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 [email protected]
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.
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.
Top Related