8/14/2019 Human Brands in Sport-2013

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/human-brands-in-sport-2013 1/15

193

Official Journal of NASSMwww.JSM-Journal.com

ARTICLE

 Journal of Sport Management, 2013, 27, 193-206

 © 2013 Human Kinetics, Inc.

Carlson is with the Dept. of Marketing, Saint Louis University,

St. Louis, MO. Donavan is with the Dept. of Marketing, Colo-

rado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

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 ofhuman brands affect consumer’s level of cognitive identification. The findings suggest that consumers viewathletes 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, purchaseteam-related paraphernalia and increase their team-related viewership habits. The findings extend previousresearch on human brands and brand personalities in sports. Marketers can use the information gleaned fromthis 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 marketersseeking to increase team-related spectatorship by promoting the image of easily recognizable athletes.

Many collegiate and professional athletes achieve individ-ual celebrity status among fans. As a result, athletes suchas LeBron James, David Beckham, and Roger Federerhave become human brands, driving retail sales of prod-ucts associated with their names and images. The termhuman brand  has been used to describe any well-known

persona who is the subject of marketing communicationsefforts (Thomson, 2006). Given the popularity of athletesamong consumers, numerous firms tie their brands tosuccessful athletes with the expectation that doing so willtransfer the athlete’s positive attributes onto the brand. Inmany cases, these athletes are chosen because they areperceived to have a strong connection with consumers.This connection has been described as identification, or anoverlap between the consumer’s schema and the entity’sschema (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000). However, questionsstill remain as to what makes consumers connect (i.e.,identify) with one athlete and not another.

Celebrities represent human brands that are profes-sionally manageable and possess additional associations

and features of traditional brands (Thomson, 2006). Whileorganizations such as the National Basketball Associa-tion (N.B.A.) have made concerted efforts to emphasizeindividual players when promoting games, little is knownabout the variables that influence fan identification with

individual athletes, and the subsequent effects on team-related outcomes. A growing body of research suggeststhat the attraction to these entities may be a result of abrand personality (Aaker, 1997; Carlson, Donavan, &Cumiskey, 2009). Specifically, Aaker suggested that abrand personality often increases the consumer’s con-

nection with the brand. Carlson et al. (2009) exploredrelationships between the brand personality of a sportsteam and the related consumer outcomes of identification,viewing team performances, and retail spending. Theirfindings reveal that specific brand personality attributes,rather than general brand personality dimensions, influ-ence team identification and, ultimately, team-relatedconsumption behaviors. We investigate consumer connec-tions with sports teams by considering individual athletesas human brands, thus extending the work of Carlson etal. (2009). Further, we argue that the “brand personality”attributes of an individual athlete may also lead consum-ers to increased identification and ultimately increasedteam-related consumption behaviors. Because athletes

can be considered brands in their own right (Thomson,2006), understanding how consumers perceive athletesas human brands may provide additional insight intobrand-consumer relationships that drive team-relatedconsumption behaviors.

This research investigates the extent to which brandpersonality attributes of professional athletes influenceconsumer-brand relationships with a professional sportsteam. Social identity theory is used as a framework for amodel that predicts consumer connections with athletes and

8/14/2019 Human Brands in Sport-2013

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/human-brands-in-sport-2013 2/15

194 Carlson and Donavan

the team, retail spending and number of games watched. Inthis study, the model proposed by Carlson et al. (2009) ina sports team context (Figure 1) is extended to incorporateindividual athletes as human brands that influence team-related outcomes. The findings suggest that athlete identifi-cation (athlete ID) has unique predictors, as well as a directimpact on athlete attachment, team identification (team ID),

retail spending and the number of games watched.

Identification

In recent years, researchers have investigated social iden-tification as it relates to consumer-company identification(Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003), sport identification (Gwin-ner & Bennett, 2008), and team identification (Carlson etal., 2009; Donavan, Carlson, & Zimmerman, 2005a; Fink,Parker, Brett & Higgins, 2009; Kwon, Trail, & James,2007; Madrigal & Chen, 2008). Identification has beendescribed as “a oneness with or belongingness with anentity where the individual defines him or herself in termsof the entity to which he or she is a member” (Mael &

Ashforth, 1992, p. 104). More recently, distinctions havebeen 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 inwhich the individual comes to view him- or herself as amember of a social entity (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000).Thus, when an individual strongly identifies with anentity, an overlap exists between one’s self-schema andthe entity’s schema. Strong identification has been linkedto increased event attendance (Bhattacharya, Rao, &

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 identitytheory perspective. The theory posits that individuals make

sense of the world by categorizing themselves and othersinto groups, and self-categorization into a group (e.g., Iam a Manchester United fan) serves a self-definitionalrole (Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995). The various socialcategories 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 teamsthat have a strong “similarity” to their own actual or idealself (Carlson et al., 2009; Fink et al., 2009; Madrigal &Chen, 2008). Likewise, consumers should be drawn toindividual athletes perceived to be similar to their ownactual 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 wearathletic paraphernalia to show their in-group affiliationwith a particular team or athlete and to demonstratethat they are not part of the rival out-group. Thus, socialidentity theory offers a useful theoretical framework forexamining consumer affiliations with human brands.

Within the identification literature, two maincharacteristics routinely predict a person’s identifica-tion: prestige (Bhattacharya et al., 1995; Gwinner &Swanson, 2003) and distinctiveness (Ashforth & Mael,1989; Mael & Ashforth, 1992). While prestige refers to

Figure 1 — Conceptual model of athlete identification.

