Journal of Sport Management, 2012, 26, 177-191
© 2012 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Toward Team or Player? How Trust, Vicarious Achievement
Motive, and Identification Affect Fan Loyalty
Shih-Hao Wu, Ching-Yi Daphne Tsai, and Chung-Chieh Hung
National Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology
This study extends literature on the effects of fan identification on fan loyalty, and antecedents that trigger
such effects. This study incorporates trust, a key relationship marketing construct, in the sport industry. The
relationship between trust and two other critical antecedents of sport fan loyalty, identification and vicarious
achievement motive, is examined from the perspectives of both fan-player and fan-team. The results show
that antecedents from distinct perspectives influence loyalty differently. Team identification (fan-team level) is
the major determinant of fans’ repatronage intention, with trust in the team as the key driver. However, player
identification (fan-player level) has an indirect effect, which must go through team identification to repatronage intention. Therefore, sport organizations are recommended to invest a substantial part of their resources
on activities that generate long-term effects, such as trust in the team and team identification, rather than on
short-term strategies such as attracting star players.
Loyal customers are considered as the key contributors to organizational profitability and success (Ferrand,
Robinson, & Valette-Florence, 2010). In sport, fan loyalty
is viewed as the strength of the relationship between a
fan’s attitude and repeat patronage and as the enhancement of a team’s competitive advantage (Bee & Kahle,
2006; Funk & James, 2001). This merit has compelled
sport organizations to invest increasingly on customer
relationship management (CRM) programs (Bauer,
Stokburger-Sauer, & Exler, 2008; Park & Kim, 2000),
through which they can focus on long-term consumer
retention and strengthen customer relationships.
The factors that help build fan loyalty have been the
subjects of extensive research (Bauer et al., 2008; Funk
& James, 2006; Heere & Dickson 2008). Mainstream
research focuses on the personal factors influencing
fan loyalty, for example, attitude formation and mental
associations (Funk, Haugtvedt, & Howard, 2000; Funk
& Pastore, 2000; Gladden & Funk, 2002), as well as the
motives of sport consumers (McDonald, Milne, & Hong,
2002; Trail & James, 2001; Wann, 1995). Majority of
these studies are based on the assumption that such loyalty is built upon a fair game played by the teams or the
players. This assumption might neglect the importance
of other constructs, for example, trust.
Trust, a construct influencing fans’ attitude as well
as behavior toward relationship formation, has attracted
Wu and Hung are with the Dept. of Marketing and Distribution
Management, National Kaohsiung First University of Science
and Technology, Kaohsiung City, Taiwan. Tsai is with the
College of Management, National Kaohsiung First University
of Science and Technology, Kaohsiung City, Taiwan, and the
Dept. of Marketing and Distribution Management, Kao Yuan
University, Kaohsiung City, Taiwan.
minimal attention from researchers in the sport industry
(Bee & Kahle, 2006). One of the few exceptions is the
study of Wann and Polk (2007) examining the correlation
between identification and beliefs in the trustworthiness
of others. Trust is an essential element in a long-term
relationship (Doney & Cannon, 1997; Hennig-Thurau,
Gwinner, & Gremler, 2002), as well as the belief in the
exchange partner’s credibility/honesty and benevolence
(Ganesan, 1994; Kumar, Scheer, & Steenkamp, 1995).
Such belief is aligned with the spirit of sport, which
values honesty as the foundation of sport activities and
leads fans to expect that cheating is never allowed in any
sport activity. Fans are more likely to initiate or maintain
a long-term relationship when their expectations of honesty are consistently met. In other words, sport organizations must gain fans’ trust before obtaining their loyalty
(Reichheld & Schefter, 2000). To provide an example
supporting the said statement, the number of audience
in the Chinese Professional Baseball League (CPBL)
games dropped by about 50% immediately after the two
game fixing scandals that happened in 1997 and 2005.
We anticipate that trust is the foundation of fan loyalty
and so deserves further investigations.
Extant studies discussing factors triggering fan loyalty
(Funk, Mahony, & Ridinger, 2002; Mahony, Nakazawa,
Funk, James, & Gladden, 2002; Sloan, 1989; Wann &
Branscombe, 1993) tend to view distinct objects, for example, the player and the team, to whom fans are loyal on
the same level. Such practice is inconsistent with findings
in management literature (e.g., Macintosh & Lockshin,
1997; Reynolds & Beatty, 1999). Business researchers
have observed that factors from different relationship
levels, such as customer-salesperson and customer-firm
levels, generate diverse impact on loyalty and should
be treated differently (e.g., Iacobucci & Ostrom, 1996;
177
178 Wu, Tsai, and Hung
Palmatier, Scheer, Houston, Evans, & Gopalakrishna,
2007; Sirdeshmukh, Singh, & Sabol, 2002). Applying the
same concept to the sport context, the role of fans aligns
with the role of customers in business settings, whereas
the team is a form of an organization. Therefore, the relationships between fan-player and fan-team should not be
combined and examined as one. However, to the best of
our knowledge, no sport studies have examined the path
relationships of both levels simultaneously. Failure to
consider such differences may overlook important insights
derived from relationships of different levels.
Moreover, for this study to better fit into the sport
field, we include two well-documented sport constructs
in it. Vicarious achievement motive and identification are
critical driving forces for fan loyalty (Fink, Parker, Brett,
& Higgins, 2009; Laverie & Arnett, 2000; Sloan, 1989;
Wann & Branscombe, 1993). By incorporating trust into
the study, how would the relationship among these three
constructs alter? How do they impact fan loyalty through
fan-player and fan-team relationships? These research
questions are worthy of being clarified.
Therefore, the main purpose of this study is (1) to
incorporate trust, the keystone of long-term relationship,
to the sport context and to explore the critical antecedents
affecting sport fans’ loyalty; (2) to examine empirically
the relationships among trust, vicarious achievement
motives, and identification in the sport field, as well as
the impact these variables have on fan loyalty; and (3) to
undertake both fan-player and fan-team aspects and reveal
the effects of constructs from both levels on fan loyalty.
This paper is organized as follows. Literature review
defines and describes the constructs, followed by a proposal of hypotheses for testing. Research methods and
data analysis procedures are then presented, followed by
the findings and the implications of study.
Conceptual Background
and Hypothesis
Fan Loyalty
Loyalty, in the context of sport, is viewed as a commitment
to a specific team that is persistent, resistant to change,
and influences cognitive thoughts and behavior (Funk &
Pastore, 2000; Funk & James, 2006). Prior studies have first
identified a number of social factors affecting fan loyalty.
Some researchers later looked into the individual aspect and
became interested in the formation of the attitude of fans
and its relationship to individual factors (Funk et al., 2000;
Gladden & Funk, 2002). Our interest is on investigating the
effect of psychological factors such as trust, identification,
and vicarious achievement motive on fan loyalty.
Researchers posit that loyalty is composed of both
attitudinal and behavioral components (Jacoby & Chestnut, 1978; Hennig-Thurau, Langer, & Hansen, 2001).
There is no consensus on what is preferred between the
two perspectives because each explains loyalty in different research contexts. The attitudinal perspective, considered as a process of psychological attachment leading to
increased intention to repurchase (Park & Kim, 2000),
has been identified in the literature as the key predictor
of actual behavior (Ajzen & Driver, 1992; Fujimoto &
Harada, 2000). Therefore, repatronage intention, representing the attitudinal perspective, is used to measure fan
loyalty. Repatronage intention is defined as the decision
made by consumers on whether to purchase a specific
product or service from the same company based on
their current situation (Hellier, Geursen, Carr, & Rickard,
2003). Repatronage intention has been used to predict
actual repatronage behavior and, in most instances, has
been a reliable indicator. In sport, fans express their
repatronage intention through showing their willingness
to attend related events continuously, as well as to repeat
purchase of sport activity tickets (Bee & Kahle, 2006) and
team-licensed products (Kwon, Trail, & James, 2007).
