m]ediation exists when a predictor affects a

dependent variable indirectly through at least one intervening variable, or mediator” (p. 879). A

mediation effect is considered to be based on the implication that the influence of an independent

variable on a dependent variable is initially present, while such an assumption is not implied in

indirect effects (Preacher & Hayes, β004). Previous sponsorship studies have revealed direct

influences of consumers’ perceptions toward sponsorship on their attitudinal responses (Kim,

β010; Speed & Thompson, β000) and behavioral intentions (Dees et al., β008; Speed &

Thompson, β000). The influence, however, may be mediated by emotions. Appraisal theory

explains that emotion is elicited by individuals’ evaluations/appraisals of a stimulus. The elicited

emotion then leads to behavioral and physical reactions (Frijda, 1986; Johnson & Stewart, β005;

Smith & Lazarus, 1990). Influence of appraisal on emotion and influence of emotion on

attitudinal or behavioral reactions have been revealed as previously discussed. Furthermore, a

full mediating role of emotion in the relationship between appraisals and behavioral intentions

(e.g., Kim et al., β010; Morales, β005; Nyer, 1997; Palmatier et al., β009) as well as attitudinal

response (Morales, β005) has been identified. Soscia (β007), on the other hand, found a partial

mediation of emotion between appraisals on behavioral intentions. Therefore, the following

hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 8: The relationships between perceptions (a: benefits, b: necessity, c: concerns about

a property, and d: commercial intent) and attitude toward a sponsor would be

mediated by gratitude.

Hypothesis 9: The relationships between perceptions (a: benefits, b: necessity, c: concerns about

a property, and d: commercial intent) and purchase intention would be mediated

by gratitude.

81

These research hypotheses were proposed based on the previous research about the

emotion of gratitude and appraisal theory. The next chapter includes a discussion of the research

methods, including the research design, sampling method, instrumentation, data collection

procedures, and data analysis procedures.

82

CHAPTER 3

METHODS

Introduction

There were two main purposes of the current study. The first focuses on the effect of

having information about a sponsor’s investment on consumers’ perceptions. The second focuses

on the development and testing of a theoretical model explaining the role of a consumer’s sense

of appreciation in sponsorship. The current research included two pilot studies followed by a

main study (see Table γ.1). The first pilot study was conducted to identify the appropriateness of

manipulation of an independent variable, information about a sponsor’s investment in a

sponsored property. The second pilot study was conducted to assess the psychometric properties

of the scales to be used in main study. The main study was divided into two stages: 1) examining

the effect of information transmission concerning a sponsor’s investment in a sponsored property

on consumers’ perceptions, and β) assessing a hypothesized theoretical model of the role of a

consumer’s sense of appreciation in sponsorship. In the following section an explanation of the

details of the procedures is presented for the pilot and main study respectively.

TABLE 3.1

Organization of the Research

Research/Purpose Details

Pilot study

1. Checking manipulation of an independent variable, information about a sponsor’s investment in a sponsored property.

Two scenarios were prepared. The first scenario includes information about a sponsor’s monetary support for a sponsored property. The second scenario includes information about a sponsor’s non-monetary support. Participants in the pilot study read one of the two scenarios. Whether the participants correctly recognize the manipulated information was tested.

β. Assessing scales Reliability of the measures

The internal consistency was assessed using composite reliability scores and item-to-total correlations for the all factors (consumers' perceptions concerning a sponsor, gratitude, attitude toward a sponsor, purchase intention, attitude toward a sponsored property, and attitude toward a sponsorship). Evidence of validity was sought through CFA. Convergent and discriminant validity were examined.

83

TABLE 3.1---continued

Research/Purpose Details

Main study

1. Examining the effect of information transmission about sponsorship activity on consumers’ perceptions.

MANOVA and MANCOVA were conducted. Independent variable: Information about a sponsor’s investment in a sponsored property. Dependent variable: Consumers’ perception of a sponsor/sponsorship (perceived benefits, perceived necessity, perceived concern about a property, and perceived commercial intent). Covariance: Attitude toward sponsorship.

β. Assessing a theoretical model

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was conducted. Relations among variables with a covariate (attitude toward a sponsored property): Consumers’ perceptions concerning a sponsorship →

gratitude → consumer outcomes

Pilot Study 1

Purpose

One of the purposes of the current study was to assess whether a sponsor is able to

influence consumers’ perceptions. In particular, this study was conducted to examine the effect of

information about a sponsor’s investment in a property on consumers’ perceptions concerning a

sponsor/sponsorship. To examine this effect, an experimental design was used. The manipulation

was type of information concerning a sponsor’ investment in a property. The participants of the

main study read one of the two sponsorship scenarios. The purpose of the first pilot study was to

verify if manipulating the treatment of the scenario would be successful.

Procedure

Participants in the first pilot study were graduate students taking a sport management

related class at a large Southeastern (SE) state university. Two scenarios which consist of

fictitious short stories about sponsorship of the college football team were created. The two

scenarios include identical explanations of the team and information about a sponsor (Company

A). Each scenario has different information concerning Company A’s investment with the team.

The first scenario includes information about Company A’s monetary support of the team. The

84

second scenario includes information about Company A’s non-monetary support. Participants

received one of these scenarios along with a questionnaire.

After reading one of these scenarios, participants in the first pilot study completed the

questionnaire. The questionnaire contained eight sub-sections: perceptions toward a sponsor,

gratitude, attitude toward a sponsor, purchase intention, attitude toward the sponsorship of a

collage football team, attitude toward a sponsored property, demographic profile, and

manipulation check. For the assessment of the manipulation, participants answered two questions

using a 7 point Likert scale anchored by strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7): 1) “The story

provides information about the amount of money in the football’s team sponsorship deal with

Company A” and β) “The story provides information about the cell phones and services the

coaches and staff receive through the sponsorship deal with Company A.”

Pilot Study 2

Purpose

The purpose of the second pilot study was to assess the reliability and validity of the

scales measuring nine constructs used in the main study: perceived benefits, perceived necessity,

perceived concern about a property, perceived commercial intent, gratitude, attitude toward a

sponsor, purchase intention, attitude toward sponsorship, and attitude toward a sponsored

property. For perception toward a sponsor/sponsorship, some researchers (e.g., Alexandris et al.,

β007; Dee et al., β008; Madrigal, β001) have treated perception as a single dimension, while

others (Kim, β010; Kim et al., β010) considered perception as having a multidimensional nature.

Kim (β010) identified two independent perceptions, a firm-serving motive and a team-serving

motive. Kim et al., (β010) categorized perception into three elements: intent, value, and

investment. Based on a review of previous studies related to goodwill and appraisals of emotion,

in the current study consumers’ perceptions were classified into four dimensions: perceived

benefits, perceived necessity, perceived concern about a property, and perceived commercial

intent. The second pilot study was conducted how well these four factors are represented by

specific items purported to measure consumer’s perception.

Procedure

The participants in the second pilot study were undergraduate students taking Lifetime

Activity Program (LAP) classes or a Sport Management class at a large Southeastern (SE) state

university. The sample size of the second pilot study was determined based on the guidelines of

85

the minimum sample size for factor analysis. Although the range is diverse, Hinkin (1995)

recommended item-to-response ratios ranging from 1:4 to 1:10 (4 to 10 subjects per items). Hair,

Black, Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (β005) recommended a minimum of 5 and hopefully 10

subjects per item. For the second pilot study, 9 subscales with γ6 items are analyzed. Based on

Hair and colleagues’ (β005) guideline, at least 180 subjects (γ6 items x 5) were required for the

second pilot study.

Participants received a booklet which was also utilized for the main study. The booklet

consists of a scenario along with a questionnaire. After reading a scenario, participants

completed the questionnaire. The data were utilized for assessing evidence of the reliability and

validity of the measures. Evidence of reliability was expected to come from analyzing two

measures of internal consistency. First, item-to-total correlation, the correlation between the

score of individual items was compared to the score of the total scale. The cutoff value is .50

(Hair et al., β005); if the item-to-total correlation is below the threshold, the item was dropped.

Second, the composite reliability score was calculated. The threshold is .70 (Hair et al., β005).

In order to assess a measurement model and provide evidence of construct validity,

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted. When CFA is conducted, a researcher has

ideas concerning how many factors exist within a set of measured items; which items belong

with which factors is based on his or her conceptual and theoretical knowledge about the

constructs (Hair et al., β005). In the current study, the number of factors and items representing

the factors was specified before computing the factor analysis.

Prior to the CFA, model identification and data screening were conducted. Model

identification is an assessment of “whether enough information exists to identify a solution for a

set of structural equations” (Hair et al., β005, p. 771). One parameter is estimated by one

variance and covariance of observed items. Therefore, the number of variances and covariances

has to be equal to or exceed the number of parameter estimates, which is called a just identified

model and overidentified model respectively (Hair et al., β005). Data screening is assessing the

assumptions of multivariate analysis. Normality is considered the most fundamental assumption

in the use of the maximum likelihood estimation (MLE). Normality was evaluated using the

histogram and the assessment of kurtosis and skewness.

For the model estimation, the Satorra-Bentler chi-square statistic was used because the

assumption of multivariate normality was not met. The goodness-of-fit indices indicate how well

86

the variance-covariance matrix of the actual data reproduces the variance-covariance matrix of

the hypothesized (reproduced) model. The fit indices used for the current study were the

comparative fit index (CFI), the standardized root mean residual (SRMR), and the root means

square error of approximation (RMSEA). CFI values of .90 or greater are considered acceptable

(Hair et al., β005). For SRMR, value less than 1.0 is considered acceptable (Kline, β005). Hu and

Bentler (1999) recommended combinational rules of fit indices which help minimize error rate

and achieve “a trade-off between Type I and Type II error rates” (p. β8). One of the

recommended combinations is CFI values close to or greater than .95 in combination with

SRMR cutoff value close to or less than .09 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). For the RMSEA, .05 or less

would represent a close fit; .08 or less would indicate a reasonable fit; and .10 or greater would

be considered a poor fit (Browne & Cudeck, 199β).

For improving the model, three diagnostic measurements were used: factor loadings,

standardized residuals, and modification indices. The cut-off value of factor loadings is .5, while

the ideal value is .7 (Hair et al., β005). The difference between the observed covariance and the

hypothesized covariance is the residual. Standard residuals greater than 4.0 are unacceptable

(Hair et al., β005). Modification indices show how the model fit (χβ) would be improved

(reduced) when a recommended single path is modified. The suggested modification should be

conducted with a theoretical support but should not be made using the modification index alone

(Hair et al., β005).

Evidence of validity was based on convergent and discriminant validity, which provide

evidence of criterion-related validity. Convergent validity refers to the strength of the correlation

between two measures which examine a conceptually and theoretically identical construct (Hair

et al., β005). Discriminant validity refers to the extent to which a focal construct is distinct from

other conceptually similar constructs (Hair et al., β005). Evidence of convergent and

discriminant validity were assessed with estimates of the Average Variance Extracted (AVE).

“The AVE for each latent construct provides an estimate of the variance captured by the construct

in relation to the amount of variance due to measurement error” (p. 41γ). AVE scores are

calculated by dividing the summation of squared standardized factor loadings for items

representing a construct by the summation of squared standardized factor loadings plus

summation of error variance for items representing a construct (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

According to Fornell and Larcker (1981), for convergent validity the cutoff value is .50; an AVE

87

score less than .50 means that the variance captured by the focal construct is smaller than the

variance captured by the measurement error (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). For discriminant validity,

the AVE score of a focal construct is compared to the squared correlation between the focal

construct and any other constructs. The criterion of discriminant validity states that AVE scores

should be greater than the squared correlation (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

Main Study

Research Design

The current study employed experimental research to identify cause and effect

relationships by setting a stimulus condition to an independent variable (manipulation) and

observing the effect of the stimulus on a dependent variable (Johnson & Christensen, β004). In

particular, a posttest-only control-group design with two experimental groups was adopted. This

design is conducted using the following procedures: 1) a researcher randomly assigns

participants of the study to experimental groups and a control group; β) an independent variable

is manipulated for the experimental groups; γ) the scores for the dependent variables are

measured; and 4) the posttest scores are compared among the treatment groups and a control

group, which will reveal the effect of the manipulated treatment (Johnson & Christensen, β004).

Experimental design is considered a strong design because of its inclusion of a control

group in the study and random assignment of research participants into control or treatment

groups. Including a control group helps to compare groups and clarify the effect of treatment,

and random assignment minimizes the systematic influence of a known and unknown potential

confounding extraneous variable on the dependent variables (Johnson & Christensen, β004).

While the influence of confounding variables is minimized by random assignment, the proposed

research also employed an analysis of covariance technique (MANCOVA), which is a statistical

method for eliminating a known confounding variable and equating groups, in order to ensure

that a known confounding variable does not have an effect on dependent variables. For the

manipulation of an independent variable, “type technique” which “involves varying the types of

variable presented to the participants” (Johnson & Christensen, β004, p. β66) was used.

Figure γ.1 illustrates the current study. A control group and two experimental groups

were included. Treatment was type of information; information about a sponsor’s investment in a

property was manipulated in the experiment. Experimental group 1 received information about

monetary support provided by a sponsor, and Experimental group β received information about

88

non-monetary support provided by a sponsor. The control group did not receive any information

about a sponsor’s investment. The dependent variables were consumers’ perceptions toward a

sponsor/sponsorship, including perceived benefits, perceived necessity, perceived concern about

a property, and perceived commercial intent. The covariance variable was the attitude toward

sponsorship. The examination was conducted for understanding whether the treatment of the

independent variable causes differences in scores of dependent variables among the groups

controlling for the influence of a covariate.

Figure 3.1

Experimental Research Design

The further examination was conducted to understand the relationship between

consumers’ perceptions toward a sponsor/sponsorship and consumers’ gratitude, and the

relationship between consumers’ gratitude and specific outcomes, including attitude toward a

sponsor and purchase intention (see Figure β.β).

Participants

Participants in the main study were undergraduate students taking Lifetime Activity

Program (LAP) classes at a large SE state university. The participants were selected as a

convenient sample. Although the convenience sampling technique results in preventing the

generalization of the results to the population, generalization was not a main interest of this

study. This work represented an initial attempt to test how consumers’ sense of appreciation

works within the context of spectator sport sponsorship.

89

The sample size was determined based on the research design using the statistical power

analysis. Power is the probability of rejecting a null hypothesis when the null hypothesis is not

correct. In the MANOVA analysis power reflects the probability of identifying a treatment’s

effect when the treatment actually makes a difference(s) within dependant variables (Hair et al.,

β005). Power is calculated with three parameters: statistical significance level (alpha), effect size,

and sample size (Cohen, 1988; Hair et al., β005). That means sample size is determined based on

the level of power, the level of alpha, and effect size. According to Hair et al. (β005), the

acceptable level of power is .80 or more, the fixed alpha level of .05 has been used by many

researchers, and effect size is estimated based on previous research and the practical significance

level. For the current study, the power level of .80 and the alpha level of .05 will be used. For

effect size, since the effect of a treatment was examined in an exploratory fashion in the

proposed study, the medium level of effect size was utilized instead of larger effect size, while a

larger effect size has more power.

Through the MANOVA and MANCOVA analysis the effect of three levels of treatment,

including a control group, on four dependent variables were examined. The power table for the

MANOVA analysis (Guilford & Frunchter, 1978) indicates that 56 subjects are required per

group for the case including three groups, four dependent variables, an alpha level of .05, a

power level of .80, and medium effect size. The total required minimum sample size was 168 (56

x γ groups).

Structural Equation Modeling was used to examine the role of gratitude in sponsorship.

For the determination of the minimum sample size of the SEM, there is no consistent guideline

(Weston & Gore, β006). Hair et al. (β005) and Weston and Gore (β006) suggested sample size of

β00 is appropriate for the MLE. Hinkin (1995) recommended item-to-response ratios ranging

from 1:4 to 1:10 (4 to 10 subjects per items). For the current study, 8 subscales with β8 items

were analyzed in the SEM. Based on Hinkin’s (1995) guideline, at least 11β subjects (β8 items x

4) and ideally β80 subjects (β8 items x 10) were required for the second pilot study.

Instrumentation

A total of nine constructs were measured in the proposed study: four perceptions toward a

sponsor in a sponsorship activity (perceived benefits, perceived necessity, perceived concern

about a property, and perceived commercial intent), one emotion (gratitude), two consumer

90

outcomes (attitude toward a sponsor and purchase intent), two covariates (attitude toward

sponsorship and attitude toward a sponsored property) (see Table γ.β).

TABLE 3.2

Measured Items

Items Remarksγ

Perceived Benefit1: Ben1: Benβ: Benγ: Ben4: RBen5:

The property benefits from Company A’s sponsorship. The property gets help from Company A. Company A provides assistance to the property. Company A has positive impact on the property. Company A’s sponsorship does not benefit the property. (This item is reverse scored)

Ben1: adapted and modified from Dees and colleagues’ (β00β) study

Perceived Necessity1: Nec1: Necβ: Necγ: RNec4: Nec5:

Company A’s sponsorship makes the property possible. Sponsorship by Company A is necessary for the property to take place. The property depends on Company A’s sponsorship for their operations. The property functions adequately without Company A’s sponsorship. (This item is reverse scored) The property could not function without Company A’s sponsorship.

Nec1: adapted and modified from Madrigal (β001) Necβ: adapted and modified from Alexandris et al., (β007)

Perceived Concern about a Property1: Con1: Conβ: Conγ: Con4:

Sponsor A seems to be looking out for the best interests of the property. Sponsor A seems to have a genuine interest in the well-being of the property. Sponsor A seems to be concerned about what is best for the property. Sponsor A seems to really care about the property.

Pro1: adapted and modified from Speed and Thompson (β000) Proβ, γ, and 4: adapted and modified from Kim (β010)

Perceived Commercial Intnet1: Com1: Comβ: Comγ: Com4: Com5:

Sponsor A seems to place profit above its promotion of the property. Sponsor A seems to care more about promoting itself than about the property. Sponsor A seems to care more about its promotions than the success of the property. Sponsor A seems to care more about making money than the property well-being. Sponsor A’s primary motivation seems to be making money, not the well-being of the property.

Spo1, β, and γ: adapted and modified from Kim (β010)

91

Table 3.2 ---continued

Items Remarksγ

Gratitude1: Gra1: Graβ: Graγ:

I feel grateful for Sponsor A. I feel thankful for Sponsor A. I feel appreciative of sponsor A.

Gra1, β, and γ: adapted and modified from Palmatier and colleagues (β009)

Attitude toward the Sponsor2: Att1: Attβ: Attγ:

Overall impression of Sponsor A is good / bad. Overall impression of Sponsor A is pleasant / unpleasant. Overall impression of Sponsor A is favorable / unfavorable.

Att1, β, and γ: adapted and modified from Mackenzie and Lutz (1989)

Purchase Intention2: Pur1: Purβ: Purγ:

I intend to buy from Sponsor A the next time I purchase a cell phone. Likely/Unlikely Probable/Improbable Possible/Impossible

Adapted and modified from Ryan (198β).

Attitude toward a Sponsored Property: Imp1: Impβ: Impγ:

I consider the XXX Football team to be personally important. Being a fan of the XXX Football team is important to me. Compared to how I feel about other college football teams, the XXX Football is very important to me.

Adapted and modified from Gladden & Funk (β00β)

Attitude toward the Sponsorship2: Spo1: Spoβ: Spoγ: Spo4: Spo5:

Sponsorship of the college football team is: good / bad. Sponsorship of the college football team is: favorable / unfavorable. Sponsorship of the college football team is: acceptable / unacceptable. Sponsorship of the college football team is: necessary / unnecessary. Sponsorship of the college football team is beneficial / not beneficial.

Spo1 and β: those adjectives were chosen from previous scales about attitude toward brand and attitude toward advertising included in the marketing scales handbook (β001)

1A seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = “Strongly disagree” through 7 = “Strongly agree” βA 7-point, semantic differential scale γItems are not commented in the remarks column were generated for the proposed study based on the literature review related to sponsorship and consumer behavior. Data Collection Procedures

Three booklets (Booklet A, B & C) were prepared. One difference among Booklet A, B,

and C is the information included in a scenario. Each booklet consisted of six pages. The front

92

page was a cover letter. The second page included questions about attitude toward sponsorship

and attitude toward a sponsored team. The third page presented a scenario concerning a sporting

team sponsorship. The fourth and fifth pages included questions assessing four types of

perception toward a sponsor (perceived benefits, perceived necessity, perceived concern about a

property, and perceived commercial intent), one emotion (gratitude), and two types of consumer

outcome (attitude toward a sponsor and purchase intent). The final page includes questions used

for a manipulation check (see Pilot Study 1). For the control group (a no-information group), one

open-ended question was provided instead of the questions used for the manipulation check. The

question focused on what kind of benefits participants think Company A (a sponsor in the

scenario) will offer as a sponsor of a college football team. This question was added in order to

better understand participants’ dispositional knowledge about a sponsor’s support of a sponsored

property. Questions related to demographic information were also included in the final page.

The information included in each scenario was identical with the exception of one

component. All three booklets include the following information: 1) an explanation about a

sponsored football team, β) information about a sponsorship contract, and γ) an introduction of a

sponsor (Company A). The aforementioned difference in content among each booklet is as

follows: Booklet A includes information about a sponsor’s (Company A’s) monetary support.

Booklet B includes information about a sponsor’s (Company A’s) non-monetary support. Booklet

C does not include any information about what a sponsor (Company A) does for the team (see

Table γ.γ).

A sponsor included in the proposed study was called Company A. The use of a fictional

sponsor name in sponsorship research is sometimes criticized due to its limited time/period of

exposure; the limited time exposure is insufficient to cause image transfer and attitude change

(Olson, β010). Speed and Thompson (β000), on the other hand, argued that the use of real

company name in sponsorship research biased research results due to the previous knowledge

about the association between a sponsor and a sponsored property. If the proposed research

included a real company name as a sponsor, some individuals must doubt the likelihood of a

scenario describing wrong associations between the company and the property or assess

information about the scenario of sponsorship based on their previous experiences of and

knowledge about the company and its sponsor-sponsee association without basing it on the

manipulated information. Therefore a fictional company name was used in the current study.

93

TABLE 3.3

Contents of the Scenario

Content

1) An explanation about the sponsored property.

The XX football team has won two national championships, the first in 199γ and the second in 1999. In one of the preseason polls for the β011 season, the XX were ranked 5th in the United States.

2) Information about a sponsorship contract

Company A signed a four-year sponsorship deal with the Seminoles last month.

3) An introduction of a sponsor

Company A is one of the largest cell-phone providers in the United States. The company’s cellular coverage and service areas extend across the country.

4) Information about what a sponsor does for the sponsored property (only for Booklet A)

The terms of the sponsorship deal between Company A and the Seminoles are $β million a year over four years ($8 million total).

5) Information about what a sponsor provides to the sponsored property (only for Booklet B)

According to the terms of the sponsorship deal, the FSU coaches and staff members will receive individual cell-phones and free monthly service. Customized software will be pre-installed including a team message-board and video sharing program (videos of practices and games are stored and updated on a daily basis).

The survey was conducted after receiving approval from the Institutional Review Board.

