Journal of Sport Management, 2013, 27, 193-206
© 2013 Human Kinetics, Inc.
Official Journal of NASSM
www.JSM-Journal.com
ARTICLE
Human Brands in Sport:
Athlete Brand Personality and Identification
Brad D. Carlson
Saint Louis University
D. Todd Donavan
Colorado State University
By integrating social identity theory with brand personality, the authors test a model of how perceptions of
human brands affect consumer’s level of cognitive identification. The findings suggest that consumers view
athletes as human brands with unique personalities. Additional findings demonstrate that athlete prestige and
distinctiveness leads to the evaluation of athlete identification. Once consumers identified with the athlete,
they were more likely to feel an emotional attachment to the athlete, identify with the athlete’s team, purchase
team-related paraphernalia and increase their team-related viewership habits. The findings extend previous
research on human brands and brand personalities in sports. Marketers can use the information gleaned from
this study to better promote products that are closely associated with well-recognized and attractive athletes,
thereby increasing consumer retail spending. In addition, the findings offer new insights to sports marketers
seeking to increase team-related spectatorship by promoting the image of easily recognizable athletes.
Many collegiate and professional athletes achieve individual celebrity status among fans. As a result, athletes such
as LeBron James, David Beckham, and Roger Federer
have become human brands, driving retail sales of products associated with their names and images. The term
human brand has been used to describe any well-known
persona who is the subject of marketing communications
efforts (Thomson, 2006). Given the popularity of athletes
among consumers, numerous firms tie their brands to
successful athletes with the expectation that doing so will
transfer the athlete’s positive attributes onto the brand. In
many cases, these athletes are chosen because they are
perceived to have a strong connection with consumers.
This connection has been described as identification, or an
overlap between the consumer’s schema and the entity’s
schema (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000). However, questions
still remain as to what makes consumers connect (i.e.,
identify) with one athlete and not another.
Celebrities represent human brands that are professionally manageable and possess additional associations
and features of traditional brands (Thomson, 2006). While
organizations such as the National Basketball Association (N.B.A.) have made concerted efforts to emphasize
individual players when promoting games, little is known
about the variables that influence fan identification with
Carlson is with the Dept. of Marketing, Saint Louis University,
St. Louis, MO. Donavan is with the Dept. of Marketing, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
individual athletes, and the subsequent effects on teamrelated outcomes. A growing body of research suggests
that the attraction to these entities may be a result of a
brand personality (Aaker, 1997; Carlson, Donavan, &
Cumiskey, 2009). Specifically, Aaker suggested that a
brand personality often increases the consumer’s connection with the brand. Carlson et al. (2009) explored
relationships between the brand personality of a sports
team and the related consumer outcomes of identification,
viewing team performances, and retail spending. Their
findings reveal that specific brand personality attributes,
rather than general brand personality dimensions, influence team identification and, ultimately, team-related
consumption behaviors. We investigate consumer connections with sports teams by considering individual athletes
as human brands, thus extending the work of Carlson et
al. (2009). Further, we argue that the “brand personality”
attributes of an individual athlete may also lead consumers to increased identification and ultimately increased
team-related consumption behaviors. Because athletes
can be considered brands in their own right (Thomson,
2006), understanding how consumers perceive athletes
as human brands may provide additional insight into
brand-consumer relationships that drive team-related
consumption behaviors.
This research investigates the extent to which brand
personality attributes of professional athletes influence
consumer-brand relationships with a professional sports
team. Social identity theory is used as a framework for a
model that predicts consumer connections with athletes and
193
194 Carlson and Donavan
the team, retail spending and number of games watched. In
this study, the model proposed by Carlson et al. (2009) in
a sports team context (Figure 1) is extended to incorporate
individual athletes as human brands that influence teamrelated outcomes. The findings suggest that athlete identification (athlete ID) has unique predictors, as well as a direct
impact on athlete attachment, team identification (team ID),
retail spending and the number of games watched.
Identification
In recent years, researchers have investigated social identification as it relates to consumer-company identification
(Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003), sport identification (Gwinner & Bennett, 2008), and team identification (Carlson et
al., 2009; Donavan, Carlson, & Zimmerman, 2005a; Fink,
Parker, Brett & Higgins, 2009; Kwon, Trail, & James,
2007; Madrigal & Chen, 2008). Identification has been
described as “a oneness with or belongingness with an
entity where the individual defines him or herself in terms
of the entity to which he or she is a member” (Mael &
Ashforth, 1992, p. 104). More recently, distinctions have
been made between the cognitive (i.e., identification),
affective (i.e., affective commitment) and evaluative
(i.e., group-based self esteem) aspects of social identity,
with identification conceptualized as a cognitive state in
which the individual comes to view him- or herself as a
member of a social entity (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000).
Thus, when an individual strongly identifies with an
entity, an overlap exists between one’s self-schema and
the entity’s schema. Strong identification has been linked
to increased event attendance (Bhattacharya, Rao, &
Figure 1 — Conceptual model of athlete identification.
Glynn, 1995), increased purchase intentions (Gwinner
& Bennett, 2008; Gwinner & Swanson, 2003; Kwon,
Trail, & James, 2007), increased spending (Kwon &
Armstrong, 2002; Lichtenstein, Drumwright, & Braig,
2004), and increased viewership (Carlson et al., 2009).
Identification can be explained from a social identity
theory perspective. The theory posits that individuals make
sense of the world by categorizing themselves and others
into groups, and self-categorization into a group (e.g., I
am a Manchester United fan) serves a self-definitional
role (Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995). The various social
categories to which one belongs (e.g., soccer enthusiasts)
contribute to his or her social identity (Hogg et al., 1995;
Tajfel & Turner, 1985). Consumers are drawn to teams
that have a strong “similarity” to their own actual or ideal
self (Carlson et al., 2009; Fink et al., 2009; Madrigal &
Chen, 2008). Likewise, consumers should be drawn to
individual athletes perceived to be similar to their own
actual or ideal self (Funk & James, 2001). Ultimately,
identification provides a means to proclaim “in-group”
affiliations while simultaneously distinguishing oneself
from various “out-groups.” For example, fans often wear
athletic paraphernalia to show their in-group affiliation
with a particular team or athlete and to demonstrate
that they are not part of the rival out-group. Thus, social
identity theory offers a useful theoretical framework for
examining consumer affiliations with human brands.
Within the identification literature, two main
characteristics routinely predict a person’s identification: prestige (Bhattacharya et al., 1995; Gwinner &
Swanson, 2003) and distinctiveness (Ashforth & Mael,
1989; Mael & Ashforth, 1992). While prestige refers to
Human Brands in Sport 195
the exclusivity, respect, and status of the entity (Davies,
Chun, da Silva, & Roper, 2004), distinctiveness relates
to how the entity is different from all other competitors
(Holt, 1995). The findings of Carlson et al. (2009) suggest that the prestige and distinctiveness of a sports team
is influenced by various brand personality attributes.
However, it remains unclear how an individual athlete
attains a desirable level of prestige and/or distinctiveness. To consider this question, we adopt the perspective
of athletes as human brands that possess unique brand
personalities. Prior research reveals that brand personality affects consumer’s brand attitudes (Aaker, 1997),
attitudes toward sporting event sponsors (Lee & Cho,
2009), and team identification (Carlson et al., 2009).
We argue that brand personality attributes will directly
influence perceptions of prestige and distinctiveness,
thereby influencing identification, and ultimately team
viewership and retail spending. The relationships are
illustrated in Figure 1.