Determinants of Fan Loyalty
Identification. In sport, identification refers to “an
orientation of the self in regard to other objects including
a person or group that results in feelings or sentiments
of close attachment” (Trail, Anderson, & Fink, 2000,
p. 165–166). Identification has been recognized as a
key antecedent of fan loyalty (Sloan, 1989; Wann &
Branscombe, 1993), and an important driving force for
fans to attend sport events or purchase related products
continuously (Fink, Parker, Brett, & Higgins, 2009;
Laverie & Arnett, 2000). Researchers frequently adopt
the social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) to
explain the causal relationship between identification
and loyalty. According to the social identity theory,
people possess both personal identity, which comprises
distinctive attributes such as abilities, and social
identity, which contains significant group categories
such as organizational membership (Tajfel & Turner,
1986). Individuals are inclined to identify with an
organization that holds attributes similar to their own
self-concept and to commit themselves to actions that
support the organization (Cornwell & Coote, 2005;
Dutton & Dukerick, 1991). Therefore, identification
plays an important role in influencing fans’ willingness
to repatronize sport events and products (Trail, Fink, &
Anderson, 2003; Wann & Branscombe, 1993).
Researchers have recognized four behavioral tendencies of sport fans relating to identification (Campbell,
Aiken, & Kent, 2004; Cialdini et al., 1976; Funk et al.,
2000). When a team experiences a successful season,
fans tend to bask in reflected glory (BIRG) by revealing their association with the winning team by wearing
team-identifying apparel and saying “we won” instead of
“they won” (Cialdini et al., 1976; Tajfel, 1981). On the
contrary, when a team fails, fans are inclined to cut off
reflected failure (CORF) by distancing from the unsuccessful team, particularly by avoiding actions that would
demonstrate association with the losing team (Funk et al.,
2000). Campbell, Aiken, and Kent (2004) observe that
fans may react differently from BIRGing and CORFing
when faced with a team’s success or failure. Fans may
Trust, Vicarious Achievement Motive, and Identification Affecting Fan Loyalty 179
bask in reflected failure (BIRF), referring to trumpeting of
one’s association with a team, such as by remaining loyal
to its favorite team despite its failures. Fans may also cut
off reflected success (CORS), referring to dissociation of
oneself from the winning team. How the behavior of fans
is categorized is determined by both the performance of
the team (win vs. lose) and the response of the fans (stay
vs. leave) at a certain point of time. In the current study,
the main focus is on BIRGing and CORFing.
Furthermore, studies have discussed the objects or
points at which individuals form a meaningful psychological connection (Funk & James, 2006). Various points
of attachment or identification, including player, team,
coach, university, community, sport, and level, have been
identified by researchers (e.g., Trail, Robinson, Gillentine, & Dick, 2003). To illustrate, fans are attracted by
star players, for example baseball players Alex Rodriguez
(A-Rod) of the New York Yankees, Ichiro Suzuki of the
Seattle Mariners, as well as David Ortiz of the Boston Red
Sox, to participate in activities attended or performed in
by these players. In such cases, these star players serve
as the objects that fans identify with. Fans likewise attend
a game to cheer for their favorite teams, and objects
that fans identify with are the teams. However, the main
focus of researchers remains solely on team identification
(Robinson & Trail, 2005; Robinson, Trail, & Kwon, 2004,
Sloan, 1989; Wann & Branscombe, 1993). This may leave
out important insights into the effects generated by other
points of attachment on fan loyalty. Therefore, the current study looks into the difference between the effect of
player identification and the effect of team identification,
and both are examined simultaneously on fan loyalty.
Team Identification. Team identification is defined as the
individuals’ perception of the link between themselves
and the sport team, even considering the successes
and failures of the team as their personal experiences
(Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Researchers suggest that team
identification is a useful predictor for sport consumption
behavior or intention (Robinson et al., 2004; Sloan, 1989;
Wann & Branscombe, 1993). When fans highly identify
themselves with a team, they are willing to attend the
team’s competitions even during bad seasons to express
support (Wakefield & Sloan, 1995). Such behavior
tendency caused by identification leads to various
positive outcomes, such as intention to purchase teamlicensed apparel (Kwon et al., 2007) and increased event
attendance (Bhattacharya, Rao, & Glynn, 1995). Further,
researchers have demonstrated that team identification
has a positive impact on fans’ consumption intention
(Fisher, 1998; Fisher & Wakefield, 1998), as well as
plays a strong role in influencing fan loyalty (Wann &
Branscombe, 1993). Mahony et al. (2002) also find that
strong team identification is necessary for fans to keep
coming back.
Player Identification. Relatively few studies, compared
with team identification, expound on player identification,
and they treat such construct as simply another point
of attachment for fans (Mahony et al., 2002; Robinson
& Trail, 2005; Trail et al., 2003). Researchers define
player identification based on the extension of team
identification (Trail et al., 2000; Robinson et al., 2004).
In the current study, player identification refers to the
orientation of the self toward another person which results
in close attachment (Trail et al., 2000). In other words, it is
the individuals’ perception of the link between themselves
and specific players which is interpersonal relationships,
and the consideration of the successes and failures of the
players as their personal experiences.
Player identification has been assumed to influence
fans’ consumption intention. Researchers also posit that
the attachment to a favorite player can be strong and
may influence fan behavior (Mahony, et al., 2002). To
illustrate, an increase in attendance is attributed to star
players in both U.S. professional baseball and basketball (Gladden & Funk, 2002). Studies also reveal that a
more intense attachment to a specific individual leads to
consequences that are favored by organizations, such as
preventing consumer defections (Liljander & Strandvik,
1995), predicting brand loyalty and willingness to pay
(Thomson, MacInnis, & Park, 2005). In other words, a
strong attachment to a specific individual, for example, a
player, results in fans’ high willingness for repatronage.
Moreover, studies in the management literature have
examined the effect of similar constructs, such as satisfaction (in an interpersonal relationship level), on loyalty in
firm level (Crosby, Evans, & Cowles, 1990; Macintosh,
2007; Palmatier et al., 2007). Satisfaction toward salespeople has been observed to influence customers’ future
intention such as their willingness to repurchase from the
firm (Crosby et al., 1990). Macintosh (2007) also posited
that the relationship quality of interpersonal relationship
affects customers’ loyalty to the firm. These findings can
be extended to the relationship between player identification and repurchase intention. Therefore, we propose
the following:
H1: Sport fans’ player identification positively influences the fans’ repatronage intention.
H2: Sport fans’ team identification positively influences the fans’ repatronage intention.
Apart from the impact on fans’ repatronage intention, the relationship between player identification and
team identification requires clarification as well. The
respondents in Wann, Tucker, and Schrader’s (1996) study
considered player identification or attachment to the players as one of the primary reasons for becoming attached
and for continuing to be attached to the team. A study
by Hong, McDonald, Yoon, and Fujimoto (2005), which
investigates the relationships between identification with
the players and the teams, reveals that team identification
is positively influenced by fans’ identification with the
players. Moreover, studies that examine the relationships
among customer-salespeople and customer-firm have
discovered that the former relationship can affect the
latter because customers perceive the salesperson as an
agent of the firm (Iacobucci & Ostrom, 1996; Palmatier
et al., 2007; Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002). These findings
180 Wu, Tsai, and Hung
are extended to the current study, and the following
hypothesis is proposed:
H3: Sport fans’ player identification positively influences the fans’ team identification.