First, the coordinator and instructors of the LAP were contacted for asking their permissions to

conduct a survey in their classes. After receiving permissions, the survey was conducted in the

classes. Students were explained about the purpose of the study and requested their voluntary

participation. After receiving an agreement of the participation, Booklet A, B, or C was

distributed in the form of handouts. The distribution of the booklets was done randomly. Random

assignment provides participants of the study with an equal probability of receiving Booklet A,

B, or C, which helps control effects of potential extraneous variables (Johnson & Christensen,

β004). Preceding the implementation of the survey, a particular procedure which must be strictly

followed was described; all of the questions have to be answered in the order of the questions

and returning to previous questions is not allowed. After the completion of the survey,

participants were thanked for their participation in the survey.

94

Data Analysis Procedures

The collected data was analyzed in two stages along with the two research purposes. The

first purpose was to examine what effect information transmission about a sponsor’s investment

has on consumers’ perceptions. Specifically, whether information type (a sponsor’s monetary

support, a sponsor’s non-monetary support, or no information about a sponsor’s investment)

influences consumers’ perceptions of a sponsor/sponsorship (perceived benefits, perceived

necessity, perceived concern about a property, and perceived commercial intent). In order to

examine the effect of information transmission, Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA)

was conducted. MANOVA was used to assess the differences between two or more groups

(experimental treatments) on two or more dependent variables (Hair et al., β005). For the

proposed research, One-way MANOVA was used: one treatment along with three levels and four

dependent variables. Prior to the MANOVA analysis, data screening, which is the assessment of

the assumptions, was conducted. The equality of variance-covariance matrices was assessed by

Box’s M test and the equality of error variance was assessed by Levene’s test.

Multivariate normal distribution was evaluated by using the histogram and through

assessment of kurtosis and skewness. MANOVA analysis was conducted in three steps. First, a

multivariate statistics test assessed whether there is at least one group difference across the

dependent variables. Second, a univariate statistical test was conducted to examine whether there

is a group difference in each dependent variable. Third, post hoc tests were conducted to examine

mean differences among all possible pairs of group in dependent variables (Hair et al., β005).

The constructs used in this analysis (consumer perceptions toward a sponsorship and

dispositional attitude toward sponsorship) were measured with multiple items respectively. Those

measures were treated as a summated scale, “which is formed by combining several individual

variables into a single composite measure” (Hair et al., β005, p. 1γ5). Calculation of the

summated scales was conducted by averaging the scores of the items comprising the summated

scale, respectively.

The effect of a covariate was presumed on the relationship between a treatment and

dependent variables. In particular, a consumer’s attitude toward sponsorship was expected to

influence the relationship between information type (a sponsor’s monetary support, a sponsor’s

non-monetary support, or no information about a sponsor’s activity) and consumers’ perceptions

of a sponsor/sponsorship (perceived benefits, perceived necessity, perceived concern about a

95

property, and perceived commercial intent). The MANCOVA analysis was conducted in order to

isolate the influence of a covariate on the relationship between a treatment and a dependent

variable, which helps account for differences based on the treatment effect (Hair et al., β005).

The assessment procedure is same as the MANOVA analysis. There are, however, two specific

assumptions for covariance analysis: 1) correlations between a covariate and dependent variables

and β) equal effects of a covariate on dependent variables.

The second purpose of the proposed study was to assess a hypothesized theoretical model

explaining a role of consumers’ sense of appreciation in sponsorship. Specifically, consumers’

perceptions concerning a sponsor/sponsorship (perceived benefits, perceived necessity, perceived

concern about a property, and perceived commercial intent) were hypothesized to influence their

emotions of gratitude, and their emotions of gratitude was hypothesized to affect their attitudinal

and/or behavioral responses (attitude toward a sponsor and purchase intention). The influence of

consumers’ perceptions on their emotions of gratitude was expected to be influenced by their

attitude toward a team. Therefore, attitude toward a sponsored property was also included in the

hypothesized model with the other four perceptions. The relationships between consumer

perceptions and outcome variables were hypothesized to be mediated by gratitude. For a

mediating effect, an indirect path from the exogenous variable through gratitude to outcome

variables (attitude and purchase intentions: the endogenous variables) were specified. For a

direct effect, a direct path was specified from the exogenous variables to the endogenous

variables. In order to test the hypothesized model, the SEM analysis was conducted. Prior to the

model testing, model identification and data screening including the assessment of normality

were conducted (see Pilot study β). For the model estimation, Satorra-Bentler chi-square statistic

was used.

In SEM, the model assessment was conducted by assessing measurement model followed

by assessing structural model. The measurement model showed the relationships between latent

factors and the observed indicators and correlations between factors. The structural model

represented the relationship among exogenous variables and endogenous variables. The

assessment procedure of a measurement model was the same as that of CFA. Once the fit of a

measurement model with a reproduced model was ensured, a structural model was assessed. The

model assessments were conducted with three fit indices: RMSEA, CFI, and SRMR (see Pilot

study β).

96

This chapter provided a review of the organization of the study, and an overview of the

research design. The current study included two pilot studies followed by a main study. Once the

appropriateness of manipulation was identified and the psychometric properties of the scales

were assessed, the main study was conducted. The following chapter presents the data analysis

and results of those pilot studies and the main study.

97

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

Introduction

In Chapter 1 the importance of understating the goodwill effect in sponsorship was

highlighted, and the overview of this study was provided. Two research purposes were

introduced: 1) examining the effect of providing information about a sponsor’s investment on

consumers’ perceptions and β) developing and testing a theoretical model explaining a role of

consumers’ sense of appreciation in sponsorship. Chapter β included an explanation of the

goodwill effect, how the goodwill effect has been studied, and the importance of assessing the

role of gratitude. In Chapter β the research hypotheses and one research question were presented.

The methods were presented in Chapter γ. In the current chapter, the results of the pilot studies

are presented, followed by the results from the main study.

Pilot Study 1

Purpose

In order to examine the effect of information transmission about a sponsor’s investment

on consumers’ perceptions, an experimental design was employed in the main study. The

manipulation was type of information concerning a sponsor’s investment in a sport property. Two

types of information were prepared for the main study: 1) monetary support and β) non-monetary

support. Pilot study 1 was conducted to provide evidence that information about a sponsor’s

investment could be properly manipulated.

Data Collection

Participants in the first pilot study included 54 master’s students enrolled in a Sport

Management course at a large SE state university during the Fall semester of β011. Thirty-eight

of the 54 participants (70.4%) were male. The average age was β4 years. In terms of race, there

were γ8 Caucasians (70.4%), 11 Asians (β0.4%), β Hispanics (γ.7%), and β African-Americans

(γ.7%). In one case, race was not clarified. Participants received a questionnaire with a scenario

about a hypothetical company’s sponsorship of a college football team. Two scenarios were

developed; one included information indicating a sponsor provided monetary support. The

second scenario provided information about non-monetary support. The two scenarios were

randomly distributed to participants. Half the participants received a scenario about monetary

support, and half read about non-monetary support. To assess the manipulation, all participants

98

were asked to respond two questions on a 7 point Likert scale anchored by strongly disagree (1)

to strongly agree (7). The questions were: 1) “The story provides information about the amount

of money in the football’s team sponsorship deal with Company A,” and β) “The story provides

information about the cell phones and services the coaches and staff receive through the

sponsorship deal with Company A.”

Assessment of the Manipulation

The manipulation was assessed by examining the responses of questions1 and β. The

manipulation was deemed successful when individuals who read the monetary support scenario

rated question 1 as 5, 6, or 7, (agreement), and rated question β as 1, β, or γ (disagreement). For

individuals who read the non-monetary support scenario, the scores for these questions should be

reversed, disagree with question 1 (rating of 1, β, or γ), and agree with question β (rating of 5, 6,

or 7). Table 4.1 and Table 4.β present the frequencies for question1 and β. In the group reading

the monetary support scenario, β1 out of β7 individuals (77.8 %) rated the questions as expected

(successful manipulation). Six participants did not respond as expected. Two individuals (γγ.γ%)

scored higher for question 1 than question β (expected direction) but not in the expected score

range (e.g., a score 4 for question 1 and a score 1 for question β). Four individuals (66.7%)

scored equally for questions1 and β. For the group reading the non-monetary support scenario,

18 out of β7 individuals (66.7 %) rated the questions as expected (successful manipulation). Nine

participants did not respond as expected. Four individuals (44.4%) scored higher for question β

than question 1 (expected direction) but again not in the expected score range (e.g., a score 4 for

question β and a score 1 for question 1). Five individuals (55.6%) scored equally for questions1

and β.

Table 4.1

Monetary Support Scenario: Question Ratings

Question1 Questionβ

Score Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

1 0 0% 15 55.6%

β 0 0% 4 14.8%

γ 1 γ.7% γ 11.1%

4 1 γ.7% γ 11.1%

5 9 γγ.γ% β 7.4%

6 6 ββ.β% 0 0%

7 10 γ7.0% 0 0%

99

Table 4.2

Non-monetary Support Scenario: Question Ratings

Question1 Questionβ

Score Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

1 16 59.γ% 1 γ.7%

β 6 ββ.β% β 7.4%

γ 0 0% 0 0%

4 γ 11.1% β 7.4%

5 β 7.4% 6 ββ.β%

6 0 0% γ 11.1%

7 0 0% 1γ 48.1%

Paired-sample t-tests were performed to confirm there were statistical differences

between the responses to questions 1 and β among individuals who rated the items as expected

(successful manipulation). In both groups, monetary support scenario and non-monetary support

scenario, there were statistically significant differences between the responses to questions 1 and

β: monetary information group: t(β0) = 15.γ5, p <. 001; non-monetary information group: t(18) =

-β0.85, p < .001 (see Table 4.γ).

Table 4.3

Comparisons between Question1 and Question2

Question1 Questionβ T-value p <

Monetary support scenario (n =β1)

Mean 6.19 1.γ8 15.γ5 .001

SD .87 .67

Non-monetary support scenario (n = 18)

Mean 1.ββ 6.50 -β0.85 .001

SD .4γ .79

Note. SD = standard deviation

Pilot Study 2

Purpose

The second pilot study was conducted to provide evidence of the reliability and validity

of the scales used to measure the nine constructs employed in the main study: perceived benefits,

perceived necessity, perceived concern about a property, perceived commercial intent, gratitude,

100

attitude toward a sponsor, purchase intention, dispositional attitude toward sponsorship, and

attitude toward a sponsored property.

Data Collection

Participants in the second pilot study were β5β undergraduate students enrolled in

Lifetime Activity Program classes, or a Sport Management course at a large Southeastern state

university during the Fall semester of β011. Participants received a booklet with a scenario which

would be used in the main study, and the items comprising the scales to be used in the main

study. Three scenarios were prepared: monetary support, non-monetary support, no support

information. All three scenarios included identical explanations of the team and identical

information about a hypothetical sponsor. Each scenario had unique information concerning the

sponsor’s investment in the team. The three booklets were randomly distributed to participants

(monetary information: n = 79; non-monetary information: n = 75; and no information: n = 75).

Data Screening and Assumption Tests

Before assessing the evidence of reliability and validity, data screening and assumption

tests were conducted. Of the β5β surveys, six surveys were eliminated due to a lack of variability

in responses (e.g., all of the items were rated as 6). Another 17 surveys had blank items and were

deemed incomplete. Considering the impact of missing data on the results of a study, researchers

inspect forms to determine whether 10 percent (or more) of the individual responses for any

variable are incomplete (Hair et al., β005). The sample collected (N=β5β) exceeded the required

minimum size of 11β, which was determined by Hinkin’s (1995) recommended item-to-response

ratios of 1:4 (lower bound: β8 item x 4). Therefore, all the questionnaires with missing data were

eliminated through listwise deletion. Consequently, ββ9 surveys were retained for the data

analysis.

For the detection of outliers, data were examined from a univariate perspective; a

standardized score below or above γ.β9 (p < .001) is a suggested cut-off value for potential

outliers (Tabachnick & Fidell, β007). While six out of ββ9 cases included items considered as

potential outliers, these cases were retained for the further analysis in accordance with Hair and

colleagues’ (β005) suggestion. Those authors argued that cases identified as an outlier could be a

representative element of the population, so those cases should be retained unless the case is

considered as aberrant and unrepresentative in the population. Based on these data screenings,

the ultimate usable data were ββ9, with a response rate of 90.9%. Among the ββ9 participants

101

1β6 (55%) were male. One respondent did not indicate gender. The average age of the

participants was β1.4 years. In terms of race, there were 167 Caucasians (7β.9%), β4 Hispanics

(10.5%), 17 African-Americans (7.4%), and 15 Asians (7.6%). Four participants (1.7%)

described themselves as other. In two cases, race was not clarified.

Univariate normality and multivariate normality were evaluated using the histogram and

the assessment of skewness and kurtosis. First, indicators of univariate non-normality were

recognized in some of the observed variables based on the review of histograms. Values of

skewness and kurtosis were then obtained through use of PRELIS β.5β. The test of univariate

normality showed that 16 out of γ6 variables were significantly skewed at p < .01. Regarding

kurtosis, 10 out of γ6 variables were significant at p < .01. For the test of multivariate normality,

Mardia’s normalized coefficient was computed, which provided evidence of a violation of

multivariate normality (skewness: z = 4γ.5γ, p < .01; kurtosis: z = 17.54, p < .01). In order to

handle the data with non-normality, the Satorra-Bentlar scaling method was employed in the

subsequent assessment.

Assessment of the Scales

The measurement scales were assessed through an examination of internal consistency

using SPSS 19.0 and a confirmatory factor analysis with Mplus 5.1. Table 4.4 provides item-to-

total correlations, factor loadings, t-values, composite reliability scores, and the Average

Variance Extracted (AVE) scores.

Table 4.4

Measurement Model in Pilot Study 2

Construct Item Item-to-total correlation

λ t- value Composite reliability

AVE

Attitude toward a sponsored property .91 .78

Imp1 .81 .87 βγ.91

Impβ .89 .98 49.54

Impγ .75 .78 βγ.07

Dispositional attitude toward a sponsorship .91 .68

Spo1 .85 .94 58.γβ

Spoβ .8γ .9β 44.19

Spoγ .80 .86 γ0.11

Spo4 .71 .70 15.59

102

Table 4.4 ---continued

Construct Item Item-to-total

correlation λ t- value

Composite

reliability AVE

Spo5 .7β .69 1γ.99

Perceived benefit .8β .5γ

Ben1 .57 .67 1β.β0

Benβ .7β .78 18.05

Benγ .59 .67 1γ.54

Ben4 .64 .78 17.41

RBen5 - -

Perceived necessity .87 .6γ

Nec1 .71 .78 18.0γ

Necβ .80 .91 β8.18

Necγ .7γ .77 16.80

RNec4 - -

Nec5 .65 .70 1γ.9β

Perceived concern .86 .61

Con1 .66 .76 18.γ0

Conβ .77 .84 β6.59

Conγ .7β .78 18.01

Con4 .69 .75 16.0γ

Perceived commercial intent .8β .5γ

Com1 - -

Comβ .6β .70 9.64

Comγ .64 .71 10.γβ

Com4 .65 .74 8.50

Com5 .66 .77 17.60

Gratitude .9β .80

Gra1 .89 .87 β0.57

Graβ .87 .9γ 44.9β

Graγ .8γ .88 β8.67

Attitude toward a sponsor .94 .84

Att1 .88 .9γ γ8.41

Attβ .89 .9β γ4.08

Attγ .87 .91 γ7.81

103

Table 4.4 ---continued

Construct Item Item-to-total correlation

λ t- value Composite reliability

AVE

Purchase intention .91 .78

Pur1 .85 .9γ 47.β1

Purβ .88 .97 57.β4

Purγ .70 .7γ 15.76

Note. n = ββ9, χβ(df ) = 654.β65 (459); CFI = .95; RMSEA = .04γ; SRMR = .047; ** p <.01 In terms of internal consistency, all the composite reliability scores exceeded the

suggested cutoff point of .70 (Hair et al., β005). The item-to-total correlations of three items -

RBen5, RNec4, and Com1 - were below the suggested cutoff point of .50 (Hair et al., β005)

(RBen5: r = .46; RNec4: r = .41; Com1: r = .47). For the three items, the respective factor

loadings were close to or below the suggested cutoff point of .50 (Hair et al., β005) (RBen5: λ

= .51; RNec4: λ = .4β; Com1: λ = .50). The factor loadings of all other items met or exceeded the

minimum recommended criterion. Eight standardized residuals for covariances were greater than

|4.0|, indicating the involvement of a potentially unacceptable degree of error (Hair et al., β005).

Four out of the eight standardized residuals over 4.0 were caused by correlations between Com1

and other constructs (Com1 with Ben4: 4.90; with GRA1: 5.β8; with GRAβ: 4.56; and with

GRAγ: 4.γ7). Three out of the other four standardized residuals over 4.0 were related to the

factors of Spo4 or Spo5. Regarding Spo4 and Spon5, the modification indices also pointed out a

potential correlation problem between these two factors.

Based on the preceding results, three items, RBen5, RNec4, and Com1, were eliminated,

and Spo4 and Spon5 were retained. Spo4 and Spo5 were retained because these items showed

acceptable internal consistency, and had acceptable factor loading and AVE scores. A modified

model was tested that included the nine constructs comprised of γγ items. In the modified model,

internal consistency was confirmed with item-to-total correlation values ranging from .57 to .89,

and composite reliability values ranging from .8β to .94. The range of factor loading values

was .67 to .97. Furthermore, convergent validity was assessed based on an examination of AVE

scores. The AVE values for the respective factors ranged from .5γ to .84, higher than the

suggested cutoff point of .50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). These results provided evidence of

convergent validity.

104

Discriminant validity was also assessed using the AVE values. Evidence of discriminant

validity is provided when the AVE value of respective constructs is higher than the squared

multiple correlation with any other construct (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Table 4.5 presents the

results of the assessment of discriminant validity in the pilot study β. The AVE values for all the

factors were greater than the squared correlations between the factors. These results provided

indication of discrimination among the constructs.

Table 4.5

Assessment of Discriminant Validity

Construct AVE and Squared Correlations

1 β γ 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Attitude toward a property .78

2. Dispositional attitude .08 .68

3. Perceived benefits .05 .β5 .53

4. Perceived necessity <.01 .04 .09 .63

5. Perceived concern .06 .16 .γ0 .γ6 .61

6. Perceived commercial intent <.01 .05 .04 .01 .19 .53

7. Gratitude .1β .15 .β8 .17 .γ0 .05 .80

8. Attitude toward a sponsor .08 .γ1 .γ9 .05 .β5 .14 .γ6 .84

9. Purchase intention .01 .0γ .0γ .05 .06 <.01 .06 .09 .78

Note. The AVE value for respective factors is shown on the diagonal in bold. The measurement model was assessed with the examination of the global fit indices in

order to investigate the fit of the proposed measurement to the data. The assessment was

conducted with Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square statistics due to the non-normality of the data,

χβ(df ) = 654.β(459), p < .001. The chi-square value is sensitive to the size of sample (Hu &

Bentler, 1998; Hair et al., β005; Kline, β005; Tabachnick & Fidell, β007), correlations (Kline,

β005), and model (Hair et al., β005; Muthen & Satorra, 1995). As the size of sample,

correlations, or model (the number of observed variables) increases, chi-square is higher. In order

to lessen the impact of these biases, alternative fit indexes were assessed. The CFI value was .95

and SRMR value was .04γ. These values met one of the recommended combination threshold of

CFI with SRMR: CFI values close to or greater than .95 in combination with SRMR cutoff value

close to or less than .09 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). The RMSEA value was .04γ, which is less than

105

the cutoff point (< .05) of a close fit (Browne & Cudeck, 199β). Overall, the results of the global

fit indices suggested that the measurement model represented acceptable fit to the data. Of

special note is inclusion of the construct, “dispositional attitude toward a sponsorship” in the

CFA. This construct was not be included in a SEM analysis of the main study, but instead

utilized as a covariate of the MANCOVA analysis. In order to assess the convergent and

discriminant validity of the construct, however, “dispositional attitude toward a sponsorship” was

included in the CFA.

Summary for the Pilot Studies

The first pilot study was conducted to examine whether the independent variable

(information about a sponsor’s investment) could be successfully manipulated. The results

indicated that 77.8 % of participants were successfully manipulated in a monetary information

group. For the non-monetary information group, the manipulation was successful with 66.7 % of

the participants. Paired-sample t-tests with data from the correctly manipulated participants

revealed there were significant statistical differences between answers to question1 and β in the

monetary information and the non-monetary information group.

The second pilot study was conducted to provide an assessment of the nine measures that

would be used in the main study. Based on the item-to-total correlation values, composite

reliability scores, factor loadings, the AVE scores, modification indices, and standardized

residuals, three items, RBen5, RNec4, and Com1, were eliminated. The modified measurement

model with γγ items representing nine constructs was assessed for evidence of reliability and

validity. The assessment of the modified measurement model indicated acceptable fit to the data.

Based on the results of the pilot studies, the main study was conducted with the modified

measures.

Main Study

Purposes

Two research purposes were addressed in the main study. The first purpose was exploring

the effect of information transmission concerning a sponsor’s investment in a property on

consumers’ perceptions. Specifically, how information about a sponsor’s investment in a

sponsored property, such as monetary and non-monetary support, influences consumers’

perceptions about the sponsorship, including perceived benefit, perceived necessity, perceived

concern about a property, and perceived commercial intent, was explored. The second purpose

106

was testing the proposed theoretical model explaining a role of consumers’ sense of appreciation

in sponsorship. In particular, the relationships among constructs including perceptions about a

sponsorship, the emotion of gratitude, attitude toward a sponsor, and purchase intention, were

examined based on the nine research hypotheses.

Data Collection

Participants in the main study were 676 undergraduate students participating in the

Lifetime Activity Program (LAP) at a large Southeastern state university during the Fall semester

of β011. Participants received a booklet with one of the three scenarios. All three scenarios

included identical explanations of the team and identical information about a sponsor; each

scenario had different information concerning a sponsor’s investment in the team. The first

scenario included information about a sponsor’s monetary investment in a sports team. The

second scenario included information about a sponsor’s non-monetary investment. The third

scenario did not include any information concerning a sponsor’s investment. The three booklets

were randomly distributed to participants (monetary information: n = βγβ; non-monetary

information: n = ββ4; and no information: n = ββ0).

Data Screening and Assumption Tests

Before assessing the measurement, data screening and assumption tests were conducted.

Of the 676 surveys, 44 were eliminated due to a lack of variability in responses (e.g., all of the

items were rated as 6). Furthermore, γβ surveys were incomplete, meaning they included missing

values. In each survey one or two items were not answered and left blank. The number of

completed forms exceeded the required minimum sample size of 168 for MANOVA, which was

determined by using the power table for the MANOVA analysis (Guilford & Frunchter, 1978)

indicating that 56 subjects are required per group for the case including three groups, four

dependent variables, an alpha level of .05, a power level of .80, and medium effect size (56 x γ

groups). The number of completed forms also exceeded the required sample size for SEM, which

was considered as an ideal sample size based on Hinkin’s (1995) recommended item-to-response

ratios of 1:10 (upper bound: β8 item x 10). Therefore, the questionnaires with missing data were

handled with a list-wise deletion approach. The number of surveys after the elimination of data

due to the invariability and incompleteness was 600.