Brand Personality
Aaker (1997, p. 347) defined brand personality as “the set
of human characteristics associated with a brand.” However, this definition is arguably too broad as it embraces
nearly everything related to human beings and applied to
brands, regardless of how relevant it may be for branding. Thus, consistent with Azoulay and Kapferer (2003),
we conceptualize brand personality as the set of human
personality states that are both applicable to and relevant
for brands. Specifically, brand personality attributes are
adjectives used to describe brands.
Consumers often assign various and unique personalities to brands, such as Apple being hip and cool. The
consumption of branded products allows consumers to
express their own self (Belk, 1988), through associating
oneself with the particular attributes and personality of
the brand (Aaker, 1997). Similar to forming a relationship
with other people, consumers often acquire relationships
with brands (Fournier, 1998). Aaker et al. (2004) suggest
that each exchange partner’s personality traits affect the
relationship. Thus, brands that possess a desirable personality will provide a greater opportunity for the consumer
to develop a strong relationship with the brand. Although
many companies find it appealing to be associated with
a professional athlete, it is the culturally derived meanings (i.e., brand personality attributes) associated with
the athlete that makes such associations profitable. The
unique human personality traits possessed by individual
athletes are largely unobservable by the public. As such,
athletes, and celebrities in general, tend to influence brand
related attitudes and behaviors by creating and maintaining a symbolic brand personality that is congruent with
the consumer’s actual or ideal self.
The concept of brand personality has received considerable attention in marketing and sport management
research (e.g., Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003; Braunstein &
Ross, 2010; Carlson et al., 2009; Heere, 2010). However,
little consensus exists as to the most effective measurement of the construct across contexts and multiple
authors have uncovered limitations of the scale originally
proposed by Aaker (Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003; Heere,
2010). Specifically, it has been argued that the brand personality scale lacks conceptual completeness and validity.
For instance, in contrast to Goldberg’s (1992) five-factor
scale of human personality, Aaker’s brand personality scale does not include synonym-antonym response
choices (e.g., charming—dull). While this may somewhat
restrict the scope of the concept, such restrictiveness may
be useful for marketing managers. Unlike psychological
assessments of personality that are intended to provide a
deep, detailed description of an individual’s personality,
the usefulness of the brand personality construct lies in
its ability to provide brand managers with a manageable
list of key adjectives that describe their brand.
In an effort to address the conceptual validity of the
construct, Heere (2010) proposed that managers develop
their own list of brand personality attributes and then
compare consumer and manager perceptions of the brand
on each attribute. However, such an approach measures
the gap between manager and consumer perceived
brand personality rather than actual brand personality.
Braunstein and Ross (2010) attempted to reexamine the
general brand personality dimensions while accounting for the unique characteristics of sports, but failed
to produce dimensions that demonstrated discriminant
validity. Considering previous research on the topic and
given the diversity of product types, attempting to use
a unified measure for all brands seems both unnecessary and inherently flawed (Heere, 2010). Although it is
important to note potential challenges associated with
Aaker’s scale, the aim of this research is to expand the
model of consumer-brand relationships in sport as proposed by Carlson et al. (2009) rather than to refine the
measurement properties of the brand personality scale. As
such, the scale proposed by Aaker represents a useful and
appropriate starting point for evaluating brand personality
attributes applied to athletes.
The framework for consumer-brand relationships
in sport proposed by Carlson et al. (2009) serves as the
basis for this study. They found that some of the attributes
comprising the original dimensions of brand personality
proposed by Aaker (1997) were not suitable for the context
of evaluating basketball team personalities as items such
as “outdoorsy” offer little descriptive value (e.g., basketball teams and players are typically not perceived to be
outdoorsy). However, each of the brand personality attributes used in their study was representative of the original
five dimensions of brand personality proposed by Aaker
(1997). Although the validity of the operationalization
of each dimension has received some criticism, utilizing
each dimension is useful for ensuring a broad combination of brand personality attributes. This also allows for
some necessary flexibility in measuring brand personality
across multiple contexts while staying within a unified
conceptual framework. Consistent with such an approach,
we investigate each of the five dimensions of brand personality by utilizing the individual attributes identified by
Carlson et al. (2009). This allows for a direct extension of
the framework proposed in their research by incorporating
196 Carlson and Donavan
the role of specific athletes in predicting team-related
consumption behaviors. Thus, we are interested in five
attributes of athlete brand personality: wholesome (e.g.,
NFL quarterback Peyton Manning); imaginative (e.g.,
professional snowboarder Shaun White); successful (e.g.,
Tennis Star Roger Federer); charming (e.g., professional
soccer player David Beckham); and tough (e.g., American
Football quarterback Brett Favre). These five personality
attributes have the potential of affecting the consumer’s
identification with the human brand.
States Versus Traits
To apply brand personality to athletes, it is important to
first have an understanding of the difference between
human personality and brand personality. The research
into human personality focuses around innate traits (Fridhandler, 1986) of the “Big Five”: extraversion, agreeability, openness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability
(Barrick & Mount, 1991; Brown, 2002). These basic
traits result from heredity and upbringing (Fridhandler,
1986), and are universally defined as highly enduring
over a person’s lifetime (Allport, 1961; Costa, McCrae,
& Arenberg, 1980). Overall, traits are stable, long-lasting
and internally caused (Chaplin, John, & Goldberg, 1988).
Contrary to the trait schema of human personality, we
contend that brand personality is a state rather than a trait.
States are temporary, brief and caused by external circumstances (Chaplin, John, & Goldberg, 1988). We argue that
brand personality is a dynamic amalgamation of unique attributes (i.e., brand adjectives) working together to create an
overall personality for a brand. Although human and brand
personality may overlap to some extent, human personality
is different from brand personality (Aaker, 1997; Caprara,
Barbaranelli, & Guido, 2001; Lee & Cho, 2009). While
athlete endorsers clearly possess unique human personalities
(i.e., traits), the endorser’s ability to influence consumers
rests in his/her ability to create and manage a desirable
brand personality (i.e., states). Athlete brand personality
states are formed through observable characteristics such
as media depictions, endorsed product associations, and
sport associations. Thus, brand personality represents the
characteristics that consumers associate with a human brand.
Multiple examples illustrate the difference between
traits and states. Athletes such as Tiger Woods, Michael
Vick, and Mark McGwire possess both human personality
traits and brand personality states. From the traits perspective, each athlete’s personality is a combination of the big
five personality traits. These traits may, or may not be
evident to the general public (Brown, Mowen, Donavan,
& Licata, 2002). However, the brand personality that sport
fans associate with each athlete is a state rather than a trait.
As mentioned, states are temporary, brief and caused by
external circumstances (Chaplin, et al., 1988). For years
the brand personalities of Tiger Woods, Michael Vick,
and Mark McGwire, based on the Aaker (1997) dimensions, were viewed by many to be wholesome and sincere.
Following widespread media coverage of controversies
related to marital infidelity, dog fighting, and steroid use
accusations, each athlete’s brand personality drastically
changed. Following their individual controversies, these
athletes were no longer perceived as wholesome and
sincere. Most consumers have no way to assess whether
the “Big Five” traits that comprise each athlete’s human
personality remained constant or shifted during the times
of these controversies. However, consumers were able to
assess the change in each athlete’s brand personality following the controversies. Ultimately, the brand personality
of each athlete shifted in response to consumer perceptions of the human brand. Hence, celebrity athletes have
both human and brand personalities based on their traits
and states respectively. The focus of this study is on the
athlete’s brand personality states because it is observable
by the general public and due to its impact on the athlete’s
ability to persuade consumers.