Trust. Trust is defined as the perception of the credibility
and benevolence of one’s partner (Doney & Cannon,
1997), and an essential element in relationship building
(Ganesan 1994; Wilson 1995). Researchers in the service
literature posit that customers may not know the exact
service outcome before or after availing the service
because many services contain credence attributes,
which refer to customers’ inability to distinguish service
performance even after experiencing it (Chiou, Droge,
& Hanvanich, 2002; Trawick & Swan, 1981). Therefore,
managing customers’ trust is critical for service firms.
Sport is considered a type of service in which fans are not
capable of discerning if an unethical game is performed
on the field. In such case, the extent to which fans trust
the team or the player influences their willingness to
attend the games or purchase related products. Trust is
also expected to play a key role in long-term relationship
building between fans and the team, as well as among
the players.
Trust was first used to explain interpersonal relationships (Rotter, 1967; Schlenker, Helm, & Tedeschi, 1973)
and was later expanded to cover organization-related
subjects, such as critical influence on organizational
behaviors (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Trust has been used
widely to explain the relationship between employees and
organizations. For example, identification is strengthened
when employees believe that the organizational authorities are trustworthy and are able to carry out obligations of
the organization (Restubog, Hornsey, Bordia, & Esposo,
2008). Moreover, the finding of Keh and Xie’s (2009)
empirical study, which examines the positive relationship
between trust and identification, strongly supports such
hypothesis. The aforementioned concepts and evidence
can be extended to the current study to explain the relationship between trust in player (team) and player (team)
identification. Therefore, we propose that:
H4: Sport fans’ trust in player positively influences
the fans’ player identification.
H5: Sport fans’ trust in team positively influences
the fans’ team identification.
Vicarious Achievement Motive. Vicarious achievement
motive has always been one of the most frequently
suggested motives that affect behavior of fans (Mahony
et al., 2002; Robinson & Trail, 2005; Trail et al., 2003).
According to the social identity theory, vicarious
achievement motive refers to the desire to preserve a
positive self-concept through the success of an object.
To illustrate the idea, sport fans believe that they cannot
only feel a sense of personal achievement, but also
increase their self esteem when their favorite teams
succeed. That is, people attain a feeling of vicarious
achievement by being fans (Kimble & Cooper, 1992).
For fans who are searching for the fulfillment of their
vicarious achievement motive, they are more likely to
BIRG by saying “we won” when their favorite team
wins. On the other hand, these fans CORF by saying
“they lost” when the team fails (Cialdini et al., 1976).
Moreover, fans are inclined to select a team with better
performance, thus have a higher opportunity to get a sense
of achievement (Branscombe & Wann, 1991; Mahony,
Madrigal, & Howard, 2000). Such findings serve as
the theoretical support for studies that demonstrate the
positive effect of vicarious achievement motive on team
identification (Fink et al., 2002; Trail et al., 2003; Wann
& Branscombe, 1993)
Although vicarious achievement seeking toward
individual players is seldom discussed in studies, such
phenomenon does exist among fans (Funk et al., 2002;
Trail et al., 2000; Trail et al., 2003). Evidence has revealed
that fans’ vicarious achievement motive toward an individual player, a golfer for example, positively relates to
their identification with the said player (Robinson et al.,
2004). Therefore, the following is proposed:
H6: Sport fans’ vicarious achievement motive toward
a player positively influences the fans’ identification with
that player.
H7: Sport fans’ vicarious achievement motive toward
a team positively influences the fans’ identification with
that team.
Figure 1 depicts the hypothesized relationships
between these constructs.
Method
Participants
Data were collected through two different stages. At the
pretest stage, 26 participants who attended the CPBL
games at the Kaohsiung Stadium on September 20, 2008
were recruited to fill up the questionnaires. The results
showed that the Cronbach’s a for all the items in our
measurement exceeded the recommended level (0.7),
proposed by Nunally (1978), indicating a good reliability. Therefore, all the items remained in the final survey
which was conducted through personal interviews by the
authors at the baseball stadium during the data collection
period. To maintain robustness of study, respondents were
asked two questions before the conduct of further interview. This method determined the appropriate samples
for the study. The questions included the following: 1)
Are you a fan of a specific team in CPBL? (2) Does your
most favorite player belong to the team identified in the
previous question? Answers to the said questions should
be affirmative, otherwise, the interview was terminated.
Data in the actual survey stage were collected
through the convenience sampling method of fans who
attended the CPBL games in the same stadium from
October 10–20, 2008. Baseball fans were chosen as the
research target because baseball is viewed as a team
sport and every player is involved in contributing to the
performance. In a team, star players generally attract
Trust, Vicarious Achievement Motive, and Identification Affecting Fan Loyalty 181
Figure 1 — Conceptual model
greater attention from fans than other players, making
them stand out in the games. Therefore, baseball fits the
context of this study, allowing the examination of how
antecedents impact fans’ repatronage intention in fanplayer and fan-team relationships.
Of the 249 completed interviews, 32 were eliminated
because of missing information, which left us with a total
of 217 final, usable surveys. Because our data were collected through convenience sampling method, it is considered as a nonnormal sample set. However, our sample
size was large enough to indicate the representation of
the data collected. The final sample was dominated by
male respondents (67.7%) at the age of under 30 (92.2%).
Around 52% of the respondents were students while
38.1% were employed by a third party, and most of them
held a college or above degree (91.3%).
Measures
Twenty-one items were drawn from past studies to
measure the constructs in a five- point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).
In line with prior studies, we operationalized trust as
“existing when one party has confidence in an exchange
partner’s reliability and integrity” (Morgan & Hunt, 1994,
p.23). Trust consists of two dimensions, trust in player
and trust in team, in the current study and was measured
by items adopted from Doney and Cannon (1997) and
Hennig-Thurau et al. (2002), respectively. Vicarious
achievement motive is operationalized as “the need for
social prestige, self-esteem and sense of empowerment
that an individual can receive from their association
with a successful team” (Fink, Trail, & Anderson, 2002,
p.198). Items for both vicarious achievement motives
on player and on the team were drawn from Trail et al.
(2003) and McDonald et al. (2000). Meanwhile, the items
of “player identification” and “team identification” were
adopted from Trail et al. (2003) and were operationalized
as the feelings or sentiments of close attachment which
are generated from an orientation of the self with regard
to other objects such as a person or group. Repatronage
intention is operationalized as the positive and persistent
future behavior intention of a fan including stadium
visits, watching of games on TV, and even merchandise
purchases. Repatronage intention was measured through
the three items adopted from Bauer et al. (2008). Table
1 shows a description of all the variables included in the
study, whereas Table 2 presents the estimated correlation
matrix between the constructs.
