Using evaluative conditioning to explain corporate co

Using evaluative conditioning to explain corporate co-branding in the context of sport sponsorship Rodoula H. Tsiotsou University of Macedonia, Greece

Kostas Alexandris Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

T. Bettina Cornwell University of Oregon, USA

This paper investigates the mechanism under which attitude formation takes place in corporate co-branding in the context of sport sponsorship. We developed a conceptual model that syntbesises three theoretical frameworks (evaluative conditioning, relationship marketing and brand equity), aiming to explain corporate co-branding in the context of sport sponsorship. Specifically, the proposed model posits that, in sport sponsorship, close consumer relationships with a sport brand leverage sponsor brand equity elements (brand familiarity, brand personality and brand image) and can lead to positive outcomes (wordof-mouth communications). We tested the proposed model using data collected from fans of two professional soccer teams {N= 280).The results of the study confirmed the proposed relationships and furtber provided new insights regarding the role of brand equity elements in creating 'backward' effects to the sport brand (team). Moreover, the findings suggest that sport sponsorship might be the ideal context for co-branding partnerships between mature/ high-equity brands.

Introduction According to IEG's industry review and forecast (2012), global spending in sponsorship grew by 5.1% in 2011 and reached $48.6 billion, despite the negative economic environment. For 2012, it was predicted that worldv^dde spending would still be increasing by 4.9%, reacbing $51 billion. These increased investments in sponsorship relate to its effectiveness as a marketing communication tool. Increasing brand awareness, establishing or changing brand image, and building brand equity have been reported as the most

International Journal of Advertising, 33(2), pp. 295-327 © 2014 Advertising Association Published by Ware, www.warc.com DOI: 10.2501/IJA-33-2-295-327

295

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVERTISING, 2014,33(2)

frequent reasons for a company to enter into a sponsorship deal (Cornweü et al. 2001; Motion ff/«/. 2003). The context of sponsorship has been considered as a favourable one for the development of corporate co-branding, which provides opportunities for enriching the symbolic value of the sponsor and maximising the benefits of the partnership (Motion et al. 2003; Farreüy et al 2005; Alexander 2009; Kahuni et al 2009). Corporate co-branding refers to partnerships between corporate brands and other corporate, product or service brands in order to establish a co-branded identity. Corporate co-branding is a strategic alliance that enables the parties involved in expanding and reinforcing their existing set of corporate brand values without diminishing their corporate brand equity (McDonald et al 2001; Motion et al. 2003). Research supports that 'merely the act of pairing vnth another brand elevates consumers' evaluations of the partner brands' customer based brand equity, and high-equity partners enhance pretrial evaluation of experience and credence attributes that are relevant to the high-equity partner' (Washburn et al 2004, p. 487). The case of New Zealand Rugby Union (NZRU) with Adidas is one of the most prominent examples in the literature of successful co-branding in sport sponsorship. NZRU and Adidas were successful in making the rugby consumer perceive them as a unified organisation. In order to achieve their co-branding objective, Adidas and NZRU officials first matched their brand values, and then designed their marketing communication strategy (Motion e/a/. 2003). Although the practice of co-branding is not new, there are limited quantitative empirical investigations on the topic (Helmig et al 2008). In their review of literature, Helmig et al. (2008) identified only 25 empirical studies, and concluded that there is a paucity of research on co-branding and particularly on transferring efíects between partners. Several issues related to the published co-branding literature can be critiqued. First of all, the majority of the published studies used student samples, which make their findings not generalisable. Furthermore, the measurement models used are often confined to one item per construct, calling into question the reliability and validity of these constructs. Finally, the majority of the studies used hypothetical co-branded products for evaluation, whereas only a few investigated the transferring effects of real co-branded products. Helmig et al. (2008) recommended the examination of antecedents of co-branding success factors and multi-group analysis in order to achieve a more in-depth understanding of co-branding and its effects. In addition, because most empirical investigations used fast-moving consumer goods, Helmig et al (2008) considered the inclusion of durables and services in the research agenda of co-branding to be imperative. In the sponsorship context. Motion et al. (2003) proposed that empirical research is required towards identifying the sources for the development of corporate co-branded equity, and understanding how sponsorship leverages corporate relationships and buUds brand equity. Thus, the present study responds to calls for more research on co-branding (Helmig et al 2008) and co-branded equity (Motion et al. 2003), and specifically in the context of sport sponsorship (Farrelly et al. 2005). Specifically, the objectives were set as follows: (1) to investigate the mechanism under which attitude formation takes place in co-branding, and specifically in the case of corporate co-branding in the context of sport