Hypothesis Development
Social identity theory posits that individuals are motivated
to associate with entities that will enhance one’s own
identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1985). Associating oneself
with brand personalities that are perceived as desirable
by most consumers is self-enhancing. Thus, individuals
may be attracted to various brand personalities due to the
psychological benefits of such associations. For instance,
consuming brands that possess both successful and tough
personality attributes may reinforce an individual’s aspirational goals (Aaker, 1997). Correspondingly, sport fans are
commonly drawn toward popular athletes because being
associated with the athlete’s “brand” personality attributes
may enhance their own self-image. For example, assuming that Roger Federer possesses the brand personality
attributes of successful and charming, sport fans are able
to show that they strongly value both success and charm
by associating themselves with his image. Conversely,
individuals who prefer a “radical” self-image may choose
to disassociate themselves with Roger Federer.
According to social identity theory, individuals
demonstrate membership in a particular social category
by associating oneself with a brand, thus creating a
social identity. For instance, consumers often gain status
by associating with a particular team (Cialdini et al.,
1976). Likewise, individuals may gain social status by
associating with a desirable athlete. It has been recently
demonstrated that teams have unique personalities that
predict their prestige and distinctiveness (Carlson et al.,
2009). In the team study, brand personality attributes
differentiated the team from competitors (i.e., enhanced
distinctiveness) and further elevated the brand prestige.
These brand personality attributes, although diverse in
nature, are anticipated to have a similar significant influence on evaluations of both prestige and distinctiveness
of individual athletes. Thereafter, each unique attribute
represents a characteristic that contributes to the overall
image of the human brand.
As noted by Carlson et al. (2009), brand personality attributes are far more contextually specific than
more general group characteristics such as prestige and
distinctiveness. Although important to consider, it is
Human Brands in Sport 197
difficult to anticipate the differences between contexts of
investigation, as the factors that comprise a prestigious
image in one domain (e.g., the NFL) may be associated with a lack of prestige in another context (e.g., the
PGA). Therefore, consistent with previous research, our
investigation into the influence of the brand personality attributes on prestige and distinctiveness is largely
exploratory in nature as these relationships have yet to
be investigated in this context.
H1: Brand personality has a direct effect on prestige.
Specifically, (a) imaginative; (b) successful; (c)
charming; (d) tough; and (e) wholesome will have
a positive effect on prestige.
H2: Brand personality has a direct effect on distinctiveness. Specifically, (a) imaginative; (b) successful;
(c) charming; (d) tough; and (e) wholesome will have
a positive effect on distinctiveness.
Both prestige and distinctiveness can lead to
higher levels of identification (Bhattacharya et al.,
1995). Social identity research reveals that in addition
to seeking self-enhancement, people need to distinguish themselves from out-groups and simultaneously
demonstrate a commonality with the in-group (Tajfel
& Turner, 1985). Individuals create their own unique
social identity by associating with numerous groups.
This can be further understood by considering that
consumers often transfer the success of others on to
themselves (Cialdini et al., 1976). Thus, consistent with
SIT principles, associating oneself with entities that are
perceived to be prestigious and distinct, such as athletes
with desirable brand personalities, serves to help express
a consumer’s own identity (Belk, 1988; Gwinner &
Swanson, 2003). By association, the consumer communicates to the social world their own prestige and
distinctiveness. Therefore, consumers may be more
likely to identify with athletes who are perceived as
prestigious and/or distinctive.
H3: Prestige has a positive effect on athlete ID.
H4: Distinctiveness has a positive effect on athlete
ID.
While awareness of one’s membership in a social
group (self-categorization) encapsulates the idea of a cognitive component of one’s social identity, it is important
to consider emotional components as well. The findings
of Bergami and Bagozzi (2000) reveal that cognitive
and emotional components of social identity are both
conceptually and empirically distinct and that cognitive identification has a significant effect on emotional
attachment. Consumers often form emotional connections
with human brands and the strength of these attachments
may be influenced by the extent to which the relationship
confers emotional security (Thomson, 2006). According
to social identity theory, individuals are motivated to
enhance their self-esteem, and ultimately their emotional
security (Tajfel & Turner, 1985). Consequently, the extent
to which an individual identifies with an athlete should
have a positive effect on one’s attachment to the athlete.
Consistent with this reasoning, Heere, James, Yoshida,
and Scremin (2011) found that identification with a target
group (e.g., sport team) was influenced by an individual’s
identification with an associated group (e.g., university,
state) when the target group is perceived to represent the
group. In addition, Thomson (2006) suggests that human
brands, to which consumers are attached, offer significant potential as endorsers. Thus, professional athletes
are direct endorsers of their respective teams. Given that
athletes represent an important brand association for
their team (Gladden & Funk, 2002), and that consumers
ultimately identify with these teams, it is expected that
athlete ID will have a positive influence on team ID.
H5: Athlete ID has a positive effect on (a) athlete
attachment; and (b) team ID.
According to social identity theory, selfcategorization into a group serves a self-definitional
role that helps individuals make sense of the world (Hogg
et al., 1995; Tajfel & Turner, 1985). Consumers identify
with famous athletes because they are perceived to be
symbolic of desirable reference groups. Specifically,
highly visible professional athletes develop communities of loyal followers who seek transference of positive
attributes associated with the athlete onto their own
self-schema. For example, through identifying with NFL
quarterback Aaron Rogers, Green Bay Packers fans associate themselves more closely with other Packers fans.
The image congruence hypothesis proposes that consumption behavior is geared toward enhancing the selfconcept through the consumption of products that provide
symbolic meanings (Grubb & Grathwol, 1967). Because
associating with an athlete enhances one’s self-concept,
individuals who identify with an athlete will demonstrate
behavioral consequences that demonstrate their association to the athlete. For example, consumers may purchase
items associated with the athlete as gifts (i.e., symbol
passing) or personal souvenirs (i.e., symbol collecting) to
demonstrate their relationship with the athlete (Donavan,
Janda, & Suh, 2006). Moreover, a motivation to behave in
ways consistent with group norms, such as watching the
athlete compete or purchasing memorabilia, is common
among individuals who perceive membership in a group
(e.g., I am a Lebron James fan; McAlexander, Schouten,
& Koenig, 2002).
H6: Athlete ID has a positive effect on (a) the number
of games watched; and (b) retail purchases of team
products.
Social identity theory research reveals that selfcategorization provides a cognitive basis for performing
behaviors that demonstrate group membership (e.g.,
purchasing team merchandise). However, beyond the
cognitive influence, emotional attachment to an entity
provides a motivational force for engaging in such behaviors (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000). Hence, attachment to the
human brand should be a direct determinant of behaviors
including retail spending and watching games.
H7: Athlete attachment has a positive effect on (a) the
number of games watched; and (b) retail spending.
198 Carlson and Donavan
Previous findings reveal that team ID has a significant
influence on games watched and retail spending (Carlson
et al., 2009; Gwinner & Swanson, 2003). Consumers
often buy items, as gifts or for themselves, to demonstrate
their relationship with the team (Donavan et al., 2006).