Following Anderson and Gerbing’s (1988) work, a
two-step modeling approach was used. First, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to assess
the measurement model, including the examination of
construct reliability and convergent and discriminate
validity. Second, path analysis was conducted to test the
hypotheses. The measurement model reached an acceptable level of χ2 /df ratio (i.e., 366.30/168 = 2.18 < 3.0, p
= .00), and other fit indices also suggested that the model
achieved an acceptable fit for the data (GFI = 0.86; AGFI
= 0.81; SRMR = 0.056; RMSEA = 0.056). To evaluate
182 Wu, Tsai, and Hung
Table 1 Factor Loadings, Composite Reliability, and Average Variance Extracted Values (AVE) for
Scale Items
Factor
loading
Items
Trust in player
The player is perfectly honest and truthful
0.87**
The player can be trusted completely
0.86***
The player has high integrity
0.79***
Trust in team
This team keeps promises it makes to its fans
0.61***
I believe the information that this team provides me
0.74***
This team is trustworthy
0.80***
Vicarious achievement motive toward player
The performance of the player is important to me
0.62***
I feel a personal sense of achievement when the player does well
0.84***
I feel proud when the team plays well
0.83***
Vicarious achievement motive toward team
I feel a personal sense of achievement when the team does well
0.82***
I feel like I have won when the team wins
0.82***
I feel proud when the team plays well
0.80***
Player identification
I identify with the individual players on the team than with the team
0.67***
I am a big fan of specific players more than I am a fan of the team
0.86***
I consider myself a fan of certain players rather than a fan of the team
0.80***
Team identification
I consider myself to be a “real” fan of the (team name) team
Composite
reliability
AVE
0.8795
0.701
0.7637
0.5217
0.8113
0.5932
0.8550
0.6627
0.8252
0.6139
0.7917
0.5593
0.7573
0.5185
0.72***
I would experience a loss if I had to stop being a fan of the (team name) team
0.73***
Being a fan of (team name) is very important to me
0.79***
Repatronage intention
I will attend games of my favorite team live in the stadium
0.79***
I will watch games of my favorite team on TV
0.81***
I will purchase a lot of team-related merchandise
0.52***
Notes. *** p < 0.001
Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations
Mean
S.D.
1. Trust in player
4.50
0.55
1
2. Trust in team
3.87
0.62
0.48
1
3. Vicarious achievement motive (player)
4.26
0.54
0.65
0.53
1
4. Vicarious achievement Motive (team)
4.28
0.57
0.51
0.68
0.78
1
5. Player identification
4.02
0.67
0.48
0.47
0.59
0.49
1
6. Team identification
3.87
0.68
0.47
0.74
0.58
0.69
0.69
1
7. Repatronage intention
4.21
0.53
0.59
0.52
0.53
0.53
0.52
0.58
S.D.= Standard Deviation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
Trust, Vicarious Achievement Motive, and Identification Affecting Fan Loyalty 183
the reliability of the constructs, composite reliability was
employed (Jöreskog, 1971). It was observed that all the
values exceeded the recommended cut-off value of 0.60
(Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Nunnaly & Bernstein, 1994).
In this study, factor loadings of the construct indicators are all above 0.50 and t values are all significant,
representing good convergent validity for each of the
construct items (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988; Bagozzi &
Yi, 1988). Evidence of discriminant validity was found
through Smith & Barclay test (1997), which revealed that
the interval by plus and minus 2 standard errors with the
correlation of each paired constructs did not include 1.
Results
We used LISREL 8.7 to test our hypotheses. The results
revealed an adequate fit to the data (χ2/df = 393.76/176
= 2.24 < 3.0, p = .00; GFI = 0.85, AGFI = 0.81, CFI =
0.97, PNFI = 0.79, SRMR = 0.068, RMSEA = 0.068).
Results from the path analysis indicated that majority of
the paths are significant, with the exception of the link
between player identification and repatronage intention
(see Table 3). For the relationship from identification to
repatronage intention, we found team identification has a
strong and significant impact on repatronage intention (β=
0.50, t = 4.56) while player identification to repatronage
intention is insignificant (β = 0.19, t = 1.84). This led to
an acceptance of H2 and a rejection of H1.
In terms of player identification to team identification, the coefficient (β = 0.39, t = 5.34) is significant,
thus supporting H3. Links from trust in player to player
identification and from trust in team to team identification are both significant as well (β = 0.19, t = 1.96 and
β = 0.45, t = 4.47 respectively), indicating support for
H4 and H5. As for vicarious achievement motive, the
impact from seeking player achievement to player identification and from seeking team achievement to team
identification are significant as well (β = 0.47, t = 4.70
Table 3 Results of Structural Equation Analyses for the Proposed Model
and the Competing Models
Full mediated Model
Partially mediated
model
Achieve player → Player identification
0.47***
0.50***
Trust in player → player identification
0.19*
0.16
Achieve team → team identification
0.21*
0.19*
Trust in team → team identification
0.45***
0.42***
Player identification → team identification
0.39***
0.37***
Player identification → Repatronage
0.19
0.13
0.21
Team identification → Repatronage
0.50***
0.20
0.12
Achieve Player → Repatronage
-0.05
-0.04
Trust in player → repatronage
0.32***
0.32***
Achieve team → repatronage
0.12
0.12
Trust in team → repatronage
0.08
0.08
Paths
Direct effect model
Dependent variable: Player identification
Dependent variable: Team identification
Dependent variable: Repatronage intention
Chi-Square
393.76
372.42
366.30
df
176
172
168
GFI
0.85
0.86
0.86
CFI
0.97
0.97
0.97
PNFI
0.79
0.77
0.76
PGFI
0.65
0.64
0.63
Player identification
0.38
0.36
Team identification
0.73
0.70
Repatronage Intention
0.41
0.48
SMC Estimate
(R2)
Notes. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001
0.48
184 Wu, Tsai, and Hung
and β = 0.21, t = 2.19 respectively) providing support
for H6 and H7.
Based on the path effects of our conceptual model,
repatronage intention is largely affected by team identification (0.50) wherein trust in the team produces the
major effect (0.45). The strongest influence for player
identification comes from vicarious achievement motive
(0.47). The details are summarized in Table 4. With the
insignificant result of our hypothesis 1, we are not able
to confirm the mediating effect of player identification.
However, player identification does hold an indirect
effect (going through team identification) on repatronage intention. We conducted Sobel tests to examine the
mediating effect of team identification, which has a significant effect on repatronage intention in the conceptual
model. The results confirmed the significant mediation of
team identification on the relationships from both trust
in team (z = 3.71, p = .000) and vicarious achievement
motive toward team (z = 3.81, p = .000) to repatronage
intention, as well as the one from player identification (z
= 4.38, p = .000) to repatronage intention. These results
support our hypotheses that team identification is the
key mediator.
Rival Models
Researchers are recommended to compare rival models
while conducting SEM (Bollen & Long, 1992). Therefore,
a rival model was tested in this study, and the results
were compared with the conceptual model. As trust and
vicarious achievement motive have been proposed in previous studies to produce both direct and indirect impact
on loyalty (Chiou et al., 2002; Funk et al., 2002; Funk,
Ridinger, & Moorman, 2003; Morgan & Hunt, 1994), the
rival model-partially mediated depicts a situation wherein
identification only partially mediates the relationships
between the two antecedents and repatronage intention
(see Figure 2).
The goodness-of-fit indices of the rival model-partially mediated, as reported in Table 3, indicated that they
all achieved a fair fit for the data (χ2 /df = 372.42/172 =
2.17 < 3.0, p = .00, GFI = 0.86, AGFI = 0.82, CFI = 0.97,
PNFI = 0.77, SRMR = 0.061, RMSEA = 0.071). In line
with the study of Morgan and Hunt (1994), this research
also adhered to the criteria proposed by James, Mulaik,
and Brett (1982) in comparing the conceptual model with
the rival model-partially mediated: (1) overall fit of the
model-implied covariance matrix to the sample covariance matrix as measured through CFI; (2) percentage of
the models’ hypothesized parameters that are statistically
significant; (3) ability to explain the variance in the outcomes of interest as measured through squared multiple
correlations (SMC) of the focal and outcome variables;
and (4) parsimony as measured through the parsimonious
normed fit index (PNFI).
