Journal of Sport Management, 2007, 21, 497-520 © 2007 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Social Identity and Brand Equity
Formation: A Comparative Study
of Collegiate Sports Fans
Brett A. Boyle and Peter Magnusson
Saint Louis University
The authors empirically tested Underwood, Bond, and Baer’s (2001) social
identity–brand equity (SIBE) model in the context of fans of a university men’s
basketball team. Their model proposes that service marketplace characteristics
(venue, team history, rituals, and social groups) enhance one’s social identity to
a team. This heightened social identity, in turn, is seen to build brand equity of
the team brand. Using the SIBE model as a conceptual framework, a comparative
study was conducted across 3 distinct fan groups of the team: current students,
alumni, and the general public. Results provide strong support for the effect of
social identity on brand equity; regardless of the type of fan, a heightened social
identity to the team enhanced the perceived equity of the athletic program (i.e.,
brand) overall. How social identity was formed, however, differed by fan group.
For example, team history showed a significant relationship to social identity for
alumni and the general public. Students were most influenced by their sense of the
basketball program being part of the local community as a whole. These finding
are valuable in knowing how to craft marketing communications for various fan
constituencies, as well as understanding how identification to 1 team might be
leveraged across all sports in a collegiate athletic program.
The relationship between a sports team and its fans has long been of great
interest to researchers from a number of disciplines. Indeed, the fan–team relationship has helped explain such things as fan aggression (Goldstein & Arms, 1971),
fan self-perception (Hirt & Zillmann, 1985), and even the outcome of the contest
itself (Greer, 1983). From a business perspective, this relationship has obvious
implications for such things as game attendance, season ticket purchases, and team
merchandise sales, to name a few. Intuitively, the likelihood of a team’s on-field
success would suggest a greater bond between fan and team and, in turn, add value
to the brand’s (i.e., team’s) equity (cf. Fisher & Wakefield, 1998). There is much
evidence that winning does breed more loyal fans. The work of Cialdini and colleagues illustrated the phenomenon of “basking-in-reflected-glory” (Cialdini et al.,
1976; Cialdini & Brichardson, 1980). These seminal experiments showed a marked
increase in the number of people wearing team apparel soon after that team’s victory. Conversely, “fans” attending the New Orleans Saints games during the 1980
Boyle and Magnusson are with the John Cook School of Business, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO.
497
498 Boyle and Magnusson season (during which the team finished with a 1-15 record) were compelled to wear
paper bags over their heads during games (Saunders, 2000).
However intuitive, the relationship between team success and fan loyalty is neither consistent nor universal. For example, the Atlanta Braves tied for Major League
Baseball’s best regular-season record in 2003, yet home attendance for the Braves
(as measured by percent of capacity of a team’s stadium) ranked a mediocre 14 out
of 30 teams. Furthermore, during the same year the eventual World Series champion
Florida Marlins drew nearly a million fewer fans than the Major League average.
Although successful sports teams at times post mediocre (if not poor) attendance figures, perennially poor performing teams still attract large and loyal crowds.
Die-hard Chicago Cub fans have gained a reputation for unwavering loyalty, despite
the team’s reputation for futility. Similarly, the Cleveland Browns have not won an
NFL championship since 1955, yet over the last 20 seasons their rabid fans have
filled the stands in numbers well above the NFL average. These examples are consistent with Parker and Stuart’s (1997) assertion that sports teams typically enjoy
high brand loyalty regardless of the strengths or weaknesses of the organization.
Unlike consumers of other products, sports fans hold a vexing challenge for
those who would market to them. If winning were to equate with quality, and, in
turn fan (brand) loyalty, then marketing would be solely focused on placing a winning team on the field of play, assuming such a situation was tenable. Consumer
decision making under this scenario would be viewed as the logical connection
between team success and brand loyalty. Yet, it is likely that emotions have a strong
influence on fan loyalty, influenced by more than a team’s won–loss record. In some
cases, fan loyalty might be lukewarm even when a team is winning. On the other
hand, poorly performing teams still endear themselves to passionate fans. Fischer
and Wakefield (1998) contend that in times of poor performance by a team, a fan
will redirect attention to other aspects of the spectating experience in an effort to
minimize those negative associations. Therefore, what are those associations to
which fans seek to identify beyond the action on the field? What differences are
there, if any, across different fan groups in their development of social identity to
a team? How does this identification translate, if at all, to brand equity?
Underwood, Bond, and Baer (2001) proposed a model in which social identification is seen “as a mechanism for tapping the emotional connection between the
consumer and the service brand” (p. 2). Their general contention is that the greater
the fan identifies with a team, the greater the brand equity the former holds for the
latter. In essence, the more an individual sees him or herself as being connected,
in some way, to a team, the greater the value of the team’s brand for that person.
Underwood et al. further proposed that certain “service marketplace” characteristics play a role in forming a fan’s social identity with a team, ways in which social
identification might develop. Their model subsequently proposes that increased
social identity (via these marketplace factors) increases brand (i.e., team) equity.
The purpose of the current study is to apply and extend Underwood et al.’s “social
identity–brand equity” (heretofore SIBE) model in a number of ways.
First, an empirical investigation is conducted to test the notion that teambrand equity is enhanced via a fan’s increased social identity with the team, as
Underwood et al. (2001) postulate. In doing so, we test the SIBE model as to the
effects marketplace factors have in shaping social identity to a team. Second, we
compare three distinct fan groups for any differences in the way that marketplace
Social Identity and Brand Equity Formation 499
characteristics affect social identity. We chose to test these differences in the context
of a collegiate basketball program. As with many sports, college athletics bring
together an eclectic fan base. We seek to investigate whether those marketplace
characteristics proposed by the SIBE model vary across students, alumni, and the
general public. Although they share a common passion for their university’s team,
fans might not identify with that team in similar ways. Recognizing how segments
of a team’s fan base identify with that team allows for more effective marketing
communication with each group.
In route to testing the SIBE model, a number of measures of four marketplace
factors that potentially affect social identity are developed and tested. The remainder
of this article is organized into the following sections: a discussion of social identity;
a description of the SIBE model, along with its adaptation via a survey of college
basketball fans; and results of the study, along with managerial implications and
opportunities for future research.
Literature Review and Hypothesis Development
Social Identity
Individuals’ sum-total view of themselves is comprised of personality traits (or
personal identity) and the aspects of his or her social experiences (social identity).
The former focuses on internalized, seemingly stable characteristics (e.g., creative
vs. analytical, extrovert vs. introvert), but one’s social identity is defined more so
from external group affiliation. Among others, these groups could be social in
nature (e.g., Elks Club), professional (e.g., dentists’ association), political (e.g.,
democrat), or from an ethnic or religious background (Deaux, Reid, Mizrahi, &
Ethier, 1995). Indeed, Tajfel (1982) goes so far as to say individuals require social
identity via group affiliation in order to form a self-image. Fisher and Wakefield
(1998) note that when individuals are asked to describe who they are, descriptors
invariably focus on group affiliations such as occupation, position in a family, or
membership in social organizations. Given this, these authors cast social identity
as the “anchor” of self-definition (p. 25).