296

EVALUATIVE CONDITIONING AND CO-BRANDING IN SPORT SPONSORSHIP

sponsorship; (2) to identify the antecedents of a successful co-branding in the context of sport sponsorship; and (3) to examine the effects of the parent sport brand (team) on specific elements of sponsor brand equity and positive outcomes. We introduce evaluative conditioning as the theoretical framework under which consumer attitude formation takes place in a corporate sponsorship co-branding. Furthermore, we aimed to test whether consumers' relationships with a sport brand/team influence the development of sponsor brand equity elements and positive outcomes. Consumer relationsbips were measured by the constructs of consumer involvement, self-expression and attachment (Thomson 2006). Brand familiarity, brand personality and brand image were used to measure consumer attitude formation, as elements of brand equity (Keller 1993). It has to be pointed out that all these three elements are attitudinal variables. Finally, word of moutb was used as a positive sponsorship outcome (Tsiotsou ôc Alexandris 2009). The contribution of the present study is twofold. First, to our knowledge, this is the first study that investigates how attitude formation takes place in corporate co-branding. Second, this is the first study that investigates corporate co-branding in tbe context of sport sponsorship, using evaluative conditioning as the theoretical framework that explains how attitudes are formed/changed from one brand (e.g. the sport brand) to another (e.g. sponsor brand). Altbough sport sponsorship has been proposed as a good context for corporate cobranding (Motion et al 2003; Farrelly et al. 2005; Alexander 2009; Kahuni et al 2009), there is no quantitative empirical data explaining the affective attitude formation and its underlying mechanisms in this context. There are only three studies published in the literature (Motion et al 2003; Alexander 2009; Kahuni et al 2009) which, however, used case studies in order to show how corporate co-branding operates in tbe context of sponsorship. Thus, the present study is the first one that proposes and empirically tests a comprehensive conceptual framework for the study of corporate co-branding in sponsorship using quantitative data.

Co-branding in the context of sponsorship Recently, sponsorship has been recognised as a good context for corporate co-branding (Motion et al 2003; Farrelly et al 2005; Alexander 2009; Kahuni et al. 2009) that can be used for strategic purposes (Cliffe & Motion 2005). Motion et al. (2003) used discourse theory to investigate the process of establishing a viable co-branded identity in sponsorship. Their case study examined the relationship between Adidas and the New Zealand All Blacks Rugby team. In a similar vein, Kahuni et al. (2009) examined image spill-over effects in the title sponsorship of Vodafone with the McLaren-Mercedes Formula One team. In a third study, Alexander (2009) studied the sponsor of the Welsh national rugby team, and reported tbat a close semantic fit between the sponsor and the team facilitates the co-branding relationship. Taken together, it can be argued that sponsorship can be more than a simple activity, aiming to increase sponsors' exposure: it can be a partnership that enables values to be extracted from the relationship at a variety of levels (Motion etal. 2003; Cliffe & Motion 2005; Alexander 2009).

297


Therefore, we developed a conceptual model that explains how co-branding takes place in sponsorship (Figure 1). For communication purposes we use the term 'sport brand/team' when referring to the parent corporate brand, and the term 'sponsor brand' for the secondary corporate brand. We use associative learning theory (de Houwer 2001), combined with brand relational perspectives (Fournier 8c Yao 1997) and brand equity elements, to explore how co-branding operates in a sponsorship context. For the purpose of the present study, brand equity was measured based on the dimensions of brand image and familiarity, as proposed by Keller (2003), and brand personality, which has been shown to be an important determinant for brand equity development ( Valette-Florence et ai 2011).

Conceptual framework Theories explaining sport sponsorship At its initial research stage, sponsorship was studied as a cognitive phenomenon (Hoek et al. 1997). Thus, Kuzma et al. (2003) and Javalgi et al. (1994) used associative learning theory to explain the cognitive processes involved in sponsorship. Moreover, attribution theory (Rifon et al 2004), models such as the Attention-Interest-Desire-Action model (Crompton 1996) and the Awareness-Trial-Reinforcement model were examined in a sponsorship context (Hoeketal. 1997). However, recent studies emphasise the affective processes associated with sponsorship, and consider cognitive approaches inadequate in explaining sponsorship phenomena (Cornwell et al 2006; Bal et al 2007; Alexandris et al 2012). Consequently, affective perspectives, such as classical conditioning (Speed 8c Thompson 2000), affective conditioning (Gwinner 8c Eaton 1999), hierarchy of effects (Alexandris et al. 2012) and mere exposure (Olson 8cTJ0m0e 2003), have been integrated into sponsorship theory. Another direction found in the sponsorship research is the examination of transferring effects from a sport property to the sponsor brand. According to this stream of research, transferring effects can be identified in a sponsorship context at three levels: at a perceptional level, such as image transfer (Gvsdnner 8c Eaton 1999; Speed 8c Thompson 2000), at a cognitive level, such as meaning transfer (McCracken 1989), and at an attitudinal level, such as attitude transfer (Crimmins 8c Horn 1996). However, as Walliser (2003) states, 'none of the rationales offered, such as emotional conditioning, mere exposure effects, the awareness-trial-reinforcement model or the familiarity-misattribution model has so far proven its superiority in empirical research' (p. 15).

Evaluative conditioning in explaining sponsorship The conceptual framework of the present study is based on associative learning and, specifically, on evaluative conditioning. The major tenet of associative learning theories relies on the assumption that attitudes can be formed through information processing and simple learning mechanisms (Petty 8c Cacioppo 1984; de Houwer et al. 2001). According to de Houwer et al. (2001), there are two prevailing approaches to associative learning:

298


the Evaluative Conditioning (EC) and the Pavlovian (or Classical or Signal learning) Conditioning (PC). Levey and Martin (1975) introduced the term 'evaluative conditioning', and have shown that pairing a neutral stimulus (CS) with a liked (disliked) one (US) shifts evaluations of the former in a positive (negative) direction. Hofmann et al. (2010) define evaluative conditioning as a change in the liking of a stimulus (CS) that results from pairing that stimulus with other positive or negative stimuli (US). EC is ahout the learning of likes and dislikes, and refers to attitude changes in a stimulus that results from pairing it with another stimulus. PC refers to the hehavioural responses to a conditioned stimulus after it is repeatedly paired vñth an unconditioned stimulus (de Houwer et al. 2001). Thus, a major difference hetween the two paradigms is that EC concerns the likes and dislikes of the unconditioned stimulus (US), whereas PC focuses on the 'if—then' relationship hetween two stimuli. In EC, the conditioned stimulus (CS) does not acquire a predictive value, as in PC, hut 'merely attains the affective qualities of the unconditioned stimulus' (Walther 2002, p. 920). In other words, EC explains how attitudes are acquired and formed (e.g. likes/dislikes and preferences) when a stimulus is paired with another stimulus, whereas PC concerns the activation of already existing attitudes (Hammerl 8c Grahitz 1996; Rozin et al 1998). Hofmann et al. (2010) consider EC as a form of PC in that 'it involves a change in the responses to the CS that results from pairing the CS with a US. Whereas PC can refer to a change in any type of response, EC concerns only a change in the evaluative responses to the CS, that is, a change in the liking of the CS' (p. 391). In further comparing the two approaches, they have identified that EC differs from PC in terms of the impact of contingency awareness (consciousness of a relation hetween two different events) and extinctions procedures that are present in EC. Through a meta-analysis of 214 studies on EC, the authors report that: (1) EC increases wdth the numher of CS-US co-occurrences; (2) EC is independent of contingency awareness; and (3) EC is resistant to extinction. Both PC and EC have heen used hefore in marketing, mostly in communication and advertising research. For example, Rossiter and Ang (1993) proposed PC to explain huUding hrand equity for new hrands via advertising. Till et al (2008) expanded the use of classical conditioning to endorsement, and show how a connection hetween a hrand and a celehrity can he created. Classical conditioning has also heen used to explain customerhased hrand equity effects in hrand alliances, such as co-hranding and hrand extensions (Washhurn et al. 2004). PC has heen theoretically proposed hut not empirically tested as a relevant theory in explaining co-hranding effectiveness (Grossman 1997). However, there is limited use of evaluative conditioning in marketing research. For example, EC has heen used to explain the role of source attractiveness and credihUity as persuasion cues in situations, where consumers' motivation and need for cognition is low (Petty 8c Cacioppo 1984). Given the affective nature of sport sponsorship, as discussed ahove, we choose to use the EC paradigm. In the EC perspective, consumers' levels of involvement and attachment with a parent hrand (e.g. sport hrand/team) develop a numher of associations (cognitive and emotional) around this hrand. In a co-hranding situation, when the parent hrand (e.g. sport hrand/team - the unconditioned stimulus) is coupled with another

299


secondary brand (e.g. sponsor brand - the conditioned stimulus), this association will lead consumers to extend the features of the parent brand to the secondary brand. In EC, inducing conditioning effects takes place via direct affect transfer from the unconditioned to the conditioned stimulus (de Houwer et al. 2001). In line with this reasoning, in a sponsorship situation, it is expected that consumers' affect towards a sport hrand wül be transferred directly to the sponsor brand. Next, the hypotheses of the study are presented.

Research hypotheses Building relationships with sport brands The first part of our conceptual model takes a relationship marketing perspective (Morgan & Hunt 1994; Fournier & Yao 1997; Chaudhuri & Holbrook 2001) (Figure 1). According to brand relationship theory, consumers seek and value ongoing relationships with brands. Consumer involvement and attachment have been suggested as important variables in consumer relationsbips (Thomson 2006). Brand attachment refers to 'the strength of the cognitive and affective bond connecting the brand with the self' in a symbolic manner (Park et al 2006, p. 4). Tbus, brand attacbment is a characteristic of the relationship between a consumer and a brand, leading to 'automatic retrieval of thoughts and feelings about the brand' (Park et al 2006). Park et al (2006) posit that brand attachment is an attitudinal construct and accounts for higher-order consumer behaviours associated with commitment to a relationship. Although brand attacbment constitutes an important factor in consumer-brand relations, there is limited data available regarding its determinants. Only recently, Tsiotsou (2010) examined the role of brand involvement and brand self-expression, and found that both act as antecedents of brand attacbment. Based on tbe emerging theory of brand attachment (Park et al. 2006), and in line vidth Tsiotsou's findings (2010), the present study proposes that sport brand involvement and sport brand self-expression determine sport brand attacbment. Carroll and Ahuvia (2006) define a self-expressive brand as 'tbe consumer's perception of the degree to which the specific brand enhances one's social self and/or refiects one's inner self' (p. 82). Individuals choose specific brands not only for their functional benefits but also for their symbolic properties (Piacentini & Mailer 1999). Consumers choose brands that help them in creating, fostering and developing their identity (Elliot & Wattanasuwan 1998). In this case, the symbolic meaning of the brand is used as an expression of a consumer's self-concept in relation to her/his status in society (EUiot 1998). Piacentini and Mailer (1999) also argue that consumption of a specific brand might be used by consumers to communicate with their friends and significant others. The same authors also argue that products which are consumed in social situations are those that have the highest symbolic meaning, since tbese situations allow consumers to express their identity via consumption. Furthermore, as Piacentini and Mailer (1999) discuss, individuals can use the symbolic content of a chosen brand to reflect their affiliation or connection to a particular social group (e.g. sport team). Similarly, Fournier (1998) argues that a brand expressing a significant aspect of a consumer's self signals the relationship quality between

300


301


consumers and brands. Tsiotsou (2010) studied 286 sport fans and found that, when a sport team expresses consumers' self, it has a positive influence on their attachment with this team. This relationship has been further verified in her recent study among fans of soccer teams (Tsiotsou 2013). Following the above discussion we hypothesised that: HI:

Sport brand (team) self-expression is positively related to sport brand (team) attachment.