8/14/2019 Human Brands in Sport-2013

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/human-brands-in-sport-2013 3/15

Human Brands in Sport 195

the exclusivity, respect, and status of the entity (Davies,Chun, da Silva, & Roper, 2004), distinctiveness relatesto how the entity is different from all other competitors(Holt, 1995). The findings of Carlson et al. (2009) sug-gest that the prestige and distinctiveness of a sports teamis influenced by various brand personality attributes.However, it remains unclear how an individual athlete

attains a desirable level of prestige and/or distinctive-ness. To consider this question, we adopt the perspectiveof athletes as human brands that possess unique brandpersonalities. Prior research reveals that brand person-ality 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 directlyinfluence perceptions of prestige and distinctiveness,thereby influencing identification, and ultimately teamviewership and retail spending. The relationships areillustrated in Figure 1.

Brand PersonalityAaker (1997, p. 347) defined brand personality as “the setof human characteristics associated with a brand.” How-ever, this definition is arguably too broad as it embracesnearly everything related to human beings and applied tobrands, regardless of how relevant it may be for brand-ing. Thus, consistent with Azoulay and Kapferer (2003),we conceptualize brand personality as the set of humanpersonality states that are both applicable to and relevantfor brands. Specifically, brand personality attributes areadjectives used to describe brands.

Consumers often assign various and unique person-alities to brands, such as Apple being hip and cool. Theconsumption of branded products allows consumers to

express their own self (Belk, 1988), through associatingoneself with the particular attributes and personality ofthe brand (Aaker, 1997). Similar to forming a relationshipwith other people, consumers often acquire relationshipswith brands (Fournier, 1998). Aaker et al. (2004) suggestthat each exchange partner’s personality traits affect therelationship. Thus, brands that possess a desirable person-ality will provide a greater opportunity for the consumerto develop a strong relationship with the brand. Althoughmany companies find it appealing to be associated witha professional athlete, it is the culturally derived mean-ings (i.e., brand personality attributes) associated withthe athlete that makes such associations profitable. Theunique human personality traits possessed by individualathletes are largely unobservable by the public. As such,athletes, and celebrities in general, tend to influence brandrelated attitudes and behaviors by creating and maintain-ing a symbolic brand personality that is congruent withthe consumer’s actual or ideal self.

The concept of brand personality has received con-siderable attention in marketing and sport managementresearch (e.g., Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003; Braunstein &Ross, 2010; Carlson et al., 2009; Heere, 2010). However,little consensus exists as to the most effective measure-ment of the construct across contexts and multiple

authors have uncovered limitations of the scale originallyproposed by Aaker (Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003; Heere,2010). Specifically, it has been argued that the brand per-sonality scale lacks conceptual completeness and validity.For instance, in contrast to Goldberg’s (1992) five-factorscale of human personality, Aaker’s brand personal-ity scale does not include synonym-antonym response

choices (e.g., charming—dull). While this may somewhatrestrict the scope of the concept, such restrictiveness maybe useful for marketing managers. Unlike psychologicalassessments of personality that are intended to provide adeep, detailed description of an individual’s personality,the usefulness of the brand personality construct lies inits ability to provide brand managers with a manageablelist of key adjectives that describe their brand.

In an effort to address the conceptual validity of theconstruct, Heere (2010) proposed that managers developtheir own list of brand personality attributes and thencompare consumer and manager perceptions of the brandon each attribute. However, such an approach measuresthe gap between manager and consumer perceived

brand personality rather than actual brand personality.Braunstein and Ross (2010) attempted to reexamine thegeneral brand personality dimensions while account-ing for the unique characteristics of sports, but failedto produce dimensions that demonstrated discriminantvalidity. Considering previous research on the topic andgiven the diversity of product types, attempting to usea unified measure for all brands seems both unneces-sary and inherently flawed (Heere, 2010). Although it isimportant to note potential challenges associated withAaker’s scale, the aim of this research is to expand themodel of consumer-brand relationships in sport as pro-posed by Carlson et al. (2009) rather than to refine themeasurement properties of the brand personality scale. As

such, the scale proposed by Aaker represents a useful andappropriate starting point for evaluating brand personalityattributes applied to athletes.

The framework for consumer-brand relationshipsin sport proposed by Carlson et al. (2009) serves as thebasis for this study. They found that some of the attributescomprising the original dimensions of brand personalityproposed by Aaker (1997) were not suitable for the contextof evaluating basketball team personalities as items suchas “outdoorsy” offer little descriptive value (e.g., basket-ball teams and players are typically not perceived to beoutdoorsy). However, each of the brand personality attri-butes used in their study was representative of the originalfive dimensions of brand personality proposed by Aaker(1997). Although the validity of the operationalizationof each dimension has received some criticism, utilizingeach dimension is useful for ensuring a broad combina-tion of brand personality attributes. This also allows forsome necessary flexibility in measuring brand personalityacross multiple contexts while staying within a unifiedconceptual framework. Consistent with such an approach,we investigate each of the five dimensions of brand per-sonality by utilizing the individual attributes identified byCarlson et al. (2009). This allows for a direct extension ofthe framework proposed in their research by incorporating

8/14/2019 Human Brands in Sport-2013

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/human-brands-in-sport-2013 4/15

196 Carlson and Donavan

the role of specific athletes in predicting team-relatedconsumption behaviors. Thus, we are interested in fiveattributes 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., professionalsoccer player David Beckham); and tough (e.g., American

Football quarterback Brett Favre). These five personalityattributes have the potential of affecting the consumer’sidentification with the human brand.

States Versus Traits

To apply brand personality to athletes, it is important tofirst have an understanding of the difference betweenhuman personality and brand personality. The researchinto human personality focuses around innate traits (Frid-handler, 1986) of the “Big Five”: extraversion, agreeabil-ity, openness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability(Barrick & Mount, 1991; Brown, 2002). These basictraits result from heredity and upbringing (Fridhandler,

1986), and are universally defined as highly enduringover a person’s lifetime (Allport, 1961; Costa, McCrae,& Arenberg, 1980). Overall, traits are stable, long-lastingand internally caused (Chaplin, John, & Goldberg, 1988).