Unlike personal identity, however, social identity can be seen as more conceptually dynamic for two reasons. First, group affiliation, either real or vicarious, is
a choice of the individual. Although some group affiliations are a consequence of
birth (e.g., age, gender), much of one’s social identity is constructed through social
networks, product purchases, and other lifestyle choices (Schouten & McAlexander, 1995). Second, because individuals might see themselves as “belonging” to
any number of groups, their identification is much more situation-specific, thus
more fluid than seemingly static segmentation groups formed by demographic or
psychographic variables. Indeed, Underwood et al. (2001, p. 3) stated that “the
essence of social identity theory is that people do not conform to neatly ascribed
categories (e.g., social class, VALS group), but instead take part in the creation of
their own categories.” This identity creation is likely influenced by such factors
as the individual’s exposure to marketing communications, product consumption
experience, and social reference groups, to name a few. The model described in
the following section considers similar factors that are specific to the formation of
social identification with a sports team.
500 Boyle and Magnusson Brand Equity
Brand equity has become a central construct for understanding purchase preferences,
as well as overall consumer loyalty. Keller (1993) defines brand equity in terms
of “marketing effects uniquely attributable to the brand” (p. 1). This perspective
considers the leverage a brand has in the marketplace relative to other purchase
choices. At high levels of equity, a brand’s effect is considered relevant, if not
dominant, when a markedly lower preference for the product choice would be
evidenced in the absence of a brand’s attributes (e.g., name, symbol; cf. Simon &
Sullivan 1993). High brand equity carries with it a cadre of advantages in a competitive arena. Strong brands serve as a hedge against risk for the consumer when
consistency across brand experiences meets or exceeds expectations. Premium
pricing is also afforded to the brand for which product quality is associated with
the brand’s image. Finally, high brand equity provides advantageous bargaining
power when dealing with distribution channel members (Aaker 1991).
Keller (1993, p. 2) argued that “understanding the content and structure of
brand knowledge is important because they influence what comes to mind when a
consumer thinks about a brand.” His conceptual framework casts brand knowledge
to be composed of brand awareness and brand image. The latter is determined
by the type, favorability, strength, and uniqueness of various associations that a
consumer makes about the brand, relative to other memory nodes. For example,
Harley-Davidson is a brand strongly associated with patriotism and individual
freedom (Schouten & McAlexander, 1995). To the extent that a consumer strongly
believes this association and is favorable toward it, brand image—and in turn brand
equity—is enhanced.
For a sports team, brand associations and, in turn, brand equity are particularly
essential to commercial success of the operation (Ross, 2006). This is particularly
the case for the marketing of collegiate teams. Unlike many consumer products, an
athletic department must manage and promote a wide range of sports, appealing
to varied tastes among spectators in a local market. Even products falling within
a “family” of brands (e.g., Budweiser and Bud Light), still retain a semblance of
consistency in a discernable product category. In intercollegiate sports, however,
the diversity of spectator options of which an athletic department oversees presents a unique challenge when attempting to raise the brand equity of the overall
program.
The Social Identity–Brand Equity Model
Underwood et al. (2001) proposed a conceptual model that considers several characteristics of the sports fan’s experience that are likely to affect one’s social identity
with a particular team. In turn, this heightened connection between fan and team
is assumed to build brand equity in the mind of the consumer. From qualitative
research via sports teams’ online chat rooms, these authors proposed the following
“servicescape” dimensions (Wakefield & Blodgett, 1996) as having the capability
of strengthening a fan’s social identification with a team: group experience, history/tradition, role of physical facility, and rituals.
Group Experience. Being part of the crowd has been an attraction of sporting
events for centuries. The social bonds formed through common association with
Social Identity and Brand Equity Formation 501
a team is what Zillmann and Paulus (1993) contend separates a fan from being
a mere spectator. The fan finds camaraderie, social connectivity, and a sense of
a relationship with the team itself via the relationships formed with fellow fans
(Cialdini et al., 1976). Yet attending a sporting event might provide more than mere
social bonding among fans. There is ample evidence that fans have a direct effect
on the outcome of the contests themselves (Edwards & Archambault, 1989; Greer,
1983; Schwartz & Barsky, 1977). A number of collegiate and professional football
teams have such a strong, supportive fan base that they collectively become known
as the “12th man” (i.e., an extra player for the team). Indeed, the National Football
League’s Seattle Seahawks franchise has gone so far as to retire the number 12 in
honor of their fans.
As fans come to believe that their presence and participation in a game is
vital to the success of the team, social identity is heightened to an even greater
extent. At this point, the fans view their role as more than passive spectators to be
entertained and instead as a part of something greater than themselves in which
their participation is important. At the extreme, such fans perceive themselves as,
virtually, members of the team. On the other hand, we recognize that the motivation to be “part of the crowd” at a sporting event might have little to do with an
individual’s interest in a team or the outcome of a game. Instead, the event might
merely provide an opportunity to socialize with others or to be seen in a high-profile
setting. Businesses have increasingly used sporting events as a means to network
with clients, as evidenced by the increased presence (and price) of skybox suites at
many major sports venues. In these instances an individual might have little or no
emotional investment in the team’s performance. The value of attending the game
is not through personal identification with the team but through the relationships
or status that comes from attending the event. Thus, the outcome of the game itself
is irrelevant, relative to any favorable outcome for the individual spectator that the
game provides. It is from this more narcissistic viewpoint that we operationalize
salient group identification: the degree to which the sporting event serves as a
conduit for social interaction and identification with a reference group.
We make the distinction of salient group because what constitutes a group can
vary greatly, depending on the perspective one wishes to take. One such perspective
could be that of the group being the community as a whole, rather than an intimate
circle of friends. Both Anderson and Stone (1981) and Gladden and Funk (2002)
recognized that a team can act as a symbol of a community, providing individuals
with a “point of attachment” (Robinson & Trail, 2005, p .60). Similarly, Underwood
et al. (2001) noted,
The sense of belonging that is found in small groups can extend to a larger
community and is part of the psychological experience of being a fan. The
team’s success reflects on the collective identity of the community. (p. 5)
The social bonds provided by team identity can be as salient as those shared
by a group of friends. Yet in a broader sense, being associated with a team is tantamount to showing one’s identification with the city in which the team calls home,
provided there is strong association perceived between the team and the community at large. Indeed, the earliest owners of American sports teams leveraged an
implied association between city and team by literally naming the former after the
latter, even though in most cases a city had no direct ownership in the team. More
502 Boyle and Magnusson recently, teams have attempted to broaden their appeal beyond one city and into
a state or entire region (e.g., Minnesota Timberwolves, Arizona Cardinals). Such
naming strategies attempt to imply to those in a region that the team belongs to
them, even though they might not live in the city in which it plays. Therefore, we
augment the tact taken by Underwood et al. (2001) by forming two group-experience
dimensions: (a) the salient group at the level of small group experience, typically
encountered at the sporting event itself, and (b) a broader community identification,
the perceived association between the team and a community.
History. Fans can cultivate a social identity through their appreciation for the
history of their team. The seamless continuity between past and present allows
fans to feel as though they are part of that continuing history. Underwood et al.
(2001) make a compelling statement that history can be especially critical to the
sports marketer, because it “connotes a sense of tangibility in a largely intangible
environment” (p. 6). These authors mention historical records and statistics and
consistent uniforms as examples of those tangible aspects to team history. Indeed,
the recent popularity of throwback jerseys is an example of history being an attractive attribute of team sports.