Involvement is regarded as a primary determinant of consumer behaviour and has been defined as 'a person's perceived relevance of an object based on inherent needs, values, and interests' (Zaichkowsky 1985, p. 342). Zaichkowsky (1985) discussed two categories: product involvement and brand-decision involvement. Product involvement refers to the interest consumers find in a product class. Brand-decision involvement is the interest taken in making a brand selection. It has been theoretically proposed and empirically verified that involvement is an antecedent of attachment. As Gwinner and Swanson (2003) discussed, spectators who become more involved with a specific sport or team are more likely to develop an interest and subsequenfly a psycbological attachment to that team. A recent study by Tsiotsou (2013) verified the influence of team involvement on team attachment in the context of professional soccer teams. Moreover, this relationship has been tested by a number of studies conducted in tbe context of sponsorship (Gwinner & Swanson 2003; Alexandris et al 2007; Tsiotsou & Alexandris 2009; Alexandris et al. 2012). In aU these studies, involvement with either a specific sport or a specific team was shown to influence the development of team attachment. We therefore propose that: H2:

Sport brand (team) involvement is positively related to sport brand (team) attachment.

The effects of sponsorship on sponsor brand equity elements and outcomes (word of mouth) Outside the sponsorship context, brand attachment has been linked to brand equity (Park et al 2006) and brand equity behaviours (Chaudhuri & Holbrook 2001). Keller (1993) defined customer-based brand equity as 'the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to tbe marketing of the brand' (p. 2). As the same author discussed, brand equity occurs wben the consumer is familiar with the brand, and holds favourable and unique brand associations in memory. Tbe dimensions of brand awareness and brand image were proposed by Keller (1993) to form brand knowledge, which is a key variable for building brand equity. Brand image was defined by Keller (1993) as 'perceptions about a brand as reflected by the brand associations beld in consumer memory' (p. 3). He also proposed that 'one of the components of brand image is the personality of the brand itself' (p. 4). Following Keller's model in the present study, we used the constructs of sponsor brand familiarity, sponsor brand image and sponsor brand personality as elements of

302


brand equity. Brand familiarity has been defined as tbe 'number of product related experiences that have been accumulated by the consumer' (Alba 8c Hutchinson 1987, p. 411), whUe brand personality refers to 'the set of human personality traits that are both applicable and relevant for brands' (Azoulay 8c Kapferer 2003, p. 151). Research proposes brand attachment as a key factor in brand extensions (Fedorikhin et al. 2008) and sponsorship outcomes (Madrigal 2001; Meenagham 2001; Gwinner 8c Swanson 2003; Tsiotsou 8c Alexandris 2009; Alexandris et al. 2012). Fedorikhin et al. (2008) found that attachment with the parent brand has positive effects on consumer reactions to brand extensions. In line with this reasoning, sponsorship changes consumers' responses towards a specific sponsor and fosters a positive attitude about the sponsor (Madrigal 2001; Gwinner 8c Swanson 2003; Harvery et al. 2006). The sponsorship literature is mostly focused on image transfer effects, and uses various conceptual frameworks such as the associate memory network view (Chien et al. 2010), the meaning transfer theory (McCracken 1989), congruence perspectives (Sirgy et al. 2008; Lee 8c Cho 2009) and schema theory (Gwinner 8c Eaton 1999) to explain the transfer effects in sponsorship. Based on EC, we argue that the acquisition and formation of consumer attitudes towards the sponsor brand take place using mainly affective mechanisms (Alexandris et al. 2012), and not through cognitive information processes. This is supported by previous research in sponsorship, where sponsor's brand unaided recall results were lower than recognition or aided recall rates (Nebenzahl 8cHornik 1985; Bennett 1999). The 'fading effect', where there is lower sponsor's brand recall over time when sponsors terminate a sponsorship deal, provides support to our argument of low cognitive processes. Karg and McDonald (2010) also found that, when sponsorships ended, consumers' recall rates of sponsors dropped to an average 14.9% in the first year and 5.3% in the second year. In accordance with advertising research, sponsorship research shows that repeated exposure to a sponsor brand can lead to feelings of familiarity and positive attitudes towards the sponsor brand, even if the sponsor brand has not been consciously assessed like a traditional brand (Bennett 1999). Thus, we expect that when consumers are attached to a sport brand (team) and they are exposed to a sponsor brand (e.g. via media or by attending the games of a sport team), they wall become familiar with it. In line with EC, we argue that the sponsor brand, wbich is the conditioned stimxdus, acquires the affective qualities of the sport brand (team), which is the unconditioned stimulus. This argument is supported by previous research (Tsiotsou 8c Alexandris 2009; Alexandris et al. 2012), in which it was shovm that team attachment influences sponsor's image and consumer behavioural intentions (word-of-mouth and purchase intentions). This influence relates to the development of an associative partnership between the sponsor and tbe sport brand (team), where image transfer effects take place via consumers' emotionally laden experiences (Cliffe 8c Motion 2005; Kahuni et al. 2009), as proposed by EC theory. Therefore, and in line with EC, we argue that the emotional experiences vwth a sport brand are accumulated and expressed via consumers' attachment with the brand, which in turn affects, through associations, elements of sponsors' brand equity, such as sponsor familiarity, sponsor image and sponsor personality. This is supported by