Consistent with social identity theory, individuals who
perceive membership in a group (e.g., I am a Manchester
United fan) are motivated to exhibit behaviors and intentions, such as regularly watching the team compete, that
are consistent with group norms. Thus, it is anticipated
that team ID will have a significant influence on number
of games watched and retail spending.
H8: Team ID has a positive effect on (a) the number
of games watched; and (b) retail spending.
Methodology
Sample
As a population of interest we had fans of a prominent
American football team respond to a questionnaire
designed to capture the respondent’s evaluations of brand
personality, as well as athlete prestige and distinctiveness,
athlete ID, team ID, athlete attachment, the amount spent
on purchasing team apparel, and the number of games
watched. Students enrolled in undergraduate marketing
classes at a major university in the United States were
given an extra credit opportunity for recruiting four study
participants. In addition, subjects were offered an incentive for participation. Students were trained on how to
recruit respondents and given strict guidelines on the following respondent characteristics: all respondents must
consider themselves a fan of the team being investigated;
all respondents must be over 18 years of age; two out of
four respondents must be 30 years of age or above; three
out of four respondents may not be students at the university; and two out of four respondents must be opposite
gender. In doing so, the sample reflected a diverse group
of individuals. Two hundred twenty-six (226) participants
were recruited to complete the questionnaire. Fifty-two
percent of the respondents were female and 60% were
between the ages of 18 and 44.
Procedures and Operationalization
of Constructs
Respondents evaluated a well-known, highly publicized
athlete from a professional football team. Two athletes
with contrasting public images from the same team were
selected to ensure adequate familiarity with the athletes
and variance among key constructs in a structural equation model. The two athletes were Tony Romo, quarterback, and Terrell Owens, wide receiver, of the Dallas
Cowboys as they were the two most publicized Cowboy’s
players at the time of data collection. Although the two
athletes had very different off-the-field personas, both
were in the midst of record-setting, Pro Bowl seasons en
route to a top seed for the Cowboys in the NFL playoffs.
Based on pretest results, Tony Romo was viewed as good
natured and clean-cut, while Terrell Owens was viewed
as provocative and extreme. The inclusion of two athletes
with conflicting personas from the same team allows for
an investigation of the proposed model while accounting for variation in athlete perceptions that ultimately
influence team-related outcomes. We were better able
to control for familiarity by including two athletes from
the same team. Respondents were randomly assigned to
a survey containing only one of the two athletes. Excluding the athlete being assessed, all surveys were identical.
The construct measures were modified from existing validated scales. All measures were subjected to
confirmatory factor analysis to assess their psychometric
properties and unidimensionality. The final scale items
used in the analysis and standardized factor loadings are
listed in Table 1.
Brand Personality
Brand personality attributes were assessed using the
single-item measures implemented by Carlson et al.
(2009) in a team sport context. However, all 15 of the
original items from Aaker’s (1997) scale were initially
assessed for their relevance to this study. Specifically,
a pretest was conducted to ensure that each attribute
was appropriate for investigation within this context.
Seventy-six respondents were asked to evaluate the
extent to which each of the original 15 brand personality attributes was appropriate for describing professional football players (1 = very inappropriate, 7 = very
appropriate). Consistent with the findings of Carlson et
al. (2009), the five brand personality attributes of tough,
charming, wholesome, imaginative, and successful were
deemed appropriate markers of brand personality within
this context while others were not. For example, no
respondents evaluated successful as being inappropriate
(i.e., somewhat to very inappropriate) while 28 out of 76
respondents evaluated intelligent as being inappropriate.
Those attributes that were evaluated as “inappropriate”
by at least 10% of respondents and evaluated as “very
inappropriate” by any respondent were deemed inappropriate for further consideration in the main study.
This resulted in a total of 7 remaining brand personality
attributes (i.e., daring, spirited, imaginative, wholesome,
successful, charming, and tough). It is worth noting that
this investigation focuses on specific brand personality
attributes rather than general dimensions. This distinction is important because attempting to measure brand
personality dimensions (e.g., sincerity) using a single
attribute (e.g., wholesome) would likely result in a loss
of content validity.
We used the items identified during the pretest in
our focal study. To measure brand personality in the
main study, respondents were asked to rate the extent to
which they agreed or disagreed (1 = strongly disagree; 7
= strongly agree) with the remaining 7 brand personality
items. However, the initial confirmatory factor analysis
including all constructs in the model revealed that the
items daring and spirited significantly cross-loaded with
multiple items within the measurement model. These
items were therefore removed from further analysis.
Table 1 Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results
Scale Items
Factor Loading
Brand Personalitya
Please take a moment to think of how you perceive [Athlete] and indicate to what extent each of the
following words describes him.
Wholesome
.922*
Imaginative
.922*
Successful
.922*
Charming
.922*
Tough
.922*
Prestigeb
(Composite Reliability = .94, Average Variance Extracted = .83)
[Athlete] has a good reputation with the general public.
.895
[Athlete] is a status symbol.
.881
[Athlete] is highly respected.
.958
Distinctivenessb
(Composite Reliability = .91, Average Variance Extracted = .77)
I believe [Athlete] is very unique compared with other football players.
.882
I feel like he is unlike any other football player.
.914
[Athlete] is a rare athlete.
.843
Athlete Identification (Composite Reliability = .71, Average Variance Extracted = .55)
Please indicate to what degree your self-image overlaps with the image of [Athlete]. Item #1.
.831
Item #2. Please indicate to what degree your self-image overlaps with the image of “brand”. (1 = Not at
All, 7 = Very Much).
.640
Athlete Attachmentb (Composite Reliability = .90, Average Variance Extracted = .74)
I would experience an emotional loss if I had to stop being a [Athlete] fan.
.867
When someone criticizes him, it feels like a personal insult.
.841
If a story in the media criticized him, it would affect me negatively.
.875
Team
Identificationb
(Composite Reliability = .97, Average Variance Extracted = .93)
I feel strong ties to other Cowboys fans.
.934
I feel a sense of being connected to other Cowboys fans.
.986
A strong feeling of camaraderie exists between me and other Cowboys fans.
.969
Games
Watchedb
How many Cowboys games did you watch on TV last season?
.922*
Retail Spendingb
Approximately how much money did you spend on Cowboys merchandise last year?
.922*
Note. * This latent variable was measured with a single item. Therefore, factor loadings were fixed at .922.
a Measured on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all descriptive, 7 = very descriptive)
b Measured on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree)
199
200 Carlson and Donavan
Athlete prestige was measured on a three-item, 7-point
Likert scale (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). The items were
framed as statements about the public reputation and
status of the athlete. Respondents were asked to indicate
to what extent they agreed or disagreed with each statement. To measure athlete distinctiveness, we used three
items adapted from Donavan et al. (2005b). These items
were also 7-point Likert scales. Respondents were asked
to what extent they agreed or disagreed with statements
about the athlete being unique in comparison with other
football players.