Contrary to the trait schema of human personality, wecontend that brand personality is a state rather than a trait.States are temporary, brief and caused by external circum-stances (Chaplin, John, & Goldberg, 1988). We argue thatbrand personality is a dynamic amalgamation of unique attri-butes (i.e., brand adjectives) working together to create anoverall personality for a brand. Although human and brandpersonality may overlap to some extent, human personalityis 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 consumersrests in his/her ability to create and manage a desirablebrand personality (i.e., states). Athlete brand personalitystates are formed through observable characteristics suchas media depictions, endorsed product associations, andsport associations. Thus, brand personality represents thecharacteristics that consumers associate with a human brand.

Multiple examples illustrate the difference betweentraits and states. Athletes such as Tiger Woods, MichaelVick, and Mark McGwire possess both human personalitytraits and brand personality states. From the traits perspec-tive, each athlete’s personality is a combination of the bigfive personality traits. These traits may, or may not be

evident to the general public (Brown, Mowen, Donavan,& Licata, 2002). However, the brand personality that sportfans associate with each athlete is a state rather than a trait.As mentioned, states are temporary, brief and caused byexternal circumstances (Chaplin, et al., 1988). For yearsthe brand personalities of Tiger Woods, Michael Vick,and Mark McGwire, based on the Aaker (1997) dimen-sions, were viewed by many to be wholesome and sincere.Following widespread media coverage of controversiesrelated to marital infidelity, dog fighting, and steroid useaccusations, each athlete’s brand personality drastically

changed. Following their individual controversies, theseathletes were no longer perceived as wholesome andsincere. Most consumers have no way to assess whetherthe “Big Five” traits that comprise each athlete’s humanpersonality remained constant or shifted during the timesof these controversies. However, consumers were able toassess the change in each athlete’s brand personality fol-

lowing the controversies. Ultimately, the brand personalityof each athlete shifted in response to consumer percep-tions of the human brand. Hence, celebrity athletes haveboth human and brand personalities based on their traitsand states respectively. The focus of this study is on theathlete’s brand personality states because it is observableby the general public and due to its impact on the athlete’sability to persuade consumers.

Hypothesis Development

Social identity theory posits that individuals are motivatedto associate with entities that will enhance one’s own

identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1985). Associating oneselfwith brand personalities that are perceived as desirableby most consumers is self-enhancing. Thus, individualsmay be attracted to various brand personalities due to thepsychological benefits of such associations. For instance,consuming brands that possess both successful and toughpersonality attributes may reinforce an individual’s aspira-tional goals (Aaker, 1997). Correspondingly, sport fans arecommonly drawn toward popular athletes because beingassociated with the athlete’s “brand” personality attributesmay enhance their own self-image. For example, assum-ing that Roger Federer possesses the brand personalityattributes of successful and charming, sport fans are ableto show that they strongly value both success and charm

by associating themselves with his image. Conversely,individuals who prefer a “radical” self-image may chooseto disassociate themselves with Roger Federer.

According to social identity theory, individualsdemonstrate membership in a particular social categoryby associating oneself with a brand, thus creating asocial identity. For instance, consumers often gain statusby associating with a particular team (Cialdini et al.,1976). Likewise, individuals may gain social status byassociating with a desirable athlete. It has been recentlydemonstrated that teams have unique personalities thatpredict their prestige and distinctiveness (Carlson et al.,2009). In the team study, brand personality attributesdifferentiated the team from competitors (i.e., enhanced

distinctiveness) and further elevated the brand prestige.These brand personality attributes, although diverse innature, are anticipated to have a similar significant influ-ence on evaluations of both prestige and distinctivenessof individual athletes. Thereafter, each unique attributerepresents a characteristic that contributes to the overallimage of the human brand.

As noted by Carlson et al. (2009), brand personal-ity attributes are far more contextually specific thanmore general group characteristics such as prestige anddistinctiveness. Although important to consider, it is

8/14/2019 Human Brands in Sport-2013

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/human-brands-in-sport-2013 5/15

Human Brands in Sport 197

difficult to anticipate the differences between contexts ofinvestigation, as the factors that comprise a prestigiousimage in one domain (e.g., the NFL) may be associ-ated with a lack of prestige in another context (e.g., thePGA). Therefore, consistent with previous research, ourinvestigation into the influence of the brand personal-ity attributes on prestige and distinctiveness is largely

exploratory in nature as these relationships have yet tobe 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 havea positive effect on prestige.

H2: Brand personality has a direct effect on distinc-tiveness. Specifically, (a) imaginative; (b) successful;(c) charming; (d) tough; and (e) wholesome will havea positive effect on distinctiveness.

Both prestige and distinctiveness can lead tohigher levels of identification (Bhattacharya et al.,1995). Social identity research reveals that in addition

to seeking self-enhancement, people need to distin-guish themselves from out-groups and simultaneouslydemonstrate a commonality with the in-group (Tajfel& Turner, 1985). Individuals create their own uniquesocial identity by associating with numerous groups.This can be further understood by considering thatconsumers often transfer the success of others on tothemselves (Cialdini et al., 1976). Thus, consistent withSIT principles, associating oneself with entities that areperceived to be prestigious and distinct, such as athleteswith desirable brand personalities, serves to help expressa consumer’s own identity (Belk, 1988; Gwinner &Swanson, 2003). By association, the consumer com-municates to the social world their own prestige and

distinctiveness. Therefore, consumers may be morelikely to identify with athletes who are perceived asprestigious and/or distinctive.

H3: Prestige has a positive effect on athlete ID.

H4: Distinctiveness has a positive effect on athleteID.