303


previous research, which showed that consumers highly attached to sport teams develop positive attitudes towards their sponsors, and exhihit higher levels of sponsor recognition, patronage and satisfaction (Madrigal 2001; Gwinner 8c Swanson 2003; Alexandris et al. 2007; Tsiotsou 8c Alexandris 2009). Thus, we expect that when consumers are attached to a sport hrand (team) and they are exposed to a sponsor hrand (e.g. via media or hy attending the games of a sport team), they will hecome familiar with it. Therefore, we hypothesise that: H3:

Sport hrand attachment is positively related to sponsor hrand familiarity.

Brand personality refers to 'the set of human personality traits that are hoth applicahle and relevant for hrands' (Azoulay 8c Kapferer 2003, p. 151). Sports sponsorship increases hrand knowledge of a sponsor's hrand qualities hy associating the sponsor hrand with the characteristics of a sporting team, event or endorser (Gwdnner 1997; CornweU et al. 2001; Madrigal 2001; Cliffe 8c Motion 2005; Alexandris et al 2012). According to Quester and Farrelly (1998), the transfer of positive (or potentially negative) images to the sponsor's hrand is enahled without having to verhally or consciously convince the consumer of the product's positive attrihutes. This tenet is in line with EC and the low-level information processing that takes place during sponsorship consumer evaluation. It has heen reported that consumers' attachment with a sport team represents an affective stage of a hierarchy of effect sponsorship model (Alexandris et al. 2012). As previously noted, sport team attachment expresses a consumer's psychological connection to a sport team, which is developed hased on fans' feelings and emotions. Suhsequently, and according to EC, consumers' affect towards the sport hrand vvoU he transferred directly to the personality of the sponsor hrand. However, hecause hrand personality precedes hrand image (Gvvdnner 8c Eaton 1999), changes in sponsor hrand image should take place via changes in perceptions of the sponsor's hrand personality. Sports sponsorship may he a valuahle tool used to communicate symholic hrand associations, as part of a process to huüd or change hrand personality (Speed 8c Thompson 2000; Cornwell et al 2001; Cliffe 8c Motion 2005). Thus, sport hrand-personality traits can he used in examining the image-transfer process in the sport sponsorship context (Gvsdnner 8c Eaton 1999). However, in order for these associations to take place, we expect that consumers should have a strong attachment to the sport hrand. Therefore, we hypothesise that: H4:

Sport hrand attachment is positively related to sponsor hrand personality.

Perceptions ahout a hrand are reflected hy the hrand associations held in consumer memory (i.e. hrand image) and are developed through the various consumer experiences with a hrand (i.e. familiarity) (Keller 1993). Brand familiarity leads to increased information processing (Alha 8c Hutchinson 1987), enhanced recall of new information (Kent 8c Allen 1994), and improved attitude towards a hrand extension (Roux 8cBoush 1996) or a hrand alliance (Simonin 8c Ruth 1998). Increased familiarity with a hrand may result in

304


better knowledge development (Brucks 1985), including objective and subjective knowledge (Park et al 1994; Cordell 1997), and brand equity (Krishnan 1996). Taking into consideration the link between brand familiarity and brand equity, where brand image constitutes one of its main elements, we propose tbat: HS:

Sponsor brand familiarity is positively related to sponsor brand image.

Brand personality is an important antecedent of brand image (Gwdnner & Eaton 1999) and brand equity (Keller 2003). Brand personality can positively influence brand evaluations (Aaker 1997), lead to image enhancement and payment of a premium price for a brand, while it facilitates consumers' acceptance of brand extensions (Diamantopoulos et al 2005; Venable et al 2005). Strategically speaking, brand personality is important because it can assist firms to achieve enduring brand differentiation and sustainable competitive advantage (Diamantopoulos et al. 2005; Venable et al. 2005) by building a distinct image for a brand and developing long-term brand equity (KeUer 2003). As Patterson (1999) discussed, while the two constructs (brand personality and brand image) have been used intercbangeably by some early studies, more recent studies, such as those of Hosany et al (2006) and Ismail and SpineUi (2012), provided empirical evidence that they are distinct constructs, which however are strongly related. Hosany et al. (2006) tested this relationship in the context of tourism and reported that three of the dimensions of personality (sincerity, excitement and conviviality) are related v\dth two of the destination image dimensions (affective and accessibility).They concluded that brand image seems to be a more encompassing concept, while brand personality is more related to affective components of brand image. Similar conclusions were drawn by Ismail and SpineUi (2012), who reported that the excitement dimensions of brand personality influence the development of positive brand image. The relationship between brand image and brand personality has not been studied in tbe context of sponsorship. Personality has been studied only in terms of the fit between the sponsor and the sport brand (e.g. sport event). In tbeir study. Lee and Cbo (2009) reported that sponsor brands with specific personalities (sincerity) fit better wdtb events of specific traits (sincerity). Cbien et al. (2010) used social cognition and categorisation theories to examine whether the perceived fit of a sponsor brand and two sport sponsored events in a brand's portfolio has an effect on sponsor brand evaluation. They found that 'categorical relatedness between sponsorships not only leads to the creation of a unified brand personality for the sponsor, but also enhances brand meaning consistency and clarity' (p. 1). In line with the branding literature, we expect that: H6:

Sponsor brand personality is positively related to sponsor brand image.