Athlete ID was measured using the Bergami and
Bagozzi (2000) two-item measure of cognitive identification as this scale offers a unidimensional measure of the
construct. Although a number of identification scales are
available (i.e., Robinson & Trail, 2005; Trail & James,
2001; Wann & Branscombe, 1993), most of these scales
also incorporate more than simply an awareness of one’s
cognitive identification with an entity. For instance, the
scale proposed by Robinson and Trail (2005) assesses
whether respondents consider themselves more attached
to individual players or the team. Our focus is on the
extent to which consumers identify with an athlete. The
extent to which consumers feel more closely connected
with a player versus the player’s team is not fundamental
to our investigation. The Trail and James (2001) scale
includes the item ‘I would experience a loss if I had to
stop being a fan of the [team name] team.’ This item
captures the emotional attachment to the team rather than
the cognitive element. Bergami and Bagozzi (2000) argue
that the cognitive, emotional (i.e., affective commitment),
and behavioral components of identification should be
treated separately and their empirical results support this
claim. Consequently, we chose to use the unidimensional
Bergami and Bagozzi (2000) scale to capture cognitive
identification as its discriminant validity compared with
other dimensions of the original identification construct
have been well substantiated. In addition, this scale is
generalizable to multiple research domains, as it has been
widely applied in marketing, management, and sports
management literatures.
While numerous past studies have investigated many
of these constructs independently, most studies have not
investigated these variables simultaneously. Therefore,
given the possibility of respondents perceiving overlap
among the measures of athlete ID, athlete attachment,
and team ID, measures for each construct were chosen
carefully to ensure discriminant validity. Three items were
adapted from Mael and Ashforth (1992) to measure athlete
attachment. These items correspond with the affective,
rather than cognitive, attachment consumers may feel
toward an athlete. Three items were adapted from Carlson,
Suter, and Brown (2008) to assess an individual’s Team
ID, or self-categorization as a fan of the team. These
items, which correspond with a consumer’s perceived
affiliation with a team and its fan base, have demonstrated
discriminant validity from cognitive and affective measures when investigated in a social identity framework.
Single-item indicators were used to assess the number of
games watched and retail spending (Carlson et al., 2009).
Results
To assess differences in consumer perceptions of the
two athletes included in the study, a one-way MANOVA
compared the mean ratings for all variables in the model
(see Table 2). In general, perceptions of Tony Romo were
significantly more positive than perceptions of Terrell
Owens. However, univariate ANOVA tests revealed that
mean differences were nonsignificant for distinctiveness and the team-related variables (i.e., team ID, games
watched, and spending) and no effects were found for these
variables. In addition, the mean differences for imaginative (F = 3.73, p = .06) and successful (F = 3.23, p = .07)
were nonsignificant and demonstrated small effect sizes.
Overall, the selected athletes successfully produced differential perceptions of key variables in the proposed model.
The analysis was conducted using AMOS 17
(Arbuckle, 1997). We began with the two-step approach
suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on the twelve
scales: tough, wholesome, charming, imaginative, successful, prestige, distinctiveness, athlete ID, team ID,
attachment, games watched, and retail spending. The
error terms and paths on each of the single item latent
constructs were fixed appropriately (c.f., Anderson &
Gerbing, 1988; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993). Specifically,
fixed path coefficients are equal to the square root of the
reliability estimate (e.g., alpha) for a measure. Because
single-indicators are being used to measure latent, or
unobservable, constructs, we must account for measurement error (Netemeyer et al., 1990). The error terms and
paths on each of the single item latent variables were fixed
as recommended by Joreskog and Sorbom (1993, p. 196).
When using single item indicators the authors suggest a
reliability of 0.85, which corresponds to a path coefficient
of .922. The variance of indicator error terms is fixed at a
level equal to: (1—reliability) * variance of the indicator.
The CFA revealed acceptable fit (χ2 = 212.90 [df =
130, p > .00], TLI = 0.98, CFI = 0.96, and RMSEA =
0.05). The measurement model provided evidence of reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. All
indicators loaded on the appropriate latent factor, which
provided evidence of convergent validity. Composite
reliability, the analog for Cronbach’s alpha in structural
equation modeling, ranged from .77 to .92 indicating
acceptable reliability. Discriminant validity was evaluated by computing the average variance extracted (AVE),
which represents that amount of common variance
explained in the construct by the items. The remainder
represents the amount of error variance and unique variance not represented by the construct. To demonstrate
discriminant validity, the AVE for each construct should
be (1) greater than .50 and (2) greater than the correlation squared between the two scales (Fornell & Larcker,
1981). All AVE values met the criteria suggested by
Fornell and Larcker indicating adequate discriminant
validity between the constructs (See Table 1). Descriptive statistics and correlations are provided in Table 3.
The structural model was estimated based on the
proposed hypotheses (Figure 1). Table 4 presents the
Human Brands in Sport 201
Table 2 Group Differences between Athlete Perceptions
Means and Std. Deviations
Variable
Tony Romo (n = 106)
Terrell Owens (n = 120)
F-valuea
p-value
ηp2b
Cohen’s d
1. Tough
4.70 (1.63)
4.13 (1.94)
5.73
.02
.03
0.3*
2. Wholesome
4.79 (1.52)
2.25 (1.49)
161.74
.00
.42
1.7***
3. Charming
4.71 (1.54)
2.78 (1.62)
28.17
.00
.11
1.2***
4. Imaginative
4.31 (1.48)
3.89 (1.80)
3.73
.06
.02
0.3*
5. Successful
4.93 (1.52)
4.52 (1.94)
3.23
.07
.01
0.2*
6. Prestige
4.07 (1.67)
1.96 (1.19)
116.58
.00
.34
1.5***
7. Distinctiveness
3.18 (1.59)
3.31 (1.89)
.33
.56
.00
-0.1
8. Athlete ID
2.87 (1.46)
1.46 (.84)
76.72
.00
.26
1.2***
9. Team ID
3.33 (1.80)
3.60 (1.96)
1.11
.29
.01
-0.1
10. Athlete Attachment
2.25 (1.40)
1.55 (.97)
18.70
.00
.08
0.6**
11. Games Watched
5.43 (2.24)
5.44 (2.23)
.00
.97
.00
0.0
12. Retail Spending
2.03 (1.19)
1.83 (1.04)
1.70
.19
.01
0.2*
Note. Overall MANOVA test for the 12 variables (Pillai’s Trace = .56, F (12, 213.00) = 22.45, p < .001)
a Univariate ANOVA tests associated with F(1,224)
b Partial eta-squared
* Small effect size (ES); ** medium ES; *** large ES (Cohen, 1988)
Table 3 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations From CFA results
Variable
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1. Tough
1.00
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
2. Wholesome
.54
1.00
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
3. Charming
.72
.77
1.00
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
4. Imaginative
.57
.62
.71
1.00
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
5. Successful
.42
.58
.67
.85
1.00
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
6. Prestige
.20
.05
.17
-.01
.05
1.00
–
–
–
–
–
–
7. Distinctiveness
.20
.15
.29
.18
.27
.40
1.00
–
–
–
–
–
8. Athlete ID
.21
-.04
.15
.05
.06
.69
.31
1.00
–
–
–
–
9. Team ID
.27
.11
.19
.19
.16
.15
.35
.22
1.00
–
–
–
10. Athlete Attachment
.25
.12
.26
.10
.04
.49
.38
.43
.27
1.00
–
–
11. Games Watched
.06
-.01
.06
.06
.09
.28
.34
.27
.59
.09
1.00
–
12. Retail Spending
.16
.13
.22
.11
.13
.24
.28
.23
.46
.19
.62
1.00
Mean
4.43
3.60
3.81
4.11
4.74
3.08
3.24
2.21
3.45
1.92
5.44
1.93
Standard Deviation
1.80
1.97
1.85
1.65
1.74
1.80
1.73
1.39
1.88
1.27
2.24
1.12
results of the structural model analysis. The fit indices
for the structural model indicate an acceptable fitting
model: χ2 = 348.94 (df = 166, p < .001), TLI = 0.94, CFI
= 0.95, and RMSEA = 0.07. Our model explains 62% of
the variance in athlete ID, 47% of the variance in games
watched, and 27% of the variance in retail spending. The
final path model is shown in Figure 2.