We find the conceptual model to be a better representation of the data in examining our conceptual and
rival model-partially mediated on these four criteria.
Both models are equivalent in the overall fit statistics
(CFI = 0.97), but the parsimony index (PNFI) for the
conceptual model is better despite its insignificance
(0.79 vs. 0.77). Only 5 of the 11 paths (5/11 = 45.5%) of
the rival model-partially mediated (when it comes to the
percentage of the models’ hypothesized parameters) are
supported at the p < .05 level or better. On the contrary,
the conceptual model possesses a far greater significant
ratio of six out of seven paths (6/7 = 85.7%) than that of
the rival model-partially mediated. Moreover, two out of
the three SMCs (0.38 for player identification and 0.73
for team identification) of the conceptual model are also
higher than those of the rival model-partially mediated
(0.36 and 0.70 respectively). Overall, the results suggest
Table 4 Summary of the Path Effects
Dependent Variables (DV)
Independent Variables (IV)
Direct
Effect
Indirect
Effect
Total
Effect
Repatronage Intention
Vicarious achievement motives toward the player
Trust in the player
Vicarious achievement motives toward the team
Trust in the team
Player identification
Team identification
0
0
0
0
0.19a
0.50
0.18
0.07
0.11
0.23
0.20
0
0.18
0.07
0.11
0.23
—
0.50
Team Identification
Vicarious achievement motives toward the player
Trust in the player
Vicarious achievement motives toward the team
Trust in the team
Player identification
0
0
0.21
0.45
0.39
0.19
0.07
0
0
0
0.19
0.07
0.21
0.45
0.39
Player Identification
Vicarious achievement motives toward the player
Trust in the player
0.47
0.19
0
0
0.47
0.19
Notes. a = insignificant
Trust, Vicarious Achievement Motive, and Identification Affecting Fan Loyalty 185
Figure 2 — Rival model-Partially mediated
that the conceptual model with team identification as
mediators is significantly superior to the rival modelpartially mediated.
Moreover, for the robustness of the conceptual
model, it is plausible to posit that all the antecedent
variables in the current study affect repatronage intention
directly (see Figure 3). Therefore, another rival model for
our conceptual framework would be a model that includes
the direct effects of trust (player and team), vicarious
achievement motive (player and team), and identification
(player and team) on repatronage intention only. The
results of this rival model-direct effect are also reported
in Table 3. Only one of the six paths (1/6 = 16.7%) is
supported at the p < .001 level even though the overall
fit of the rival model-direct effect is as sound as that of
the conceptual model (χ2 /df = 366.30/168 = 2.18 < 3.0,
p = .00, GFI = 0.86, AGFI = 0.81, CFI = 0.97, PNFI =
0.76, SRMR = 0.056, RMSEA = 0.072). Moreover, both
parsimony indexes of the conceptual model (PNFI = 0.79;
PGFI = 0.65) exceed those of the rival model-direct effect
(PNFI = 0.76; PGFI = 0.63). Therefore, the conceptual
model appears to be a better representation of the data
than either of the rival models with partially mediated
or direct effect.
Discussion and Conclusion
This study deviates from previous research by distinguishing fan-player relationship from fan-team relationship and by investigating the effects that factors from
both levels generate on fan loyalty. The effect of trust in
sport industry is likewise examined and the relationship
among loyalty, identification, and vicarious achievement
motive is verified. Moreover, to test rigidity and trustworthiness of the conceptual model, this study assesses two
rival models, compares the results, and finds that team
identification mediates the effect of trust and vicarious
achievement motive on loyalty.
Findings of this research are twofold. First, impact of
team identification on repatronage intention is observed to
be considerably greater than that of player identification;
the latter is observed to produce an insignificant effect
on the same intention. This finding is inconsistent with
several previous studies (e.g.,: Doney & Cannon, 1997;
Iacobucci & Ostrom, 1996), which find loyalty to be
influenced more by interpersonal relationship (customersalespeople) than by customer-firm relationship. Such
inconsistency may be attributed to the fact that player
identification transforms into loyalty toward the player
186 Wu, Tsai, and Hung
Figure 3 — Rival model-Direct effect
instead of toward the team, as originally postulated in this
study. Trust in the salesperson has been shown to lead to
a salesperson-owned loyalty (Yim, Tse, & Chan, 2008),
which subsequently generates loyalty to the selling firm
(Palmatier, Scheer, & Steenkamp, 2007). These findings
explain why player identification does not affect loyalty in
this study, as loyalty to the player may mediate the path
from player identification to loyalty toward the team. This
leaves a direction for future study.
Relationship strength, the degree or magnitude of
association between a customer and a service provider
(Barnes, 1997; Shemwell & Cronin, 1995), may be
another reason for the inconsistency between the current
study and prior business findings on bilevel relationships.
A strong relationship with a firm or its staff has been
observed to result in customer loyalty (Gwinner, Gremler, & Bitner, 1998). In sport, relationship strength tends
to be weaker than in the regular business context. For
example, interaction frequencies and intimacy between
fans and players are considerably fewer compared with
those between customers and salespeople. Relationship
distance between fans and players are considerably wider
as the former have limited direct contact with the latter. In
such case, player identification can hardly be transformed
into loyalty toward the team.
Relationship duration, or the length of the relationship between exchange partners (Cooil, Keiningham,
Aksoy, & Hsu, 2007; Palmatier, Dant, Grewal, & Evans,
2006), may be the third reason behind such inconsistent
result. The average career length of major league baseball
Trust, Vicarious Achievement Motive, and Identification Affecting Fan Loyalty 187
players is 5.6 years (Witnauer, Rogers, & Saint Onge,
2007), which is shorter compared with that of major
league teams. Teams such as the New York Yankees,
Boston Red Sox, Chicago White Sox, and Cleveland
Indians, for example, have existed for 109 years, indicating that the relationship duration between fans and
teams may last for several generations and even become
a family tradition. On the other hand, the relationship
duration between fans and players is considerably short.
Many players also transfer, willingly or unwillingly, from
team to team even within a short 5.6 career years, which
reduces the impact of fan-player relationship on loyalty
toward the team.
The second major finding of this research involves
the relationship among the antecedents of repatronage
intention examined in this study. The results are distinct
between fan-player and fan-team levels, and should be
discussed separately. For antecedents from the fan-team
aspect, we find that trust generates significantly higher
impact on team identification compared with vicarious
achievement motive toward the team. In other words,
trust plays a key role in enhancing team identification
and increasing repatronage intention. This is an important
finding that should be a subject of serious discussions.
Based on several in-depth interviews with fans, we
conclude that the explanation for such result may be that
fans generally observe a team through several facets,
including management of the team, its CRM strategies,
and the interaction between the team and its fans. In such
case, winning or losing is no longer deemed important.
This is why so-called die-hard fans continue to exist
even if a team experiences an extremely bad season-fans
continue to trust and identify with the team.
In terms of factors from the fan-player level, the
influence of vicarious achievement motive creates a
stronger impact on player identification compared with
trust in the player. In the fan-player relationship, the better
the players perform, the more the fans will identify with
them. Generally, players with better performance attract
greater attention from fans, and such stellar performance
(capability) can fulfill consumers’ need for vicarious
achievement (Robinson et al., 2004). Further, positive
self-concept-achievement, in this case-which fans intend
to preserve through the success of a specific target, is
easily transformed among objects with the same form,
such as person to person. Therefore, forming vicarious
achievement associations with players is considerably
easier for fans than forming associations with intangible
objects such as teams.