It is weü documented today tbat brand image and personality are key components of brand loyalty (Keller 1993). In our study, we used word-of-mouth communications as an indicator of brand loyalty (Zeithaml etal 1996) and as a direct outcome of sponsor brand image. Word of moutb is defined as the extent to which a customer is willing to inform

305


friends, relatives and colleagues about an event/brand that has created a certain level of satisfaction (Anderson 1998). Word of mouth is a very important factor in risky purchase decisions such as services due to their characteristics: intangibility, heterogeneity, perishability and inseparability (Murray 1991; Mangold et al 1999). Word of mouth is also a highly desirable outcome in co-branding, and consequently in sponsorship, because it is considered as an effective communication tool (Laczniak et al 2001). In line with evaluative conditioning reasoning, it is expected that consumers exposed to a conditioned stimulus, which is paired with an unconditioned stimulus, wiU produce the same unconditioned response. In other words, when consumers are exposed to a sponsor brand that is paired with a sport brand to which they are attached, and intent to buy its products and engage in positive word of mouth, they wiU respond in the same manner to the sponsor brand (e.g. intent to buy the sponsor brand and engage in positive word of mouth about the sponsor brand). The relationship between brand image and word of mouth has not been adequately tested in the literature. Yavas and Shemwell (1996) proposed word of mouth as one of the main sources of image formation. Furthermore, according to Grönroos (2000), a positive image facilitates efficiency of communication and makes consumers more receptive to positive word of mouth. Brand image communicates expectations through marketing communications, such as advertisement, personal sales and word-of-mouth communication. In this way, image directly affects market communication. We therefore propose that: H7:

Sponsor brand image is positively related to sponsor brand word of mouth.

Method The context for this research is professional soccer. Fans of two major professional soccer teams in Greece, Olympiakos and Panathinaikos, participated in the study. Each team had a major sponsor from the telecommunications industry (Vodafone and Cosmote). Both corporate brands were mature brands and major team sponsors for more than five years. In order to ensure that the sponsorships of these teams resemble a co-branding situation, we established certain criteria that these alliances should meet. Thus, these sponsorship deals were chosen because (1) they were long-term sponsorship deals, (2) both brands (sport teams and sponsor brands) were mature corporate brands and (3) they shared similar attributes. We aimed at long-term sponsorship deals because, as has been supported in the literature, co-branding represents a long-term brand alliance strategy (Helmig et al. 2008). Mature corporate brands were chosen because the co-branding literature proposes that brands should be paired with well-known brands that share the same image and high quality, and not unknown brands because they are taking a great risk and might confuse consumers (Grossman 1997; Leuthesser et al 2003; Washburn et al. 2004). Moreover, co-branding is often used by mature brands as an effective way to gain further leverage (Leuthesser et al. 2003). We aimed at sponsorships that share some similarities with the sport teams because it has been supported that 'The ability to pair

306


images such as two brands in co-branding is likely to be more effective wben the brands have something in common and relate to each other in the mind of the consumer. ... When stimuli are similar, individuals are more likely to make the connection between them and it may be easier to formulate associations between them' (Grossman 1997, p. 193). In terms of attribute similarity, the teams share the same colours, brand equity and market share with their respective sponsors. Specifically, red/white are the colours of the Olympiakos team as its sponsor's colours (Vodafone), and green/white are the colours of the Panathinaikos team as its sponsor's colours (Cosmote) (Figure 2). The two teams are considered the best and top teams (with the highest winning records) in Greece, while the two telecommunications companies are considered the top in their product category as well. Olympiakos fans constitute 30.4% of all soccer fans, while Panathinaikos is supported by 26.1% of soccer fans. In relation to tbeir sponsors, Cosmote has a market share of 42%, while Vodafone has a market share of 32% in the Greek market. During sponsorship, the above teams have co-produced several products (e.g. team jerseys with the sponsors'logos) and services (e.g. mobile programmes with the name of the sport brand) with their respective sponsors.

Figure 2: Teams' jerseys and their respective sponsors

The data were collected by a team of four researcb assistants, wbo distributed the questionnaires during one home game of each of the two teams. The questionnaires were distributed and collected in different places in the stadiums during half time of the two games, in order to gain representation of all fans. A total of 200 questionnaires were distributed in each game and a total of 280 (A'^= 280) were collected. The response rate for the first team was 71.5% (A^= 143) and 68.5% (A^= 137) for the second team. Descriptive statistics of our sample are presented in Table 1.

307


Table 1: Sample descriptive statistics

Gender

Male

Frequency

%

182

65.0

Female

98

35.0

14-20

74

26.4

21-40

198

70.7

41-54

8

2.9

Completed high school

87

31.0

Graduate of vocational education

35

12.5

University degree

58

21.0

Master's degree

12

4.3

Student

88

31.4

226 54

81.0

Married Soccer team

Olympiakos

144

51.0

Panathinaikos

136

49.0

Fan type

Single ticket holder

207

73.9 15.4

Season ticket holder

43 20

VIP season ticket holder

10

Age

Education

Family status

Single

Member of organised fan group

Total

Construct operationalisation

280

19.0

7.1 3.6 100

and measures

Our study uses previously developed multi-item measurement instruments to test the proposed relationships. They are presented below. Sport brand (team) involvement Two scales of involvement were used to measture sport team involvement. A revised version of the Personal Involvement Inventory (PII) (Zaichkowslg/^ 1994) was used and, specifically, the importance factor consisting of five items (7-point bipolar scale), and the hedonic factor ofthe involvement scale developed by Higie and Feick (1988) consisting of five items (7-point bipolar scale). These two scales have been used before in the sport marketing literature to measure both the affective and cognitive aspects of sport team involvement (Alexandris 8c Tsiotsou 2012). The mean scores ofthe two scales were used as the two indicators of sport brand involvement. Sport brand (team) self-expression To measure the self-expressive value of the sport team, the instrument developed by Carroll and Ahuvia (2006) was employed. Their scale consists of two factors: inner self (four items) and social self (five items), and tbe mean scores ofthe two factors were used