Finally, over time some historic team moments can gain legendary status. For
example, Babe Ruth’s “Called Shot” during the 1932 World’s Series is still debated
as to whether Ruth actually pointed to the outfield just before hitting a home run
in that direction. Franco Harris will forever be known for making the “Immaculate
Reception,” which secured a playoff victory for the Pittsburgh Steelers in 1972.
(Like Ruth’s “Called Shot,” there is still controversy as to whether Harris’ catch
was legal.) The lore of such events, as evidenced by a designated title associated
with them, are assets to team-brand equity. For older fans of a team, a sense of
history is particularly acute when the individual witnessed a legendary moment
in team history. Such moments shared with family members or friends add to the
nostalgic value of those memories, thus tying a team even closer to one’s own
personal history.
Physical Facility (Venue). Underwood et al. (2001) propose that leveraging a
team’s physical facility into greater social identification for the fan is contingent on
how strongly the facility is integrated into the organization’s brand identity and the
degree to which attributes of the facility allow for group identity formation.
Although many times not owned by a team, sports stadiums and arenas become
the de facto home of the organization. Similar to the points made regarding statistics
and uniforms, the sports venue also provides a stable, tangible representation
of the team’s identity. This is particularly true for sports—both collegiate and
professional—in which players might only be associated with a team for a short
period of time. As players and coaches come and go, old records are broken and
uniform styles change; many times the only consistency for the fan is the team’s
facility. For example, the University of Michigan’s “Big House” football stadium,
the Boston Red Sox’s Fenway Park, and Duke University’s Cameron Indoor Stadium
are iconic in their association with the teams that have played there for decades.
Indeed, Yankee Stadium’s Monument Park—an area in centerfield with granite
monuments of past Yankee greats—makes the stadium as much a museum of the
past as a ballpark of the present.
Social Identity and Brand Equity Formation 503
Aside from their historic symbolism, sports venues also provide opportunity
for individuals to identify with one another as a group, despite the fact that such
individuals might not have known one another before the game, nor will they associate with one another after its conclusion. Again, the SIBE model would predict
that social identity with a team is enhanced to the extent that facility characteristics
and amenities bring people together. For example, many NFL stadiums provide
areas for tailgating, a pregame event that includes barbeque cooking, drinking,
and camaraderie among otherwise total strangers. The home of the Chicago Cubs,
Wrigley Field, is well-known for its outfield bleacher seats, where “bleacher bums”
come to drink, socialize, and, at times, watch the baseball game. The following
describes this stadium’s role within a typical Cub fan’s social identity:
Truth is, Wrigley Field is the biggest draw here, more so than Sammy Sosa or
even the Cubs themselves. Some people come for the frat party in the bleachers,
some just to be seen. But so many come just for that old feeling, that magic.
(Couch, 2003, p. S7)
Rituals. It has been argued that sport itself grew from ancient ceremonial events,
many of which were religious in nature (Diem, 1960; Gutttman, 1978). Today,
sports have been a source of rituals, more so than being ritualistic in and of themselves. Rituals as a source of social identity are those that are unique to the team
or region of the country in which they play. For example, college football is replete
with examples of ritual—the “dotting of the i” by the Ohio State marching band
and the Texas A&M bonfire ceremony before their game against archrival Texas
(Underwood et al., 2001). Such rituals are obviously a by-product of a team’s
history. As mentioned, an understanding and appreciation for such history would
likely enhance one’s social identity with the team of the present. Rituals serve as a
reminder of that history and to bring it into the current experience of the fan. Being
part of the ritual also allows fans to feel that their participation is a continuation
of the team’s legacy. Finally, overt public participation in ritual also allows fans
to demonstrate their allegiance to the team, thereby solidifying a place of status in
the group to which they identify. This corresponds to Lee and Kacen (1999), who
noted that such overt public behavior is a form of self-presentation used to gain
favorable identity in one’s subculture.
Testing the SIBE Model
Aside from a general empirical testing of the SIBE model, we attempt to compare
three groups of fans as to how various marketplace factors affect social identity
with a team. Of those proposed by the SIBE model, we have chosen to focus on
the following: group experience (both salient and community), history, and physical facility (i.e., venue). Because rituals are extremely unique from one team to
the next, testing this construct using data from one team does not allow for a high
degree of external validity. Because of this, and the likelihood of rituals being closely
tied to team history, this aspect of the SIBE model was not included in our study.
A subsequent comparison across fan groups is made as to the role social identity
plays in affecting brand equity of a university athletic program.
504 Boyle and Magnusson We test aspects of the SIBE model using the fans of one university’s basketball
program. The choice of a collegiate rather than a professional team was done for a
number of reasons. First, many authors have argued that some of the most ardent
and socially identifiable sports fans are those of collegiate athletic teams (Goldstein
& Arms, 1971; Schurr, Ruble, & Ellen, 1985; Wann & Branscombe, 1993; Zillman
& Paulus, 1993). Therefore, such a setting is amenable to testing the SIBE model
proposition of the role of social identity toward brand equity formation.
Second, college sports is unique to other sporting events because fan subgroups
are relatively easy to discern. Specifically, we categorize fans into the following
groups: current university students, alumni, and the local population with no direct
association with the school. Understanding how social identity is formed and,
in turn, plays a role in their brand equity formation for these groups holds value
for those who would market to them. In extending the SIBE model, our premise
is that the manner in which social identity is formed varies across the three fan
subgroups. For one group, history might be important. In another, identification
might manifest in group experience. Knowing how social-identity formation varies
for these groups allows the marketer to craft effective marketing communications
that, in turn, build brand equity.
Social Identity’s Effect on Brand Equity. For our purposes, the brand in question
is that of a university’s athletic program rather than one individual team. Similar
to any other lines of consumer products, universities typically oversee a number
of team sports, appealing to a wide range of preferences of potential spectators.
These teams also differ in the amount of revenue they provide an athletic program.
For many universities, football and men’s basketball are the primary revenuegenerating sports, which in turn provide funding for nonrevenue sports such as
volleyball, gymnastics, or golf. Therefore, these flagship sports have a significant
effect on the overall financial stability of a school’s athletic program. Evidence
of a positive relationship between social identity of one team and brand equity of
the overall athletic program would bolster this assertion. Therefore, Hypothesis 1:
There is a positive relationship between fan social identity with a collegiate team
and fan-perceived brand equity of the school’s overall athletic program.
Group Comparisons of Social-Identity Formation. For college students, iden-
tification with their school is highly likely to some degree because their daily lives
are dominated by their interaction with elements of the institution, particularly
for full-time on-campus residents. Because students, as a group, are younger than
alumni and the general population, it is less likely that the team’s history will play
a strong role in forming social identification. This would be even less likely for
the student who comes to the university from another region of the country, thus
having limited exposure to the team and its history before matriculation.
Because the social life of undergraduates is likely to revolve around the
university in general and others in their own age group specifically, identification
with their college’s teams is formed through their group experience within a peer
group. The team provides social-interaction opportunities for the group, both in
attendance of the games or simply as a topic of conversation. This is congruent
with other studies that show consumers preferring products that are consistent with
highly identifiable peer groups (Bearden & Etzel, 1982; Childers & Rao, 1992).