Although trust in players can increase fans’ identification toward individual players, influence is considerably mild. Player behavior includes both on-field
occurrences, such as the play, and off-field behavior
(Fink et al., 2009). Trust in individual players may be
founded on the belief that players are capable of performing well in the game because interactions between fans
and individual players are few and limited mainly on the
field. However, the influence of such belief is relatively
vulnerable when players experience bad seasons, and it
is not strong enough to encourage fans to identify with
players especially when the latter are reported to exhibit
unscrupulous behaviors off-field, such as engaging in
steroid use (Fainaru-Wada & Williams, 2003) or accepting money from boosters (Dodd, 2006).
Theoretical Implication
Findings of this study reveal three theoretical implications. First, in contrast to extant sport literature, this study
is the first to conduct a simultaneous test on the effects of
antecedents on fan loyalty within two relationship levels:
fan-player and fan-team relationships. Findings confirm
the mediating role of team identification and distinct
impacts of team identification and player identification
on loyalty. Results likewise reveal that repatronage intention is mainly influenced by the fans’ identification with
the team. Identification with a player does not directly
generate any impact on fans’ repatronage intention, unless
it is mediated by team identification. These results are
aligned with previous studies (e.g., Cornwell & Coote,
2005), which propose that individuals express their support toward a specific organization by participating in the
organization’s activities or purchasing products from the
organization. The results are also consistent with previous
findings that fans will not purchase a ticket to a game even
when they identify with the players (Funk et al., 2002;
Won & Kitamura, 2006).
Second, as the relationship between fans and player
(team) is deemed stable and long-term, trust, an important
factor for relationship retention, is incorporated into the
conceptual model, thus confirming the influential role of
trust in generating identification. In other words, trust is
fundamental for fans to identify and develop a relationship with a specific object. Such result not only affirms
previous studies (e.g., Morgan & Hunt, 1994) suggesting
that trust is the key element for a long-term relationship,
but provides important insight for researchers in the field
of sport as well.
Third, contrary to previous studies contending that
vicarious achievement motive directly influences loyalty (e.g., Won & Kitamura, 2006), the mediating role
played by team identification in the relationship between
repatronage intention and its antecedents is confirmed
in this study. Trust (in both player and team), vicarious
achievement motive (toward both player and team), and
player identification must undergo team identification to
influence the repatronage intention of fans.
Managerial Implication
In contemporary practice, sport organizations are inclined
to allocate a significant amount of financial resources
on player-related issues, which do not always guarantee
fruitful returns. The New York Yankees provides an ideal
example of such practice by issuing attractive contracts
to star players in the team; this has made the team more
expensive compared with others. According to the findings of this study, such practice only enhances player
188 Wu, Tsai, and Hung
identification and should be viewed as a short-term strategy (Todd, Crook, & Barilla, 2005) rather than a longterm practice. The relationship between player attachment
and length of time as a fan has been proven to be negative
(Mahony et al., 2002), indicating that shorter-term fans
are more attracted by the players than longer-term fans
(Nakazawa, Mahony, Funk, & Hirakawa, 1999). Strategies that focus solely on players become risky over the
long term as teams then struggle to locate equally charismatic replacements once star players retire (Mahony et
al., 2002) or switch to other teams.
Based on our findings, sport organizations are suggested to allocate their major resources on activities
that enhance team identification among fans because
such effect best triggers repatronage intention. Sport
organizations should focus on increasing fans’ team
identification by devoting greater effort on building trust
toward the team. For example, they can issue guidelines
for off-field behavior for players, increase opportunities
for interaction between fans and the team, fulfill every
promise made by the team, provide timely and accurate
information to fans, and attend or represent activities
launched by nonprofit organizations (Morgan & Hunt,
1994; Palmatier et al., 2006).
Sport organizations are also recommended to use
the Customer Relationship Management (CRM) technique and to increase membership in team fan clubs to
enhance their fans’ team attachment. Through CRM,
sport firms can segment their fans by factors, including
length of time as a fan, demographics, and other similar
parameters, such as behavior tendencies (BIRGing,
CORFing, BIRFing, and CORSing), and then apply the
most effective strategies to the right segments to gain a
satisfying return. For example, sport marketers should
customize information dissemination to the different
segments of fans through different channels. Information
for longer-term fans should focus more on team-related
subjects such as current and past team events, team history, team brand, and team merchandize. On the other
hand, marketers for shorter-term fans can focus more
on information regarding individual players such as
personal background and records, or their interesting
stories. Moreover, when sending out such player information, marketers should also include team recognition
to increase a segment’s team identification and eventually
transform player identification to team identification.
Such method is demonstrated by what the National Basketball Association (NBA) did to improve the league’s
attraction. It managed the image of its individual human
brands and established an off-the-court dress code for its
players (Thomson, 2006).
Sport marketers are encouraged to market through
new technology, such as the social network media
(e.g., Facebook and twitter), to increase the quality of
interaction between the groups of fans and the sport
teams (Mahony, et al., 2002), particularly that with
younger generations who are likely to become season
ticket holders in the future. Sport firms should create
and maintain an organizational Facebook account, and
encourage their players and coaches to have their own
personal Facebook accounts as well. With the popularity of this new network medium, sport firms have great
chances to strengthen the relationship with their fans.
Furthermore, both organizational and player personal
accounts should be cross-linked to encourage direct
interactions between fans and the team, as well as fans
and individual players. Marketers may then capitalize
on the “good old times” particularly when it comes to
the older generations of fans by emphasizing past glories through traditional media, especially when the team
is going through a bad season. By repeatedly bringing
fans back to the excitement and pride that they once
experienced, these old fans’ attachment to the team
may be enhanced.
Limitations and Future Research
Further research is recommended to validate our findings although majority of the results of this study are
consistent with our theoretical expectations. This study is
limited by the inability to monitor changes in the attitude
of fans during different time frames. Researchers may
wish to adopt a longitudinal research method and reveal
attitude changes among fans. Moreover, because of the
lack of information on the response of participants to the
performance of their favorite teams, we are not able to
categorize the participants based on any of the behavioral
types. Under such condition, our conceptual model only
depicts the phenomena of BIRGing and CORFing by
hypothesizing the positive relationship between vicarious
achievement motive (team and player) and identification
(team and player).
Again, with a cross-sectional research, we are not
able to explain the BIRFing and CORSing behavior in
this study. We agree with Campbell and his colleagues
that BIRFing and CORSing are interesting and inspiring subjects that deserve further investigation and more
empirical examinations. Future research is encouraged
to examine these four types of fan behavior, as well as
to reveal factors individually triggering these behaviors.
Sport firms, therefore, can effectively plan their marketing
strategies by segmenting their fans and implementing the
right marketing strategies.
Satisfaction, a critical construct of relationship
quality, has been demonstrated as a determinant of
consumer loyalty under experiential contexts (Chiou
et al., 2002; Hennig-Thurau et al., 2002). Researchers
are recommended to examine whether fans’ satisfaction
over players or the team can enhance their identification
levels. Further, researchers are encouraged to examine
how player identification and team identification can
alter repatronage intention, as well as the effects of
alteration on fans’ repatronage intention once their
favorite players are transferred to another team. The
mediating effect of loyalty toward the player in the
relationship between player identification and loyalty
toward the team (repatronage intention) demands further
investigation as well.