Next, the assessment of the manipulation was conducted. The same procedure used in the

first pilot study was repeated at this juncture. The manipulation check included examining

107

responses to two questions. For question1, participants responded to the statement, “The story

provides information about the amount of money in the football’s team sponsorship deal with

Company A.” For questionβ, participants responded to the statement, “The story provides

information about the cell phones and services the coaches and staff receive through the

sponsorship deal with Company A.” These questions were answered on a 7 point Likert scale

anchored by strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). The manipulation was deemed

successful, when individuals who received information about a monetary support scored 5, 6, or

7, which means agree, for question1, and scored 1, β, or γ, which means disagree, for question β.

For individuals who received information about non-monetary support, the scores for these

questions were expected to be reversed. Table 4.6 and Table 4.7 present the frequency of

responses for questions1 and β.

In the group receiving the monetary support scenario, 1ββ out of 195 individuals (6β.6 %)

responded as anticipated. Seventy-three participants did not respond as expected. Twenty-seven

individuals (γ7.0%) scored higher for question 1 than question β (expected direction), while 10

(1γ.7%) individuals scored higher for question β than question 1 (unexpected direction). Thirty-

six individuals (49.γ%) scored equally for questions1 and β. For the group receiving the non-

monetary support scenario, 8γ out of β05 individuals (40.5 %) responded as anticipated. One

hundred twenty-two participants who did not respond as expected. Forty individuals (γβ.8%)

scored higher for question β than question 1 (expected direction), while 17 (1γ.9%) individuals

scored higher for question 1 than question β (unexpected direction). Sixty-five individuals

(5γ.γ%) scored equally for questions1 and β.

Paired-sample t-tests were performed to confirm there were statistical differences

between answers to questions 1 and β among the individuals who responded as expected, i.e.,

successful manipulation. In both groups there were statistically significant differences between

answers to questions 1 and β (monetary information group: t(1β1) = 5β.15, p < .001; non-

monetary information group: t(8β) = -γ7.00, p < .001) (see Table 4.8). Based on the manipulation

assessment, only surveys from correctly manipulated individuals were utilized for the further

data screening: n=405 surveys; monetary information group = 1ββ, non-monetary information

group = 8γ, and no information group = β00).

108

Table 4.6

Monetary Support Scenario: Question Ratings

Question1 Questionβ

Score Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

1 8 4.1% 108 55.4%

β 5 β.6% β5 1β.8%

γ 11 5.6% 15 7.7%

4 18 9.β% 19 9.7%

5 γ6 18.5% 18 9.β%

6 γ5 17.9% 6 γ.1%

7 8β 4β.1% 4 β.1%

Table 4.7

Non-monetary Support Scenario: Question Ratings

Question1 Questionβ

Score Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

1 8γ 40.5% β4 11.7%

β 41 β0.0% 1β 5.9%

γ β1 10.β% 18 8.8%

4 γ1 15.1% γ8 18.5%

5 19 9.γ% γ7 18.0%

6 8 γ.9% γγ 16.1%

7 β 1.0% 4γ β1.0%

Table 4.8

Comparisons between Question1 and Question2

Question1 Questionβ T-value p <

Monetary support scenario (n =1ββ)

Mean 6.47 1.γ0 5β.15 .001

SD .75 .59

Non-monetary support scenario (n = 8γ)

Mean 1.45 6.β5 -γ7.00 .001

SD .65 .79

Note. SD = standard deviation

109

For the detection of outliers, the data were examined from a univariate perspective. For

MANOVA and MANCOVA, five factors were included in the inspection process of outliers. The

assessment of outliers was conducted using the mean scores of items comprising each factor.

Outliers were also identified in each group (the monetary information group, the non-monetary

information group, and the no-information group). For the detection purposes, a standardized

score below or above γ.β9 is a suggested cut-off value for potential outliers (Tabachnick &

Fidell, β007). Three out of β00 cases were identified as including outliers in the no-information

group. Those three cases were reviewed to determine if the data were correctly entered, and

according to how the answers were distributed. The data were correctly entered, while each case

included extreme values in one or two variables. The three cases were retained, however,

because the cases did not have extreme values on all five variables, nor did the values markedly

affect the group values. In the monetary group and non-monetary information group, no outliers

were identified.

For SEM, the assessment of outliers was conducted with the items comprising eight

constructs. Four out of 405 cases were identified as including outliers. All four cases had extreme

scores on the same item, Ben1. One of the solutions for reducing the influence of outliers is

elimination of the variable which is responsible for most of the outliers. (Tabachnick & Fidell,

β007). Regarding Ben1, item-to-total correlation and factor loading were acceptable, which will

be introduced in the later section. Thus, the elimination of the item did not seem to be a good

choice. Reviewing the individual cases, it was clear none of the cases had extreme values.

Additionally, the four cases did not affect the group values as the cases were only four out of

405. Therefore, the cases were retained for subsequent analysis. Based on these data screenings,

the ultimate usable sample was 405 (monetary information group: 1ββ, non-monetary

information group: 8γ, and no information group: β00). Two hundred and seventeen out of 405

participants (5γ.6%) were male. In one case gender was not reported. The average age of the

participants was β0.7 years. There were β8β Caucasians (69.6%), 50 Hispanics (1β.γ%), 49

African-Americans (1β.1%), 14 Asians (γ.5%), and 1 Native American (.β%). Eight participants

(β.0%) described themselves as other. In one case, race was not clarified (see Table 4.9).

110

Table 4.9

Demographic Characteristics of the Sample in Main Study

Variable Categories n %

Gender Female 187 46.β

Male β17 5γ.6

Race Caucasian β8β 69.6

Hispanic 50 1β.γ

African-American 49 1β.1

Asian 14 γ.5

Native American 1 .β

Other 8 β.0

Note. Individual numbers for the categorical variables do not add up to n = 405 because of missing values (The number of missing data: Gender = 1, Race = 1). For the assumption of normality, univariate normality and multivariate normality were

evaluated using the histogram and the assessment of skewness and kurtosis. Univariate normality

is a necessary but not sufficient condition for determining multivariate normality (Stevens,

1996). For MANOVA and MANCOVA, five factors were included in the assessment of

normality. The assessment was conducted using mean scores of items composing each factor.

Normality was also identified in each group. First, histograms were reviewed. The indicators of

univariate non-normality were recognized in some of the variables. The variables of dispositional

attitude toward a sponsor and perceived benefit appeared negatively skewed in some of the

groups. Values of skewness and kurtosis were obtained using PRELIS β.5β. In the monetary

information group the test of univariate normality showed that one variable (dispositional

attitude) was significantly skewed at p < .01. For the test of multivariate normality, Mardia’s

normalized coefficient provided an indication that there was a violation of multivariate normality

at p < .01 (see Table 4.10).

111

Table 4.10

Distribution: Testing for Normality for a Monetary Information Group

Skewness Kurtosis Test of Normality

Variable z-value p-value z-value p-value χβ p-value

Dispositional attitude -γ.09 .00β .γγ .744 9.64 .008

Perceived benefit -.81 .416 -β.γ4 .019 6.1β .047

Perceived necessity 1.94 .05β -.51 .610 4.0γ .1γ4

Perceived concern -.7γ .46γ -.10 .918 .55 .760

Perceived commercial intent .15 .884 -.88 .γ81 .79 .674

Multivariate normality 5.0β < .001 1.77 .076 β8.γβ < .001

In the non-monetary information group, the test of univariate normality showed that one

variable (Perceived benefit) was significantly skewed at p < .01. For the test of multivariate

normality, Mardia’s normalized coefficient revealed evidence of multivariate normality at p < .01

(see Table 4.11). In the no-information group, the test of univariate normality showed that two

variables (dispositional attitude and perceived benefit) were significantly skewed at p < .01. For

the test of multivariate normality, Mardia’s normalized coefficient provided an indication that

there was a violation of multivariate normality at p < .01 (see Table 4.1β).

Table 4.11

Distribution: Testing for Normality for a Non-monetary Information Group

Skewness Kurtosis Test of Normality

Variable z-value p-value z-value p-value χβ p-value

Dispositional attitude -β.γ8 .017 .84 .400 6.γ9 .041

Perceived benefit -γ.γ8 .001 1.44 .149 1γ.5β .001

Perceived necessity β.40 .016 .01 .991 5.78 .056

Perceived concern -.99 .γβ4 1.0γ .γ05 β.0β .γ6γ

Perceived commercial intent 1.10 .β69 -.10 .9β4 1.βγ .541

Multivariate normality β.48 .01γ 1.6γ .104 8.81 .01β

112

Table 4.12

Distribution: Testing for Normality for a No-Information Group

Skewness Kurtosis Test of Normality

Variable z-value p-value z-value p-value χβ p-value

Dispositional attitude -5.84 < .001 β.97 .00γ 4β.86 < .001

Perceived benefit -4.08 < .001 β.β7 .0βγ β1.80 < .001

Perceived necessity 1.97 .049 -1.6β .106 6.47 .0γ9

Perceived concern -.β7 .785 -1.48 .151 β.14 .γ4γ

Perceived commercial intent -1.61 .108 -.γ7 .71β β.7β .β57

Multivariate normality 9.14 < .001 5.48 < .001 11γ.57 < .001

While multivariate normality is a required condition of MANOVA and MANCOVA, the

univariate F statistic is robust with respect to Type I error against violations of normality

(Stevens, 1996; Tabachnick & Fidell, β007), unless a univariate ANOVA is conducted with less

than β0 degrees of freedom for error and non-normality is caused by outliers (Tabachnick &

Fidell, β007). In the current study, degrees of freedom for error of MANOVA and MANCOVA

were 40β and 401 respectively. Therefore, data transformation was not conducted and the

MANOVA and MANCOVA analyses were conducted, with the expectation that the robustness of

the data would overcome Type I errors.

For SEM, the assessment of normality was conducted with individual items for the eight

constructs. The test of univariate normality showed that 1β out of β8 variables were significantly

skewed at p < .01 and 7 out of β8 variables had high Kurtosis values. For the test of multivariate

normality, Mardia’s normalized coefficient provided evidence indicating a violation of

multivariate normality at p < .01 (see Table 4.1γ). In order to handle the data with characteristics

of non-normality, the Satorra-Bentlar scaling method was employed for the model assessment.

113

Table 4.13

Distribution: Testing for Normality for the Total Data

Variable Skewness Kurtosis Test of normality

z-Score p-Value z-Score p-Value χβ p-Value

Attitude toward a sponsored property

Imp1 -6.44 < .001 -.γ9 .694 41.64 < .001

Impβ -7.5β < .001 1.01 .γ1β 57.50 < .001

Impγ -9.70 < .001 4.β1 < .001 111.89 < .001

Perceived benefit Ben1 -8.9β < .001 4.78 < .001 10β.4β < .001

Benβ -6.06 < .001 1.β5 .β1β γ7.76 < .001

Benγ -4.18 < .001 .001 .999 17.48 < .001

Ben4 -γ.87 < .001 1.16 .β46 16.γγ < .001

Perceived necessity

Nec1 β.07 .0γ8 -5.85 < .001 γ8.54 < .001

Necβ 4.ββ < .001 -β.94 .0γ β6.45 < .001

Necγ 1.55 .1ββ -7.61 < .001 60.βγ < .001

Nec5 6.β0 < .001 .56 .57γ γ8.97 < .001

Perceived concern Con1 .0β4 .809 -γ.41 .001 11.67 .00γ

Conβ .ββ .8βγ -.γ0 .761 .14 .9γ1

Conγ .1β .904 -1.9β .054 γ.71 .156

Con4 -.γ1 .756 -.γ4 .7γ6 .β1 .900

Perceived commercial intent

Comβ -β.14 .0γβ -.58 .564 4.9γ .085

Comγ -β.51 .01β -.0γ .979 6.γβ .04β

Com4 -γ.β0 .001 -1.69 .090 1γ.09 .001

Com5 -β.47 .014 -1.01 .γ1β 7.10 .0β9

Gratitude Gra1 -.65 .51γ -β.44 .015 6.γ7 .041

Graβ -.99 .γβ1 -β.γ9 .017 6.71 .0γ5

Graγ -β.γ7 .018 -β.γ6 .018 11.β0 .004

Attitude toward a sponsor

Att1 -β.95 .00γ β.γ1 .0β1 14.05 .001

Attβ -β.40 .016 1.15 .β51 7.10 .0β9

Attγ -β.6β .009 1.46 .14γ 9.0γ .011

Purchase intension

Pur1 1.β4 .β17 -γ.8β < .001 16.1γ <.001

Purβ .80 .4ββ -γ.6γ < .001 1γ.79 .001

Purγ .01 .994 -1.10 .β70 1.ββ .544

Multivariate normality 47.56 < .001 βγ.7β < .001 β8β5.0β < .001

114

Assessment of the Measurement Model

Table 4.14 presents descriptive statistics including means, standard deviations, and

correlations. All factors were correlated at the .01 or .05 significance level except three

correlations. The construct of attitude toward a sponsored property was not correlated with

perceived necessity nor perceived commercial intent. Perceived necessity and perceived

commercial intent were not correlated each other. Mean scores for three factors (i.e., perceived

necessity, perceived concern about a sponsored property, and purchase intention) were lower

than the mid-point of 4.00. The mean score for gratitude was 4.00.

Table 4.14

Descriptive Statistics

Construct Correlation Matrix (n = 405)

1 β γ 4 5 6 7 8

1. Attitude toward a property 1.00

2. Perceived benefits .β0** 1.00

3. Perceived necessity .07 .γ8** 1.00

4. Perceived concern .1γ** .56** .44** 1.00

5. Perceived commercial intent -.0β -.15* .0β -.44** 1.00

6. Gratitude .γ5** .56** .44** .51** -.βγ** 1.00

7. Attitude toward a sponsor .β4** .59** .γ0** .5γ** -.γ4** .6β** 1.00

8. Purchase intention .17** .β5** .ββ** .γ0** -.16** .γβ** .β8** 1.00

Mean 5.50 5.γ6 γ.14 γ.68 4.87 4.00 4.76 γ.47

Standard deviation 1.57 1.10 1.44 1.βγ 1.1β 1.54 1.18 1.40

* p < .05, two-tailed. ** p < .01, two-tailed. The measurement model was assessed for evidence of reliability and validity through an

examination of internal consistency with SPSS 19.0 and a confirmatory factor analysis with

Mplus 5.1. Table 4.15 presents the item-to-total correlations, factor loadings, t-values, composite

reliability scores, and the AVE scores.

115

Table 4.15

Measurement Model in the Main Study

Construct Item Item-to-total correlation

λ t-value Composite reliability

AVE

Attitude toward a sponsored property .91 .77

Imp1 .8β .89 41.98

Impβ .88 .97 6γ.7γ

Impγ .7β .75 ββ.γ5

Perceived benefit .8γ .56

Ben1 .61 .68 15.64

Benβ .7β .80 βγ.8γ

Benγ .67 .75 ββ.54

Ben4 .65 .75 19.00

Perceived necessity .89 .66

Nec1 .69 .74 β4.60

Necβ .81 .89 50.1γ

Necγ .74 .79 β7.71

Nec5 .74 .81 γ0.β6

Perceived concern .88 .64

Con1 .69 .75 19.68

Conβ .7γ .79 ββ.7γ

Conγ .78 .85 β9.01

Con4 .7γ .8β γγ.4β

Perceived commercial intent .8γ .54

Comβ .7β .8γ β6.50

Comγ .57 .65 10.08

Com4 .57 .65 1γ.β0

Com5 .71 .80 β0.01

Gratitude .94 .8γ

Gra1 .87 .9β 44.75

Graβ .90 .95 6β.70

Graγ .8γ .87 γ4.01

Attitude toward a sponsor .95 .87

Att1 .90 .9γ 81.βγ

Attβ .91 .94 68.45

Attγ .89 .9β 64.61

116

Table 4.15 ---continued

Construct Item Item-to-total correlation

λ t-value Composite reliability

AVE

Purchase intention .89 .74

Pur1 .78 .86 β9.β9

Purβ .87 .99 6γ.86

Purγ .68 .71 β0.96

Note. n = 405, χβ(df ) = 505.148 (γββ); CFI = .969; RMSEA = .0γ7; SRMR = .04γ

For internal consistency, the composite reliability values ranged from .8γ to .95,

exceeding the suggested cutoff point of .70 (Hair et al., β005), and item-to-total correlations for

all items were higher than the suggested cutoff point of .50 (Hair et al., β005), ranging from .57

to .91. These results provide confirmatory evidence of the internal consistency of the proposed

constructs. The factor loadings ranged from .65 to .99, exceeding the suggested cutoff point

of .50 (Hair et al., β005). The results demonstrate the items were representative of the respective

factors.

Regarding standardized residuals, four standardized residuals for covariances were

greater than |4.0|, indicating a potentially unacceptable degree of error (Hair et al., β005). A

higher standardized residual indicates a larger difference between an observed covariance and

estimated covariance between two items (Hair et al., β005). The standardized residual between

Impβ and Impγ was 4.6γ, between Benβ and Benγ was 4.09, between Benβ and Ben4 was -6.74

and between Con1 and Con4 was -4.β9. For the relationships between Benβ and Benγ and

between Benβ and Ben4, the information in the modification indices led to the conclusion the

items had high correlations. While dropping one of the items causing high residuals for

covariances is one of the solutions (Hair et al., β005), those four items were retained because of

the acceptable indications of reliability, factor loadings, and AVE scores. Furthermore,

convergent validity was assessed based on an examination of AVE scores. The AVE values for

the respective factors ranged from .54 to .87, higher than the suggested cutoff point of .50

(Fornell & Larcker, 1981). This result provided evidence of convergent validity. Discriminant

validity was also assessed using the AVE scores. The AVE scores for all the factors were greater

than the squared correlations between the respective factors (see Table 4.16). These results

provided evidence of discrimination among the constructs.

117

Table 4.16

Assessment of Discriminant Validity

Construct AVE and Squared Correlations

1 β γ 4 5 6 7 8

1. Attitude toward a property .77

2. Perceived benefits .04 .56

3. Perceived necessity .01 .14 .66

4. Perceived concern .0β .γβ .19 .64

5. Perceived commercial intent .00 .0β .00 .19 .54

6. Gratitude .1β .γ1 .19 .β6 .05 .83

7. Attitude toward a sponsor .06 .γ4 .09 .β8 .1β .γ9 .87

8. Purchase intention .0γ .06 .05 .09 .0γ .10 .08 .74

Note. The AVE value for respective factors is shown on the diagonal in bold.

The measurement model was assessed through examination of the global fit indices in

order to investigate the fit of the proposed measurement model to the data. The assessment was

conducted with Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square statistics due to the non-normality of the data,

χβ(df ) = 505.15(γββ), p < .001. The chi-square value may have been significant due to the large

sample size. The CFI value was .97 and SRMR value was .04γ. These values met one of the

recommended combination thresholds of CFI with SRMR: CFI values close to or greater

than .95 in combination with SRMR cutoff value close to or less than .09 (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

The RMSEA value was .0γ7, below the cutoff point (< .05) of a close fit (Browne & Cudeck,

199β). Overall, the results of the global fit indices indicate that the measurement model

represented acceptable fit to the data. In accordance with the confirmation of the measurement

model, the proposed structural model was assessed.

Stage 1

In this stage of the research, the focus was assessing whether information about a

sponsor’s investment in a sponsored property, such as monetary and non-monetary support,

influenced consumers’ perceptions about the sponsorship, including perceived benefit, perceived

necessity, perceived concern about a property, and perceived commercial intent. In order to

answer the research question, the data were analyzed using MANOVA and MANCOVA. The

independent variable was information about a sponsor’s investment in a sponsored property (a

college football team). The dependent variables were four perceptions about the sponsorship.

118

The covariate was the individual’s dispositional attitude toward sponsorship of a college football

team. While data screening and the measurement model assessment were conducted in the

previous section, some additional assumption tests for MANOVA and MANCOVA were

conducted before moving on to the assessment of the research question.

Assumption Tests for MANOVA and MANCOVA

Evidence of the reliability of the covariate was assessed at this point, since the variable

was not included in the CFA. An unreliable covariate reduces the power of the analysis and

causes under-adjustment of the error term resulting in a conservative statistical test (Tabachnick

& Fidell, β007). Reliability was assessed based on item-to-total correlations and Cronbach’s

alpha scores. Item-to-total correlation of the covariate, dispositional attitude toward sponsorship,

ranged from .65 to .85 (see Table 4.17). The Cronbach’s alpha value was .90, higher than the

suggested cutoff point of .70 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994), providing evidence of reliability of

the covariate.

Table 4.17

Reliability of a Covariate

Item-to-total correlation Cronbach’s Alpha

Spo1 .85 .90

Spoβ .85

Spoγ .79

Spo4 .65

Spo5 .77

Linearity of relationships among all pairs of dependent variables and relationships among

all pairs of a covariate and dependent variables were assessed. Assessment of linearity was

conducted through a review of scatterplots for each group. The scatterplots did not show any

obvious evidence of non-linearity. Therefore, the assumption of linearity was satisfied. In

addition, the correlations among dependent variables were assessed. High correlations indicate

multicollinearity, which is a problem of redundancy of available information from the dependent

variables and causes reduction of statistical efficiency (Hair et al., β005). Table 4.18 presents the

correlations among the dependent variables, which were all small to moderate correlations. A

119

correlation over .90 is considered a sign of collinearity (Hair et al., β005). Thus,

muliticollinearity was not detected.

Table 4.18

Correlations between Dependent Variables

Construct Correlation Matrix (n = 405)

1 β γ 4

1. Perceived benefits 1.00

2. Perceived necessity .γ5** 1.00

3. Perceived concern .49** .γ9** 1.00

4. Perceived commercial intent -.1γ* -.0β -.γ7** 1.00

* p < .05, two-tailed. ** p < .01, two-tailed.

Homogeneity of regression was also assessed. This assumption means “the regression

between covariates and DVs in one group is the same as the regression in other groups so that

using the average regression to adjust for covariates in all groups is reasonable” (Tabachnick &

Fidell, β007, p. β5β). For the assessment of homogeneity of regression, General Liner Model

analysis was conducted. Examination of the interaction between the covariate and the

experimental manipulation (independent variable) reveals relationships between the covariate

and the dependent variables among groups. The results indicated there were no significant

interaction effects at the .05 significance level in perceived benefit, F(β, γ99) = 1.896, p = .151,

perceived necessity, F(β, γ99) = .065, p = .9γ7, and perceived commercial intent, F(β, γ99) =

β.01γ, p = .1γ5, while there was an interaction effect in perceived concern, F(β, γ99) = γ.98β, p

= .019. This means when MANCOVA is conducted including all four dependent variables, the

results related to perceived concern may be misleading. Thus, for perceived concern, the result

from the MANOVA was interpreted.

Homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices among groups was also assessed. This

assumption was tested with Box’s M test and Leven’s test. The Box’s M test is especially

sensitive to non-normality (Hair et al., β005; Stevens, 1996), and a lack of multivariate normality

may result in a rejection of homogeneity with the Box’s M test, even if the covariance matrices

are equal (Stevens, 1996). The significance tests are robust, when sample size is equal among

groups (Tabachnick & Fidell, β007), but the composition balance of groups for the current study

120

was unequal (a monetary information group: 1ββ, a non-monetary information group: 8γ, and a

no-information group: β00). The results from the Box’s M test demonstrated a homogeneity of

variance-covariance, F = 1.768, p = .018. While the former analysis of multivariate normality

(Mardia’s normalized coefficient) revealed a violation of the assumption in monetary and no-

information groups, the Box’s M test was non-significant at the .01 level. The Levene’s test for

equality of error variances is a univariate test of homogeneity of variance across the groups.