To some students, however, the game itself might not be as important as the social
Social Identity and Brand Equity Formation 505
interaction it affords. As mentioned, sporting events provide a setting for spectators
to interact with one another, as much as an opportunity to watch the game itself. In
some cases, the former can be of greater value to the individual than the latter.
Alumni, having been part of this student population at one time, also provide a
generically cohesive fan group. Similar to current students, alumni’s emotional tie
to the institution is even more heightened by a mix of nostalgia. It is also possible
that an alum would have witnessed some of the more historic moments in team
history. As mentioned, such experiences meld the individual’s personal history to
that of the team, thereby enhancing social identification that much more. Even
without eyewitness accounts of historic moments, the alum’s knowledge of history
is likely to be greater relative to that of a current student merely by the difference
in age between the two.
Nonalumni fans of a university’s teams in the general public are no less fervent
than students or alumni, even though these individuals might have never set foot
on the campus. For example, the University of Notre Dame’s subway alumni is a
term which originated in the early 20th century from the Irish-immigrant population of New York, most of which could not afford to attend college. Yet this group
found social identity through the obvious connection with the school’s nickname
(Fighting Irish). Today there are a number of subway alumni chapters across the
country whose membership is primarily comprised of nonalumni fans of the university. The self-designation of these individuals as alumni is an obvious desire to
be associated with the institution, albeit vicariously.
The general public’s connection with the university, however passionate,
is likely to be more limited than that of the student body or alumni community.
Indeed, the public’s only direct interaction with the institution might be attending
university sporting events. We speculate this outside-looking-in perspective can
produce an upwardly biased opinion of the school, because nonalumni were not
exposed to possible negative aspects of day-to-day life at the school (e.g., difficult
classes, tuition increases). This bias can have an impact on how members of the
general public form their social identity toward a school’s athletic teams in contrast
to alumni and current students. Given this discussion, we provide a second general
hypothesis. Hypothesis 2: Students, alumni, and the general public will differ as
to the factors that contribute to their identification to a team.
Method
Research Setting and Data Collection
The focus of the research was the men’s basketball program of a private midwestern university of approximately 12,000 students, located in a metropolitan area of
approximately 2.7 million people. Aside from the university’s athletic programs,
the area is also home to a number of professional teams, both at the major- and
minor-league level. Therefore, the local population has a number of varied choices
for live sports entertainment. At the time of the data collection, the men’s basketball
team was a member of one of the top 10 NCAA Division I basketball conferences
in the U.S. Although the school itself had not reached the status of an elite program
for many years, it did compete with the more elite teams in the country, both in and
outside its conference. Such teams are typically referred to as mid-majors—those
506 Boyle and Magnusson that are just below the upper echelon but are competitive with such programs. In the
years before data collection, the team had reached the NCAA postseason basketball
tournament, only to be eliminated in the early rounds. Aside from basketball, the
university sponsors 13 other intercollegiate athletic teams; however, football was
not one of them. Therefore, the men’s basketball program was the most visible of
the sports offered by the university and, in turn, generated the largest amount of
revenue for the athletic department. At the time of data collection, the basketball
team played all of their home games at an offcampus arena shared by two professional sports teams, as well as special events such as concerts throughout the
year. Similar to Wann and Branscombe (1993), we focus on the fan base of one
university, rather than collect data from fans of a number of schools. Although the
latter approach might produce a more representative sample of U.S. college fans, it
was felt that the nuances and idiosyncrasies of any individual institution and community would have been blurred by aggregating it with those of others. The focal
institution of investigation, however, is arguably representative of a large number
of Division I NCAA member schools.
The data-collection process was conducted approximately 3 months after the
conclusion of the basketball season. That particular season, the team established
a respectable but not outstanding 19–13 record. The team was invited to play in
the National Invitational Tournament (NIT), but the team lost its opening-round
game. The timing of the data collection was seen as critical to the validity of the
findings; had the team experienced an extremely poor or outstanding season, and
the data been collected soon thereafter, responses might have been biased because
of those recent events (i.e., jumping on or off the bandwagon). A lack of such a
bias yields responses that reflect more consistent and enduring attitudes about the
team. Two separate data-collection procedures used a survey method via a two-page
questionnaire. Students were given a questionnaire in a classroom setting, whereas
the other two fan groups received it through the mail. Students, alumni, and the
local population were asked their opinions regarding the school’s men’s basketball
team. Specifically, measures focused on (a) salient and community group experience, (b) historical appreciation for the basketball program, (c) opinions about the
university’s basketball venue, (d) the individual’s own (social) identification with
the team, and (e) perceived brand equity of the university’s athletic program in
general. Aside from minor modifications, the in-class and mailed versions of the
questionnaire were virtually identical.
The first phase of data collection focused on undergraduates enrolled in various upper-level (junior/senior) undergraduate business courses at the university,
with instructions that the students were not obligated to participate. An incentive
was provided, however, in the form of a drawing for a free skybox party at one of
the school’s basketball games. The mailed version of the questionnaire was sent to
individuals from a list of alumni that was obtained from the university, as well as
a mailing list of the general public used by the university athletic department for
direct-mail promotions. The list was then reduced to include only zip codes from
the metropolitan area in which the university is located. As with the student sample,
the same skybox-contest incentive was offered to this sample.
Social Identity and Brand Equity Formation 507
Sample Response Rate and Description
Of the 157 questionnaires distributed to students, 109 (69%) chose to respond. All
questionnaires from this group were deemed acceptable for analysis. A total of 1,400
mailed questionnaires were sent out, of which 569 were returned 1 month after
the initial mailing. Of these, 17 were deemed unacceptable, primarily because of
a high number of incomplete answers. Therefore, the 552 accepted questionnaires
represent a response rate of 39.4%. Given that the study looked to compare only
students, alumni, and the general public, some acceptable responses were not part
of the subsequent analysis. In particular, those respondents were removed from the
analysis who identified themselves as a spouse of an alum or student, a university
employee, or a parent of a student or alum. These totaled 44 respondents, resulting
in a sample of alumni and the general public of 508, or 36.3% of the original mailing. Combining the mailed and student respondents provided an overall sample of
617 usable questionnaires, and an aggregate usable response rate of 39.6%.
Table 1 provides an overview of the characteristics of the three groups in the
overall sample. Most of the respondents were male (78.6%), although the student
sample was nearly equal among men and women. Household income varied to a
large extent, with a plurality of respondents (28.3%) claiming an annual income
between $100,000 and $150,000. The average age of a respondent was 47, although
the student sample (M = 21) was significantly lower than both alumni (M = 51)
and general public (M = 55). Caucasians made up a significant proportion of the
overall sample (94.1%). Asian-Americans were better represented, however, in the
student sample (5.6%) than the other two groups. Finally, the respondents were
asked a yes/no question: “Do you consider yourself a native of the [metropolitan]
area?” To this, 73.5% of the overall sample responded to the affirmative. The lowest
percentage of those responding yes were students (56%), followed by the general
public (69%) and alumni (81%).