Trust, Vicarious Achievement Motive, and Identification Affecting Fan Loyalty 189
References
Ajzen, I., & Driver, B.L. (1992). Application of the theory of
planned behavior in leisure choice. Journal of Leisure
Research, 24, 207–224.
Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structure equation
modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step
approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.
Ashforth, B.E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and
the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14,
20–39.
Bagozzi, R.P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural
equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 16, 74–94.
Barnes, J.G. (1997). Closeness, strength, and satisfaction:
Examining the nature of relationships between providers
of financial services and their retail customers. Psychology
and Marketing, 14, 765–790.
Bauer, H.H., Stokburger-Sauer, N.E., & Exler, S. (2008). Brand
image and fan loyalty in professional team sport: A refined
model and empirical assessment. Journal of Sport Management, 22, 205–226.
Bee, C.C., & Kahle, L.R. (2006). Relationship marketing in
sports: A functional approach. Sport Marketing Quarterly,
15, 102–110.
Bhattacharya, C.B., Rao, H., & Glynn, M.A. (1995). Understanding the bond of identification: An investigation of
its correlates among art museum members. Journal of
Marketing, 59, 46–57.
Bollen, K., & Long, J.S. (1992). Tests for structural equation
models: Introduction. Sociological Methods & Research,
21, 123–131.
Branscombe, N.R., & Wann, D.L. (1991). The positive social
and self-concept consequences of sports team identification. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 15, 115–127.
Chiou, J.S., Droge, C., & Hanvanich, S. (2002). Does customer
knowledge affect how loyalty is formed? Journal of Service Research, 2, 113–124.
Cialdini, R.B., Borden, R.J., Thorne, A., Walker, M.R., Freeman, S., & Sloan, L.R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory:
Three football field studies. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 34, 366–375.
Campbell, R.M., Jr., Aiken, D., & Kent, A. (2004). Beyond
BIRGing and CORFing: Continuing the exploration of
fan behavior. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 13, 151–157.
Cooil, B., Keiningham, T.L., Aksoy, L., & Hsu, M. (2007). A
longitudinal analysis of customer satisfaction and share
of wallet: Investigating the moderating effect of customer
characteristics. Journal of Marketing, 74, 67–83.
Cornwell, T.B., & Coote, L.V. (2005). Corporate sponsorship
of a cause: The role of identification in purchase intent.
Journal of Business Research, 58, 268–276.
Crosby, L.A., Evans, K.R., & Cowles, D. (1990). Relationship
quality in services selling: An interpersonal influence
perspective. Journal of Marketing, 54, 68–81.
Dodd, D. (2006). Sorting out the mess in Norman. Not a moment
too soon. CBS SportsLine.
Doney, P.M., & Cannon, J.P. (1997). An examination of the
nature of trust in buyer-seller relationships. Journal of
Marketing, 61, 35–52.
Dutton, J., & Dukerich, J. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror:
Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy
of Management Journal, 34, 517–554.
Fainaru-Wada, M., & Williams, L. (2003). Barry Bonds:
Anatomy of a scandal. Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
Ferrand, A., Robinson, L., & Valette-Florence, P. (2010). The
intention-to-repurchase paradox: A case of the health and
fitness industry. Journal of Sport Management, 24, 83–105.
Fink, J.S., Trail, G.T., & Anderson, D.F. (2002). An examination
of team identification: Which motives are most salient to
its existence? International Sports Journal, 6, 195–207.
Fink, J.S., Parker, H.M., Brett, M., & Higgins, J. (2009). Offfield behavior of athletes and team identification: Using
social identity theory and balance theory to explain fan
reactions. Journal of Sport Management, 23, 142–155.
Fisher, R.J. (1998). Group-derived consumption: The role of
similarity and attractiveness in identification with a favorite
sports team. Advances in Consumer Research. Association
for Consumer Research (U. S.), 25, 283–288.
Fisher, R.J., & Wakefield, K. (1998). Factors leading to group
identification: A field study of winners and losers. Psychology and Marketing, 15, 23–40.
Fujimoto, J., & Harada, M. (2000). A study on factors affecting behaviour of sport attendant. Proceedings of 23rd
Japanese Society of Management for Physical Education
and Sports, 25–26.
Funk, D.C., Haugtvedt, C.P., & Howard, D.R. (2000). Contemporary attitude theory in sport: Theoretical considerations
and implications. Sport Management Review, 3, 124–144.
Funk, D.C., & James, J.D. (2006). Consumer loyalty: The
meaning of attachment in the development of sport team
allegiance. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 189–217.
Funk, D.C., Mahony, D.F., & Ridinger, L.L. (2002). Characterizing consumer motivation as individual difference factors:
Augmenting the sport interest inventory (SII) to explain
level of spectator support. Sport Marketing Quarterly,
11, 33–44.
Funk, D.C., & Pastore, D.L. (2000). Equating attitudes to allegiance: The usefulness of selected attitudinal information
in segmenting loyalty to professional sports teams. Sport
Marketing Quarterly, 9, 175–184.
Funk, D.C., Ridinger, L.L., & Moorman, A.M. (2003). Understanding consumer support: Extending the sport interest
inventory (SII) to examine individual differences among
women’s professional sport consumers. Sport Management
Review, 6, 1–32.
Ganesan, S. (1994). Determinants of long-term orientation in
buyer-seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 58, 1–19.
Gladden, J.M., & Funk, D.C. (2002). Developing an understanding of brand associations in team sport: Empirical
evidence from consumers of professional sport. Journal
of Sport Management, 16, 54–81.
Gwinner, K.P., Gremler, D.D., & Bitner, M.J. (1998). Relational
benefits in services industries: The customer’s perspective.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26, 101–114.
Heere, B., & Dickson, G. (2008). Measuring attitudinal loyalty:
Separating the terms of affective commitment and attitudinal loyalty. Journal of Sport Management, 22, 227–239.
Hellier, P.K., Geursen, G.M., Carr, R.A., & Rickard, J.A.
(2003). Customer repurchase intention: A general structural equation model. European Journal of Marketing,
37, 1762–1800.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Langer, M.F., & Hansen, U. (2001). Modeling and managing student loyalty: An approach based
on the concept of relationship quality. Journal of Service
Research, 3, 331–344.
Hennig-Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P., & Gremler, D.D. (2002).
Understanding relationship marketing outcomes: An
integration of relational benefits and relationship quality.
Journal of Service Research, 4, 230–247.
190 Wu, Tsai, and Hung
Hong, J., McDonald, M.A., Yoon, C., & Fujimoto, J. (2005).
Motivation for Japanese baseball fans’ interest in major
league baseball. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 1, 141–154.
Iacobucci, D., & Ostrom, A. (1996). Commercial and interpersonal relationships: Using the structure of interpersonal
relationships to understand individual-to-individual,
individual-to-firm, and firm-to-firm relationships in commerce. International Journal of Research in Marketing,
13, 53–72.
Jacoby, J., & Chestnut, R.W. (1978). Brand Loyalty. New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
James, L.R., Mulaik, S.A., & Brett, J. (1982). Causal analysis:
Models, assumptions, and data. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Jöreskog, K.G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several
populations. Psychometrika, 36, 409–426.
Keh, H.T., & Xie, Y. (2009). Corporate reputation and customer
behavioral intentions: The roles of trust, identification
and commitment. Industrial Marketing Management, 38,
732–742.
Kimble, C.E., & Cooper, B.P. (1992). Association and dissociation by football fans. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
75, 303–309.