While awareness of one’s membership in a socialgroup (self-categorization) encapsulates the idea of a cog-nitive component of one’s social identity, it is importantto consider emotional components as well. The findingsof Bergami and Bagozzi (2000) reveal that cognitiveand emotional components of social identity are bothconceptually and empirically distinct and that cogni-

tive identification has a significant effect on emotionalattachment. Consumers often form emotional connectionswith human brands and the strength of these attachmentsmay be influenced by the extent to which the relationshipconfers emotional security (Thomson, 2006). Accordingto social identity theory, individuals are motivated toenhance their self-esteem, and ultimately their emotionalsecurity (Tajfel & Turner, 1985). Consequently, the extentto which an individual identifies with an athlete shouldhave 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 targetgroup (e.g., sport team) was influenced by an individual’sidentification with an associated group (e.g., university,state) when the target group is perceived to represent thegroup. In addition, Thomson (2006) suggests that humanbrands, to which consumers are attached, offer signifi-cant potential as endorsers. Thus, professional athletes

are direct endorsers of their respective teams. Given thatathletes represent an important brand association fortheir team (Gladden & Funk, 2002), and that consumersultimately identify with these teams, it is expected thatathlete ID will have a positive influence on team ID.

H5: Athlete ID has a positive effect on (a) athleteattachment; and (b) team ID.

According to social identity theory, self-categorization into a group serves a self-definitionalrole that helps individuals make sense of the world (Hogget al., 1995; Tajfel & Turner, 1985). Consumers identifywith famous athletes because they are perceived to besymbolic of desirable reference groups. Specifically,

highly visible professional athletes develop communi-ties of loyal followers who seek transference of positiveattributes associated with the athlete onto their ownself-schema. For example, through identifying with NFLquarterback Aaron Rogers, Green Bay Packers fans asso-ciate themselves more closely with other Packers fans.

The image congruence hypothesis proposes that con-sumption behavior is geared toward enhancing the self-concept through the consumption of products that providesymbolic meanings (Grubb & Grathwol, 1967). Becauseassociating with an athlete enhances one’s self-concept,individuals who identify with an athlete will demonstratebehavioral consequences that demonstrate their associa-tion to the athlete. For example, consumers may purchaseitems associated with the athlete as gifts (i.e., symbolpassing) or personal souvenirs (i.e., symbol collecting) todemonstrate their relationship with the athlete (Donavan,Janda, & Suh, 2006). Moreover, a motivation to behave inways consistent with group norms, such as watching theathlete compete or purchasing memorabilia, is commonamong 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 numberof games watched; and (b) retail purchases of teamproducts.

Social identity theory research reveals that self-categorization provides a cognitive basis for performingbehaviors that demonstrate group membership (e.g.,purchasing team merchandise). However, beyond thecognitive influence, emotional attachment to an entityprovides a motivational force for engaging in such behav-iors (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000). Hence, attachment to thehuman brand should be a direct determinant of behaviorsincluding retail spending and watching games.

H7: Athlete attachment has a positive effect on (a) thenumber of games watched; and (b) retail spending.

8/14/2019 Human Brands in Sport-2013

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/human-brands-in-sport-2013 6/15

198 Carlson and Donavan

Previous findings reveal that team ID has a significantinfluence on games watched and retail spending (Carlsonet al., 2009; Gwinner & Swanson, 2003). Consumersoften buy items, as gifts or for themselves, to demonstratetheir relationship with the team (Donavan et al., 2006).Consistent with social identity theory, individuals whoperceive membership in a group (e.g., I am a Manchester

United fan) are motivated to exhibit behaviors and inten-tions, such as regularly watching the team compete, thatare consistent with group norms. Thus, it is anticipatedthat team ID will have a significant influence on numberof games watched and retail spending.

H8: Team ID has a positive effect on (a) the numberof games watched; and (b) retail spending.

Methodology

Sample

As a population of interest we had fans of a prominentAmerican football team respond to a questionnairedesigned to capture the respondent’s evaluations of brandpersonality, as well as athlete prestige and distinctiveness,athlete ID, team ID, athlete attachment, the amount spenton purchasing team apparel, and the number of gameswatched. Students enrolled in undergraduate marketingclasses at a major university in the United States weregiven an extra credit opportunity for recruiting four studyparticipants. In addition, subjects were offered an incen-tive for participation. Students were trained on how torecruit respondents and given strict guidelines on the fol-lowing respondent characteristics: all respondents mustconsider themselves a fan of the team being investigated;all respondents must be over 18 years of age; two out offour respondents must be 30 years of age or above; threeout of four respondents may not be students at the uni-versity; and two out of four respondents must be oppositegender. In doing so, the sample reflected a diverse groupof individuals. Two hundred twenty-six (226) participantswere recruited to complete the questionnaire. Fifty-twopercent of the respondents were female and 60% werebetween the ages of 18 and 44.

Procedures and Operationalizationof Constructs

Respondents evaluated a well-known, highly publicizedathlete from a professional football team. Two athletes

with contrasting public images from the same team wereselected to ensure adequate familiarity with the athletesand variance among key constructs in a structural equa-tion model. The two athletes were Tony Romo, quarter-back, and Terrell Owens, wide receiver, of the DallasCowboys as they were the two most publicized Cowboy’splayers at the time of data collection. Although the twoathletes had very different off-the-field personas, bothwere in the midst of record-setting, Pro Bowl seasons enroute to a top seed for the Cowboys in the NFL playoffs.Based on pretest results, Tony Romo was viewed as goodnatured and clean-cut, while Terrell Owens was viewed

as provocative and extreme. The inclusion of two athleteswith conflicting personas from the same team allows foran investigation of the proposed model while account-ing for variation in athlete perceptions that ultimatelyinfluence team-related outcomes. We were better ableto control for familiarity by including two athletes fromthe same team. Respondents were randomly assigned to

a survey containing only one of the two athletes. Exclud-ing the athlete being assessed, all surveys were identical.

The construct measures were modified from exist-ing validated scales. All measures were subjected toconfirmatory factor analysis to assess their psychometricproperties and unidimensionality. The final scale itemsused in the analysis and standardized factor loadings arelisted in Table 1.