We further investigated the appropriateness of the
overall model in this study by comparing the theoretical
model to a “nested” model in which paths were added
from each brand personality attribute, prestige, and
distinctiveness directly to games watched and retail spending. The fit indices for the model were as follows: (χ2 =
334.10 df = 152; p < .001); CFI = .95; TLI = .93; RMSEA
= .07. Although the fit indices for the nested model are
satisfactory, the nonsignificant chi-squared difference
test (Δχ2 = 14.8, Δdf = 14) reveals that the theoretical
model is appropriate for the data, yet more parsimonious
to the alternative model. Thus, athlete ID appears to be
an important construct to include when investigating the
influence of consumer perceptions of athlete human brand
characteristics upon sport consumption behaviors.
202 Carlson and Donavan
Table 4 Results of Structural Equations Analyses
Structural Model Statistics
Study
χ2
348.94
df
166
CFI
.95
TLI
.94
RMSEA
.07
Path
Standardized
Path Estimate
Standard
Error
t value
Imaginative → Prestige
H1a
-.86
.26
-3.42 a
Successful →Prestige
H1b
.58
.21
2.57 b
Charming → Prestige
H1c
.44
.24
2.17 c
Tough → Prestige
H1d
.30
.16
2.14 c
Wholesome → Prestige
H1e
-.28
.15
-1.96 c
Imaginative → Distinctiveness
H2a
-.75
.25
-2.99 b
Successful → Distinctiveness
H2b
.73
.21
3.21 a
Charming → Distinctiveness
H2c
.50
.23
2.43 c
Tough → Distinctiveness
H2d
.14
.15
1.03
Wholesome → Distinctiveness
H2e
-.30
.15
-2.05 c
Prestige → Athlete ID
H3
.74
.05
10.48 a
Distinctiveness → Athlete ID
H4
.16
.05
2.54 c
Athlete ID → Athlete Attachment
H5a
.55
.07
6.92 a
Athlete ID → Team ID
H5b
.25
.11
3.35 a
Athlete ID → Games Watched
H6a
.36
.09
4.13 a
Athlete ID → Retail Spending
H6b
.26
.08
2.74 c
Athlete Attachment → Games Watched
H7a
.27
.09
3.35 b
Athlete Attachment → Retail Spending
H7b
.08
.08
0.93
Team ID → Games Watched
H8a
.56
.04
9.10 a
Team ID → Retail Spending
H8b
.42
.04
6.12 a
Note. n = 226; a p < .001; b p < .01; c p < .05 (two-tail tests)
Discussion
Theoretical Implications
Utilizing professional athletes as focal human brands,
our study investigated the influence of the same brand
personality attributes in an athlete context identified by
Carlson et al. (2009) in a team-based context. Our findings underscore and extend the work of Aaker (1997) and
Thomson (2006) by demonstrating that intangible human
brands, as well as more traditional tangible brands, have a
brand personality. In addition, this study extends previous
research on sport-related identification (e.g., Branscombe,
1995; Donavan et al., 2006; Fink et al., 2009; Gwinner
& Swanson, 2003; Heere et al., 2011) by exploring the
influence of brand personality on important team-related
outcomes via athlete ID.
We found the significance of the relationships
between the athlete’s prestige and distinctiveness with
athlete ID was somewhat consistent with previous findings that explored team ID. Specifically, Carlson et al.,
(2009) found that only distinctiveness had a significant
influence on team ID. However, although the influence
of distinctiveness is less robust than that of prestige, both
variables had a significant influence on athlete ID in this
study. Thus, consumers should be more likely to identify
with a player who is perceived to be both prestigious
and distinctive. These findings are consistent with social
identity theory, which suggests people seek to differentiate themselves from others in social contexts and are
thus likely to affiliate with entities that enhance their
self-esteem (Tajfel & Turner, 1985). The model explains
47% of the variance in number of games watched and
27% of the variance in retail spending. Thus, we find
Human Brands in Sport 203
Figure 2 — Structural model results with standardized path coefficients.
support for the contention that individual athletes have
an impact on team-related outcomes (i.e., viewership and
retail spending).
Our findings reveal that specific brand personality attributes influence consumer evaluations of athlete
prestige and distinctiveness. However, counter to our
expectations, both wholesome and imaginative had a
significant negative influence on both prestige and distinctive. As it pertains to imaginativeness, this finding may be
influenced by the trend of many high profile professional
football players becoming increasingly creative in their
postplay celebrations. The expectation that high profile
athletes will show off their own creative celebrations
after a big play may contribute to the negative influence
of imaginativeness on distinctiveness. If fans expect most
football players to engage in imaginative celebratory
acts, then engaging in such behaviors may be perceived
as being similar to other football players rather than
being distinct. In addition, football is a task-oriented
sport and team success is dependent on the ability of
all team members to effectively perform their assigned
tasks. As a result of their creative celebrations, numerous NFL players have received unsportsmanlike conduct
penalties that were detrimental to their teams, in some
cases altering the outcome of the game. Thus, athletes
who demonstrate highly imaginative on-field antics may
be drawing attention to themselves at the expense of the
team. Thus, individual acts that are highly imaginative or
creative may negatively influence team performance. As
a result, fans may view this behavior as being undesirable
and detracting from the prestige of the player.
The influence of wholesome on both prestige and
distinctiveness was significant and negative. Unlike
more traditional brands, human brands have the unique
opportunity to appeal to consumers both because, and in
spite, of very strong negative characteristics. For instance,
many celebrities and athletes are very popular among
consumers because of their negative “bad boy” or “bad
girl” images (Burton, Farrelly, & Quester, 2001). The
image of being rebellious is often perceived as being
highly desirable. Thus, although potentially controversial,
an athlete such as Terrell Owens who is perceived to be
a “bad boy” will likely stand out from his peers, resulting in widespread adoration and even a loyal following
of enthusiasts. In effect, ranking low on the wholesome
characteristic may serve to enhance the prestige and
distinctiveness of the celebrity and simultaneously
result in widespread, although not unanimous, appeal.
This effect is particularly evident when the celebrity
is highly successful as well. However, athletes such as
Peyton Manning arguably benefit from ranking very high
on the wholesome characteristic. Therefore, we believe
that potential curvilinear relationships exist between
wholesomeness and both prestige and distinctiveness.
A post hoc curvilinear regression was conducted
to assess the potential quadratic effects of wholesome
on prestige and distinctiveness. The analysis revealed
that wholesome has a significant quadratic effect on
204 Carlson and Donavan
distinctiveness (t(223) = 2.47, p = .01). The quadratic effect
of wholesome on prestige was not significant (t(223) =
1.52, p = .13). However, the graphical representation of
the analysis did reveal a similar curvilinear trend to that
found with distinctiveness as the dependent variable. These
results offer support to the contention that the negative
influence of wholesome on prestige and distinctiveness
could be due to a curvilinear effect. Specifically, as evaluations of athlete wholesomeness approach either the top
or the bottom end of the scale, perceptions of prestige and
distinctiveness will be enhanced. However, as evaluations
of athlete wholesomeness approach a moderate level, perceptions of prestige and distinctiveness may be diminished.