Kwon, H.H., Trail, G., & James, J.D. (2007). The mediating
role of perceived value: Team identification and purchase
intention of team-licensed apparel. Journal of Sport Management, 21, 540–554.
Kumar, N., Scheer, L.K., & Steenkamp, J.E.M. (1995). The
effects of supplier fairness on vulnerable resellers. JMR,
Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 54–65.
Laverie, D.A., & Arnett, D.B. (2000). Factors affecting fan
attendance: The influence of identity salience and satisfaction. Journal of Leisure Research, 32, 225–246.
Liljander, V., & Strandvik, T. (1995). The nature of customer
relationships in services. Advances in Services Marketing
and Management, 4, 141–168.
Macintosh, G. (2007). Customer orientation, relationship quality, and relational benefits to the firm. Journal of Services
Marketing, 21, 150–159.
Macintosh, G., & Lockshin, L.S. (1997). Retail relationships
and store loyalty: A multi-level perspective. International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 14, 487–497.
Mahony, D.F., Madrigal, R., & Howard, D.R. (2000). Using the
psychological commitment to team (PCT) scale to segment sport consumers based on loyalty. Sport Marketing
Quarterly, 9, 15–25.
Mahony, D.F., Nakazawa, M., Funk, D.C., James, J.D., &
Gladden, J.M. (2002). Motivational factors influencing
the behaviour of J. League spectators. Sport Management
Review, 5, 1–24.
McDonald, M.A., Milne, G.R., & Hong, J. (2002). Motivational
factors for evaluating sport spectator and participant markets. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11, 100–113.
Morgan, R.M., & Hunt, S.D. (1994). The commitment-trust
theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing,
58, 20–38.
Nakazawa, M., Mahony, D.F., Funk, D.C., & Hirakawa, S.
(1999). Segmenting J. League spectators based on length
of time as a fan. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 8, 55–65.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978). Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Nunnally, J.C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory
(3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Palmatier, R.W., Dant, R.P., Grewal, D., & Evans, K.R. (2006).
Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship marketing: a meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70, 136–153.
Palmatier, R.W., Scheer, L.K., Houston, M.B., Evans, K.R., &
Gopalakrishna, S. (2007). Use of relationship marketing
programs in building customer-salesperson and customerfirm relationships:Differential influences on financial
outcomes. International Journal of Research in Marketing,
24, 210–223.
Palmatier, R.W., Scheer, L.K., & Steenkamp, J.E.M. (2007).
Customer loyalty to whom? Managing the benefits and
risks of salesperson-owned loyalty. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 185–199.
Park, S.H., & Kim, Y.M. (2000). Conceptualizing and measuring the attitudinal loyalty construct in recreational sport
contexts. Journal of Sport Management, 14, 197–207.
Reichheld, F.F., & Schefter, P. (2000). E-loyalty: Your secret
weapon on the Web. Harvard Business Review, 78, 105–113.
Restubog, S.L.D., Hornsey, M.J., Bordia, P., & Esposo, S.R.
(2008). Effects of Psychological Contract Breach on
Organizational Citizenship Behaviour: Insights from the
Group Value Model. Journal of Management Studies, 45,
1377–1400.
Reynolds, K.E., & Beatty, S.E. (1999). Customer benefits and
company consequences of customer-salesperson relationships in retailing. Journal of Retailing, 75, 11–32.
Robinson, M.J., & Trail, G.T. (2005). Relationships among
spectator gender, motives, points of attachment, and sport
preference. Journal of Sport Management, 19, 58–80.
Robinson, M.J., Trail, G.T., & Kwon, H. (2004). Motives and
points of attachment of professional golf spectators. Sport
Management Review, 7, 167–192.
Rotter, J.B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35, 651–665.
Schlenker, B.R., Helm, B., & Tedeschi, J.T. (1973). The effects
of personality and situational variables on behavioral trust.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 419–427.
Shemwell, D.J., & Cronin, J.J. (1995). Trust and commitment in
customer/service-provider relationships: An analysis of differences across service types and between sexes. Journal of
Customer Service in Marketing & Management, 1, 65–75.
Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. (2002). Consumer
trust, value, and loyalty in relational exchanges. Journal
of Marketing, 66, 15–37.
Sloan, L.R. (1989). The motives of sports fans. In J.H
Goldstein(Ed.), Sports games and play: Social and psychological viewpoints (2nd. 175-240), Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Smith, J.B., & Barclay, D.W. (1997). The effects of organizational differences and trust on the effectiveness of selling
partner relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61, 3–21.
Tajfel, H. (1981). Human Groups and Social Categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1986). Social identity theory of
intergroup behavior. In W. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.),
Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed.). Chicago:
Nelson-Hall.
Thomson, M. (2006). Human brands: Investigating antecedents
to consumers’ strong attachments to celebrities. Journal
of Marketing, 70, 104–119.
Thomson, M., MacInnis, D.J., & Park, W. (2005). The ties that
bind: Measuring the strength of consumers’ emotional
attachments to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
15, 77–91.
Trust, Vicarious Achievement Motive, and Identification Affecting Fan Loyalty 191
Todd, S.Y., Crook, T.R., & Barilla, A.G. (2005). Hierarchical
Linear Modeling of Multilevel Data. Journal of Sport
Management, 19, 387–403.
Trail, G.T., Anderson, D.F., & Fink, J.S. (2000). A theoretical
model of sport spectator consumption behavior. International Journal of Sport Management, 1, 154–180.
Trail, G.T., Fink, J.S., & Anderson, D.F. (2003). Sport spectator consumption behavior. Sport Marketing Quarterly,
12, 8–17.
Trail, G.T., & James, J.D. (2001). The motivation scale for
sport consumption: A comparison of psychometric properties with other sport motivation scales. Journal of Sport
Behavior, 24, 108–127.
Trail, G.T., Robinson, M.J., Dick, R.J., & Gillentine, A.J.
(2003). Motives and points of attachment: Fans versus
spectators in intercollegiate athletics. Sport Marketing
Quarterly, 12, 217–227.
Trawick, I.F., & Swan, J.E. (1981). A model of industrial satisfaction/complaining behaviour. Industrial Marketing
Management, 10, 23–30.
Wakefield, K.L., & Sloan, H.J. (1995). The effects of team loyalty and selected stadium factors on spectator attendance.
Journal of Sport Management, 9, 153–172.
Wann, D.L. (1995). Preliminary motivation of the sport fan
motivation scale. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 19,
377–396.
Wann, D.L., & Branscombe, N.R. (1993). Sports fans: Measuring degree of identification with their team. International
Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 1–17.
Wann, D.L., & Polk, J. (2007). The positive relationship
between sport team identification and belief on the trustworthiness of others. North American Journal of Psychology, 9, 251–256.
Wann, D., Tucker, K., & Schrader, M. (1996). An exploratory
examination of the factors influencing the origination,
continuation and cessation of identification with sports
teams. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82, 995–1001.
Wilson, D.T. (1995). An integrated model of buyer-seller relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
23, 335–345.
Witnauer, W.D., Rogers, R.G., & Saint Onge, J.M. (2007).
Baseball career length in the twentieth-century: The effects
of age, performance, and era. Population Research and
Policy Review, 26, 371–386.
Won, J.U., & Kitamura, K. (2006). Motivational factors affecting sports consumption behavior of K-league and J-league
spectators. International Journal of Sport and Health
Science, 14, 233–251.
Yim, C.K.B., Tse, D.K., & Chan, K.W. (2008). Strengthening
customer loyalty through intimacy and passion: roles of
customer–firm affection and customer–staff relationships in
services. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 741–756.