Measures
We adapted the social-identity measure that was first developed and tested by
Wann and Branscombe (1993) in their study of University of Kansas basketball
fans. Brand equity was measured using original items that focused on the perceived
quality dimension of the construct (Aaker, 1991). We take this tact given Aaker’s
(p. 86) assertion that perceived quality provides a brand with reason-to-buy leverage in the marketplace. Essentially, well-managed brands that convey high quality
tend to hold a high place among consumer choice preferences. Therefore, although
other aspects of the brand (loyalty, awareness, and brand associations) contribute to
overall brand equity, perceived quality captures the end-game of branding efforts:
the brand becoming the reason to purchase the product. In addition, we would
expect perceived quality to be highly correlated with other dimensions of brand
equity. Indeed, findings by Lassar, Mittall, and Sharma (1995) revealed a halo (i.e.,
high correlation) across dimensions of brand equity, supporting this contention. As
noted, our brand equity items seek to capture the construct in terms of the brand
being the overall athletic program of the university, rather than an individual team
508 Boyle and Magnusson Table 1 Sample Demographics
Alumni
n
%
Gender
male
female
Household income
< $30,000
$30,000–74,999
$75,000–99,999
$100,000–149,999
$150,000–199,999
$200,000–249,999
$250,000+
Age
18–25
26–38
39–55
56–65
66+
Ethnicity
White
Black
Hispanic
Asian
other
Native to metropolitan area
yes
no
Public
n
%
Students
n
%
Overall
n
%
280
69
80.2
19.8
146
12
92.4
7.6
56
53
51.4
48.6
533
143
78.6
21.2
13
57
46
78
40
20
54
4.2
18.5
14.9
25.3
13.0
6.5
17.5
4
32
13
46
22
9
18
2.8
22.2
9.0
31.9
15.3
6.3
12.5
10
17
16
32
7
18
0
10.0
17.0
16.0
32.0
7.0
18.0
0.0
27
106
75
156
69
47
72
4.9
19.2
13.6
28.3
12.5
8.5
13.0
18
64
109
110
47
5.2
18.4
31.3
31.6
13.5
0
5
76
51
23
0.0
3.2
49.0
32.9
14.8
107
0
0
0
0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
125
69
185
161
70
20.5
11.3
30.3
26.4
11.5
335
6
1
4
3
96.0
1.7
0.3
1.1
0.9
151
3
1
1
1
96.2
1.9
0.6
0.6
0.6
92
1
2
6
7
85.2
0.9
1.9
5.6
6.5
578
10
4
11
11
94.1
1.6
0.7
1.8
1.8
269
64
80.8
19.2
105
47
69.1
30.9
54
43
55.7
44.3
428
154
73.5
26.5
therein. For the remaining constructs, original measures were developed and tested.
Underwood et al.’s (2001) conceptualization of SIBE constructs served as a guide
in item construction. All items were constructed as 6-point Likert scale responses,
with strongly agree and strongly disagree or very important and not important
as end points. In addition, the following demographic items were included on
the instrument: age, gender, ethnicity, household income, and whether or not the
respondents considered themselves a native of the metropolitan area. For the mailed
questionnaire, a single item captured the individual’s relationship with the school:
an alum, family member of an alum or student, a university employee, or no direct
relationship with the school.
Data Analysis
The analysis for testing the proposed hypotheses was carried out in multiple stages.
In the first stage, we evaluated reliability and validity of the independent and
dependent constructs using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, we extracted average
variance, and we performed a confirmatory factor analysis for each subgroup. After
establishing that all measures were valid and reliable, we subsequently evaluated the
hypotheses using Structural Equation Modeling in LISREL 8.7. We examined the
path structure for each subgroup, followed by a multiple group analysis to test for
path invariance. We controlled for several demographic factors such as age, gender,
Social Identity and Brand Equity Formation 509
ethnicity, income, relationship with the university, and whether or not the respondent
was native to the area by computing partial correlations as input for the test of the
model. Without partitioning these effects from the models, distorted relationships
between exogenous and endogenous variables could occur. Although the use of
partial correlations is appropriate when controlling for various demographic factors
(Graves, Ohlott, & Ruderman, 2007), this can compromise some of the distributional
assumptions in LISREL inferential statistics. Thus, the path estimates needed to
be treated as heuristic estimates rather than precise probabilities.
Results
Measurement Testing
Reliability. For all six multiple-item scales, item reliability was assessed by calcu-
lating Cronbach’s alpha and average variance extracted (Fornell & Larcker, 1981)
for each subgroup. The items for each construct are presented in Table 2, along
with their standardized factor loadings, coefficient alpha, and variance extracted.
The items demonstrate acceptable reliability. Five out of the six constructs have
alphas above .70 across all groups and the average variance extracted are above
the recommended .5 cutoff (Steenkamp & van Trijp, 1991). For the salient group
construct, however, we were forced to omit one item and only retain a two-item
construct. Even with omitting one item, the construct fails to meet acceptable cutoffs in the alumni and public groups. Because of the nature of the study and the
fact that these statistics are downwardly biased for measures with relatively small
number of items, however, this construct was included in our study (Nunnally &
Bernstein, 1994).
Measurement Validity. Construct validity was assessed using a confirmatory
factor analysis in LISREL 8.7 for all construct measures included in the study.
Model fits are presented at the bottom of Table 2 and are acceptable across all
groups. Although the chi-squares are significant, contrary to what is desired, the
chi-square fit index is highly dependent on sample size (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). The
root mean squares of approximation are acceptable for all groups, however, and
the NFI and GFI are above the recommended .9 cutoff (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Hu
& Bentler 1999). In addition, all factor loadings were significant at the 5% level,
indicating convergent validity (Zhang, Cavusgil, & Roath, 2003). Finally, all six
constructs were allowed to correlate with one another, which resulted in crossconstruct correlations significantly different than 1.0 across all groups, suggesting
that the constructs were discriminant from one another (Zhang et al., 2003).
Hypothesis Testing
We first tested the hypothesized path model on each of the subgroups. This was
followed by a comparison of means across fan groups for all constructs, and the
final multigroup analysis examined whether the measurements and structural model
were invariant across groups.
Brand equity (in the form of perceived value of the athletic program) is
proposed to be directly affected by one’s social identity with the men’s basketball
team. The antecedents of social identity are, in turn, history of the team, venue,
510
1. It’s more important to me to have fun in a group of people at a game than for the [university’s] basketball team to win.
2. I won’t go to a [university] men’s basketball game unless I’m with a certain group of people.
3. I have a lot of fun at a [university] men’s basketball game just by being part of the crowd. (item deleted)
Salient group
1. It’s hard to think about the City of X without thinking about the [university’s] men’s basketball team.
2. The [university’s] basketball team is a big part of the culture in the City of X.
3. The City of X would be a very different place without the [university’s] men’s basketball team.
Community group
1. How important is it to YOU that the men’s basketball team wins?
2. How strongly do YOU see YOURSELF as a fan of the [university’s] men’s basketball team?
3. During the season, how closely do you follow the [university’s] men’s basketball team by way of ANY of the following: newspaper, radio, internet, or TV?