Brand Personality

Brand personality attributes were assessed using thesingle-item measures implemented by Carlson et al.(2009) in a team sport context. However, all 15 of theoriginal items from Aaker’s (1997) scale were initiallyassessed for their relevance to this study. Specifically,a pretest was conducted to ensure that each attributewas appropriate for investigation within this context.Seventy-six respondents were asked to evaluate theextent to which each of the original 15 brand personal-ity attributes was appropriate for describing profes-sional football players (1 = very inappropriate, 7 = veryappropriate). Consistent with the findings of Carlson etal. (2009), the five brand personality attributes of tough,charming, wholesome, imaginative, and successful weredeemed appropriate markers of brand personality withinthis context while others were not. For example, norespondents evaluated successful as being inappropriate(i.e., somewhat to very inappropriate) while 28 out of 76respondents evaluated intelligent as being inappropriate.Those attributes that were evaluated as “inappropriate”by at least 10% of respondents and evaluated as “veryinappropriate” by any respondent were deemed inap-propriate for further consideration in the main study.This resulted in a total of 7 remaining brand personalityattributes (i.e., daring, spirited, imaginative, wholesome,successful, charming, and tough). It is worth noting thatthis investigation focuses on specific brand personalityattributes rather than general dimensions. This distinc-tion is important because attempting to measure brandpersonality dimensions (e.g., sincerity) using a single

attribute (e.g., wholesome) would likely result in a lossof content validity.We used the items identified during the pretest in

our focal study. To measure brand personality in themain study, respondents were asked to rate the extent towhich they agreed or disagreed (1 = strongly disagree; 7= strongly agree) with the remaining 7 brand personalityitems. However, the initial confirmatory factor analysisincluding all constructs in the model revealed that theitems daring and spirited  significantly cross-loaded withmultiple items within the measurement model. Theseitems were therefore removed from further analysis.

8/14/2019 Human Brands in Sport-2013

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/human-brands-in-sport-2013 7/15

199

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 thefollowing 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 atAll, 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. .986A 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)

8/14/2019 Human Brands in Sport-2013

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/human-brands-in-sport-2013 8/15

200 Carlson and Donavan

 Athlete prestige was measured on a three-item, 7-pointLikert scale (Mael & Ashforth, 1992). The items wereframed as statements about the public reputation andstatus of the athlete. Respondents were asked to indicateto what extent they agreed or disagreed with each state-ment. To measure athlete distinctiveness, we used threeitems adapted from Donavan et al. (2005b). These items

were also 7-point Likert scales. Respondents were askedto what extent they agreed or disagreed with statementsabout the athlete being unique in comparison with otherfootball players.

 Athlete ID  was measured using the Bergami andBagozzi (2000) two-item measure of cognitive identifica-tion as this scale offers a unidimensional measure of theconstruct. Although a number of identification scales areavailable (i.e., Robinson & Trail, 2005; Trail & James,2001; Wann & Branscombe, 1993), most of these scalesalso incorporate more than simply an awareness of one’scognitive identification with an entity. For instance, thescale proposed by Robinson and Trail (2005) assesseswhether respondents consider themselves more attached

to individual players or the team. Our focus is on theextent to which consumers identify with an athlete. Theextent to which consumers feel more closely connectedwith a player versus the player’s team is not fundamentalto our investigation. The Trail and James (2001) scaleincludes the item ‘I would experience a loss if I had tostop being a fan of the [team name] team.’ This itemcaptures the emotional attachment to the team rather thanthe cognitive element. Bergami and Bagozzi (2000) arguethat the cognitive, emotional (i.e., affective commitment),and behavioral components of identification should betreated separately and their empirical results support thisclaim. Consequently, we chose to use the unidimensionalBergami and Bagozzi (2000) scale to capture cognitive

identification as its discriminant validity compared withother dimensions of the original identification constructhave been well substantiated. In addition, this scale isgeneralizable to multiple research domains, as it has beenwidely applied in marketing, management, and sportsmanagement literatures.

While numerous past studies have investigated manyof these constructs independently, most studies have notinvestigated these variables simultaneously. Therefore,given the possibility of respondents perceiving overlapamong the measures of athlete ID, athlete attachment,and team ID, measures for each construct were chosencarefully to ensure discriminant validity. Three items wereadapted from Mael and Ashforth (1992) to measure athleteattachment . These items correspond with the affective,rather than cognitive, attachment consumers may feeltoward 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. Theseitems, which correspond with a consumer’s perceivedaffiliation with a team and its fan base, have demonstrateddiscriminant validity from cognitive and affective mea-sures when investigated in a social identity framework.Single-item indicators were used to assess the number ofgames watched  and retail spending (Carlson et al., 2009).

Results

To assess differences in consumer perceptions of thetwo athletes included in the study, a one-way MANOVAcompared the mean ratings for all variables in the model(see Table 2). In general, perceptions of Tony Romo weresignificantly more positive than perceptions of Terrell

Owens. However, univariate ANOVA tests revealed thatmean differences were nonsignificant for distinctive-ness and the team-related variables (i.e., team ID, gameswatched, and spending) and no effects were found for thesevariables. In addition, the mean differences for imagina-tive (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 differ-ential perceptions of key variables in the proposed model.