308


as the two indicators of sport hrand self-expression. Respondents responded to the items using a 7-point Likert scale anchored hy 'Strongly disagree' (1) to 'Strongly agree' (7). Sport brand (team) attachment Seven items were initially used to measure sport hrand attachment. The items were initially proposed and tested in a sport context hy James and Ross (2002). Respondents responded to the items using a 7-point Likert scale anchored hy 'Strongly disagree' (1) to 'Strongly agree' (7). Sponsor brand familiarity Sponsor familiarity was measured with two items referring to the knowledge and experience vwth the sponsor hrand as identified in the marketing literature (Alha 8c Hutchison 1987). Respondents responded to the items using a 7-point Likert scale anchored hy 'Strongly disagree' (1) to 'Strongly agree' (7). Sponsor brand personality Aaker's Brand Personality Scale (PBS) (1997) was used to measure the perceived personality of the sponsor. Participants in the study responded to the items using a 7-point Likert scale anchored hy 'Not at all descriptive' (1) to 'Extremely descriptive' (7). Sponsor brand image Six items proposed hy Aaker (1996) and Martinez and de Chernatony (2004) were used to measure hrand image. Respondents responded to the items using a 7-point Likert scale anchored hy 'Strongly disagree' (1) to 'Strongly agree' (7). Sponsor brand word-of-mouth This was measured with four items proposed hy Zeithaml et al. (1996). Respondents responded to the items using a 7-point Likert scale anchored hy 'Strongly disagree' (1) to 'Strongly agree' (7). The final measurement model of the study is shown in Tahle 2.

Results First, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used for testing the measurement model, and then structural equation modelling (SEM) was utilised to test the theorised model (Figure 3).

Confirmatory factor analysis In the questionnaire, all 81 items of the scales have heen used to gather data on the respective constructs (see Appendix). However, due to the small sample size {N = 280), model identification prohlems, and for parsimony reasons, we decided to use the mean scores of all measures consisting of dimensions (Joreskog 8c Sorhom 1989). Therefore, we used the mean score of the dimensions of the scales PII, Brand Self Expression and

309


Table 2: Measurement model and confirmatory factor analysis results Loading

AVE**

Exogenous variables SPORT BRAND INVOLVEMENT (r = 0.80, CR = 0.82)**

0.71

Importance (BINV1)***

0.70*

Hedonic (B1NV2)***

0.%*

SPORT BRAND SELF-EXPRESSION (r = 0.86, CR = 0.91)**

0.75

Innerself (BSEXl)***

0.83*

Social self (BSEX2)***

0.90*

Endogenous variables SPORT BRAND ATTACHMENT (a = 0.81, CR = 0.80)**

0.57

1 feel like the team as my team (BATÍ)

0.77*

1 feel like 1 am a member of the team (BAT2)

0.83*

It is important for me to be a fan of my team (BAT3)

0.66*

SPONSOR BRAND PERSONALITY (a = 0.87, CR = 0.89)**

0.80

Sincerity (SPP1)***

0.93*

Excitement (SPP2)***

0.85*

SPONSOR BRAND FAMILIARITY {r = 0.86, CR = 0.89)**

0.76

1 have experience with the sponsor brand (SPF1)

0.94*

1 have good knowledge about the sponsor brand (SPF2)

0.80*

SPONSOR BRAND IMAGE (r = 0.73, CR = 0.74)**

0.59

The brands of the team's sponsor have good value for money (SPI1)

0.84*

The sponsor of the team and its brand has personality (SPI2)

0.69* •

WORD OF MOUTH (a = 0.82, CR = 0.82)**

0.60

1 say positive things about the brand of the sponsor (W0M1 )

0.80*

1 encourage my friends and relatives to buy sponsor brand (W0M2)

0.77*

1 recommend the brand of the sponsor to someone who seeks my advice (W0M3)

0.76*

Chi square = 197.76 (p = 0.01) with 81 degrees of freedom, RMSEA = 0.07, GFI = 0.92, NFI = 0.92, CFI = 0.95 * significant at the 0.05 level * * r = Pearson correlations, CR = composite reliabilities, a = Cronbach's alpha, AVE = average variance extracted estimate * * * represents mean score of the respective dimension

PBS, whereas we used the original scales of Sport Brand Attachment, Sponsor Brand Familiarity, Sponsor Brand Image and Word-of-Mouth. As Floyd and Widaman (1995) have recommended, 'scale scores are more reliable than individual items' (p. 294). Thus, we initially had 29 items, which were used to measure the seven latent constructs and were subjected to CFA using LISREL 8.52. CFA was employed to test the proposed theoretical framework and to verify uni-dimensionality and convergent validity. Several items were dropped from the analysis due to small loadings (smaller than 0.40) (Floyd & Widaman 1995) and correlated errors (Church & Burke 1994). The revised measurement model (Table 2) consisted of 16 items and was found to fit the data well