4. How important is being a fan of the [university’s] men’s basketball team to YOU?
Social identity
Table 2 Item Measures and Factor Loadings
Public
α = .79
AVE = .49
.37
.82
.75
.78
α = .90
AVE = .76
.91
.94
.76
α = .46
AVE = .30
.55
.55
–
Alumni
α = .85
AVE = .59
.55
.84
.81
.83
α = .93
AVE = .81
.89
.95
.87
α = .54
AVE = .38
.67
.56
–
.66
–
α = .74
AVE = .59
.87
.94
.87
α = .94
AVE = .84
.89
.94
α = .94
AVE = .78
.80
.92
.88
Students
511
α = .80
AVE = .57
.64
.92
.68
α = .80
AVE = .58
.81
.75
.72
α = .83
AVE = .57
.86
.95
.50
.62
α = .80
AVE = .57
.81
.79
.67
α = .82
AVE = .60
.82
.74
.77
α= .82
AVE = .54
.87
.87
.59
.54
.57
.63
α = .84
AVE = .58
.90
.89
.78
α = .81
AVE = .59
.84
.68
α = .86
AVE = .67
.78
.85
.82
Note. AVE = average variance extracted. Alumni: χ2 (df) = 322.3 (137), RMSEA = .06; Public: χ2 (df) = 188.3 (137), RMSEA = .05; Students: χ2 (df) = 228.1 (137),
RMSEA = .08.
1. I believe that, overall, [the university] has quality intercollegiate athletic teams.
2. The [university’s] athletic teams are competitive with other universities in their respective sports.
3. Attending a [university] athletic event is worth the money and time to do so.
4. For someone to be a [university] athlete takes a great deal of talent, regardless of the sport.
Brand equity
1. Its long and storied past makes the [university’s] basketball program of today something special.
2. The rich tradition of [university] basketball is something you don’t find at most other universities.
3. The [university] basketball program has a special place in the history of [the university] itself.
History
1. I think [the venue] is a unique place.
2. I have a lot of great memories from events I attended at [the venue].
3. I would be very upset if [the venue] was torn down tomorrow.
Venue
512 Boyle and Magnusson salient-, and community-group identification. The overall fit statistics for each
model are presented in Table 3, and the individual path coefficients are presented
in Figure 1. Despite significant chi-squares, the fit statistics indicate that the models
have an acceptable fit to the data across all groups.
Social identity was found to have a significant positive effect on brand equity
across all three fan groups, in support of Hypothesis 1. An initial examination of
the path coefficients, however, shows that the manner in which social identity was
affected by the market factors proposed by the SIBE model is varied across groups,
which provides preliminary support for Hypothesis 2. Surprisingly, student social
identification was most strongly associated with the perceived connection between
the team and the city itself (β = .34, p < .01). Indeed, of the four market factors this
was the only one that proved significant among students.
Unlike the student group, alumni appear to form their social identification
through an appreciation for team history (β = .37, p < .01). A strong negative
relationship was also evident among alumni between salient group and social identification (β = –.44, p < .01). Again, given the tone of the items used in the salient
group measure, these results suggest that strong identity to a team is at times at
odds with other social group ties.
The hypothesized link between social identity and brand equity was most
prominent among those fans from the general public (β = .30, p < .01). This group
was similar to the alumni group with respect to the effects of history (β = .36, p
< .01) and salient group (β = –.26, p < .01) on social identity. Unlike the alumni
and student groups, however, the public’s identification with the sports venue was
positively associated with its identity to the team itself (β = .18, p < .05).
To further analyze the differences, we tested for mean differences across fan
groups. Table 4 provides the results of an analysis of variance for all constructs
across the three fan groups on the key constructs of the SIBE model. Overall, these
groups differed regarding a number of variables in the SIBE model. Most notable
Table 3 Structural Equation Model Fit Statistics
Model
Alumni
Public
Students
350
158
109
431.50 (141)
220.70 (141)
231.10 (141)
RMSEA
.077
.060
.076
RMR
.12
.099
.12
GFI
.88
.87
.81
NFI
.91
.91
.89
TLI (NNFI)
.92
.96
.94
CFI
.94
.96
.95
R2 (Social identity)
.31
.35
.25
R (Brand equity)
.05
.09
.05
Fit statistic
N
χ (df)
2
2
513
Figure 1 — Structural Path Model. S = student, A = alumni, P = public. *p < .05. **p < .01.
514 Boyle and Magnusson was the relatively low social-identity score of the student group. This might be
because of a student’s university life obviously encompassing more than one of
the school’s sports teams, in contrast to an alum or other nonstudent whose only
link to the institution might be through watching or following that team. In addition, given that (a) the team is not a top-tier basketball program and (b) the timing
of the survey was well after the conclusion of an uneventful season, the midrange
social-identity score for students should not be surprising.
It should be noted, however, that our study is not intended to reveal differences
in social identity per se. Instead, the SIBE seeks to identify those marketplace
factors that contribute to one’s social identity to a team. Therefore, we were more
concerned with differences in social-identity formation across fan groups than
differences in social identity.
Further evaluation of Table 4 confirms our findings from the structural equation model. In particular, students, alumni, and the general public all had different
perceptions of the team history. Given their younger age, it is not surprising that
the student sample had the lowest perceived historical value of the basketball
program. In addition, alumni were also more appreciative of the team’s history
than the general public. A similar pattern was seen with regard to the perceived
link between the team and the community at large. Students saw this connection
as being less apparent than alumni and the general public. This might be because
of the disproportionately large number of students who claimed to have not been
native to the metropolitan area, versus the other two fan groups (χ2 [1] = 19.2, p <
.01). Students also differed from alumni and the general public in terms of the role
a salient reference group plays in their in-game experience. Specifically, students
appeared to require the presence of friends to derive value from attending a game,
more so than the other fan groups. The groups did not differ with respect to their
perceived value of the venue in which the team plays its home games. This might
be a function of the arena being off-campus and used by other professional teams
and nonsporting events.
Finally, students had a significantly lower perceived value of the athletic
program in general, as reflected in the brand equity scores. We speculate that
because the athletes in the program are also members of their peer group, the student respondents do not hold athletes in as much awe as those who only see them
performing as gifted athletes.
Table 4 Mean Comparisons Across Fan Groups
Social identity
History
Salient group
Community
Venue
Brand equity
Alumni
Public
Students
5.19
4.36a
2.22a
3.90a
3.82a
4.84a
5.37
4.13b
1.95b
3.71a
3.95a
4.83a
3.28c
2.99c
4.04c
2.35b
4.06a
3.91b
a
b
Note. Likert scales for all measures were in a 1–6 disagree/agree format. Means with uncommon
superscripts are significantly different at p < .01, except alumni/public comparison of history, which
is significant at p = .03.
Social Identity and Brand Equity Formation 515
The mean comparison test and the varying significance levels between the
market factors and social identity across groups suggest that the three subgroups
differ as to the factors that contribute to their identification to a team, which we
suggested in Hypothesis 2. A more thorough analysis, however, would include
direct comparisons of path coefficients across the three models. Because p values
provided in Figure 1 only highlight those paths significantly different from zero,
a test for path invariance through multigroup analysis (Byrne, 1998; Jöreskog &
Sörbom, 1993) was conducted through a multiple-step process. In the first step,
all three groups were tested simultaneously with no constraints. This model has
acceptable fit (RMSEA = .053, NNFI = .98, NFI = .94), with a global chi-square
of χ2 (421) = 594.87. Next, before testing for path invariance we examined whether
all of the factor loadings were invariant. Thus, in the second model we constrained
the factor loadings for all three groups. This resulted in a significantly worse model.