The analysis was conducted using AMOS 17(Arbuckle, 1997). We began with the two-step approachsuggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). A confirma-tory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on the twelvescales: tough, wholesome, charming, imaginative, suc-

cessful,  prestige, distinctiveness, athlete ID, team ID,attachment, games watched , and retail spending. Theerror terms and paths on each of the single item latentconstructs were fixed appropriately (c.f., Anderson &Gerbing, 1988; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993). Specifically,fixed path coefficients are equal to the square root of thereliability estimate (e.g., alpha) for a measure. Becausesingle-indicators are being used to measure latent, orunobservable, constructs, we must account for measure-ment error (Netemeyer et al., 1990). The error terms andpaths on each of the single item latent variables were fixedas recommended by Joreskog and Sorbom (1993, p. 196).When using single item indicators the authors suggest areliability of 0.85, which corresponds to a path coefficient

of .922. The variance of indicator error terms is fixed at alevel 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 reli-ability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. Allindicators loaded on the appropriate latent factor, whichprovided evidence of convergent validity. Compositereliability, the analog for Cronbach’s alpha in structuralequation modeling, ranged from .77 to .92 indicatingacceptable reliability. Discriminant validity was evalu-ated by computing the average variance extracted (AVE),which represents that amount of common varianceexplained in the construct by the items. The remainder

represents the amount of error variance and unique vari-ance not represented by the construct. To demonstratediscriminant validity, the AVE for each construct shouldbe (1) greater than .50 and (2) greater than the correla-tion squared between the two scales (Fornell & Larcker,1981). All AVE values met the criteria suggested byFornell and Larcker indicating adequate discriminantvalidity between the constructs (See Table 1). Descrip-tive statistics and correlations are provided in Table 3.

The structural model was estimated based on theproposed hypotheses (Figure 1). Table 4 presents the

8/14/2019 Human Brands in Sport-2013

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/human-brands-in-sport-2013 9/15

Human Brands in Sport 201

Table 2 Group Differences between Athlete Perceptions

Variable

Means and Std. Deviations

F-valuea p-value   ηp2b Cohen’s d Tony Romo (n = 106) Terrell Owens (n = 120)

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 indicesfor the structural model indicate an acceptable fittingmodel: χ2 = 348.94 (df = 166, p < .001), TLI = 0.94, CFI= 0.95, and RMSEA = 0.07. Our model explains 62% ofthe variance in athlete ID, 47% of the variance in gameswatched, and 27% of the variance in retail spending. Thefinal path model is shown in Figure 2.

We further investigated the appropriateness of theoverall model in this study by comparing the theoreticalmodel to a “nested” model in which paths were addedfrom each brand personality attribute, prestige, and

distinctiveness directly to games watched and retail spend-ing. 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 aresatisfactory, the nonsignificant chi-squared differencetest (Δχ2 = 14.8, Δdf = 14) reveals that the theoreticalmodel is appropriate for the data, yet more parsimoniousto the alternative model. Thus, athlete ID appears to bean important construct to include when investigating theinfluence of consumer perceptions of athlete human brandcharacteristics upon sport consumption behaviors.

8/14/2019 Human Brands in Sport-2013

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/human-brands-in-sport-2013 10/15

202 Carlson and Donavan

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 byCarlson et al. (2009) in a team-based context. Our find-ings underscore and extend the work of Aaker (1997) andThomson (2006) by demonstrating that intangible humanbrands, as well as more traditional tangible brands, have abrand personality. In addition, this study extends previousresearch 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 theinfluence of brand personality on important team-relatedoutcomes via athlete ID.

We found the significance of the relationshipsbetween the athlete’s prestige and distinctiveness withathlete ID was somewhat consistent with previous find-ings that explored team ID. Specifically, Carlson et al.,(2009) found that only distinctiveness had a significantinfluence on team ID. However, although the influenceof distinctiveness is less robust than that of prestige, bothvariables had a significant influence on athlete ID in thisstudy. Thus, consumers should be more likely to identifywith a player who is perceived to be both prestigiousand distinctive. These findings are consistent with socialidentity theory, which suggests people seek to differen-tiate themselves from others in social contexts and arethus likely to affiliate with entities that enhance theirself-esteem (Tajfel & Turner, 1985). The model explains47% of the variance in number of games watched and27% of the variance in retail spending. Thus, we find

Table 4 Results of Structural Equations Analyses

Structural Model Statistics Study

χ2 348.94

df 166

CFI .95

TLI .94RMSEA .07

PathStandardizedPath Estimate

StandardError   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)

8/14/2019 Human Brands in Sport-2013

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/human-brands-in-sport-2013 11/15

8/14/2019 Human Brands in Sport-2013

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/human-brands-in-sport-2013 12/15

204 Carlson and Donavan

distinctiveness (t(223) = 2.47, p = .01). The quadratic effectof wholesome on prestige was not significant (t(223)  =1.52,  p = .13). However, the graphical representation ofthe analysis did reveal a similar curvilinear trend to thatfound with distinctiveness as the dependent variable. Theseresults offer support to the contention that the negativeinfluence of wholesome on prestige and distinctiveness

could be due to a curvilinear effect. Specifically, as evalu-ations of athlete wholesomeness approach either the topor the bottom end of the scale, perceptions of prestige anddistinctiveness will be enhanced. However, as evaluationsof athlete wholesomeness approach a moderate level, per-ceptions of prestige and distinctiveness may be diminished.

The findings also reveal that both athlete ID and teamID have a significant, positive influence on the numberof games that fans watch as well as the amount of moneyspent on team-related retail purchases. Although athleteattachment had a significant influence on the number ofgames watched it did not significantly influence retailspending. This finding suggests that strong attachmentsto individual players may not translate into retail spending

on team-related merchandise. One possible explanationfor this finding could be that consumers may become lesscommitted to a team and its product offerings as attach-ment to an individual player increases, allowing fansto shift their allegiances among teams as their favoriteathletes change teams. For example, during his tenureas a professional basketball player, Shaquille O’Nealdeveloped a loyal fan base that remained loyal to the Shaqbrand as he moved among teams in the NBA, producedrecords as a recording artist, and appeared in televisionand film productions.

Managerial Implications

Our findings suggest that athlete ID is an important vari-able in predicting team-related consumption behaviors. Inaddition to its direct positive influence on watching gamesand retail spending, athlete ID has a positive influenceon the extent to which consumers both feel an emotionalattachment to the athlete and identify with the team. Thusfirms may benefit by employing tactics that facilitateathlete identification. Further, brand personality of indi-vidual athletes may be very important for organizationsassociated with sport. Consumer evaluations of a singleathlete could have significant effects on evaluations ofa team as well as behaviors related to its market offer-ings. In addition, marketers who want to associate theirproducts with a sports team should consider the humanbrands that comprise the team, as evaluations of the teamare influenced by evaluations of individual athletes.