Levene’s test also demonstrated equality of error variances for all variables across groups with a

significance level of .05 in both MANOVA and MANCOVA, except for perceived concern (see

Table 4.19 and Table 4.β0). In the case of perceived concern, the significance level was .001

(MANOVA: p = .0γ0; MANCOVA: p = .018), indicating the possible existence of

heteroscedasticity for this variable. Corrective remedies, however, were not employed in

accordance with Hair et al.’s (β005) rationale; sample sizes in each group were relatively large

and homoscedasticity for the other three variables was present. Table 4.β1 presents the means

and standard deviations for the four dependent variables in three groups.

Table 4.19

Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances in MANOVA

F df1 dfβ Sig

Perceived benefit β.50 β 40β .08γ

Perceived necessity .β7 β 40β .766

Perceived concern γ.54 β 40β .0γ0

Perceived commercial intent 1.54 β 40β .β15

Table 4.20

Levene’s Test of Equality of Error Variances in MANCOVA

F df1 dfβ Sig

Perceived benefit β.9β β 40β .055

Perceived necessity .16 β 40β .850

Perceived concern 4.06 β 40β .018

Perceived commercial intent 1.γ7 β 40β .β55

121

Table 4.21

Descriptive Statistics

Variable Groupa Mean SD N

Perceived benefit

1 5.66 .88 1ββ

β 5.γ0 1.βγ 8γ

γ 5.β1 1.1γ β00

Total 5.γ6 1.10 405

Perceived necessity

1 γ.β4 1.40 1ββ

β β.79 1.4β 8γ

γ γ.ββ 1.46 β00

Total γ.14 1.44 405

Perceived concern

1 γ.65 1.16 1ββ

β γ.77 1.10 8γ

γ γ.67 1.γβ β00

Total γ.68 1.βγ 405

Perceived commercial intent

1 4.84 1.10 1ββ

β 4.56 1.00 8γ

γ 5.0β 1.16 β00

Total 4.87 1.1β 405 aGroup 1 = a monetary information group, Groupβ = a non-monetary information group, and Group γ = a no-information group. Result for Question 1

Question1: Do consumers have different perceptions about a sponsorship depending on the

information received?

In addition to the main effects of information about a sponsor’s investment, the results

were examined when controlling for dispositional attitude toward sponsorship. In order to test

the main effects (influences of an information type on perceptions), MANOVA was performed.

Four dependent variables were used: perceived benefits, perceived necessity, perceived concern

about a sponsored property, and perceived commercial intent. The independent variable was

information type. To test the multivariate null hypothesis of equity of the means over all groups

for all variables, Pillai’s criterion was utilized. Pillai’s criterion is more robust than other criteria,

122

such as Wilks’ lambda, Hotelling’s trace, and Roy’s largest root (Hair et al., β005; Tabachnick &

Fidell, β007). Pillai’s criterion is utilized when “sample size decreases, unequal n’s appears, and

the assumption of homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices is violated” (Tabachnick &

Fidell, β007, p. β68). The current study had unequal group size and multivariate normality was

moderately violated in two groups. Thus, Pillai’s criterion was chosen. Based on the evidence

from Pillai’s criterion, the multivariate null hypothesis (the means are not equal over the three

groups for all of the dependent variables) was rejected, Pillai’s criterion = .09, F(8, 800) = 4.64,

p < .001, partial eta squared = .044. In the analysis of variance, an effect size (eta squared) of .01

is considered small; an effect size of .09 is considered medium; and an effect size of .β5 is

considered as large (Cohen, 1988). While the small p-value revealed the presence of mean

difference across all groups for all variables, partial eta squared of .044 to .05β, suggested a

relatively weak overall relationship in the multivariate strength of association.

Since the multivariate statistics showed a significant result, a univariate statistical test

(univariate ANOVA’s: tests of between-subject effects) was performed (see Table 4.ββ) in order

to identify the dependent variables causing the rejection of the multivariate null hypothesis. For

the univariate test, an alpha level was adjusted to reduce the chance of a Type I error with

applying a Bonferroni type adjustment (Tabachnick & Fidell, β007). The adjustment was

conducted by dividing the family-wise error rate (alpha = .05) by the number of tests (the

number of the dependent variable = 4). Based on the adjustment, the new alpha level was .01γ.

Thus, when the probability value was less than .01γ, a significant difference was identified.

Based on the univariate results, it was concluded that two of the ANOVA null hypotheses were

rejected at the .01γ level: perceived benefit, F(β, 40β) = 6.66, p = .001, partial eta squared

= .0γβ; and, perceived commercial intent, F(β, 40β) = 5.1γ, p = .006, partial eta squared = .0β5.

The results may be interpreted to mean that γ.β% of the variance in perceived benefit was

explained by the information type, and β.5% of the variance in perceived commercial intent was

explained by the information type. For perceived necessity and perceived concern, however,

there were no significant differences.

In order to identify which group(s) was responsible for the significant differences in

perceived benefit and perceived commercial intent, follow-up analyses (post hoc tests) were

conducted. Post hoc tests are used to examine mean differences among all possible pairs of group

in dependent variables (Hair et al., β005). As a post hoc method, Tukey’s honestly significant

123

difference (HSD) method was employed in the current study. The results with the HSD test

showed the mean score for the monetary information group (Mean = 5.66, SD = .88) was

significantly different from the mean score for the no-information group (Mean = 5.β1, SD =

1.1γ) in perceived benefit (p = .001). There were, however, no differences between the monetary

information group and the non-monetary information group, or between the non-monetary

information group and the no information group.

For perceived commercial intent, the mean of the non-monetary information group (Mean

= 4.56, SD = 1.10) was significantly different from the mean of the no-information group (Mean

= 5.0β, SD = 1.16) (p = .004). There were, however, no differences between the monetary

information group and the non-monetary information group, or between the monetary

information group and the no-information group. Based on these results, it was concluded that

the information type influenced participants’ perceptions of benefit and commercial intent.

Specifically, a group receiving information about a sponsor’s monetary support perceived the

sponsorship as more beneficial than a group receiving no information. For commercial intent, a

group receiving no information about a sponsor’s support perceived the sponsor as having more

commercial intent than the group receiving information about the sponsor’s non-monetary

support.

Table 4.22

MANOVA: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent variable df F Partial ηβ p

Perceived benefit β 6.66 .0γ .001

Perceived necessity β γ.07 .0β .047

Perceived concern β .β9 .00 .750

Perceived commercial intent β 5.1γ .0γ .006

MANCOVA was conducted to examine the influence of information type (independent

variable) on perceptions toward a sponsorship (dependent variable) after removing the effect of a

covariate, dispositional attitude toward a sponsorship. Four dependent variables were used:

perceived benefits, perceived necessity, perceived concern about a sponsored property, and

perceived commercial intent. The independent variable was the information type. The covariate

was dispositional attitude toward a sponsorship. To test whether there was a significant effect,

124

Pillai’s criterion (multivariate statistics) was utilized. Based on the evidence from Pillai’s

criterion, the multivariate null hypothesis (the means are equal across the three groups for all of

the dependent variables after adjusting for a dispositional attitude toward a sponsorship) was

rejected, Partial’s trace = .10, F(8, 798) = 5.4γ, p < .001, partial eta squared = .05β.

Since the multivariate statistics showed a significant result, a univariate statistical test

(tests of between-subject effects) was conducted (see Table 4.βγ). The results from the univariate

test indicated there were significant differences in two dependent variables: perceived benefit,

F(β, 401) = 10.16, p < .001, partial eta squared = .048, and perceived commercial intent, F(β,

401) = 5.96, p = .00γ, partial eta squared = .0β9. Accordingly, 4.8% of the variance in perceived

benefit was explained by the information type and β.9% of the variance in perceived commercial

intent was explained by the information type. For perceived necessity and perceived concern,

however, there were no significant differences. In order to identify the sources(s) of the

significant differences in perceived benefit and perceived concern, a follow-up analysis

(ANCOVAs with two groups) was conducted. ANCOVA was conducted three times for each

dependent variable: a monetary group vs. a non-monetary group, a monetary group vs. no-

information group, and a non-monetary group vs. no-information group. For the follow-up test,

an alpha level was adjusted to reduce the chance of a Type I error by applying a Bonferroni type

adjustment (Tabachnick & Fidell, β007). The adjusted alpha level was .017 (.05 divided by γ

comparisons in each dependent variable). For perceived benefit, the results of the ANCOVAs

indicated that the mean score for the monetary information group (Mean = 5.66, SD = .88) was

significantly different from the mean score for the no-information group (Mean = 5.β1, SD =

1.1γ), F(1, γ19) = β0.6β, p < .001, partial eta squared = .061. There were, however, no

significant differences between a monetary information group and a non-monetary information

group, and between the non-monetary information group and no-information group (see Table

4.β4).

For perceived commercial intent, the results from the ANCOVAs indicated that the mean

score for the non-monetary information group (Mean = 4.56, SD = 1.10) was significantly

different from the mean score for the no-information group (Mean = 5.0β, SD = 1.16), F(1, β80)

= 1β.54, p < .001, partial eta squared = .04γ. There were, however, no significant differences

between the monetary information group and the non-monetary information group, or between

the monetary information group and the no-information group (see Table 4.β4). Based on these

125

results, it was concluded that after removing the effect of a covariate, the information type

influenced participants’ perceptions about benefit and commercial intent. Specifically, a group

receiving information about a sponsor’s monetary support perceived the sponsorship as more

beneficial than a group receiving no information. For commercial intent, a group receiving no

information about a sponsor’s support perceived the sponsor as having more commercial intent

than a group receiving information about the sponsor’s non-monetary support.

Table 4.23

MANCOVA: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent variable Df F Partial ηβ p

Perceived benefit β 10.16 .05 < .001

Perceived necessity β 1.9γ .01 .147

Perceived concern β 1.56 .01 .β11

Perceived commercial intent β 5.96 .0γ .00γ

Table 4.24

ANCOVAs: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects

Dependent variable df F Partial ηβ p

Perceived benefit

1 vs. β 1 β.γ4 .01 .1β8

1 vs. γ 1 β0.6 .06 < .001

β vs. γ 1 5.4γ .0β .0β0

Perceived commercial intent

1 vs. β 1 γ.51 .0β .06β

1 vs. γ 1 1.95 .01 .164

β vs. γ 1 1β.54 .04 < .001

Summary of Stage 1 Results

The results from the MANOVA and MANCOVA led to the same conclusion. The

information type influenced participants’ perceptions toward benefit and commercial intent,

while the information types did not influence perceived necessity and perceived concern.

Specifically, the group receiving information about the sponsor’s monetary support perceived the

sponsorship as more beneficial than a group receiving no information. For commercial intent, the

group receiving no information about a sponsor’s support perceived the sponsor as having more

126

commercial intent than a group receiving information about the sponsor’s non-monetary support.

For perceived benefit, the tests of between-subjects effects in MANOVA showed partial eta

squared of .0γβ, while partial eat squared in MANCOVA was .048. For perceived commercial

intent, the tests of between-subject effects in MANOVA showed partial eta squared of .0β5,

while partial eat squared in MANCOVA was .0β9. In the both variables, while the value of

partial eta squared in MANCOVA is greater than the value in MANOVA, both partial eta squared

values were within the range of small to medium effect size. Thus, it could be concluded that the

covariate, dispositional attitude toward a sponsor, did have a small effect on the influence of the

information type on attitude toward a sponsor and purchase intention.

Stage 2

In this stage of the research, the focus was on assessing the proposed theoretical model

explaining the role of a consumer’s sense of appreciation in sponsorship. In particular, the

relationships among constructs including perceptions about a sponsorship, the emotion of

gratitude, attitude toward a sponsor, and purchase intention, were examined based on the nine

research hypotheses. In order to test the hypotheses, SEM analysis was performed. As introduced

in a previous section in this chapter, the measurement model was accepted based on the

inspection of global fit indices. The tested structural model was a saturated structural model,

which has the same number of structural paths as the number of correlations among latent

variables in the measurement model (Hair et al., β005), and which reproduces the exactly same

sample covariance matrix (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Thus, the fit statistics of the measurement

model and the structural model were exactly same (CFI = .969; RMSEA = .0γ7; SRMR = .04γ).

Results for the Hypotheses

For the hypothesis testing, individual path coefficients were reviewed. Figure 4.1 presents

path coefficients among latent constructs.

127

* p < .05. ** p < .01.

Figure 4.1

A Structural Model

128

Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, and 4

H1: Consumers’ perception that sponsorship is beneficial to a property would positively

influence their emotion of gratitude.

Hβ: Consumers’ perception that sponsorship is a necessity for a property would positively

influence their emotion of gratitude.

Hγ: Consumers’ perception that a sponsor is concerned about a property would positively

influence their emotion of gratitude.

H4: Consumers’ perception that a sponsor has excessive commercial intent would negatively

influence their emotion of gratitude.

The path coefficient from perceptions to gratitude revealed that the direct path from

perceived benefits (H1) to gratitude was positive and statistically significant, when controlling

for other perceptions and attitude toward a sponsored property (standardized = .γγ, p < .001).

The direct path from perceived necessity (Hβ) to gratitude was positive and statistically

significant, when controlling for other perceptions and attitude toward a sponsored property

(standardized = .β4, p < .001). The direct path from perceived concern (Hγ) to gratitude was

not statistically significant, when controlling for other perceptions and attitude toward a

sponsored property (standardized = .14, p = .051). The direct path from perceived commercial

intent (H4) to gratitude was negative and statistically significant, when controlling for other

perceptions and attitude toward a sponsored property (standardized = -.11, p < .05). Thus, H1,

Hβ, and H4 were supported, while Hγ was not supported.

Hypotheses 5, 6, and 7

H5: Gratitude toward a sponsor would positively influence a consumer’s attitude toward the

sponsor.

H6: Gratitude toward a sponsor would positively influence a consumer’s intention to purchase a

product from the sponsor.

H7: A favorable attitude toward a sponsor would positively influence a consumer’s intention to

purchase a product from the sponsor.

The path coefficients from gratitude to the outcome variables revealed that the direct path

from gratitude to attitude toward a sponsor (H5) was positive and statistically significant

(standardized = .γ6, p < .001), while the direct path from gratitude to purchase intention (H6)

was not statistically significant (standardized = .14, p = .091). Thus, H5 was supported, while

129

H6 was not supported. The path coefficient between the outcome variables revealed that the path

from attitude toward a sponsor to purchase intention (H7) was not statistically significant

(standardized = .06, p = .4γ8). Consequently, H7 was not supported.

Hypotheses 8 and 9

H8: The relationships between perceptions (a: benefits, b: necessity, c: concerns about a property,

and d: commercial intent) and attitude toward a sponsor would be mediated by gratitude.

H9: The relationships between perceptions (a: benefits, b: necessity, c: concerns about a property,

and d: commercial intent) and purchase intention would be mediated by gratitude.

To assess the mediating role of gratitude, the mediated path and the direct path were

reviewed. When both mediated and direct paths are significant, and those paths have the same

direction (positive or negative), the relationship is considered as complementary mediation

(partial mediation). When both mediated and direct paths are significant, but those paths have

opposite directions, the relationship is considered competitive mediation. When a mediated path

is significant, but the direct path is not significant, the relationship is considered as indirect-only

mediation (full mediation) (Zhao, Lynch Jr., & Chen, β010). First, the mediating role of gratitude

between perceptions about a sponsorship and attitude toward a sponsor was examined (see Table

4.β5). The mediated paths from perceived benefit, perceived necessity, and perceived

commercial intent to attitude toward a sponsor through gratitude were significant (perceived

benefit: standardized = .1β, p < .001; perceived necessity: standardized = .09, p < .001;

perceived commercial intent: standardized = -.04, p < .05). The direct paths from perceived

benefit and perceived commercial intent to attitude toward a sponsor were statistically significant

(perceived benefit: standardized = .γ0, p < .001; perceived commercial intent: standardized =

-.11, p < .05), while the direct path from perceived necessity to attitude toward a sponsor was not

statistically significant (standardized = -.0γ, p = .600). The directions (positive or negative) of

the mediated path and the direct path were the same in both perceived benefit and perceived

commercial intent. Based on these results, it was concluded that gratitude partially mediated the

influence of perceived benefit (H8a) and perceived commercial intent (H8d) on attitude toward a

sponsor, while gratitude fully mediated the influence of perceived necessity (H8b) on attitude

toward a sponsor. Thus, H8a, H8b, and H8d were supported, while H8c was not supported.

Second, the mediating role of gratitude between perceptions about a sponsorship and purchase

intention was examined (see Table 4.β5). While the direct paths from perceived benefit,

130

perceived necessity, and perceived commercial intent to gratitude were significant, the direct

path from gratitude to purchase intention was not significant. The mediated paths from these

three perceptions to purchase intention through gratitude were also not significant (perceived

benefit: standardized = .05, p = .110; perceived necessity: standardized = .0γ, p = .1γ8;

perceived commercial intent: standardized = -.0β, p = .191).None of the direct paths from

perceptions to purchase intention were significant (perceived benefit: standardized = .01, p

= .877; perceived necessity: standardized = .07, p = .γ05; perceived concern: standardized

= .1γ, p = .185; commercial intent: standardized = -.05, p = .510). Based on these results, it was

concluded that gratitude did not mediate the influence of perceptions on purchase intention,

meaning H9a, H9b, H9c, and H9d were not supported.

One construct which was included in the hypothesized model but not included in any

hypotheses was attitude toward a sponsored property. It was considered that attitude toward a

sponsored property would influence the effect of consumers’ perceptions on gratitude. Thus, in

order to control the influence of attitude toward a sponsored property, the construct was included

in the hypothesized model. Attitude toward a sponsored property positively and significantly

influenced gratitude (standardized = .β5, p < .001). The mediated path from attitude toward a

sponsored property to attitude toward a sponsor through gratitude was significant (standardized

= .β5, p < .001), while the mediated path from attitude toward a sponsored property to purchase

intention through gratitude was not significant (standardized = .04, p = .1β0). Including the

influence of attitude toward a sponsored property, the ability of the hypothesized model to

explain the variability in the endogenous variables was assessed. The Rβ value was interpreted;

the four perceptions and attitude toward a sponsored property explained 47% of the variance in

gratitude. The four perceptions, attitude toward a sponsored property, and gratitude explained

5β% of the variance in attitude toward a sponsor. For purchase intention, 14% of the variance

was explained by the four perceptions, attitude toward a sponsored property, gratitude, and

attitude toward a sponsor.

131

Table 4.25

Parameter Estimates for the Hypothesized model Parameter Unstandardized

coefficient Standardized coefficient SE t

Hypothesis testing

Direct effects

Benefit → Gratitude .57** .γγ** .06 5.ββ H1 Supported

Necessity → Gratitude .β7** .β4** .06 4.β4 Hβ Supported

Concern → Gratitude .17 .14 .07 1.95 Hγ Not Supported

Commercial intent → Gratitude -.16* -.11* .05 -β.1γ H4 Supported

Attitude toward a sponsored property → Gratitude .β4** .β5** .05 4.7γ

Benefit → Attitude .40** .γ0** .07 4.40

Necessity → Attitude -.0γ -.0γ .06 -.5γ

Concern → Attitude .11 .11 .08 1.γγ

Commercial intent → Attitude -.17** -.16** .05 -γ.5γ

Attitude toward a sponsored property → Attitude .0γ .04 .04 .95

Benefit → Purchase intention .0β .01 .08 .16

Necessity → Purchase intention .07 .07 .07 1.0γ

Concern → Purchase intention .15 .1γ .10 1.γγ

Commercial intent → Purchase intention -.06 -.05 .07 -.66

Attitude toward a sponsored property → Purchase intention .07 .09 .05 1.58

Gratitude → Attitude .β8** .γ6** .06 5.65 H5 Supported

Gratitude → Purchase intention .1γ .14 .08 1.69 H6 Not supported

Attitude → Purchase intention .07 .06 .07 .78 H7 Not supported

132

Table 4.25 ---continued

Parameter Unstandardized coefficient

Standardized coefficient SE t

Hypothesis testing

Indirect effects

Benefit → Gratitude → Attitude .16** .1β** .0γ 4.05 H8a Supported

Necessity → Gratitude → Attitude .07** .09** .0β γ.6β H8b Supported

Concern → Gratitude → Attitude .05 .05 .0γ 1.78 H8c Not supported

Commercial intent → Gratitude → Attitude -.05* -.04* .0β -β.04 H8d Supported

Attitude toward a sponsored property→ Gratitude → Attitude .07** .09** .0γ γ.59

Benefit → Gratitude → Purchase intention .07 .05 .0γ 1.60 H9a Not supported

Necessity → Gratitude → Purchase intention .0γ .0γ .0β 1.48 H9b Not supported

Concern → Gratitude → Purchase intention .0β .0β .01 1.γ6 H9c Not supported

Commercial intent → Gratitude → Purchase intention -.0β -.0β .01 -1.γ1 H9d Not supported

Attitude toward a property → Gratitude → Purchase intention .0γ .04 .0γ 1.56

* p < .05. ** p < .001

133

Summary of Stage 2 Results

Table 4.β5 summarizes the results of the hypothesis testing. The results from the SEM

indicate that perceived benefit, perceived necessity, and perceived commercial intent predicted

gratitude when controlling for attitude toward a sponsored property (supporting H1, β, and 4),

while perceived concern did not predict gratitude (not supporting Hγ). Gratitude did predict

attitude toward a sponsor (supporting H5), while gratitude did not influence purchase intent (not

supporting H6). Attitude toward a sponsor also did not influence purchase intent (not supporting

H7). For the mediating effect of gratitude, three hypotheses were supported, while five

hypotheses were rejected. Gratitude partially mediated the influence of perceived benefit and

perceived commercial intent on attitude toward a sponsor (supporting H8a and H8d), and

gratitude fully mediated the influence of perceived necessity on attitude toward a sponsor

(supporting H8b). Perceived concern, however, did not indirectly or directly influence attitude

toward a sponsor (non supporting H8c). Regarding purchase intention, none of the variables

included in the hypothesized model had significant relationships with the construct. Therefore,

the mediating effect of gratitude in the influence of perceptions to purchase intention was not

found (not supporting H9a, H9b, H9c, and H9d).

Self Report about a Sponsor’s Contribution

Participants receiving the no-information scenario were asked to answer one open-ended

question. The question directed participants to think about what kind of benefits they thought

Company A (a cell phone company) would offer as a sponsor of a college football team. This

question was added in order to better understand participants’ dispositional knowledge about a

sponsor’s support of a sponsored property. Table 4.β6 presents the summary of the self report

information. From respondents who received the no information scenario, 199 out of ββ0

participants (90.5%) responded to this question.

More than 60% of the participants listed money as a sponsor’s contribution. Participants

thought money would be used for equipment, facilities, scholarships, transportations for a travel

of the team, coaches, etc. The second most frequently listed answer (β1.6%) was free or discount

cell phone or service. Other thoughts listed related to the business providing better cell phone

reception in a stadium, and providing technological support such as communication devices on

the sidelines. These sponsor’s business related support was listed by 5γ participants (β6.6%).

Simmons and Becker-Olsen’s (β006) discussed that when there is no salient natural connection

134

between a sponsor and a sponsored property (e.g., natural connection: a sporting goods brand

and a sporting event), a sponsor could create a connection with a property by offering the

sponsor’s business related support. The created connection positively works on consumers’

attitudes (Simmons & Becker-Olsen, β006).