Global chi-square is (χ2 [455] = 699.11), which results in a significantly reduced fit
(∆χ2 [34] = 104.24, p < .01). Because the factor loadings were variant, we would
expect the model paths to be variant, as well. This was the result of a third model
in which the paths themselves were constrained, resulting in a significant model
fit: a global chi-square of χ2 (465) = 770.45 (∆χ2 [10] = 71.4, p < .01).
The analysis of three different groups of fans has shown that increased social
identification with the team increases brand equity, as suggested in Hypothesis
1. In Hypothesis 2, we suggested that the creation of social identity would differ
across the three groups. Although the path models and mean comparison indicated
that there would be differences, the multigroup analysis not only found that the
groups were not path invariant but, more importantly, their perceptions of the
latent constructs were different. Despite using identical items and the fact that all
respondents were confined in a relatively limited geographic area in the Midwest,
the three different fan groups had significant differences in the factor structure of
the latent constructs. This has important implications on the marketing strategy for
how various segments should be targeted. These differences across fan segments
are the focus of our discussion.
Discussion
A sports team’s brand equity can be one of the most vital, as well as precarious,
aspects of managing the business side of a sports team. Over the last 20 years, the
U.S. sports consumer has been introduced to an increasing number of sporting-event
options. Aside from the “big three” sports (football, baseball, and basketball) the
growth of alternative sports such as Arena League (indoor) football, NASCAR,
and extreme sports has produced a heightened level of business competition for
consumers’ sports dollar. In such a competitive environment, the ability to effectively
manage fan perception of a team brand is placed at a premium for success.
Undoubtedly, how well a team performs on the field of play affects fan perception of that team and, in turn, their desire to make financial and emotional investments in it. Yet, we have discussed that ardent fans are found to be loyal toward the
worst, as well as the best, performing teams. Therefore, there are factors beyond
winning that cause fans to remain brand loyal. The SIBE model attempts to explain
fan attraction to a team beyond the team’s own success, or lack thereof. This model
casts social identity as the focal point at which one’s psychological connection with
516 Boyle and Magnusson a team is influenced by market factors, presumably under some degree of control
by team management. Strong social identity, in turn, is felt to lead to higher levels
of brand (i.e., team) loyalty.
The results of the present study lend general support to the notion of social
identity shaping brand loyalty among sports consumers. Within each of three
distinct fan groups, social identity showed a consistent, positive effect on brand
equity of a university’s athletic program. It is worth emphasizing that we cast
brand equity in terms of the perceived value of the cadre of sports offered by one
university’s athletic program. Social identity, however, was from the perspective
of one’s identification with one team from that program. Therefore, social identity
that was instilled in fans of one university team appears to transfer to the perception of other sponsored sports.
This has implications for those who are responsible for marketing collegiate
athletic programs. Understanding that a synergistic relationship can be leveraged
among a school’s various sports provides opportunities for cross-promotions,
improving the popularity of lesser-attended games in the program. In effect, being
known as a “football school” (e.g., Notre Dame) or a “basketball school” (e.g., Duke
University) need not be to the detriment of other sports in the program. Quite the
contrary, playing on the reputation of the dominant sport in the program (and the
resulting social identity held by fans), allows for transfer of positive identification
to those “minor” sports. Such transfer would require marketing communications
that integrate multiple sports (including the flagship team) into a common theme,
statement, or visual presentation. In essence, our results argue against the use of
“silo” promotional messages that attempt to distance the less popular team from the
high-profile team. The effects shown in our study would indicate that the perceived
quality of any of a school’s teams can be enhanced by associating with the more
popular, highly-identifiable teams.
Depending on the fan group in question, all four marketplace factors chosen for
investigation appeared to have an impact on shaping one’s social identity to a team,
further supporting Underwood et al.’s (2001) SIBE model. As shown in our empirical test, a team’s history affords the marketer a powerful brand-enhancing tool.
Fan identification with a present-day team is heavily influenced by an individual’s
appreciation for its history. This appeared particularly true for nonstudent fans,
who are relatively older and more likely to have lived through historical moments
of the team. The power of nostalgia in building brand equity in common consumer
products has long been recognized by other authors (e.g., Elliot & Wattanasuwan,
1998) and has also been demonstrated in sport (Fairley, 2003). Indeed, emotion
plays a particularly prominent role in consumer decision-making of sports-related
products and services. Our results confirm Underwood et al.’s contention that the
use of history can tap this emotional capital held by fans. In addition, our comparison of fan groups gives guidance that the use of history might be less effective
for student than nonstudent fans.
Our approach toward group effects on social identity varied from that of
Underwood et al. (2001). Specifically, we distinguished between the identification
with a salient, social cohort and that with the local community in general. This
resulted in the two having varied effects on social identity. Surprisingly, only the
student sample showed a significant relationship between community identification
and social identity. This is even more intriguing considering the students reported
Social Identity and Brand Equity Formation 517
relatively lower perceived connection between community and team, as well as
lower levels of social identity. The student group also had the highest proportion of
individuals not native to the area. Perhaps for those not from the area the university,
and particularly the university’s athletic programs, is their first and most significant
connection to the community at large, and therefore the connection between team
and city is that much more easily established. Lifetime residents, particularly those
of the general public not affiliated with the school, might recognize the university
as being an important institution in the community. This does not appear to play a
role, however, in increasing one’s identification as a fan of the university’s basketball
team. There are likely other touch points the university provides the public with
which to identify. For example, the focal university has a well-respected medical
school, has a highly visible modern art museum, and sponsors a number of community outreach programs. These and other aspects of the university, beyond the
basketball program, become woven into the public consciousness over time. Therefore, alumni and the general public, while seeing the connection of the basketball
program to community life, appear to develop their identification most notably
through their sense of team history.
Salient group effects were counter to those proposed by Underwood et al.
(2001), who saw group identification as a catalyst toward identification with a team;
if one’s friends loved a team, it is likely that the person would identify with that
team, as well. We allowed for the notion that team identification might be thwarted,
however, by intense group identification—there might be instances whereby the
sporting event merely acts as a conduit for group interaction and expression, with
the outcome of the contest itself being secondary. Such appears to be the case for the
student group. For marginal fans (of which our students appeared to relatively be),
a game is valuable primarily for socializing with friends. In contrast, more ardent
fans are less likely to be inspired to attend a game because of the availability of
such interaction. Indeed, the results suggest there might be a point at which intense
fans find such interaction unattractive as part of their spectator-experience.
This is not to say that at some level identification with a group of like-minded
friends cannot enhance social identification with a team. The manner in which our
items were posed, particularly Item 1 in Table 2, however, represents an extreme
case in which the respondent is asked to choose between having fun with friends
and a team victory. Among the three fan groups, only the student sample did not
reveal a significant, negative effect of salient group identification on social identity. This corresponds with the mean differences in Table 4 among students on the
salient group measure, relative to the other two fan groups. Although not significant
in the student model, these differences point toward the importance of peer-group
participation in attending a game for the individual student.
That the perception of the team’s home venue did not play a role in social
identity is not surprising. Again, the arena in which the team plays is an off-campus
location, is shared by two professional teams, and plays host to a number of nonsporting events throughout the year. In this case, the connection between team and
venue is tangential, at best. Although during a game the team might enjoy homecourt advantage, our results indicate that, in this particular case, the venue is not
seen as being one and the same as the team itself. It is not likely that this would
be a common finding across a number of different schools, particularly for those
whose teams play in an on-campus arena.