This research has potential implications for nonsportproducts hoping to benefit from association with sportas well. For example, athlete endorsements would likelyinfluence athlete ID and possibly team ID as well. Byunderstanding the psychology of what makes consum-ers identify with a human brand, firms may be able toenhance their brand experience through appropriateendorser selection. As an additional consideration, whenan athlete leaves a team, many consumers may become

less interested in the team because part of the entertain-ment value is lost with the athlete’s departure. For firmshoping to benefit from an association with professionalsports, this finding suggests that in some circumstancesit may be beneficial to align the company’s image withthe entire team rather than an individual athlete.

Future Research and Limitations

It is important to consider the following caveat wheninterpreting the results of this study. As noted previously,the Dallas Cowboys were one of the top performing teamsin the NFL at the time of data collection. In addition,Tony Romo and Terrell Owens were both performing atvery high levels individually. Given that player and teamperformance may both be indicative of product quality,it is possible that our results may have been influencedby the success of the team and the athletes. Specifically,the relationships between social identity and behaviorsmay be enhanced when a team or athlete is performingwell. Consistent with social identity theory, individuals

are more likely to demonstrate their affiliation with anentity when doing so enhances their self-esteem. Thus,group identities relating to the athlete and the team, aswell as their resulting behaviors, may have been moresalient for respondents in this study because of the suc-cess of the focal athletes and team.

There are multiple areas related to this study thatmay benefit from additional investigation. Future researchshould explore additional factors that influence identifi-cation with human brands. The generalizability of ourfindings to other sports contexts is restricted given thatthis study focused on two professional athletes from theNational Football League. Although the athletes includedin this study are perceived to be substantially different

from one another, investigating the model with additionalathletes as well as additional teams from multiple sportswill enhance the generalizability of the findings. In addi-tion, the focal athletes in this study were associated witha team sport. However, focal athletes who participate inindividual sports such as tennis, golf, or snowboardingmay influence consumers in a unique way. Specifically,differences may exist in the proposed relationships whenexploring consumption outcomes that are sport-based(e.g., PGA events) rather than team-based (e.g., DallasCowboys games).

Pretests were used to identify specific attributes fromAaker’s (1997) brand personality scale that were deemedappropriate for evaluating professional football players.Given that most sports have a unique image, it will likelybe necessary in future studies to determine which brandpersonality attributes are most relevant for evaluatingathletes associated with each sport. We recommend thatfuture studies begin with the original 15 items proposedby Aaker (1997) rather than the final five attributes used inthis study. The notion of brand personality is conceptuallybroad enough to apply to all brand and sport contexts.However, the diversity of brand types is too great to jus-tify utilizing a single measurement scale that is equallyappropriate in all contexts.

8/14/2019 Human Brands in Sport-2013

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/human-brands-in-sport-2013 13/15

Human Brands in Sport 205

In this research, a perspective of social identity wasadopted in which cognitive (i.e., identification) and emo-tional (i.e., attachment) aspects of identity are consideredto be unique, albeit related, constructs (c.f., Bergami &Bagozzi, 2000; Bhattacharya & Sen, 2003; Carlson etal., 2009). However, an alternative perspective exists inwhich 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, self-categorization, evaluation, importance, attachment andsense of interdependence, social embededness, behavioralinvolvement, and content and meaning are consideredas dimensions that simultaneously drive social identity.Although athlete attachment had a nonsignificant directeffect on spending in this study, the combined effects ofattachment with the other proposed dimensions of socialidentity may reveal stronger relationships between iden-tity and behaviors. Thus, future studies should comparethe current model to one in which a multidimensionalview of social identity is adopted.

The findings of this study suggest that tough as abrand personality trait does not significantly influencedistinctiveness. This finding is likely due to the factthat most NFL players are perceived to be tough and,therefore, tough is not typically perceived as a brandpersonality trait that distinguishes one athlete fromanother. However, this relationship may prove to be sig-nificant when comparing the brand personalities of athletecelebrities to those of nonathlete celebrities as potentialendorsers or comparing athletes of different sports. Ath-letes are often chosen as celebrity endorsers due to theirability to stand out from others (i.e., distinctiveness).Therefore, the relationships between brand personalitytraits and distinctiveness should be examined in futurestudies. An additional limitation of this study is thatthe outcome variables of retail spending and number ofgames watched were self-reported. Although self-reportdata are commonly used, actual purchase and sales datawould provide greater accuracy in future investigations.

References

Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. JMR, Journalof Marketing Research, 34, 347–356. doi:10.2307/3151897

Aaker, J., Fournier, S., & Brasel, S.A. (2004). When goodbrands do bad. The Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 1–16. doi:10.1086/383419

Allport, G.W. (1961). Pattern and Growth in Personality. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equationmodeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411

Arbuckle, J.L. (1997).  AMOS 7.0. Chicago: SmallwatersCorporation.

Ashforth, B.E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory andthe organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1),20–39.