In the current study, approximately 70% of the participants could not imagine a

connection between a sponsor and a sponsored property, when no information about a sponsor’s

support was provided. A participant wrote the following comment: “Benefits --- none, it’s a cell

phone provider, athletic company would be better.” This comment may represent the thoughts of

some individuals who could not make a connection between the sponsor and the property.

Furthermore, 14 participants (4.7%) answered that the sponsor could provide non-monetary

support which was not related to a sponsor’s business, such as equipment, uniform, jersey,

facility, food, water, etc. Those participants seemed not to care about what the sponsor could do.

They may think what a property needs is what a sponsor does. Some of the individuals may not

even fully understand the concept of sponsorship. A participant reported that “Professional

companies should not have any insight into [name of a college] football. We have a great

program and the students sponsor the team.” This comment may represent the thoughts of some

individuals who do not understand a role of a sponsor.

Last but not least, other noteworthy thoughts that were listed included increasing national

exposure, increasing publicity, and bringing media attention. These types of thoughts may come

from characteristics of a sponsor. The sponsor included in the hypothetical scenario was a cell-

phone provider, with coverage and service areas across the country. It may be that participants

thought a sponsorship contract with a national company might draw attention from society.

Therefore, the property would have more chances of exposure via publicity, media, and/or

advertising done by the sponsor. Some of the participants reported a sponsor could increase

name recognition of the property and enhance its reputation and popularity. These thoughts may

be a result from increased exposure and media attention. Such a type of effects could be called

image transfer (meaning transfer). Previous studies (e.g., Gwinner, 1997; Meenaghan, 198γ;

Meenaghan & Shipley, 1999) have discussed that particular personality, characteristics, and

image of a property are transferred to a sponsor of the property, which is called image transfer. In

the current study, direction of the transfer was opposite, from an image of the sponsor to the

property’s image. The image of the national company may be integrated into a property’s own

135

image. The effect possibly in turn may elicit individuals’ emotions of appreciation. In summary,

a majority of the participants thought money was a contribution from the sponsor. The sponsor’s

business related supports were listed by only β6.6% of the participants. Furthermore, some

participants thought that a nationwide company’s sponsorship would increase exposure, and

result in the increase and enhancement of name recognition, reputation, and popularity of the

property. These thoughts reveal the participant’s belief that a sponsor’s characteristics could

transfer on to the image of a property from a consumers’ perspective.

Table 4.26

Self Report about a Sponsor’s Contribution to a Sponsored Property

Benefits from a sponsor Number Percentagea

Monetary support (total) 1β4 6β.γ

for equipment β5 1β.6

for facilities 1γ 6.5

for scholarship 11 5.5

for transportation 9 4.5

for coaches 6 γ.0

for others (e.g., recruiting) 7 γ.5

Non-monetary support (no-business related)

Equipment γγ 16.6

Uniform/Jersey 16 8.0

Facility 10 5.0

Others (e.g., food and water) 7 γ.5

Promotional goods (e.g., T-shirt) 7 γ.5

Business related support Free or discount cell phone or service

4γ β1.6

Providing a better cell phone reception in a stadium

5 β.5

Technological support (e.g., communication device on sidelines 7 γ.5

136

Table 4.26 ---continued

Benefits from a sponsor Number Percentagea

Effects from characteristics of a sponsor

Exposure (national exposure – 8) 15 7.5

Publicity 1γ 6.5

Media attention 10 5.0

Advertising of a team 15 7.5

Promoting team 8 4.0

Increasing name recognition 8 4.0

Enhancing school reputation γ 1.5

Enhancing school popularity γ 1.5

Attracting more fans γ 1.5

Others 8 4.0 aPercentage was calculated by dividing each thought by the total number of the respondents (199). In summary, Chapter 4 includes the data analysis and results from the pilot studies and

main study. The following chapter provides interpretation of the results, practical implications

for the results, and a guideline for future studies in accordance with the limitations of the current

study.

137

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

Introduction

The current study was conducted to address one research question and nine hypotheses.

Chapter 4 includes the data analysis and the results of the pilot and main studies. The results

from Pilot Study 1 illustrated the viability of the manipulation. Pilot Study β was conducted to

assess the psychometric properties of the scales. The main study was conducted in two stages. In

the first stage, the results revealed that the type of information concerning a sponsor’s investment

differentiated participants’ perceptions about benefit and commercial intent. In the second stage,

significant relationships were found among variables including perceptions, gratitude, and

attitude toward a sponsor. The content in this chapter is the interpretation of the results,

particularly in relation to findings of previous studies. A guideline for future studies is provided

to close out the chapter.

Manipulation of the Independent Variable

Before discussing the findings from the main study, it is important to address the issue

of the success rate of the manipulation of the independent variable. For the main study, 6β.6 %

and 40.5% of the participants responded to the manipulation check as expected for the monetary

and non-monetary scenarios respectively. Why did some participants not respond as expected to

the manipulation attempt? It may be that some participants did not carefully read the questions

for the manipulation check, and/or may not have paid attention to the information included in the

scenario. With the non-monetary scenario, the length of the scenario may have been a problem.

The non-monetary scenario had a longer explanation about the sponsor’s investment than the

monetary scenario; this may have discouraged participants from reading through the scenario.

Individuals’ dispositional understanding relating to sponsorship may be also a reason for the low

success rate with the non-monetary scenario. The answers to the open-ended question provide

evidence that more than 60% of the individuals in the no-information group considered money as

a sponsor’s contribution, while the sponsor’s business related support (e.g., providing cell phone

service) was listed by only β6.6% of the participants. Based on these results, it is reasonable to

conclude that some of the individuals who read the non-monetary scenario may have

automatically associated money with the sponsorship despite receiving information concerning

138

the sponsor’s non-monetary support. In addition, the lower success rate of the manipulation in

the main study compared to the pilot study may have been caused by a difference in setting in

which the data were collected. The pilot study was conducted in a classroom, while the main

study was implemented at venues where activity classes were held. Therefore, many participants

in the main study may not have thoroughly read the questionnaire. This is a limitation of the

study which is acknowledged in a later section.

Discussion of Results: Stage 1

One of the purposes of the current study was to explore whether a sponsor is able to

influence consumers’ perceptions concerning its sponsorship. Consumers may not appreciate a

sponsorship if they cannot differentiate sponsorship from other marketing activities (McDonald,

1991). In order to reduce such misunderstanding, a sponsor could educate consumers and

communicate the sponsor’s beneficial role in the operation of a sponsored activity (Gwinner,

1997; Madrigal, β001; McDonald, 1991). This study focused on specific information. Through

this study the effect of information transmission concerning a sponsor’s investment (monetary

support information, non-monetary support information, and no-information) in a sponsored

property on consumers’ perceptions (perceived benefit, perceived necessity, perceived concern,

and perceived commercial intent) was explored. In addition to this main effect, this study

explored the same effect under the control of dispositional attitude toward sponsorship (a

covariate).

Perceived Benefit

The results from MANOVA and MANCOVA indicated that the group receiving

information about a sponsor’s monetary support perceived the sponsorship as more beneficial

than the group receiving no information. There were no other differences observed. The

difference between the monetary information group and the no-information group may be

explained by a lack of understanding regarding the sponsor’s role. McDonald (1991) argued that

consumers are likely to incorrectly think of sponsorship as advertising if they do not know a

sponsor’s role. Since advertising activities tend to be perceived as selfish (Meenaghan, β001a;

β001b), consumers who confuse sponsorship as advertising may believe that a sponsorship

activity brings benefit only to the sponsor but does not positively affect the sponsored property.

In this study, the groups receiving information about the sponsor’s monetary support

were made aware that the sponsor did provide something - money - to the sponsored property.

139

The no-information group did not receive any information about the sponsor’s role. Based on the

preceding, it is reasonable to expect that in situations where there is no direct information about a

sponsor’s role, consumers may regard the deal as more beneficial to the sponsor. There is,

however, the question as to why there was no significant difference between the non-monetary

and the no-information groups.

One possible reason for finding no significant difference between the non-monetary and

no-information groups is the focus of the non-monetary support. Non-monetary support was

explained as providing free cell phones with customized software and free monthly services for

the coaches and staff. It is possible that this type of support was not considered beneficial for a

college football team overall, just for the coaches and staff members. If the non-monetary

support was more closely related to the team as a whole, such as uniforms, jerseys, cleats, and

equipment, the non-monetary support might be perceived as more beneficial to the team overall.

This reasoning is supported by the answers to the open-ended question. Many participants in the

no-information group listed money for equipment and facilities, and/or non-business-related

support such as equipment, uniforms, and jerseys, as potential benefits a sponsor could offer the

property. The responses suggest that participants in the no-information group thought money or

products more closely or directly related to the team (and/or its operations) would provide

greater benefit to the property. Participants reading the non-monetary scenario may have also had

similar perceptions about the potential benefit to the property. If the participants in the non-

monetary information group thought of money or team related products as a primary benefit for a

property (instead of non-monetary business related products), the lack of significant difference

between the non-monetary and no-information groups does make sense. In other words, the

participants overall thought that the primary benefit to be provided would be money or team

related support.

It is tempting to conclude that the perceived benefit for a property from a sponsorship

deal is money, regardless of what other benefit/support may be provided. At the same time, there

was no difference between the monetary and non-monetary information groups. This leads the

conclusion that monetary and non-monetary support may be perceived as a benefit to a property.

In the absence of any information, however, individuals may not overtly recognize the benefit to

a property of having a sponsor.

140

There is an interesting point to note. More than 60 percent of the participants in the no-

information group responded that money could be one of the benefits a sponsor offers a property.

The perception of benefit was, however, different between the monetary and no-information

group. Based on this result, it could be inferred that even participants who answered that money

could a benefit from a sponsor may not have thoroughly considered what a sponsor does for a

property when they read the no-information scenario, and when they answered questions about

perceptions. Those participants may have only started thinking about what a sponsor does after

being asked at the end of the questionnaire. If this presumption is true, individuals may not pay

attention to, nor care about, what a sponsor does unless there is clearly available information

about a sponsor’s investment.

Perceived Necessity

The results from MANOVA and MANCOVA indicated that there were no differences in

perceptions toward necessity of a sponsor’s support among three groups: monetary, non-

monetary, and no-information. Although no research has been done to discuss and examin this

issue, it was expected that without any information about a sponsor’s investment, consumers

may not know how much a sponsor’s support is necessary to the sponsored property. Consumers

who acknowledge a sponsor’s support, on the other hand, may presume to know to what extent a

sponsor’s help is necessary because they can easily visualize the conditions under which a

sponsored property operates without the sponsor’s support.

One possible reason for the non-significant results in this study is that the sponsored

property included in the scenario was a large college football program belonging to the Division

I-A of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The program actually has multiple

sponsors. Participants in the study may have thought support from one company to be trivial to

the operation of the athletic program, as there are many other sponsors associated with the

program. The perceived necessity’s mean scores for the three groups were below the mid-point

of 4.00 (monetary group = γ.β4, non-monetary group = β.79, and no-information group = γ.ββ).

This indicated that participants perceived a sponsor’s support as unnecessary to a property. If this

reasoning is accurate, assessment of necessity may depend on dispositional attitudes toward

college football sponsorship. Dispositional attitude was measured in this study based on the

individuals’ belief about benefit and necessity of sponsorship, and the acceptability of

sponsorship.

141

The results of the MANCOVA indicated that the influence of the covariate (dispositional

attitude toward a college football sponsorship) on perceived necessity was significant, F(1, 401)

= 16.68, p < .001, partial ηβ = .04, when controlling for the type of information. The participants’

dispositional attitudes explained four percent of the variance in their perceptions toward

necessity of a sponsor’s support. In order to understand how the dispositional attitude influenced

perceived necessity, the regression analysis was conducted. The results from the regression

analysis indicated that the dispositional attitude had a significantly positive effect on perceived

necessity, = .β1, t(40γ) =, p < .001. As the participants had a positive attitude toward a college

football sponsorship in general, the sponsorship toward the college football team in the scenario

was perceived as a necessity. This leads the conclusion that while individuals may not assess a

sponsorship as necessary for a property’s survival based on what information a sponsor provides,

the individuals’ perceptions may already have been formed based on their dispositional attitudes

toward sponsorship in general, which had been developed through their previous market

experience.

Perceived Concern

The result from the MANOVA revealed there were no differences in perceptions toward a

sponsor’s concern about a sponsored property among three groups (monetary, non-monetary, and

no-information). Regarding the MANCOVA, homogeneity of regression was violated in

perceived concern. Thus, only the result from the MANOVA was assessed. Meenaghan (β001a)

argued that consumers attribute a sponsor’s motives based on the sponsor’s behavior toward a

sponsored activity. In this study, information about a sponsor’s behavior was not provided.

Instead, two groups received information concerning a sponsor’s investment. Although how

information on an investment influences consumers’ perceptions has not been previously

discussed, some group differences were expected based on the idea of a sponsor-property fit.

Simmons and Becker-Olsen (β006) argued that even if there is no natural fit between a sponsor

and a property, a sponsor-property fit condition could be created by provision of a sponsor’s

business-related resources to a property. Simmons and Becker-Olsen found that a sponsorship

with a created fit condition was more positively evaluated in the positioning of the sponsor, in

the attitude toward the sponsorship and equity toward the sponsor, than a sponsorship with no

created fit condition. Furthermore, Olson (β010) and Rifon (β004) found that a sponsor-property

fit inferred a sponsor’s altruistic or sincere motive. Based on these studies, it was expected that

142

the group receiving non-monetary information would more likely perceive the sponsorship as

concerned about a property than would the monetary information group or the no-information

group. The result of this study, however, did not show any differences among groups.

One possible reason for the non-significant treatment effect is the influence of

sponsorship category. When reviewing the mean scores, the scores for three groups were below

the mid-point of 4.00 (monetary group = γ.65, non-monetary group = γ.77, and no-information

group = γ.66). Based on such scores, it was concluded that the sponsor was not perceived as

being concerned about the sponsored property. Olson (β010) argued that in order for a sponsor to

be perceived as sincere but not as having commercial intent, the sponsor should choose a

property in greater need of, or more worthy of support, such as a grassroots and minor sports

event, instead of mass-market and professional sports properties. The sponsorship context in the

current study was for a college football team belonging to the NCAA Division I-A. This

sponsorship could be considered a mass-market sport sponsorship. Therefore, sponsorship

category may influence perceived concern, which may then offset the effect of the treatment.

Another possible reason is that while the treatment itself (information about a sponsor’s

investment) may not influence perceived concern for the property, providing a reason behind the

investment may influence perceived concern. Meenaghan (β001a) argued that a sponsor’s motive

is attributed to a sponsor’s behavior. For example, behavior such as maintaining a sponsoring

relationship with a sport team over a long, bad seasons may be positively interpreted: the sponsor

might think the team is still worthy and meaningful to society, so the sponsor continues

supporting the team; therefore, the sponsor must have a sincere motive. Applying this idea, a

sponsor’s investment may also be interpreted in accordance with perceived reasons behind the

investment. A sponsor’s monetary support may be interpreted as a general sponsorship deal.

Business related non-monetary support may be considered that the investment is what they have

and what they can do. These attributions do not seem to adequately address the motives related to

a sponsor’s concern behind the sponsor’s investment.

In order to elicit deeper attribution, a reason for the investment may need to be

explained. In Simmons and Becker-Olsen’s (β006) research, the reason for a sponsor providing a

business-related product to a property was explained as creating a sponsor-property fit condition

(a pet food brand sponsors the Special Olympics because taking care of pets helps to improve the

self-esteem of handicapped children), which evoked consumers’ positive responses. In the

143

current research, the reason behind provision of the business-related product was not described,

so participants could not attribute a sponsor’s concern about a property. Furthermore, participants

may not have gotten the idea of the fit between the sponsor and the property because they only

had access to information about an investment. Therefore, the effect of a sponsor-property fit

might not have been activated.

Perceived Commercial Intent

The results from the MANOVA and MANCOVA indicated that the group receiving no

information about a sponsor’s support perceived the sponsor as having more commercial intent

than the group receiving information about a sponsor’s non-monetary support. There were no

differences between the monetary information group and the non-monetary information group,

and between the monetary information group and the no information group. The difference

between the non-monetary information group and the no-information group could be explained

in part by the sponsorship versus advertising perception. As discussed in the section on perceived

benefit, if consumers equate sponsorship to advertising due to a lack of knowledge concerning a

sponsor’s investment, they may perceive a sponsorship activity as selfish. The sponsor also may

be perceived as only interested in its own benefit. The non-monetary information group had

specific information about the benefits provided to the property, which may have mitigated the

perception of commercial intent.

In this study, the no-information group did not know what investment the sponsor had

made, while the other two groups at least knew a sponsor provided something to the sponsored

property. It was expected that the group receiving no information would perceive the sponsorship

activity as involving more commercial intent than the groups receiving a sponsor’s monetary or

non-monetary support information. No difference was found, however, between the monetary

group and the no-information group. The mean scores of the three groups were above the mid-

point of 4.00 (monetary group = 4.84, non-monetary group = 4.56, and no-information group =

5.0β), but they did not deviate much from the mid-point. This indicates that all the participants

seemed to consider the sponsor as having some commercial intent. The possible reason for this

result may be a combination of three factors. The first factor is that the score of commercial

intent in the no-information group may have increased because some of the participants in the

no-information group may have perceived sponsorship as advertising. If that is the case, the

mean score of the group would be significantly higher than the means of the monetary and the

144

non-monetary groups. The mean score of the no-information group was indeed higher than the

mean of the other two groups, but only significantly higher than the non-monetary information

group.

The second factor is that individuals may attribute a sponsor’s commercial intent based

on information about the sponsor’s investment. The informant about monetary support may have

led the participants in that group to attribute the sponsor’s motives to commercial intent, i.e.,

buying the association. The inclusion of monetary information may have led to the perception of

commercial intent, resulting in no significant difference between the monetary information and

the no-information groups.

The third factor is that the score of perceived commercial intent in the non-monetary

group may have been lower because of the type of investment. A sponsor’s business-related

support may have a positive effect because participants may have perceived a sponsor doing

what it can do for society (i.e., the property), and they considered it appropriate behavior. Based

on these three factors, it could be inferred that the mean score of the no-information group may

have increased due to the confusion of sponsorship with advertising, while the mean score of the

non-monetary group may have been lower because of the positive element in the provision of the

business-related resource. The difference in consumers’ perceptions concerning a sponsor’s

monetary investment and non-monetary investment, however, has not been discussed in the

sponsorship area. This topic will be left for a future study.

Discussion of Results: Stage 2

One purpose of this study was to develop and test a theoretical model explaining the role

of a consumer’s sense of appreciation in a sponsorship context. The appreciation was measured

as an emotion of gratitude in this study. Thus, this study was conducted to examine whether

antecedent factors lead to the generation of gratitude, and whether gratitude leads to consumers’

positive attitudes and behavioral intentions. Based on appraisal theory, nine hypotheses were

developed.

Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, and 4

H1: Consumers’ perception that sponsorship is beneficial to a property would positively

influence their emotion of gratitude.

Hβ: Consumers’ perception that sponsorship is a necessity for a property would positively

influence their emotion of gratitude.

145

Hγ: Consumers’ perception that a sponsor is concerned about a property would positively

influence their emotion of gratitude.

H4: Consumers’ perception that a sponsor has excessive commercial intent would negatively

influence their emotion of gratitude.

The results showed that perceived benefit ( = .γγ, p < .01) and perceived necessity ( =

.β4, p < .01) had a significant positive effect on gratitude, supporting H1 and Hβ. These results

indicate that participants who perceived sponsorship of a company as beneficial and having a

positive impact on a sponsored property, or perceived sponsorship as a necessity for the property,

were more appreciative of the sponsor. Perceived commercial intent ( = -.11, p < .05), on the

other hand, had a significant negative effect on gratitude, supporting H4. This result indicated

that as participants perceived a sponsor as being interested in gaining excessive commercial

advantages from its’ sponsorship investment rather than helping a sponsored property, they were

increasingly less appreciative of the sponsor. Perceived concern ( = .14, p = .051) did not

significantly influence gratitude, so Hγ was not supported.

Hypothesis 1. The results from the current study illustrate that when participants

perceived sponsorship of a company as beneficial and had a positive impact on a sponsored

property, they were more appreciative of the sponsor. In the area of emotion research, it has been

discussed that emotion is determined based on a stimulus bringing a positive or negative

outcome in personal well-being. It is labeled as outcome desirability (Watson & Spence, β007).

Johnson and Stewart (β005), on the other hand, explained the same concept by using the phrase

goal congruence: emotion is elicited in accordance with whether stimulus facilitates or hinders

one’s goal achievement (direction of goal congruence). Soscia (β007) showed evidence that goal

congruence leads to the generation of gratitude.

In sponsorship research, Meenaghan (β001a) argued that “goodwill [is] believed to be

driven by the appreciation of individuals who recognize the benefits of sponsorship to activities

with which they are involved” (p. 10β). As seen in this statement, one main factor evoking

individuals’ emotion of gratitude in sponsorship is when a sponsorship provides benefits to a

sponsored property. In other words, whether a sponsor’s investment is beneficial to goal

achievement/goal congruency of the sponsored property is a key factor of gratitude. The current

research provides some evidence to confirm this idea. The path coefficient from perceived

benefits to gratitude was the largest among the paths from the different perceptions to gratitude.

146

Kim and his colleagues (β010) examined the influence of individuals’ perceptions of a

sponsor’s investment on gratitude from a different perspective. Those authors tested how

individuals’ perceptions of the amount of effort, time, and money a sponsor invested in a

sponsored property influenced their emotions of gratitude. The research did not find a significant

influence of a sponsor’s investment on gratitude. Based on the results from Kim and his

colleagues’ (β010) research and the current research, it could be said that the emotion of

gratitude may be generated based on their perceptions of how a sponsor’s investment is

beneficial for a property. It would seem that gratitude generation is not based on perceptions of

how much effort, time, and money a sponsor spends on a property.

Hypothesis 2. The results from the current study illustrate that when the participants

perceived sponsorship as necessary for a sponsored property, they were more appreciative of the

sponsor. In the area of gratitude research, it has been discussed that when help is needed by its

receiver, the help is acknowledged as valuable and appreciated (Palamtier, β009). Tesser et al.

(1968) described it as value of benefit; that is, how valuable the benefits are. Palamtier (β009)

found that when consumers required and desired help from a salesperson, they appreciated the

help more than when they did not need help.

In the sponsorship context, Kim and his colleagues (β010) examined the influence of

individuals’ perceived value of a sponsorship on gratitude and found the positive influence of

perceived value on gratitude. The concept of necessity in sponsorship, however, seemed slightly

different from the concept of value in a sponsor’s investment. McDonald (1991) and Meenaghan

(β001b) discussed the influence of necessity of a sponsor’s support on goodwill. McDonald

(1991) argued that sponsorship of individuals who have potential but limited resources prompts

individuals’ goodwill generation. Meenaghan’s research (β001b) introduced an interviewee’s

opinion; sponsorship of a minority sport is approved because of the lack of resources to sustain

the sport without sponsorship. Based on these arguments, it could be said that necessity of a

sponsorship seemed to be related to whether a sponsored property could survive without a

sponsorship, while the value of a sponsor’s investment seemed to focus on the investment itself

but did not involve any sense of sustainability. The current study confirmed the influence of

perceived necessity for the sustainability of a sponsored property on gratitude in sponsorship.