518 Boyle and Magnusson Certainly, our results should be considered in light of their limitations. Our
data-collection effort focused on fans of one school’s athletic program. There is
little doubt that our results would differ to some degree if data had been collected
regarding any number of other schools. Our purpose was to test a conceptual model
in an exploratory manner, however, illustrating how certain marketplace factors can
affect the development of social identity to one particular team.
Because a school’s athletic program, history, rituals, venue, and other characteristics are unique, further research is necessary to find contingencies in which
particular marketplace factors might or might not play a role in social-identity
development toward a team. For example, the focal school in the present study
plays their home games in a multipurpose, off-campus arena. The results revealed
that this venue had little impact on social identity. The role of an on-campus venue
might be more significant in developing social identity toward a team. Our exclusion
of rituals from model testing is also a by-product of the data-collection method
used. Because rituals are, by definition, unique to a particular team, any findings
that included rituals would suffer from a lack of external validity. We encourage
the continued investigation of rituals as a marketplace factor using methods that
would allow for a high degree of generalizability.
The sport of interest presently was men’s basketball. Another factor to consider
is that social identity to a team is contingent on the sport the team plays. Does
identification to football manifest itself differently than baseball or basketball?
How might the marketplace factors proposed by the SIBE model instill social
identity differently across various sports? For example, do fans more readily identify with a football stadium or baseball field? We also have chosen to investigate
social identity of a collegiate team. Does identification develop differently for a
professional sports team playing the same sport as a college counterpart? These
questions represent opportunities for future research to replicate and extend our
work in different environments. Nevertheless, our study has begun to answer the
questions on the role of social identity on brand equity creation, and how various
factors contribute to the creation of social identity across fan groups.
References
Aaker, D. (1991). Managing brand equity. New York: The Free Press.
Anderson, D.F., & Stone, G.P. (1981). Sport: A search for community. In S.L. Greendorfer
& A. Yiannakis (Eds.), Sociology of sport: Diverse perspectives (pp. 164-172). West
Point, NY: Leisure.
Bagozzi, R.P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, 74-94.
Bearden, W., & Etzel, M. (1982). Reference group influence on product and brand purchase
decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 183-194.
Byrne, B.M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS:
Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Childers, T., & Rao, A. (1992). The influence of familial and peer-based reference groups
on consumer decisions. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 198-211.
Cialdini, R., Borden, J., Thorne, A., Walker, M., Freeman, S., & Sloan, R. (1976). Basking
in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 34, 366-375.
Social Identity and Brand Equity Formation 519
Cialdini, R., & Brichardson, K. (1980). Two indirect tactics of image management: Basking
and blasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 406-415.
Couch, G. (2003, October 3). Baseball wouldn’t be baseball without park’s magical vibe.
The Chicago Sun-Times, p. S7.
Deaux, K., Reid, A., Mizrahi, K., & Ethier, K. (1995). Parameters of social identity. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 280-291.
Diem, K. (1960). Weltgeschichte des sports und der leibeserziehung [World history of sport
and physical education]. Stuttgart: Cotta.
Edwards, J., & Archambault, D. (1989). The home-field advantage. In J. Goldstein (Ed.),
Sports, games and play (2nd ed.; pp. 333-370). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Elliot, R., & Wattanasuwan, K. (1998). Brands as symbolic resources for the construction
of identity. International Journal of Advertising, 17, 131-144.
Fairley, S. (2003). In search of relived social experience: Group-based nostalgia sport tourism. Journal of Sport Management, 17, 284-304.
Fisher, R.J., & Wakefield, K. (1998). Factors leading to group identification: A field study
of winners and losers. Psychology and Marketing, 15, 23-40.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
Gladden, J.M., & Funk, D.C. (2002). Developing an understanding of brand associations
in team sport: Empirical evidence from consumers of professional sports. Journal of
Sport Management, 16, 54-81.
Goldstein, J., & Arms, R. (1971). Effects of observing athletic contests on hostility. Sociometry, 34, 83-90.
Graves, L.M., Ohlott, P.J., & Ruderman, M.N. (2007). Commitment to family roles: Effects
on managers’ attitudes and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 44-56.
Greer, D. (1983). Spectator booing and the home advantage: A study of social influence in
the basketball arena. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 252-261.
Guttman, A. (1978). Sports spectators. New York: Columbia University Press.
Hirt, E., & Zillman, D. (1985). The effects of team outcome on fan’s estimates of their
own performance. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological
Association, Chicago. May, 1985.
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.
Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL VIII user’s reference guide. Chicago, IL:
Scientific Software International.
Keller, K.L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand
equity. Journal of Marketing, 57, 1-22.
Lassar, W., Mittal, B., & Sharma, A. (1995). Measuring customer-based brand equity. Journal
of Consumer Marketing, 12(4), 11-19.
Lee, J., & Kacen, J. (1999). The relationship between independent and interdependent selfconcepts and reasons for purchase. Journal of Euro-Marketing, 8, 83.
Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw
Hill.
Parker, K., & Stuart, T. (1997). The West Ham Syndrome. International Journal of Market
Research, 39, 509-517.
Robinson, M., & Trail, G. (2005). Relationships among spectator gender, motives, points of
attachment, and sports preference. Journal of Sport Management, 19, 58-80.
Ross, S., (2006). A conceptual framework for understanding spectator-based brand equity.
Journal of Sport Management, 20, 22-38.
Saunders, P. (2000, December 3). That ain’t a shame. Denver Post, p. H1.
Schouten, J.W., & McAlexander, J.H. (1995). Subcultures of consumption: An ethnography
of the new bikers. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 43-61.
520 Boyle and Magnusson Schurr, K., Ruble, V., & Ellen, A. (1985). Myers-Briggs type indicator and demographic
characteristics of students attending and not attending a college basketball game.
Journal of Sport Behavior, 8, 3-17.
Schwartz, B., & Barsky, S. (1977). The home advantage. Social forces, 55, 641-661.
Simon, C.J., & Sullivan, M.W. (1993). The measurement and determinants of brand equity:
A financial approach. Marketing Science, 12, 28-52.
Steenkamp, J.E.M., & van Trijp, H.C.M. (1991). The use of LISREL in validating marketing
constructs. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 8, 283-299.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Introduction. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and inter-group relations
(pp. 1-11). New York: Academic Press.
Underwood, R., Bond, E., & Baer, R. (2001). Building service brands via social identity:
Lessons from the sports marketplace. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9,
1-13.
Wakefield, K.L., & Blodgett, J.G. (1996). The effect of the servicescape on customers’ behavioral intentions in leisure service settings. Journal of Services Marketing, 10, 45-61.
Wann, D., & Branscombe, N. (1993). Sports fans: Measuring degree of identification with
their team. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 1-17.
Zillman, D., & Paulus, P. (1993). Spectators: Reactions to sports events and effects on athletic
competition. In R. Singer, M. Murphey, & L. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on
sports psychology (pp. 600-619). New York: MacMillan.
Zhang, C., Cavusgil, S.T., & Roath, A.S. (2003). Manufacturer governance of foreign
distributor relationships: Do relational norms enhance competitiveness in the export
market? Journal of International Business Studies, 34, 550-566.