Ashmore, R.D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). Anorganizing 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 personalityscales really measure brand personality? Brand Manage-ment, 11(2), 143–155. doi:10.1057/palgrave.bm.2540162

Barrick, M.R., & Mount, M.K. (1991). The big five personalitydimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Person-nel Psychology, 44, 1–26. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.

tb00688.xBeggan, J.K. (1992). On the social nature of nonsocial percep-

tion: The mere ownership effect.  Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 62(2), 229–237. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.62.2.229

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 dis-tinct aspects of social identity in the organization. The

 Brit ish Journal of Social Psychology,  39,   555–577.doi:10.1348/014466600164633

Bhattacharya, C.B., Rao, H., & Glynn, M.A. (1995). Under-standing 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-companyidentification: A framework for understanding consumer’srelationships 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 insport: 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: Personalitytrait determinants and influences on self and supervisorperformance 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). Brandpersonality: 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 per-sonality 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 versuspsychological brand community: The role of psychologicalsense 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). Concep-tions of states and traits: Dimensional attributes with idealsand protytypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 54(4), 541–557. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.541

Cialdini, R.B., Borden, R.J., Thorne, A., Walker, M.R., Free-man, S., & Sloan, L.R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory:Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology,  34(3), 366–375. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.34.3.366

Costa, P.T., McCrae, R.R., & Arenberg, D. (1980). Enduringdispositions in adult males.  Journal of Personality and

8/14/2019 Human Brands in Sport-2013

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/human-brands-in-sport-2013 14/15

206 Carlson and Donavan

Social Psychology,  38,  793–800. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.38.5.793

Davies, G., Chun, R., da Silva, R.V., & Roper, S. (2004). Acorporate character scale to assess employee and customerviews of organisation reputation. Corporate Reputation

 Review, 7, 125–146. doi:10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540216Donavan, D.T., Carlson, B., & Zimmerman, M. (2005a). Per-

sonality 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 andspending. Proceedings of the American Marketing Associ-ation Summer Educator’s Conference, San Francisco, CA.

Donavan, D.T., Janda, S., & Suh, J. (2006). Environmentalinfluences in corporate brand identification and out-comes. Journal of Brand Management, 14(1), 125–136.doi:10.1057/palgrave.bm.2550057

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equa-tion models with unobservable variables and measurementerror.  JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 28,  39–50.doi:10.2307/3151312

Fournier, S. (1998). Consumer and their brands: Developingrelationship theory in consumer research. The Journal of

Consumer Research, 24(4), 343–373. doi:10.1086/209515Fridhandler, B.M. (1986). Conceptual note on state, trait, and

the state-trait distinction.  Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 50(1), 169–174. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.1.169

Funk, D.C., & James, J. (2001). The psychological continuummodel: A conceptual framework for understanding anindividual’s psychological connection to sport. Sport

 Management Review, 4(2), 119–150. doi:10.1016/S1441-3523(01)70072-1

Gladden, J.M., & Funk, D.C. (2002). Developing an under-standing of brand associations in team sport: Empiricalevidence from consumers of professional sport. Journalof 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:10.1037/1040-3590.4.1.26Grubb, 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 fanidentification: Antecedents and sponsorship out-comes. Journal of Services Marketing, 17 (3), 275–294.doi:10.1108/08876040310474828

Gwinner, K., & Bennett, G. (2008). The impact of brand cohe-siveness and sport identification on brand fit in a sponsorshipcontext. Journal of Sport Management, 22(4), 410–426.

Heere, B. (2010). A new approach to measure perceived brandpersonality associations among consumers. Sport Market-ing Quarterly, 19(1), 17–24.

Heere, B., & James, J.D. (2007). Stepping outside the lines:Developing a multi-dimensional team identity scale basedon 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 socialidentity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 255–269.doi:10.2307/2787127

Holt, D.B. (1995). How consumers consume: A typology of con-sumption practices. The Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 1–16. doi:10.1086/209431

Joreskog, K., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural Equa-tion Modeling with the SIMPLIS Command Language.Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.

Kirmani, A., Sood, S., & Bridges, S. (1999). The ownershipeffect in consumer responses to brand line stretches. Jour-

nal of Marketing, 63(1), 88–101. doi:10.2307/1252003Kwon, 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 mediatingrole of perceived value: Team identification and purchaseintention of team-licensed apparel. Journal of Sport Man-agement, 21(4), 540–554.

Laroche, M., Kim, C., & Zhou, L. (1996). Brand familiarityand confidence as determinants of purchase intention:An empirical test in a multiple brand context.  Journalof Business Research, 37,  115–120. doi:10.1016/0148-2963(96)00056-2

Lee, H.S., & Cho, C.H. (2009). The matching effect of brandand 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 onconsumer donations to corporate-supported nonprof-its.  Journal of Marketing,  68(4), 16–32. doi:10.1509/ 

 jmkg.68.4.16.42726Madrigal, R., & Chen, J. (2008). Moderating and mediating

effects of team identification in regard to causal attribu-tions 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 organiza-tional 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.66.1.38.18451Netemeyer, R.G., Johnston, M.W., & Burton, S. (1990). Analy-

sis of role conflict and role ambiguity in a structural equa-tions 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 amongspectator gender, motives, points of attachment and sportpreference. Journal of Sport Management, 9, 58–80.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1985). The social identity theory ofintergroup 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 sportconsumption: Assessment of the scale’s psychometricproperties. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24(1), 108–127.

Thomson, M. (2006). Human brands: Investigating antecedentsto consumers’ strong attachments to celebrities.  Journalof Marketing, 70, 104–119. doi:10.1509/jmkg.70.3.104

Wann, D.L., & Branscombe, N.R. (1993). Sports fans: Measur-ing degree of identification with their team. International

 Journal of Sport Psychology, 24(1), 1–17.Wann, D.L., & Branscombe, N.R. (1995). Influence of iden-

tification with a sports team on objective knowledge andsubjective beliefs. International Journal of Sport Psychol-ogy, 26 (4), 551–567.

8/14/2019 Human Brands in Sport-2013

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/human-brands-in-sport-2013 15/15

C o p y r i g h t o f J o u r n a l o f S p o r t M a n a g e m e n t i s t h e p r o p e r t y o f H u m a n K i n e t i c s P u b l i s h e r s , I n c .  

a n d i t s c o n t e n t m a y n o t b e c o p i e d o r e m a i l e d t o m u l t i p l e s i t e s o r p o s t e d t o a l i s t s e r v w i t h o u t    

t h e c o p y r i g h t h o l d e r ' s e x p r e s s w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . H o w e v e r , u s e r s m a y p r i n t , d o w n l o a d , o r    

e m a i l a r t i c l e s f o r i n d i v i d u a l u s e .