Additional information from the results is that perceived necessity was significantly related to

perceived benefit (r = .γ8) and perceived concern (r = .44) but was not related to perceived

147

commercial intent. That means, for example, that sponsorship of a minor league sport may be

perceived as beneficial, and a sponsor supporting the minor league sport may be perceived as

having concern for a sponsored property, but it does not mean that the sponsor might not be

perceived as having excessive commercial intent.

Hypotheses 3 and 4. The results from the current study illustrate that when participants

perceived a sponsor as being interested in gaining excessive commercial advantages from a

sponsorship rather than in helping a sponsored property, they were less appreciative of the

sponsor. Perceived concern, however, did not significantly influence gratitude. Previous

marketing-related gratitude studies (e.g., Morales, β005; Palmatier et al., β009) found that

individuals elicited gratitude when a salesperson or a store altruistically supported and provided

services to their customers. Sponsorship, however, is not a philanthropic activity, so a sponsor’s

motive for being concerned about a sponsored property and a motive of commercial intent could

still be compatible. Consumers better tolerate exploitation of sponsorship, especially sport

sponsorship (Meenaghan & Shipley, 1999). When the commercial motive becomes excessive,

however, a sponsor is negatively evaluated (Meenaghan, β001a). Thus, two motives, a sponsor’s

concern for a sponsored property and a sponsor’s commercial intent, were considered as an

antecedent of gratitude. Kim’s (β010) study found that concern for a property (team-serving

motive) predicted favorability of a sponsor, while commercial intent (firm-serving motive) did

not predict sponsor favorability. Speed and Thompson (β001), on the other hand, included only

one motive, concern for a property (sincerity) and found that a sponsor’s sincerity toward a

sponsored event positively influenced consumers’ attitudes and behaviors. Kim et al. (β010)

examined the influence of concern for a property (perceived intent) on gratitude and found the

positive influence of sincere motives on gratitude. The current study, however, only confirmed

the negative influence a sponsor’s commercial intent has on gratitude.

A possible reason for the non-significant influence of a sponsor’s concern for a sponsored

property on gratitude can be found in the relationships among the four types of perceptions and

attitude toward a property. The correlation coefficients of perceived concern with the other three

perceptions (perceived benefit: r = .56; perceived necessity: r = .44; perceived commercial

intent: r = -.44) showed medium to high correlations (a small r = .1, a medium r = .γ, and a large

r = .5, Cohen, 1988). The correlation coefficient with attitude toward a property was small but

significant (r = .1γ). A correlation between perceived concern and gratitude showed the second

148

largest value (r = .51) among the correlations between the four perceptions or attitude toward a

property and gratitude (perceived benefit: r = .56; perceived necessity: r = .44; perceived

commercial intent: r = -.βγ; attitude toward a sponsor: r = .γ5). There might be, however, an

overlap between perceived concern and the other variables in terms of explaining the variance of

gratitude. As a result, one of the indicators, perceived concern may have been squeezed out.

Hypotheses 5, 6, and 7

H5: Gratitude toward a sponsor would positively influence a consumer’s attitude toward the

sponsor.

H6: Gratitude toward a sponsor would positively influence a consumer’s intention to purchase a

product from the sponsor.

H7: A favorable attitude toward a sponsor would positively influence a consumer’s intention to

purchase a product from the sponsor.

The results illustrate that gratitude had a significant positive effect on attitude toward a

sponsor (H5: standardized = .γ6, p < .001), while gratitude did not significantly predict

purchase intention (H6: standardized = .14, p = .091). Attitude toward a sponsor also did not

significantly predict purchase intention (standardized = .06, p = .4γ8).

Hypothesis 5. The results from the current study illustrate that when the participants were

appreciative of a sponsor, they tended to have more positive attitudes toward the sponsor.

Although appraisal theory does not explain attitudinal response to emotion, emotion is

considered to be one of the factors shaping the affective attitude (Edwards, 1990). Morales

(β005) found that when consumers received individualized help from a company, they

appreciated the help and highly evaluated the company. Meenaghan (β001a) argued that gratitude

leads consumers to have a favorable attitude toward a sponsor. Although this argument has not

been tested, Martensen and colleagues (β007) found individuals’ positive (negative) emotion

toward a sponsored event positively (negatively) influenced their attitudes toward a sponsor’s

brand. Therefore, emotion of gratitude (positive emotion) was expected to predict positive

attitude. While this expectation was supported, the path coefficient from gratitude to attitude

toward a sponsor was not larger than expected ( = .γ6). The current study was utilized an

unknown company as a sponsor. The provided information on the company was the basic

information relating to their business as well as to their sponsorship activity. Participants in this

study did not have dispositional attitudes toward the sponsor. Therefore, it was expected that

149

participants’ emotions of gratitude toward the sponsor would predict their attitude toward the

sponsor as well. This medium size of the path coefficient may be explained by the influence of

direct paths from perceived benefits and perceived commercial intent to attitude. The direct

relationships will be explained in a later section.

Hypothesis 6. The results from the current study did not provide evidence that gratitude

influenced intention to purchase a sponsor’s product. Since appraisal theory explains a

behavioral response as a coping activity of emotion, intention to purchase a product from a

sponsor was considered to be a behavioral reaction of gratitude toward the sponsor. Previous

marketing-related gratitude studies (e.g., Kolyesnikova & Dodd, β008; Morales, β005; Palmatier,

β009) highlighted consumers’ behavioral reactions to a seller’s services. Morales (β005) found

that when staffs of a store made some extra effort toward customers and the customers felt

appreciation towards the store, they had a higher willingness to visit and purchase a product from

the store. Palmatier (β009) also found that when consumers felt appreciative of a sale

representative who made an effort to build a good relationship with them, they had higher

intentions to purchase a product from a store where the sales representative works. In

sponsorship research, Meenaghan (β001a) discussed one of the responses of goodwill toward a

sponsorship as purchasing a product from a sponsor. Kim and colleagues (β010) found that when

participants of a triathlon competition appreciated a sponsor of the competition, their intention to

purchase a product or service from the sponsor was enhanced.

There are two possible reasons for the non-significant influence of gratitude on intention

to purchase a product from a sponsor. The first possible reason is the use of a fictitious sponsor.

The current study used a fictitious company as a sponsor in a sponsorship scenario. With a

fictitious and hypothetical scenario, participants of the study knew the sponsorship activity of a

company, but they did not have dispositional knowledge about the sponsor’s products such as

their function, quality, and price range. In order to reduce the necessity of such extra information,

this study used a measure of intention instead of a measure of estimation/probability of behavior

to assess purchase intention. Intention scales assess the motivational state (Ajzen, 1991). On the

other hand, when estimation is assessed, various situational factors are taken into consideration,

such as necessity and price of a product (Sheppard et al., 1988). Such an adjustment of the

measure, however, may not have worked; participants may have had a hard time answering

questions related to purchase intention because their knowledge was limited to the sponsorship

150

information of a fictitious company. Another explanation may be that participants may not have

had strong intention to buy a product from a company they did not really know regardless of the

presence or absence of the product information. Those factors may have caused a problem with

measure of purchase intention.

The second possible reason is the influence of product involvement. The sponsor

included in the scenario was a telecommunications corporation. Participants were asked whether

they had intentions to purchase a cell phone from the sponsor the next time they purchased one.

A cell phone may be one of the most essential items in daily lives for college students. They can

use cell phones not only for making and receiving calls to their families and friends but also for

checking email, listening to music, etc. Students might be interested in the new functions and

high-tech designs of the latest cell phone. Therefore, it could be assumed that a cell phone is a

high involvement product for college students, which is a product category perceived as relevant

in accordance with individuals’ inherent needs, values, and interests (Zaichkowsky, 1985). Based

on the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM), individuals who are highly involved with a product

are more likely to have motives and abilities to evaluate information about the product, while

low-involved individuals are likely to have low motives and abilities to evaluate it and depend on

some simple background cues such as a celebrity endorsement for their product choice (Bryant &

Zillmann, β00β; Kardes, β00β). Therefore, it is assumed that a sponsorship is more likely to be a

determinant of a product choice for low-involvement individuals than high-involvement

individuals. Since a cell phone may be considered as a high involvement product for college

students, gratitude toward a sponsor may not have predicted intention to purchase a sponsored

product.

Hypothesis 7. The results from the current study did not provide evidence that attitude

toward a sponsor influenced intention to purchase a sponsor’s product. The positive influence of

attitude toward a sponsor on purchase intention was found in previous studies (Close et al., 2006;

Kim, 2010, Martensen et al., 2007). The possible reason for the non-significant influence may be

a combination of two factors. The first factor is the use of a fictitious sponsor. As explained in

the section on Hypothesis 6, purchase intention may not have been measured well in the current

study due to the use of a fictitious sponsor. Martensen and colleagues (2007) used a well-known

and well reputed brand as a sponsor in their study and found the significant influence of brand

attitude (sponsor) on purchase intention ( = .50, p = .05). Furthermore, the study revealed that

151

brand attitude was significantly predicted by brand involvement ( = .β7, p = .05), which is

perceived relevance of a brand based on their needs, values, and interests, as well as positive and

negative brand emotion and a sponsored event attitude. This result means that brand attitude is

some degree developed by their dispositional knowledge and attitudes toward a brand.

Participants of this study developed their attitudes toward a company only based on the

information concerning the company’s sponsorship activity. Therefore, they may not have

developed strong enough attitudes to determine their intentions to purchase the company’s

product.

The second factor is the influence of a product involvement. Kim (2010) found a

significant influence of attitude on purchase intention even if a fictitious sponsor was used in the

study. One possible reason for the significant influence may be the level of product involvement.

Kim (2010) used a dairy foods producer as a sponsor of a college football team, and participants

in his study were college students. Although college students may purchase dairy foods such as

milk and cheese in their everyday lives, whether they are particular about the brands and

interested in details of a product such as its ingredients is questionable. It is assumed that dairy

foods may be relatively less relevant products in terms of interest for college students (low-

involvement). Therefore, many participants of Kim’s (β010) study may depend on the

background cue, a dairy company’s sponsorship of a college football team, for answering the

questions about intention to purchase a sponsor’s product. In turn, the influence of attitude

toward a sponsor on purchase intention became significant ( = .7γ, p = .01), while the current

study, which used a telecommunication company as a sponsor, did not show a significant result.

Therefore, it was concluded that the non-significant influence of attitude on purchase intention in

this study may have been caused by the use of a fictitious company which provides a possibly

relevant product to the participants’ needs, values, and interests.

Hypotheses 8 and 9

H8: The relationships between perceptions (a: benefits, b: necessity, c: concerns about a property,

and d: commercial intent) and attitude toward a sponsor would be mediated by gratitude.

H9: The relationships between perceptions (a: benefits, b: necessity, c: concerns about a property,

and d: commercial intent) and purchase intention would be mediated by gratitude.

The results illustrate that gratitude partially mediated the influence of perceived benefit

(H8a: the mediated path, = .1β, p < .001; the direct path, = .γ0, P < .001) and perceived

152

commercial intent (H8d: the mediated path, = -.04, p < .05; the direct path, = -.11, p < .05) on

attitude toward a sponsor. Gratitude fully mediated the influence of perceived necessity (H8b: =

.09, P < .001) on attitude toward a sponsor. Thus, H8a, H8b, and H8d were supported, while H8c

was not supported. On the other hand, none of the mediated paths and direct paths from

perceptions to purchase intention was significant. There was no support for Hypothesis 9.

The results from the current study illustrate that while perceived benefit and perceived

commercial intent influenced attitude toward a sponsor through gratitude, these perceptions also

directly predicted attitude toward a sponsor. Perceived necessity, on the other hand, was fully

mediated by gratitude in the influence on attitude toward a sponsor. For purchase intention, a

meditating role of gratitude as well as direct relationships with perceptions was not found. With

appraisal theory it is possible to explain the mediating role of emotion in the influence of

appraisals on behavioral responses, while the mediating role of emotion in the relationship

between appraisals and attitudinal responses is not explained. Emotion is, however, considered as

one of the factors shaping the affective attitude (Edwards, 1990). The affective attitude is also

acquired with appraisal (Edwards, 1990). Thus, it was assumed that attitudinal responses could

be outcomes of emotion, and emotion could also mediate the influence of appraisals on

attitudinal responses as well as behavioral responses. Previous emotion research revealed

inconsistent results in a mediating role of emotion (Watson & Spence, β007); some of the studies

(e.g., Morales, β005; Nyer, 1997; Palmatier et al., β009) found full mediation of emotion

between appraisals and behavioral outcomes, while others (e.g., Folkes, Koletsky, & Graham,

1987; Soscia, β007) found partial mediation. In the sponsorship context, only Kim and

colleagues (β010) examined a mediating role of emotion (gratitude) in the influence of

perceptions on purchase intention and found full mediation of gratitude in the influence of

perceived value and perceived concern (it was labeled as intent) on purchase intention. The

mediating role of gratitude in influence of perceptions on attitude toward a sponsor has not been

examined.

The full mediation of gratitude in the influence of perceived necessity on the attitude

toward a sponsor indicates the support of hypothesized theoretical framework. This full

mediation may be explained based on the characteristics of the construct of perceived necessity.

The construct of perceived necessity was developed based on the point of view of a sponsored

property. Whether a property needs a sponsor’s support was the focus of the construct. The

153

property’s need may not directly influence individuals’ attitudes toward a sponsor, because a

sponsor’s need was a main focus rather than a sponsor’s action. The perceived property’s need

may influence the attitude toward a sponsor only through the mediation of gratitude toward a

sponsor which fulfills the property’s need. This is consistent with McDonald’s (1991) argument

that individuals feel goodwill when a sponsor supports an entity which has potential but does not

have enough resources for the survival; the generated goodwill toward a sponsorship extends to

the sponsor. On the other hand, the partial mediation in perceived benefit and perceived

commercial intent could be explained by the fact that there may be other mediator(s) existing in

the influence of perceptions on attitude toward a sponsor. Partial mediation indicates the

likelihood of a potential mediator which was excluded in a hypothesized model (Zhao et al.,

β010). For purchase intention, the results indicated non-significant direct and indirect paths from

perceptions to purchase intention. A potential reason is that purchase intention may not have

been measured well in the current study due to the use of a fictitious sponsor. Therefore, based

on the current study it could not be concluded that gratitude does not mediate the influence of

perceptions on purchase intention.

Contributions of the Current Study

The current study presents meaningful information to researchers and practitioners. First,

the current study demonstrated the effect of providing information about a sponsor’s investment

on perceptions toward a sponsorship. A significant finding was that providing information related

to a sponsor’s monetary support would positively affect individuals’ perceptions toward benefit

compared to providing no information about a sponsor’s investment. In an open-ended question,

more than 60 percent of the participants in the no-information group answered that money was

what a sponsor could provide to a property. Even though a majority of the participants in the no-

information group thought a sponsor could provide monetary help to a sponsored property,

participants who were told the amount of money a sponsor provides perceived the sponsorship to

be more beneficial, and as having more of a positive impact on a property than participants who

did not know the details of the sponsor’s investment. This finding indicates the importance of

reminding participants of a sponsor’s financial support to consumers.

Since the result from the SEM indicated that perceived benefit was the most significant

factor influencing gratitude, providing information about financial assistance could enhance

individuals’ emotion of gratitude. In practice, providing information about the amount of

154

sponsorship money might be unrealistic for a sponsor and a sponsored property. A property,

however, could inform how sponsors’ financial supports are used to contribute to their

sustainability and improvement, such as renovation of a facility and equipment, increase in

scholarships awarded, and support for the travel of a team. If a property includes or promises

such information transmission in a sponsorship deal, the value of a sponsorship could be

enhanced.

Another significant finding was that providing information concerning a sponsor’s

business-related support would reduce individuals’ attribution of a sponsor’s commercial intent

compared to providing no information. Since the results from the SEM indicated that perceived

commercial intent negatively influenced gratitude and also negatively influenced attitude toward

a sponsor, providing information about business-related support could reduce the negative

influence on gratitude and negative attitude toward a sponsor. In practice, a sponsor is suggested

to concretely inform consumers about what they provide to a property instead of providing

simple information about their sponsorship relationship in order to avoid reducing the gratitude

effect. A sponsored property is, on the other hand, suggested to include or promise an

information transmission about non-monetary support in a sponsorship deal. This could also

enhance the value of a sponsorship.

Second, the current study confirmed perceived benefit, perceived necessity, and

perceived commercial intent as significant antecedents of gratitude. Gratitude is developed when

individuals recognize and appreciate the benefits of sponsorship (Meenaghan, β001a). Therefore,

whether a sponsorship is perceived to be beneficial was considered to be a key factor of eliciting

emotion of appreciation (gratitude). Beneficial means having a positive impact on a sponsored

property instead of negative influence; that is¸ the direction of a sponsorship effect but not the

degree of the benefit. The current study revealed that perceived benefit was the most significant

antecedent of gratitude among four perceptions included in this study. Perceived necessity was

also considered one of the important predictors of gratitude. Sponsorship is sometimes evaluated

by how necessary and essential a sponsor’s investment is for the survival of sponsored

properties. “Survival” might be a key word. McDonald (1991) argued that a sponsorship activity

helping those who lack money and resources for survival but who have potential is considered

the social aspect of sponsorship. Such a social aspect of sponsorship leads to generation of

gratitude.

155

Meenaghan and Shipley (1999), on the other hand, argued that the level of gratitude is

based on the degree of perceived commercialization and exploitation of sponsorship. Mass sport

sponsorship is one of the highest categories of sponsorship considered as commercialized

(Meenaghan & Shipley, 1999). Not all mass sport sponsorship, however, may reap such little

effect. When a mass sport event or professional sporting team is perceived as lacking resources

for survival and perceived as needing help from an outside organization, gratitude is generated

toward a sponsor helping such an entity. Therefore, perception toward necessity of a sponsor’s

help was considered another important factor in gratitude generation, specifically in the

generation of a sense of appreciation in the current study.

In the current study the influence of consumers’ sense of appreciation was examined in

the context of a college football team sponsorship. The team belongs to the Division I-A of the

NCAA, and its games are broadcast nationwide, which means it is considered one of the biggest

mass sports events in the U.S. The results from the current study illustrate that perceived

necessity was the second most significant antecedent of gratitude among the four perceptions

included in this study. This finding indicates that even if a sponsorship deal is made with mass

sports, consumers’ perceived necessity still becomes an important predictor of their gratitude.

The third antecedent of gratitude was perceived commercial intent. Consumers, especially in

sport sponsorship, are likely to accept a sponsor’s commercial intent (Meenaghan & Shiple,

1999). They, however, negatively respond to a sponsor when the commercial intent is excessive

with little or no regard for a sponsored property (Meenaghan, β001b). While this argument was

confirmed in the current study, a question was also raised, which is how compatible perceived

commercial intent is with perceived concern.

In Kim’s (β010) study, perceived commercial intent (firm-serving motive) did not

influence attitude toward a sponsor while perceived concern (team-serving motive) did. As one

of the reasons for the insignificant influence of perceived commercial intent, Kim (β010) listed

an issue in the compatibility of the two perceptions. The results from the current study illustrate

the necessity of further studying the relationship between perceived concern and other

perceptions, including perceived benefit, perceived necessity, and perceived commercial intent.

The empirical evidence on the influence of perceived benefit, perceived necessity, and perceived

commercial intent on gratitude provided help in better understanding the generation of

appreciation, as well as raising a further issue to be addressed.

156

Third, the current study provided empirical support for the positive influence of gratitude

on attitude toward a sponsor (standardized = .γ6), indicating a medium effect size. Emotion is

considered to be one of the factors shaping affective attitude (Edwards, 1990), so emotion was

expected to predict attitudinal response. Morales’s (β005) study empirically supported the

influence of gratitude on an attitudinal response; as consumers appreciated a company’s

individualized help, they more positively evaluated the company. In the sponsorship field,

although researchers (e.g., Meenaghan, β001a, β001b; McDonald, 1999) have discussed a

goodwill effect on attitudes toward a sponsor, the effect has not been tested. The current study

was the first attempt to examine the effect and confirmed that consumers’ appreciation led to

positive attitude toward a sponsor. Furthermore, the results from the current study provide

empirical support for the meditating role of gratitude in the influence of perceptions toward a

sponsorship on attitude toward a sponsor. Perceived benefit, perceived necessity, and perceived

commercial intent influenced attitudes toward a sponsor through gratitude toward a sponsor. The

results provide empirical support for a better understanding the idea of gratitude in sponsorship;

gratitude mediates the influence of perceptions toward a sponsorship on at least one of the

significant outcomes for a sponsor, attitude toward a sponsor.

The goodwill effect has been discussed as an unique effect, which differentiates

sponsorship from other marketing communications (Meenaghan, β001a, β001b), since sponsors

help and contribute to other entities instead of focusing only on themselves. A primary

responsibility of any business is, however, to meet its financial requirements (Saiia, Carroll, &

Buchholtz, β00γ). Therefore, it is important for a sponsor to justify sponsorship spending instead

of using the money for marketing communications, which could more directly communicate its

product information. While the current study could not find the effect of gratitude on purchase

intention, the effect of gratitude on attitude toward a sponsor was confirmed. Enhancing attitude

toward a sponsor is important for the sponsor, because attitude toward an object could predict

behavioral intention, which have been supported by previous studies (e.g., Close et al., β006;

Kim, β010; Martensen et al., β007). Therefore, the current study provides practitioners with

justification for the spending in sponsorship.

In addition, this study was one of the first attempts to examine the role of appreciation by

measuring the emotion of gratitude in spectator sports sponsorship. The current study revealed

perceived benefit, perceived necessity, and perceived commercial intent influenced attitude

157

toward a sponsor through gratitude toward a sponsor when controlling for perceived concern and

attitude toward a sponsored property. According to appraisal theory, appraisal is an evaluation

which is conducted based on one’s personal well-being (Lazarus, 1991). In spectator sponsorship

situations, however, the main recipient of a sponsor’s investment is a property, but not a

consumer. Evaluation of a sponsorship may be conducted based on a sponsored property’s well-

being but not conducted based on the consumer’s well-being. Therefore, it was thought that

consumers’ appraisals do not always elicit emotions but may be affected by individuals’ attitude

toward a sponsored property in a spectator sports sponsorship context. The current study

controlled consumers’ attitude toward a sponsored property by including the variable in the

model and found that consumers’ sense of appreciation positively worked in spectator sports

sponsorship. This finding may provide empirical support for a better understanding of the idea of

a gratitude effect in spectator sport sponsorship.