The findings also reveal that both athlete ID and team
ID have a significant, positive influence on the number
of games that fans watch as well as the amount of money
spent on team-related retail purchases. Although athlete
attachment had a significant influence on the number of
games watched it did not significantly influence retail
spending. This finding suggests that strong attachments
to individual players may not translate into retail spending
on team-related merchandise. One possible explanation
for this finding could be that consumers may become less
committed to a team and its product offerings as attachment to an individual player increases, allowing fans
to shift their allegiances among teams as their favorite
athletes change teams. For example, during his tenure
as a professional basketball player, Shaquille O’Neal
developed a loyal fan base that remained loyal to the Shaq
brand as he moved among teams in the NBA, produced
records as a recording artist, and appeared in television
and film productions.
Managerial Implications
Our findings suggest that athlete ID is an important variable in predicting team-related consumption behaviors. In
addition to its direct positive influence on watching games
and retail spending, athlete ID has a positive influence
on the extent to which consumers both feel an emotional
attachment to the athlete and identify with the team. Thus
firms may benefit by employing tactics that facilitate
athlete identification. Further, brand personality of individual athletes may be very important for organizations
associated with sport. Consumer evaluations of a single
athlete could have significant effects on evaluations of
a team as well as behaviors related to its market offerings. In addition, marketers who want to associate their
products with a sports team should consider the human
brands that comprise the team, as evaluations of the team
are influenced by evaluations of individual athletes.
This research has potential implications for nonsport
products hoping to benefit from association with sport
as well. For example, athlete endorsements would likely
influence athlete ID and possibly team ID as well. By
understanding the psychology of what makes consumers identify with a human brand, firms may be able to
enhance their brand experience through appropriate
endorser selection. As an additional consideration, when
an athlete leaves a team, many consumers may become
less interested in the team because part of the entertainment value is lost with the athlete’s departure. For firms
hoping to benefit from an association with professional
sports, this finding suggests that in some circumstances
it may be beneficial to align the company’s image with
the entire team rather than an individual athlete.
Future Research and Limitations
It is important to consider the following caveat when
interpreting the results of this study. As noted previously,
the Dallas Cowboys were one of the top performing teams
in the NFL at the time of data collection. In addition,
Tony Romo and Terrell Owens were both performing at
very high levels individually. Given that player and team
performance may both be indicative of product quality,
it is possible that our results may have been influenced
by the success of the team and the athletes. Specifically,
the relationships between social identity and behaviors
may be enhanced when a team or athlete is performing
well. Consistent with social identity theory, individuals
are more likely to demonstrate their affiliation with an
entity when doing so enhances their self-esteem. Thus,
group identities relating to the athlete and the team, as
well as their resulting behaviors, may have been more
salient for respondents in this study because of the success of the focal athletes and team.
There are multiple areas related to this study that
may benefit from additional investigation. Future research
should explore additional factors that influence identification with human brands. The generalizability of our
findings to other sports contexts is restricted given that
this study focused on two professional athletes from the
National Football League. Although the athletes included
in this study are perceived to be substantially different
from one another, investigating the model with additional
athletes as well as additional teams from multiple sports
will enhance the generalizability of the findings. In addition, the focal athletes in this study were associated with
a team sport. However, focal athletes who participate in
individual sports such as tennis, golf, or snowboarding
may influence consumers in a unique way. Specifically,
differences may exist in the proposed relationships when
exploring consumption outcomes that are sport-based
(e.g., PGA events) rather than team-based (e.g., Dallas
Cowboys games).
Pretests were used to identify specific attributes from
Aaker’s (1997) brand personality scale that were deemed
appropriate for evaluating professional football players.
Given that most sports have a unique image, it will likely
be necessary in future studies to determine which brand
personality attributes are most relevant for evaluating
athletes associated with each sport. We recommend that
future studies begin with the original 15 items proposed
by Aaker (1997) rather than the final five attributes used in
this study. The notion of brand personality is conceptually
broad enough to apply to all brand and sport contexts.
However, the diversity of brand types is too great to justify utilizing a single measurement scale that is equally
appropriate in all contexts.
Human Brands in Sport 205
In this research, a perspective of social identity was
adopted in which cognitive (i.e., identification) and emotional (i.e., attachment) aspects of identity are considered
to be unique, albeit related, constructs (c.f., Bergami &
Bagozzi, 2000; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Carlson et
al., 2009). However, an alternative perspective exists in
which social identity is considered to be multidimensional
both in conceptualization and operationalization (c.f.,
Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004; Heere
& James, 2007; Heere et al., 2011). Specifically, selfcategorization, evaluation, importance, attachment and
sense of interdependence, social embededness, behavioral
involvement, and content and meaning are considered
as dimensions that simultaneously drive social identity.
Although athlete attachment had a nonsignificant direct
effect on spending in this study, the combined effects of
attachment with the other proposed dimensions of social
identity may reveal stronger relationships between identity and behaviors. Thus, future studies should compare
the current model to one in which a multidimensional
view of social identity is adopted.
The findings of this study suggest that tough as a
brand personality trait does not significantly influence
distinctiveness. This finding is likely due to the fact
that most NFL players are perceived to be tough and,
therefore, tough is not typically perceived as a brand
personality trait that distinguishes one athlete from
another. However, this relationship may prove to be significant when comparing the brand personalities of athlete
celebrities to those of nonathlete celebrities as potential
endorsers or comparing athletes of different sports. Athletes are often chosen as celebrity endorsers due to their
ability to stand out from others (i.e., distinctiveness).
Therefore, the relationships between brand personality
traits and distinctiveness should be examined in future
studies. An additional limitation of this study is that
the outcome variables of retail spending and number of
games watched were self-reported. Although self-report
data are commonly used, actual purchase and sales data
would provide greater accuracy in future investigations.
References
Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. JMR, Journal
of Marketing Research, 34, 347–356. doi:10.2307/3151897
Aaker, J., Fournier, S., & Brasel, S.A. (2004). When good
brands do bad. The Journal of Consumer Research, 31,
1–16. doi:10.1086/383419
Allport, G.W. (1961). Pattern and Growth in Personality. New
York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation
modeling in practice: A review and recommended twostep approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
Arbuckle, J.L. (1997). AMOS 7.0. Chicago: Smallwaters
Corporation.
Ashforth, B.E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and
the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1),
20–39.
Ashmore, R.D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An
organizing framework for collective identity: Articulation
and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological
Bulletin, 130(1), 80–114. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.130.1.80
Azoulay, A., & Kapferer, J.N. (2003). Do brand personality
scales really measure brand personality? Brand Management, 11(2), 143–155. doi:10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540162
Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1991). The big five personality
dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.
tb00688.x
Beggan, J.K. (1992). On the social nature of nonsocial perception: The mere ownership effect. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 62(2), 229–237. doi:10.1037/00223514.62.2.229
Belk, R.W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self.
The Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168.
doi:10.1086/209154
Bergami, M., & Bagozzi, R.P. (2000). Self-categorization,
affective commitment and group self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. The
British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 555–577.
doi:10.1348/014466600164633
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. doi:10.2307/1252327
Bhattacharya, C.B., & Sen, S. (2003). Consumer-company
identification: A framework for understanding consumer’s
relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing, 67,
76–88. doi:10.1509/jmkg.67.2.76.18609
Braunstein, J.R., & Ross, S.D. (2010). Brand personality in
sport: Dimension analysis and general scale development.
Sport Marketing Quarterly, 19, 8–16.