Furthermore, although this study could not provide theoretical evidence for the influence

of gratitude on purchase intention due to the issue of research designs related to measuring

purchase intention, the current study contributes to the sponsorship literature by using gratitude

based on a theoretical explanation. Goodwill effect in sponsorship has been discussed and/or

examined for more than a decade by many researchers (e.g., Dees et al., β008; McDonald, 1999;

Meenaghan & Shipley, 1999; Meenaghan, β001a, β001b; Kim, β010). None of the studies,

however, have measured a sense of appreciation for identifying gratitude generation process

except the study by Kim and his colleagues (β010). Although Kim and colleagues (β010)

conceptually explained the role of gratitude in sponsorship; their explanation was focused on the

reciprocal tendency of gratitude. Reciprocity is a relational exchange between benefactor and

beneficiary. Appraisal theory, on the other hand, explains the entire processes around emotions

from the development of appraisals through behavioral reactions to the emotions. This helps to

put all of the factors around the feeling of appreciation together and aids better understanding of

the goodwill effect. In addition, appraisal theory helps researchers better understand consumers’

feelings of appreciation in a sponsorship context. “Consumers” are not the main recipients of

benefits in a sponsorship context. For example, gratitude is more likely to be generated when a

social aspect of sponsorship is fulfilled (e.g., helping a weak entity). When individuals know that

a company sponsors an athlete playing a minor sport by helping him/her pay the training cost,

they may feel appreciation of the company, even if they do not directly receive anything from the

158

company. Such appreciation may be extended to a company because of the company’s socially

appropriate behavior. This kind of appreciation coming from social aspects may not be explained

using reciprocity because consumers do not directly receive anything from a sponsor, while

spectators of a sponsored sporting event or fans of a sponsored team may receive benefits

vicariously. Thus, appraisal theory may be useful for explaining the role of consumers’

appreciation in sponsorship effectiveness.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Though the current study contributes to understand the role of a consumer’s sense of

appreciation in sponsorship, there were limitations in this study which may have influenced the

results. This section will provide suggestions for future studies, taking into account the

limitations in the current study. First, future studies may need to measure the construct of

goodwill itself in addition to measuring constructs related to gratitude generation. Meenaghan

(β001b) used the term of goodwill to explain the consumers’ favorable attitude toward

sponsorship, though the author also explained that consumer goodwill was exhibited to a

sponsor. Goodwill has been defined as “the established reputation of business, etc., as enhancing

its value” (Pearsall & Trumble, 1996, p. 60β) and “value of a business in reputation etc. over and

above its tangible assets” (Gilmour, β006, p. γ58). It seems that goodwill may be measured by a

company’s reputation and/or its favorable value developed based on the favorable reputation

among consumers. In the sponsorship context, goodwill may be considered as a company’s

favorable reputation or value which may be developed due to the company’s sponsorship

activity. The question is whether individuals’ appreciation toward a company predicts its value.

An alternative idea may be that the goodwill effect explained by Meenaghan (1991; β001a;

β001b) may involve a labeling issue. The term of goodwill was used interchangeably with the

term of gratitude (a sense of appreciation) in Meenaghan’s (β001a) study. That means the effect

of consumers’ appreciation for a sponsor may have been labeled as goodwill effect. This topic

should be further examined in order to thoroughly understand a role of goodwill in sponsorship.

Second, future study is suggested to be conducted by using an actual company as a

sponsor. One of the biggest limitations of this study was the use of a fictitious sponsor. The

current study used a fictitious sponsor for two reasons: to avoid the influence of dispositional

knowledge and attitude toward a sponsor that participants of this study may have, and to avoid

individuals’ doubt about a scenario describing wrong associations between a sponsor and a

159

property. The choice of using a fictitious sponsor, however, may have negatively worked against

measuring purchase intention. Individuals may have been available to assess a company based on

information concerning its sponsorship activity in addition to the general information about the

company. The intention to purchase a product from the company, however, may have been in a

different sphere. In order to consider intention to purchase a sponsor’s product, a real company

name may have been required. Participants of this study may have been confused when

answering questions related to their intention to purchase a sponsor’s product. Therefore, the

construct of purchase intention may not have been predicted by any constructs included in the

current study. Furthermore, a product type used in this study may have influenced the results

related to the construct of purchase intention. The product was a cellular phone, which is diverse

in function, quality, design, price, etc. College students may be familiar with this kind of product,

indicating high involvement in a product. Based on the ELM, it could be expected that

individuals who are more familiar with a cell phone are likely to use detailed product

information to determine their purchase intention, while individuals who are less familiar with a

cell phone would tend to be influenced by information concerning a company’s sponsorship

activity. Therefore, highly involved participants may have had a hard time answering their

purchase intentions with only limited information and a fictitious company name. Future study is

suggested to include various types of products including a real company name.

Third, future research should be conducted using a non-student sample. The sponsorship

context studied in the current study was a college football team sponsorship belonging to the

NCAA Division I-A. Participants in the study were undergraduate students in the university

collected by a convenience sampling method. Students were just a part of the population of the

study and were not a representative of the entire population. College students may have unique

characteristics in their general marketplace attitudes, including general attitudes toward

advertising and attitudes toward marketing. Marketplace attitude is developed based on

individual personality traits (e.g., cynicism and self-esteem) and consumption experiences, which

are related to age and education (Obermiller & Spengernberg, 1998). Undergraduate students

have fewer marketplace experiences than older adults. Thus, they may not understand

sponsorship as well as older adults with more marketplace experience. In order to better

understand the goodwill effect in college football team sponsorship, including individuals in the

study from other market segments in addition to college students is required.

160

Forth, the current study addressed whether information about a sponsor’s investment

would affect individuals’ perceptions toward sponsorship. Further questions are 1) whether the

communication style of a message influences consumers’ perceptions and β) whether the source

of information differentiates consumers’ perceptions. The first issue is, in particular, about word

choice in message content. A scenario used in the current study described a sponsor’s investment

in a neutral manner. For example, the monetary scenario described a sponsor’s investment as the

following: “The terms of the sponsorship deal between Company A and the Seminoles are $β

million a year over four years.” Information about a sponsor’s investment was not described in

such a manner as a sponsor providing, offering, investing, spending, or paying $β million to the

Seminoles. These wordings were carefully structured based on the consideration that words such

as “provide” or “offer” may differently influence message receivers’ perceptions toward the

sponsorship compared to words such as “invest,” “spend,” or “pay.” Though this issue has been

little addressed, if message contents affect consumers’ perceptions toward a sponsorship, how the

message should be communicated may need to be addressed in future research.

The second issue is about the source of the message distributing sponsorship

information. This issue has been addressed in the research area of source credibility. Source

credibility has been discussed based on source model theory; the acceptance of a message is

determined depending on how a receiver of the message perceives the characteristics of the

communicator, such as expertise (Hovland, Janis, & Kelley, 195γ), trustworthiness (Hovland et

al., 195γ), and attractiveness (McGuire, 1985). Many previous studies have addressed how a

message source such as advertising, news, or other publicities differently influence consumers’

responses, including learning, recall, believability, attitudes, and behaviors (Hallahan, 1999). In

general, it has been discussed that consumers easily identify a message sponsor of advertising

and tend to presume persuasive intent in a message sponsor. This attribution involves skepticism

and results in lower message credibility. (Balasubramanisn, 1994; Hallahan, 1999). Information

distributed by publicity, in contrast, tends to be perceived as credible and objective because a

message sponsor is not identified to the audience and an informed message is considered beyond

the control of a sponsor (Balasubramanisn, 1994; Hallahan, 1999).

In a sponsorship situation, information about what a sponsor does for a sponsored

property could be distributed by a sponsor itself, a sponsored property, or a third party such as

newspaper. Applying the previous argument, when information about a company’s sponsorship

161

activity is delivered by the sponsor itself, consumers may consider the sponsor’s self-interests,

such as enhancing its image and increasing sales. Such attribution may cause biased responses to

the sponsorship or the sponsor. If the information is distributed from a sponsored property, on the

other hand, consumers may receive the information without any bias and accept the information

literally. Simmons and Becker-Olsen (β006) examined how consumers differently perceived the

motives of a sponsor for a nonprofit organization (the Special Olympics) and motives of the

sponsored property in announcing a sponsorship. The results from the current study illustrate that

consumers construed the sponsor’s motive as stemming from more self-interest than the motive

of the sponsored property. A future study could address how a message source (a sponsor or a

sponsored property) influences individuals’ perceptions of a sponsorship, which are not only

motives but also perceptions toward the benefit and its necessity. This may provide some idea to

practitioners trying to find a sponsor for their organizations and activities; a sponsored property

may offer potential sponsors opportunity for active communication about a public sponsorship

activity if their communications have more of an advantage.

In addition, the communication style and message source may have a relationship to the

manipulation of the independent variable (information about a sponsor’s investment) in the

current study. One reason for the lower manipulation rate in the main study may have been the

research design. It may be important for a sponsor to consider how information is communicated

and which message source is used. In the current study a sponsor’s investment was presented in

what is believed to be a neutral manner. The use of terms such as, “a sponsor offers” or “a

sponsor provides,” may have directed the thoughts/attitude of the participants. In other words,

the wording may not have been as neutral as initially intended. Furthermore, though the current

study did not identify a message source, the participants may have thought the information came

from the sponsor, potentially biasing the results. The use of a non-experimental research design

solves the issue of manipulation, but issues pertaining to message transmission should be

addressed.

Fifth, one of the biggest concerns about appraisal theory is the difficulty in assessing the

appraisal process (Scherer, 1999; Tong et al., β007). Previous researchers have examined

appraisal processes using various methods, including: 1) asking to recall emotional experiences

and antecedent evaluation processes of the motion, β) asking to verbally report appraisal

processes in a naturally emotional occasion, γ) experimentally inducing emotion and asking to

162

verbally report appraisal processes related to the emotion, 4) asking to judge matches between

emotion words and their appraisal implications, and 5) asking appraisals and emotional reactions

based on the reading of a manipulated scenario (Scherer, 1999). Any approach, however, may not

be able to adequately assess appraisal processes (Scherer, 1999). The main reason could be that

appraisal processes may occur at unconscious levels (Johnson & Stewart, β005; Scherer, 1999).

The use of self-report methods explained above involves a conscious task along with drawing on

memory, requiring inference or imagination, cognitive interpretation, and rational thinking

(Scherer, 1999). Therefore, self-reported appraisals associated with an emotion may not

accurately represent the individuals’ actual appraisals at an emotional moment.

One recommended solution (but one that is not perfect) is using multiple assessments,

such as a combination of self-reporting with projective and observational techniques (Johnson &

Stewart, β005) and a combination of a scaled measure of appraisals with thought listings

(Simmons & Becker-Olsen, β006). While the latter combination seems to be weaker than the

former due to the blend of self-reports, the latter assessment may help to improve the current

study. This study employed scaled measures of the appraisal process. All of the participants of

the study were forced to appraise or evaluate the benefit of a sponsor’s support, necessity of a

sponsor’s support, and motives of a sponsor. Not all of the individuals, however, may have their

appraisals in real sponsorship situations. In addition, the generated appraisal points may differ

depending on individuals and sponsorship situations. Using a thought listing method may help us

understand what kinds of appraisal consumers consciously generate in a particular sponsorship

context. In contrast, a scaled measure reveals the extent to which consumers appraise a particular

sponsorship situation. Therefore, multiple assessments could be employed for a better

understanding of sponsorship-related appraisals in future research.

Sixth, future studies could assess other mediators and their influence on perceptions of

sponsorship and subsequent consumer outcomes, such as attitude toward a sponsor and purchase

intention. The results from the current study illustrate a partially mediating role of gratitude in

the influence of perceptions to consumer outcome. This indicates the possible presence of other

mediators (Zhao et al., β010). Literature addressing reciprocity introduced two factors related to

a reciprocal behavior other than gratitude: the existential or folk belief in reciprocity and the

generalized moral norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960). Folk belief is described as a cultural

expectation, and moral norm is explained as a cultural mandate (Cropanzano & Mitchell, β005).

163

In a consumption situation, a possible folk belief may be that a customer is expected to buy a

product from sales personnel due to receiving help finding a good product. A possible moral

norm, on the other hand, may be that a customer should purchase a product from sales personnel

helping the customer due to obligation. A question is whether gratitude is the only reason for

reciprocating a sponsor’s support for a property. Previous marketing-related reciprocal research

indicated inconsistent results; Palmatier and his colleagues (β009) found that consumers did not

feel a norm of reciprocity to purchase a product due to a retail person’s extra help, while

Kolyesnikova and Dodd (β008) found that individuals who visited a winery would buy wine

and/or souvenirs due to their feeling of reciprocal obligation. Whether customers have the social

norm of reciprocity in consumption situation has been in question.

Another stream of research related to reciprocity is a study of the emotion of guilt.

Gratitude-related articles have sometimes discussed the emotion of guilt, which is “an unpleasant

emotional state associated with objections to one’s own actions, inaction, or intentions”

(McCullough et al., β001. p. β5β). The emotion involves a feeling of regret and remorse for the

action (Tangney, Miller, Flicker, & Barlow, 1996). Weiner (1985) and Tangney et al. (1996)

argued, based on the review of previous research, that the emotion of guilt is evoked when

someone fails to meet his or her personal responsibility or live up to his or her own personal

standards. In an interpersonal context, a guilty person considers the influence of his or her

transgression on another person, such as hurting feelings or benefits, and attempts to make up for

it, which is a reparative action (Leith & Baumeister, 1998; Tangney et al., 1996). In a reciprocal

situation, guilt may occur when someone fails to reciprocate others’ benefits, such as gift and

help. Then, the emotion of guilt may later motivate him or her to return the favor. Therefore,

guilt is considered to be a motivator of reciprocity. Dahl, Honea, and Manchanda (β005) revealed

that consumers felt guilt when they failed to purchase a product from a retail person despite

having high feelings of connectedness with the retail person. These consumers showed higher

feelings of need to reciprocate through future behaviors, such as by purchasing products.

Palmater et al. (β009) also found that consumers purchase a product from a retail person who

takes care of them because of the emotion of guilt. Based on these studies, it could be expected

that consumers think they have a personal responsibility or must live up to a personal standard in

a consumption situation.

164

In the sponsorship context, some individuals who are highly involved in a sponsored

team may feel an obligation to purchase a product from a sponsor supporting their favorite team.

In addition, they may feel pressure to purchase a sponsored product from other enthusiastic fans

and friends. Those individuals may fear that other fans and friends do not acknowledge them as a

fellow hardcore fan if they do not purchase a sponsored product. In this case, those individuals

may purchase a sponsored product because of the moral norm. (In a fan community, supporting a

sponsor of their favorite teams may be considered as a moral norm.) This kind of tendency,

however, may be less strong in event or other sponsorship contexts than in the team sponsorship

context. On the other hand, some individuals who recognize a sponsored event or organization as

valuable to society may feel responsibility to reciprocate toward a sponsor as well as

appreciation. They may consider that the sponsor contributes to society so the contribution will

be balanced out by mutual exchange or that the support of the sponsor is expected behavior for a

member of society. This is the logic of folk belief and could be applied to any type of sport

sponsorship context, such as a sporting event, team, league, and other sport-related organizations.

Those examples, however, may in fact be extreme cases. Neither moral norms nor folk beliefs

may predict consumers’ reciprocal behaviors, because consumers do not feel indebtedness and

responsibility due to the lack of direct benefits. Therefore, the following questions should be

addressed in a future study: whether consumers evoke moral norm or folk beliefs of reciprocity

in a sponsorship context and whether the sense of reciprocity predicts behavior or behavioral

intention to purchase a sponsor’s product.

Finally, a longitudinal study is suggested as a future study. The current study included

attitudes toward a sponsor and purchase intention as an outcome of the emotion of gratitude. The

results showed that gratitude for a sponsor predicted attitude toward the sponsor while influence

on purchase intention was not found. For the current study, participants’ emotions and their

reactions caused by the emotions were assessed at the same setting. Therefore, it could be said

that the relationships between emotions and reactions in this study were stronger than they would

be in a real situation.

A question is whether a sense of appreciation will last for a long time. Sponsorship

recall rises shortly before and during a sponsored event, while the recall level decreases a few

weeks after the event is over (Walliser, β00γ). Verduyn, Mechelen, and Tuerlinckx (β011)

addressed the duration of emotional experience and found that the duration of gratitude is

165

predicted by importance of the eliciting stimulus/situation, intensity of the emotion at onset, and

social sharing. Specifically, the emotional episode of gratitude lasts longer when the eliciting

stimulus is more important for individuals and when individuals experience stronger emotion

during the initial encounter of the stimulus. The emotion of gratitude also lasts longer when

individuals talk with others about the eliciting stimulus (Verduyn et al., β011). Furthermore, it

was found that the duration of gratitude is shorter than the emotional episodes of anger, joy, and

sadness. Although the current study treated participants’ attitude toward a sponsored property as

a control variable, the influence of attitude toward a sponsored property on gratitude was also

revealed. Individuals who thought that a sponsored property was important elicited stronger

emotions of gratitude. The strong emotions may stay longer and the impact of emotions on their

attitudes and behaviors may last longer. Thus, future research could longitudinally examine

relationships between gratitude and outcome variables in terms of the duration. Specifically, how

individual differences in attitude toward a sponsored property longitudinally influence goodwill

effect should be examined in a real sponsorship situation.

Conclusion

The goodwill effect in sponsorship has been discussed and/or examined for more than a

decade by many researchers (e.g., Dees et al., β008; McDonald, 1999; Meenaghan & Shipley,

1999; Meenaghan, β001a, β001b; Kim, β010). The current study was, however, one of the first

attempts to explain the idea of the process based on the emotion of gratitude by using appraisal

theory. In the current study, gratitude, which is a sense of appreciation, was measured in order to

identify the role of a consumer’s appreciation in spectator sports sponsorship. One of the

significant contributions of this study was the provision of empirical evidence of three

antecedents of gratitude: perceived benefit, perceived necessity, and commercial intent.

Furthermore, it was found that gratitude mediated the influence of those antecedents on attitudes

toward a sponsor. These findings revealed that when individuals perceive a sponsor’s support as

beneficial and having a positive impact on a sponsored property, and when they perceive a

sponsored property requires a sponsor’s support for its survival, they will feel appreciation

toward a sponsor, resulting in the development of a positive attitude toward a sponsor. On the

other hand, when a sponsor’s support is perceived as including excessive commercial intent, the

individuals’ appreciation would be discouraged and result in negative attitude toward a sponsor.

In addition, the current study provided practitioners with suggestions related to information

166

transmission for enhancing consumers’ sense of appreciation; providing information concerning

a sponsor’s monetary support would positively enhance individuals’ perceived benefit while

information concerning a sponsor’s business-related support would discourage individuals’

perceptions toward a sponsor’s commercial intent. The results from the current study confirmed

a partial effect of gratitude, providing managers with potential justification for the use of

sponsorship in spectator sports, as well as leading the research to offer suggestions to enhance

consumers’ emotion of gratitude toward a sponsor.

While the current study introduced appraisal theory to explain a role of appreciation in

sponsorship and to help better understand the effect of gratitude, the primary outcome of

emotion, which is behavioral intention, was not significantly predicted by gratitude. Future

research is suggested to more thoroughly examine the construct of goodwill itself and to further

test the goodwill effect with employing other research designs and in other sponsorship contexts.

It is hoped that this current study helps toward better understanding of the goodwill effect in

sponsorship.

167

APPENDIX A

HUMAN SUBJECTS COMMITTEE APPROVAL

Office of the Vice President For Research

Human Subjects Committee

Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2742

(850) 644-8673 · FAX (850) 644-4392

APPROVAL MEMORANDUM (for change in research protocol)

Date: 8/8/2011

To: Yuko Sawatari

Address:

Dept.: SPORT MANAGEMENT

From: Thomas L. Jacobson, Chair

Re: Use of Human Subjects in Research (Approval for Change in Protocol)

Project entitled: Understanding the role of consumer goodwill in sponsorship: An application of appraisal

theory

The form that you submitted to this office in regard to the requested change/amendment to your

research protocol for the above-referenced project has been reviewed and approved.

If the project has not been completed by 4/11/2012, you must request a renewal of approval for

continuation of the project. As a courtesy, a renewal notice will be sent to you prior to your expiration

date; however, it is your responsibility as the Principal Investigator to timely request renewal of your

approval from the Committee.

By copy of this memorandum, the chairman of your department and/or your major professor is reminded

that he/she is responsible for being informed concerning research projects involving human subjects in

the department, and should review protocols as often as needed to insure that the project is being

conducted in compliance with our institution and with DHHS regulations.

This institution has an Assurance on file with the Office for Human Research Protection. The Assurance

Number is FWA00000168/IRB number IRB00000446.

Cc:

HSC No. 2011.6835

168

APENDIX B

THE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

Dear Sir/Madam, I am a graduate student under the direction of Dr. Jeffrey James in the Department of Sport Management at the Florida State University. As part of my dissertation, I am conducting a research study to better understand sport sponsorship. This letter is a request for your participation, which will involve filling out a questionnaire. You will be asked to rate your agreement or disagreement with a variety of statements. It will take approximately 10 minutes to complete the questionnaire. There is no risk from participating in the project. Your involvement will be helpful for understanding effective sponsorship of sport. All participants must be at least 18 years old. Your participation in this study is voluntary. If you choose not to participate or to withdraw from the study at any time there will be no penalty, it will not affect your grade in this class. Since your name will not be placed on the questionnaire, your responses will be anonymous. Collected information will be kept confidential to the extent allowed by law. The results of the study may be published but your name will not be known. If you have any questions concerning the research study, please contact Yuko Sawatari, or Dr. Jeffrey James. If you have any questions about your rights as a participant in this research, or if you feel you have been placed at risk, you can contact the Chair of the Human Subjects Committee, Institutional Review Board, through the Vice President for the Office of Research at (850) 644-8633 (Mailing address: Florida State University Human Subjects Committee Tallahassee, FL 32306-2742). Return of the questionnaire will be considered your consent to participate. Thank you for your participation. Sincerely, Yuko Sawatari

169

For each item below, please circle the number that best reflects you and your opinion.

Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

1. I consider the FSU Football team to be personally important. 1 β γ 4 5 6 7

2. Being a fan of the FSU Football team is important to me. 1 β γ 4 5 6 7

3. Compared to how I feel about other college football teams, the FSU Football team is very important to me. 1 β γ 4 5 6 7

For each item below, please place an “X” on the appropriate line between each set of terms below that best reflect your thoughts.

4. Sponsorship of a college football team is:

Bad : : : : : : : Good

5. Sponsorship of a college football team is:

Unfavorable : : : : : : : Favorable

6. Sponsorship of a college football team is:

Unacceptable : : : : : : : Acceptable

7. Sponsorship of a college football team is:

Unnecessary : : : : : : : Necessary

8. Sponsorship of a college football team is:

Not Beneficial : : : : : : : Beneficial

Please go to the next page.

170

Please read the following story about sponsorship for the FSU football team.

The Florida State Seminoles football team has won two national championships, the first in 199γ and the second in 1999. In one of the preseason polls for the β011 season, the Seminoles were ranked 5th in the United States. Company A signed a four-year sponsorship deal with the Seminoles last month. Company A is one of the largest cell-phone providers in the United States. The company’s cellular coverage and service areas extend across the country. The terms of the sponsorship deal between Company A and the Seminoles are $β million a year over four years ($8 million total). (Monetary Scenario)

OR

According to the terms of the sponsorship deal, the FSU coaches and staff members will receive individual cell-phones and free monthly service. Customized software will be pre-installed including a team message-board and video sharing program (videos of practices and games are stored and updated on a daily basis). (Non-Monetary Scenario)

Please go to the next page.

171

Please answer the following questions, based on what you read in the story. For each item below, please circle the number that best reflects your opinion. (Please note Company A = Sponsor A)

Strongly Strongly Disagree

Agree

9. The FSU football team benefits from Company A’s sponsorship. 1 β γ 4 5 6 7

10. Company A’s sponsorship makes the FSU football team possible. 1 β γ 4 5 6 7

11. Sponsor A seems to be looking out for the best interests of the FSU football team. 1 β γ 4 5 6 7

12. The FSU football team gets help from Company A. 1 β γ 4 5 6 7

13. Sponsor A seems to care more about making money than the FSU football team’s well-being. 1 β γ 4 5 6 7

14. Sponsorship by Company A is necessary for the FSU football team to take place. 1 β γ 4 5 6 7

15. Sponsor A seems to have a genuine interest in the well-being of the FSU football team. 1 β γ 4 5 6 7

16. Company A provides assistance to the FSU football team. 1 β γ 4 5 6 7

17. Sponsor A seems to be concerned about what is best for the FSU football team. 1 β γ 4 5 6 7

18. The FSU football team depends on Company A’s sponsorship for their operations. 1 β γ 4 5 6 7

19. Sponsor A seems to care more about its promotions than the success of the FSU football team. 1 β γ 4 5 6 7

20. Company A has positive impact on the FSU football team. 1 β γ 4 5 6 7

21. Company A seems to really care about the FSU football team. 1 β γ 4 5 6 7

22. Sponsor A seems to care more about promoting itself than about the FSU football team. 1 β γ 4 5 6 7

23. The FSU football team could not function without Company A’s sponsorship. 1 β γ 4 5 6 7

24. Sponsor A’s primary motivation seems to be making money, not the well-being of the FSU football team. 1 β γ 4 5 6 7

Please go to the next page.

172

Please answer the following questions, based on what you read in the story. For each item below, please circle the number that best reflects your opinion.

Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

25. I feel grateful for Company A. 1 β γ 4 5 6 7

26. I feel thankful for Company A. 1 β γ 4 5 6 7

27. I feel appreciative of Company A. 1 β γ 4 5 6 7

Please answer the following questions, based on what you read in the story. For each item below, please place an “X” on the appropriate line between each set of terms below that best reflect your thoughts.

28. Overall impression of Company A is:

Bad : : : : : : : Good

29. Overall impression of Company A is:

Unpleasant : : : : : : : Pleasant

30. Overall impression of Company A is:

Unfavorable : : : : : : : Favorable

31. I intend to buy from Company A the next time I purchase a cell phone:

Unlikely : : : : : : : Likely

32. I intend to buy from Company A the next time I purchase a cell phone:

Improbable : : : : : : : Probable

33. I intend to buy from Company A the next time I purchase a cell phone:

Impossible : : : : : : : Possible

Please go to the next page.

173

Please answer the following questions, based on what you read in the story. For each item below, please circle the number that best reflects your opinion.

Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree

34. The story provides information about the amount of money in the football’s team sponsorship deal with Company A. 1 β γ 4 5 6 7

35. The story provides information about the cell phones and service the coaches and staff receive through the sponsorship deal with Company A. 1 β γ 4 5 6 7

Please tell us a little about yourself by checking or filling in the appropriate response.

Gender: _______Female _______Male

Race: _______Caucasian _______Asian _______African American _______Hispanic _______Native American _______Other (please specify) Date of Birth: _______________________(month/year)

Thank you for your participation!

174

REFERENCES

Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1990). Social identification, self-categorization, and social influence. European Review of Social Psychology, 1, 195-228.

Abratt, R. & Grobler, P. S. (1989). The evaluation of sports sponsorships. International Journal

of Advertising, 8, γ51-γ6β. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision

processes, 50, 179-β11. Alexandris, K., Elisabeth, T., & James, J. (β007). Predicting sponsorship outcomes from

attitudinal constructs: The case of a professional basketball event. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 16, 1γ0-1γ9.

Bagozzi, R. P., Gopinath, M., & Nyer, P. U. (1999). The role of emotions in marketing. Journal

of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 184-β06. Balasubramanian, S. K. (1994). Beyond advertising and publicity: Hybrid messages and public

policy issues. Journal of Advertising, 23(4), β9-46. Bartlett, M. Y., & DeSteno, D. (β006). Gratitude and prosocial behavior: Helping when it costs

you. Association for Psychological Science, 17, γ19-γβ5. Batson, C. D. & Powell, A. A. (β00γ). Altruism and prosocial behavior. In I. B. Weiner (Series

Ed.), T. Millen & M. J. Lerner (Volume Eds.), Handbook of Psychology: Vol. 5.

Personality and Social Psychology (pp. 46γ-484). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons. Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Inducing guilt. In J. Bybee (Ed.), Guilt and children (pp. 127-138).

San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Benford, R. D. (2007). The college sports reform movement: Reframing the “Edutainment”

industry. The Sociological Quarterly, 48, 1-28. Berger, F. R. (1975). Gratitude. Ethics, 85, β98-γ09. Browne, M. W. & Cudeck, R. (199β). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological

Methods & Research, 21, βγ0-β58. Bryant, J & Zillmann, D. (2002) Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research (2nd Ed.).

Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

175

Buck, R. (β004). The gratitude of exchange and the gratitude of caring: A developmental-interactionist perspective of moral emotion. In R. A. Emmons & M. E., McCullough (Eds.), The psychology of gratitude (pp. 100-1ββ). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Cazier, J., Corley, K., & Gora, D. (β011). Do independent sustainability audits provide a

competitive advantage? EDPACS, 43(β), 1-14. Chadwick, S. (β00β). The nature of commitment in sport sponsorship relations. International

Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 4, β57-β74. Close, A. G., Finney, R. Z., Lacey, R., & Sneath, J. (β006). Engaging the consumer through event

marketing: Linking attendees with the sponsor, community, and brand. Journal of advertising research, 46, 4β0-4γγ.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (βnd ed.). New York,

NY: Academic Press. Cornwell, B. (1995). Sponsorship-linked marketing development. Sport Marketing Quarterly,

12(4), 1γ-β4. Crimmins, J. & Horn, M. (1996). Sponsorship: From management ego trip to marketing success.

Journal of advertising research, July/August, 11-β1. Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (β005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review.

Journal of Management, 31, 874-900. Dahl, D. W., Honea, H., & Manchanda, R. V. (β005). Three Rs of interpersonal consumer guilt:

relationship. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15, γ07-γ15. Dalakas, V., & Levin, A. (β005). The balance domino: How sponsorship may elicit negative

consumer attitude. Advances in Consumer Research, 32, 91-97. Dean, D. H. (β00β). Associating the corporation with a charitable event through sponsorship:

Measuring the effects on corporate community relations. Journal of Advertising, 31(4), 77-87.

Dees, W., Bennett, G., & Villegas, J. (β008). Measuring the effectiveness of sponsorship of an

elite intercollegiate football program. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 79-89.17γ-186. Dolphin, R. R. (β00γ). Sponsorship perspectives on its strategic role. Corporate

Communications, 8, 17γ- 186. Edwards, K. (1990). The interplay of affect and cognition in attitude formation and change.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, β0β-β16.

176

Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (β006). Building corporate associations: Consumer attributions for corporate socially responsible programs. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34, 147-157.

Emmons, R. A. (β004). The psychology of gratitude: An introduction. In R. A. Emmons & M. E.,

McCullough (Eds.), The psychology of gratitude (pp. 195-β1β). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (β00γ). Counting blessings versus burdens: An

experimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, γ77-γ89.

Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (β004). The psychology of gratitude. New York, NY:

Oxford University Press. Erdogan, B. Z. & Kitchen, P. J. (1998). Managerial mindsets and the symbiotic relationship

between sponsorship and advertising. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 16(6), γ69-γ74.

Fahy, J., Farrelly, F., & Quester, P. (β004). Competitive advantage through sponsorship: A

conceptual model and research propositions. European Journal of Marketing, 38, 101γ-10γ0.

Fishbein, M. (1967). Attitude and the prediction of behavior. In M. Fishbein, (Eds.), Readings in

attitude theory and measurement (pp. 477-49β). New York, NY: Wiley. Fiske, S. (198β). Schema-triggered affect: Applications to social perception. In M. S. Clark, & S.

T. Fiske (Eds.), Affection and cognition: The seventeenth annual Carnegie symposium on cognition (pp. 55-78). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Fiske, S. & Taylor, S. (1991). Social cognition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Fitzgerald, P. (1998). Gratitude and Justice. Ethics, 109, 119-15γ. Folkes, V. S. (1988). Recent attribution research in consumer behavior: A review and new

directions. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 548-565. Folkers,V. S., Koletsky, S., & Graham, J. H. (1987). A field study of causal inferences and

consumer reaction: The view from the airport. Journal of Consumer Research, 1γ(4), 5γ4-5γ9.

Fornell, C. & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable

Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, γ9-50.

177

Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Gratitude like other positive emotions, broadens and builds. In R. Emmons & M. E. McCullough (Eds.), The psychology of gratitude (pp. 145–166). New York: Oxford University Press.

Frey, J. H., & Eitzen, D. S. (1991). Sport and Society. Annual Review of Sociology, 17, 50γ-5ββ. Frijda, N.H. (1986), The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Funk, D. C., & James, J. (β001). The psychological continuum model: A conceptual framework

for understanding an individual’s psychological connection to sport. Sport Management Review, 4, 119-150.

Funk, D. C., & James, J. D. (β004). The Fan Attitude Network (FAN) model: exploring attitude

formation and change among sport consumers. Sport Management Review, 7, 1-β6. Gardner, M. P., & Shuman, P. (1988). Sponsorships and small businesses. Journal of Small

Business Management, 26(4), 44-5β. Gilmour, L. (Ed.). (β006). Collins English dictionary and thesaurus (βnd ed.). Glasgow,

Scotland: HarperCollins. Gladden, J. M., & Funk, D. C. (β00β). Developing an understanding of brand associations in

team sport: Empirical evidence from consumers of professional sport. Journal of Sport Management, 16, 54-81.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American

Sociological Review, 25, 161-178. Greenberg, J. S. & Hertzfeld, H. R. (199β). Space economics. Washington, D. C.: American

Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Guilford, J. P., & Fruchter, B. (1978). Fundamental statistics in psychology and education (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Gwinner, K. (1997). A model of image creation and image transfer in event sponsorship.

International Marketing Review, 14, 145-158. Gwinner, K. P., & Eaton, J. (1999). Building brand image through event sponsorship: The role of

image transfer. Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 47-57. Gwinner, K., & Swanson, S. (β00γ). A model of fan identification: antecedents and sponsorship

outcomes. Journal of Services Marketing, 17, β75-β94. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (β006). Multivariate

Data Analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

178

Hallahan, K. (1999). Content class as a contextual cue in the cognitive processing of publicity versus advertising. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11, β9γ-γβ0.

Havitz, M. E., & Dimanche, F. (1997). Leisure involvement revisited: Conceptual conundrums

and measurement advances. Journal of Leisure Research, 29, β45-β78. Heffler, M. (1994). Making sure sponsorship meet all the parameters. Brandweek, 35(β0), 16. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations.

Journal of Management, 21, 967-988. Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup

relations and group processes. New York, NY: Routledge. Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and Persuasion. New Haven,

CT: Yale University Press. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:

Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. Hughes, R. & Coakley, J. (1984). Mass society and commercialization of sport. Sociology of

Sport Journal, 1(1), 57-6γ. IEG (β011). Sponsorship spending: β010 proves better than expected; bigger gains set for β011.

IEG Sponsorship Report, January 4, 1-4. Irwin, R. L., Lachowetz, T., Cornwell, T. B. & Clark, J. S. (β00γ). Cause-related sport

sponsorship: an assessment of spectator beliefs, attitudes, and behavioral intentions. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12, 1γ1-1γ9.

Johnson, A.R. & Stewart, D.W. (2005). A reappraisal of the role of emotion in consumer

behavior: traditional and contemporary approaches, in Malhotra, N.K. (Ed.). Review of

Marketing Research, Vol. 1, (pp3-33). Armonk, NJ: ME Sharpe. Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2004). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and

mixed approaches (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc. Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis.

Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290-314. Kardes, Frank R. (β00β). Consumer behavior and Managerial Decision Making (βnd ed.). Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

179

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

Kelley, H. H. (197γ). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28, 107-1β8. Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual review of

psychology, 31, 457-501. Kline, R. (β004). Beyond significance testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association. Kim, Y. (β010). Single versus multiple team sponsorship: A study of consumer inferences.

Doctoral Dissertation, Florida State University. Kim, Y. K., Smith, R., & James, J. D. (β010). The role of gratitude in sponsorship: The case of

participant sports. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 5γ-75. Kolyesnikova, N., & Dodd, T. H. (2008). Effects of winery visitor group size on gratitude and

obligation. Journal of Travel Research, 1–9. Komter, A. E. (β004). Gratitude and gift exchange. In R. A. Emmons & M. E., McCullough

(Eds.), The psychology of gratitude (pp. 195-β1β). New York: Oxford University Press. Kyle, G., Absher, J., Norman, W., Hammitt, W., & Jodice, L. (β007). A modified involvement

scale. Leisure Studies, 26, γ99-4β7. Lantos, G. P. (β001). The boundaries of strategic corporate social responsibility. Journal of

Consumer Marketing, 18, 595-6γ0. Lazarus, L. (1984). Sports sponsorship requires marketing expertise, realistic expectations, and

social responsibility. Marketing News, 18(8), 14. Lazarus, R. S. (1982). Thoughts on the relations between emotion and cognition. American

Psychologist, 37, 1019-1024. Lazarus, R. S. (1991a). Emotion and Adaptation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Lazarus, R. S. (1991b). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion.

American Psychologist, 46, 819-834. Lazarus, R. S. (2001). Relational meaning and discrete emotions. In K. R. Scherer, & A. Schorr,

& T. Johnstone (Eds.). Appraisal processes in emotion: theory, methods, research. (pp. γ7-67). Canary, NC: Oxford University Press.

180

Lazarus, R. S., & Lazarus, B. N. (1994). Passion and Reason: Making sense of our emotions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Lee, H., Herr, P. M., Kardes, F. R., & Kim, C. (1999). Motivated search: Effects of choice

accountability, issue involvement, and prior knowledge on information acquisition and use. Journal of Business Research, 45, 74-88.

Lee, M., Sandler, D., & Shani, D. (1997). Attitudinal constructs towards sponsorship: Scale

development using three global sporting events. International Marketing Review, 159-169.

Leith, K. P. & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Empathy, shame, guilt, and narratives of interpersonal

conflicts: Guilt-prone people are better at perspective taking. Journal of Personality, 66, 1-γ7.

Lutz, R. J. (1981). The role of attitude theory in marketing. In H. H. Kassarjian & T. S.

Robertson (Eds.). Perspectives in consumer behavior (pp. βγγ-β50). Scott, IL: Foresm. 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. Madrigal, R. (β001). Social identity effects in a belief-attitude-intentions hierarchy: Implications

for corporate sponsorship. Psychology & Marketing, 18, 145-165. Martensen, A., Gronholdt, L., Bendtsen, L., & Jensen, M. J. (β007). Application of a model for

the effectiveness of event marketing. Journal of advertising research, β8γ-γ01. McAlister, D.T. and Ferrell, L. (2002). The role of strategic philanthropy in marketing strategy.

European Journal of Marketing, 36, 689-705. McAllister, M. P. (1998). College bowl sponsorship and the increased commercialization of

amateur sports. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 15, 357-381.

McConnell, T. C. (199γ). Gratitude. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. McCracken, G. (1989). Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsement

process, Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 310-21. McCullough, M. E., Kilpatrick, S. D., Emmons, R. A., & Larson, D. B. (β001). Is gratitude a

moral affect? Psychological Bulletin, 127, β49-β66. McDonald, C. (1999). An investigation of match-up effects in sport sponsorship advertising: The

implications of consumer advertising schemas. Psychology and Marketing, 16(β), 16γ-184.

181

McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and Attitude Change in Handbook of Social Psychology: Vol. 2. In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (Eds.). NY: Random House, 233-346.

Meenaghan, T. (1983). Commercial sponsorship. European Journal of Marketing, 17(7), 1-74. Meenaghan, T. & Shipley, D. (1999). Media effect in commercial sponsorship. European Journal

of Marketing, 33, γβ8-γ47. Meenaghan, T. (β001a). Understanding sponsorship effects. Psychology and Marketing, 18, 95-

1ββ. Meenaghan, T. (β001b). Sponsorship and advertising: A comparison of consumer perceptions.

Psychology and Marketing, 18, 191-β15. Misra, S., & Beatty, S. E. (1990). Celebrity spokesperson and brand congruence: An assessment

of recall and affect. Journal of Business Research, 21, 159-17γ. Morales, A. C. (β005). Giving firms an “E” for effort: Consumer responses to high-effort firms.

Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 806-81β. Musante, M., Milne, G. R., & McDonald, M. A. (1999). Sport sponsorship: Evaluating the sport

and brand image match. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 1, γβ-47.

Muthen, B. O., & Satorra, A. (1995). Complex sample data in structural equation modeling.

Sociological Methodology, 25, β67-γ16. Nyer, P. U. (1997). A study of the relationships between cognitive appraisals and consumption

emotions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25, β96-γ04. Olson, E. L. (β010). Does sponsorship work in the same way in different sponsorship contexts?

European Journal of Marketing, 44, 180-199. O’Reilly, N. J., & Madill, J. (β007). Evaluating social marketing elements in sponsorship. Social

Marketing Quarterly, 13(4), 1-β5. Papadimitrios, D., & Apostolopoulou, A. (β009). Olympic sponsorship activation and the

creation of competitive advantage. Journal of Promotion Management, 15, 90-117. Palmatier, R.W., Jarvis, C.B., Bechkoff, J.R. & Kardes, F.R. (2009). The role of customer

gratitude in relationship marketing, Journal of Marketing, 73(5), 1-18. Pearsall, J., & Trumble, B. (Eds.). (1996). The Oxford English reference dictionary (2nd ed.).

New York: Oxford University Press.

182

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral

routes to persuasion. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of

argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 41, 847-855. Porter, M. E. & Kramer, M. R. (β00β). The competitive advantage of corporate philanthropy.

Harvard Business Review, 80(1β), 56-68. Rifon, N., Choi, S., Trimble, C., & Li, H. (β004). Congruence effect in sponsorship. Journal of

Advertising, 33, β9-4β. Roy, D., & Cornwell, T. B. (β00γ). Brand equity's influence on responses to event sponsorships.

Journal of Product & Brand Management, 12, γ77-γ9γ. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (β004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects

in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 717-7γ1.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (β008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and

comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.

Ryan, M. J. (198β). Behavioral intention formation: The interdependency of attitudinal and social

influence variables. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, β6γ-β78. Saiia, D. H., Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. K. (β00γ). Philanthropy as strategy: When corporate

charity begins at home. Business and Society, 4β, 169-β01. Sandler, D., & Shani, D. (1989). Olympic sponsorship vs. ambush marketing: Who gets the

gold? Journal of Advertising Research, 9-14. Sandler, D. M., & Shani, D. Sponsorship and the Olympic Games: The consumer perspective.

Sport Marketing Quarterly, 2(γ), γ8-4γ. Scherer, K. R. (1999). Appraisal theory. In T. Dalgleish & M. J. Power (Eds.), Handbook of

cognition and emotion (pp. 637-663). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Schorr, A. (β010). Appraisal: the evolution of an idea. In K. R. Scherer, & A. Schorr, & T.

Johnstone (Ed.). Appraisal processes in emotion: theory, methods, research. (pp. β0-γ4). Canary, NC: Oxford University Press.

Schumann, D. W., Hathcote, J. M., & West, S. (1991). Corporate advertising in America: A

review of published studies on use, measurement, and effectiveness, Journal of Advertising, 20(γ), γ5-56.

183

Shanklin, W., & Kuzma, J. (199β). Buying that sporting image: What senior executives need to know about corporate sports sponsorship. Marketing Management, 1(β), 58-67.

Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A meta-

analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, γβ5-γ4γ.

Simmons, A. J. (1979). Moral principles and political obligations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press. Simmons, C. J., & Becker-Olsen, K. L. (β006). Achieving marketing objectives through social

sponsorships. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 154-169. Simon, R.L. (β004). Fair Play: The ethics of sport second edition. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Smith, C. A. & Kirby, L. D. (β009). Putting appraisal in context: Toward a relational model of

appraisal and emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 23, 1γ5β-1γ7β.

Smith, C. A. & Lazarus, R. S. (1990). Chapter 23. Emotion and Adaptation. In L.A. Pervin (Ed.). Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research. (pp. 609-637). New York, NY: Guilford.

Soscia, I. (β007). Emotions in predicting postconsumption behaviors. Psychology & Marketing,

24, 871- 894. Speed, R., & Thompson, P. (β000). Determinants of sports sponsorship response. Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, ββ6-βγ8. Stotlar. D. K. (β005). Sport Management Library: Developing successful sport sponsorship plans

(2nd Ed.). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology. Tangney, J. P., Miller, R. S., Flicker, L., & Barlow, D. H. (1996). Are shame, guilt and

embarrassment distinct emotions? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,

1256–1269. Sujan, M., & Bettman, J. R. (1989). The effects of brand positioning strategies on consumers’

brand and category perceptions: Some insights from schema research. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 454-467.

Tesser, A., Gatewood, R. & Driver, M. (1968) Some determinants of gratitude. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 233–236. Tong, E. M. W., Bishop, G. D., Enkelmann, H. C., Why, Y. P., Diong, S. M., Khader, M., &

Ang, J. (2007). Emotion and appraisal: A study using ecological momentary assessment. Cognition and Emotion, 21, 1361-1381.

184

Verduyn, P., Mechelen, I. V., & Tuerlinckx, F. (2011). The relation between event processing and duration of emotional experience. Emotion, 11, 20-28.

Walliser, B. (β00γ). An international review of sponsorship research: Extension and update.

International Journal of Advertising, 22, 5-40. Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1995). Influence of identification with a sports team on

objective knowledge and subjective beliefs. International Journal of Sport Psychology,

26, 551-567. Watson, L., & Spence, M. T. (β007). Causes and consequences of emotions on consumer

behavior: A review and integrative cognitive appraisal theory. European Journal of Marketing, 41, 487-511.

Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (1998). A typology of consumer responses to cause-related

marketing: From Skeptics to socially concerned. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 17, ββ6-βγ8.

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.

Psychological review, 92, 548-57γ. Weiner, J. (2000). Selling world peace at $55 million a pop. Business Week (October 10), 110. Westland, J. C. (2010). Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electronic

Commerce Research and Applications, 9, 476-487. Wright, M. and MacRae, M., (β007), Bias and Variability in Purchase Intention Scales. Journal

of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(4), 617-6β4. Zhang, A., Won, D., & Pastore, D. L. (β005). The effects of attitudes toward commercialization

on college students’ purchasing intentions of sponsors’ products. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 14, 177-187.

185

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Yuko Sawatari was born and raised in Tokyo, Japan. She received her Bachelor’s

degree in physical education from Tamagawa University. Prior to beginning the Master’s

program in Sport Management at Florida State University in β004, she worked as a

Customer Service Representative and subsequently engaged in business planning for

footwear sales at Reebok Japan Inc. for three years. She then joined Salomon &

TaylorMade Co., Ltd. and worked in the marketing department for two years. Under the

advisement of Prof. Jeffrey D. James, Yuko obtained her Master’s degree in the fall of β006 and

enrolled in the doctoral program at FSU in the spring of β007.

Yuko’s research interests include sponsorship, endorsement, and corporate social

responsibility. She hopes to pursue a career in sport industry.