Brown, T.J., Mowen, J.C., Donavan, D.T., & Licata, J.W. (2002).
The customer orientation of service workers: Personality
trait determinants and influences on self and supervisor
performance ratings. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research,
39(1), 110–119. doi:10.1509/jmkr.39.1.110.18928
Burton, R., Farrelly, F.J., & Quester, P.G. (2001). Exploring the
curious demand for athletes with controversial images:
A review of anti-hero product endorsement advertising.
International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship,
2(4), 315–330.
Caprara, G.V., Barbaranelli, C., & Guido, G. (2001). Brand
personality: How to make the metaphor fit? Journal of
Economic Psychology, 22(3), 377–395. doi:10.1016/
S0167-4870(01)00039-3
Carlson, B.D., Donavan, D.T., & Cumiskey, K.J. (2009).
Consumer-brand relationships in sport: Brand personality and identification. International Journal of
Retail and Distribution Management, 37(4), 370–384.
doi:10.1108/09590550910948592
Carlson, B.D., Suter, T.A., & Brown, T.J. (2008). Social versus
psychological brand community: The role of psychological
sense of brand community. Journal of Business Research,
61(4), 284–291. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.06.022
Chaplin, W.F., John, O.P., & Goldberg, L.R. (1988). Conceptions of states and traits: Dimensional attributes with ideals
and protytypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 541–557. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.541
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(3), 366–375. doi:10.1037/00223514.34.3.366
Costa, P.T., McCrae, R.R., & Arenberg, D. (1980). Enduring
dispositions in adult males. Journal of Personality and
206 Carlson and Donavan
Social Psychology, 38, 793–800. doi:10.1037/00223514.38.5.793
Davies, G., Chun, R., da Silva, R.V., & Roper, S. (2004). A
corporate character scale to assess employee and customer
views of organisation reputation. Corporate Reputation
Review, 7, 125–146. doi:10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540216
Donavan, D.T., Carlson, B., & Zimmerman, M. (2005a). Personality influences on spectator need for affiliation and
identification. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 14(1), 31–42.
Donavan, D.T., Janda, S., & Maxham, J.G. (2005b). The impact
of brand connection and intimacy on identification and
spending. Proceedings of the American Marketing Association Summer Educator’s Conference, San Francisco, CA.
Donavan, D.T., Janda, S., & Suh, J. (2006). Environmental
influences in corporate brand identification and outcomes. Journal of Brand Management, 14(1), 125–136.
doi:10.1057/palgrave.bm.2550057
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement
error. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 39–50.
doi:10.2307/3151312
Fournier, S. (1998). Consumer and their brands: Developing
relationship theory in consumer research. The Journal of
Consumer Research, 24(4), 343–373. doi:10.1086/209515
Fridhandler, B.M. (1986). Conceptual note on state, trait, and
the state-trait distinction. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 50(1), 169–174. doi:10.1037/00223514.50.1.169
Funk, D.C., & James, J. (2001). The psychological continuum
model: A conceptual framework for understanding an
individual’s psychological connection to sport. Sport
Management Review, 4(2), 119–150. doi:10.1016/S14413523(01)70072-1
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(1), 54–81.
Goldberg, L.R. (1992). The development of markers for the
Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4(1),
26–42. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26
Grubb, E.L., & Grathwol, H.L. (1967). Consumer self-concept,
symbolism and market behavior: A theoretical approach.
Journal of Marketing, 31, 22–27. doi:10.2307/1249461
Gwinner, K., & Swanson, S.R. (2003). A model of fan
identification: Antecedents and sponsorship outcomes. Journal of Services Marketing, 17(3), 275–294.
doi:10.1108/08876040310474828
Gwinner, K., & Bennett, G. (2008). The impact of brand cohesiveness and sport identification on brand fit in a sponsorship
context. Journal of Sport Management, 22(4), 410–426.
Heere, B. (2010). A new approach to measure perceived brand
personality associations among consumers. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 19(1), 17–24.
Heere, B., & James, J.D. (2007). Stepping outside the lines:
Developing a multi-dimensional team identity scale based
on Social Identity Theory. Sport Management Review,
10(1), 65–92. doi:10.1016/S1441-3523(07)70004-9
Heere, B., James, J.D., Yoshida, M., & Scremin, G. (2011).
The effect of associated group identities on team identity.
Journal of Sport Management, 25, 1–44.
Hogg, M.A., Terry, D.J., & White, K.M. (1995). A tale of two
theories: A critical comparison of identity theory and social
identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 255–269.
doi:10.2307/2787127
Holt, D.B. (1995). How consumers consume: A typology of consumption practices. The Journal of Consumer Research,
22, 1–16. doi:10.1086/209431
Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language.
Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.
Kirmani, A., Sood, S., & Bridges, S. (1999). The ownership
effect in consumer responses to brand line stretches. Journal of Marketing, 63(1), 88–101. doi:10.2307/1252003
Kwon, H.H., & Armstrong, K.L. (2002). Factors influencing
impulse buying of sport team licensed merchandise. Sport
Marketing Quarterly, 11(3), 151–163.
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(4), 540–554.
Laroche, M., Kim, C., & Zhou, L. (1996). Brand familiarity
and confidence as determinants of purchase intention:
An empirical test in a multiple brand context. Journal
of Business Research, 37, 115–120. doi:10.1016/01482963(96)00056-2
Lee, H.S., & Cho, C.H. (2009). The matching effect of brand
and sporting event personality: Sponsorship implications.
Journal of Sport Management, 23(1), 41–64.
Lichtenstein, D.R., Drumwright, M.E., & Braig, B.M.
(2004). The effect of corporate social responsibility on
consumer donations to corporate-supported nonprofits. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 16–32. doi:10.1509/
jmkg.68.4.16.42726
Madrigal, R., & Chen, J. (2008). Moderating and mediating
effects of team identification in regard to causal attributions and summary judgments following a game outcome.
Journal of Sport Management, 22(6), 717–733.
Mael, F.A., & Ashforth, B.E. (1992). Alumni and their alma
mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
13, 103–123. doi:10.1002/job.4030130202
McAlexander, J.H., Schouten, J.W., & Koenig, H.F. (2002).
Building brand community. Journal of Marketing, 66(1),
38–54. doi:10.1509/jmkg.66.1.38.18451
Netemeyer, R.G., Johnston, M.W., & Burton, S. (1990). Analysis of role conflict and role ambiguity in a structural equations framework. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 75,
148–157. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.148
Robinson, M.J., & Trail, G.T. (2005). Relationships among
spectator gender, motives, points of attachment and sport
preference. Journal of Sport Management, 9, 58–80.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1985). The social identity theory of
intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W.G. Austin (Eds.),
Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago,
IL: Nelson-Hall.
Trail, G.T., & James, J.D. (2001). The motivation scale for sport
consumption: Assessment of the scale’s psychometric
properties. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24(1), 108–127.
Thomson, M. (2006). Human brands: Investigating antecedents
to consumers’ strong attachments to celebrities. Journal
of Marketing, 70, 104–119. doi:10.1509/jmkg.70.3.104
Wann, D.L., & Branscombe, N.R. (1993). Sports fans: Measuring degree of identification with their team. International
Journal of Sport Psychology, 24(1), 1–17.
Wann, D.L., & Branscombe, N.R. (1995). Influence of identification with a sports team on objective knowledge and
subjective beliefs. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26(4), 551–567.