310


(X^ = 197.76 with 81 degrees of freedom,/) = 0.00, ratio y^ld.f = 2.4). Moreover, the fit indexes values met or exceeded the critical values for good model fit (RMSEA = 0.07, NFI = 0.92, GFI = 0.92, CFI = 0.95). Next, internal consistency was evaluated by using Cronbach's a and composite reliability (CR). The Cronbach's a for the latent variables ranged fi-om 0.73 to 0.87, well above the recommended 0.70 cut-off point. Both composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) were calculated using the procedures recommended by Forneü and Larcker (1981). As shown in Table 2, all the composite reliabilities for the seven multi-item scales ranged fi-om 0.74 to 0.91, indicating acceptable levels of reliability for the constructs. Moreover, the AVEs ranged between 0.57 and 0.80, well above the recommended 0.50 level (Bagozzi ôc Yi 1988). Finally, the model was tested for convergent and discriminant validity by using the factor loadings and the O matrix (Fornell ôc Larcker 1981; Anderson ôcGerbing 1988). The correlations between the constructs ranged from 0.17 (standard error: 0.067) to 0.87 (standard error: 0.035) and none of the confidence intervals included the value of 1. These two tests indicated that the conditions for convergent and discriminant validity were satisfied, indicating in turn that the constructs are measured reliably and can be discriminated.

Testing the structural model After the preliminary analyses, the structural model of the study was tested using the statistical package LISREL 8.52 and employing Maximum Likelihood (ML).The proposed model (Figure 1) did fit the data well, with a Chi-square value of 269 and 94 degrees of freedom (ratio xVia'/ = 2.9). The fit indexes values were close or larger than the 0.90 threshold (NFI = 0.88, GFI = 0.89, CFI = 0.92) and the RMSEA value was marginally close to the acceptable levels (0.084). All the hypothesised effects were confirmed with all paths being significant at the 0.05 level (Table 3). However, the modification indices suggested adding the paths: one from Sponsor Familiarity to Sponsor Personality, one from Sponsor Personality to Word of Mouth and one path from Brand Self-Expression to Brand Involvement.The literature supports the first path, and specifically that brand experiences such as brand familiarity can lead

Table 3: Structural equation results and study hypotheses Relationships

Estimate

t-value

(HI) Sport brand self-expression -> Sport brand attachment

0.47

5.54

(H2) Sport brand involvement -^ Sport brand attachment

0.41

5.29

(H3) Sport brand attachment - * Sport sponsor familiarity

0.39

4.60

(H4) Sport brand attachment —> Sponsor brand personality

0.33

3.21

(H5) Sponsor brand familiarity -^ Sponsor brand image

0.76

4.85

(H6) Sponsor brand personality —> Sponsor brand image

0.32

4.17

(H7) Sponsor brand image -» Word of mouth

0.29

3.14

311


to the development of brand associations such as brand personality (Keller 1993). Recent evidence suggests that brand personality directly affects positive word of mouth (Ismail & Spinelli 2012). Moreover, brand involvement reflects the strength or extent of the linkage between consumers' self and the brand (Kyle et al. 2004). Richins and Bloch (1986) also have suggested that involvement is 'motivated by the degree to which the product relates to the self and/or the hedonic pleasure received from the product' (p. 280). Moreover, the modification indices suggested adding two 'backward' paths: one path from Sponsor Brand Familiarity to Sport Brand Involvement and one path from Sponsor Brand Personality to Sport Brand Self-Expression. Backward effects are in line with both co-branding and evaluative conditioning. The literature has shown that, in co-branding, both brands participating in the alliance are influenced, with the effects being forward (from the parent to the secondary brand) and backward (from the secondary to the parent brand) (Washburn et al. 2000; Washburn et al. 2004). In EC, backward effects bave been used before in marketing and specifically in advertising (e.g. in ads where an unconditioned stimulus such as music or a smiling face precedes the presentation of the brand advertised) (Stuart et al. 1987; de Houwer et al. 2001). The backward effects seem to be particularly applicable in our case, since the sponsors were mature and strong brands. As previously discussed, in the case of co-branding the secondary brand can also influence the parent brand, especially in the context of sport sponsorship. In other words, customers who are familiar with the sponsor brand and its promotional activities about existing and new co-branding products are also likely to follow sponsors' co-branding promotional activities (e.g. an event organised by tbe sponsor where the team players will participate, or a credit card issued by the sponsor with the sport team logo), which can be used as means of increasing their team involvement (Alexandris & Tsiotsou 2012; Alexandris et al. 2012). In line with this reasoning, a sponsor brand with a strong personality can strengthen consumers' relations with the sport brand/team through the development of identification with the sport brand/team. This can in practice be understood when fans of teams are willing to wear the teams' T-shirts, hats etc. bearing the logo of the sponsor, not only when watching the games but in everyday Hfe. Based on tbe above discussion, we decided to add the recommended forward and backward paths. When the paths were added, the model exhibited a better fit with a Chi-square value of 230.39 and 90 degrees of freedom (ratio fldf = 2.6). All fit indices values were larger than the 0.90 threshold (NFI = 0.91, GFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.94); and the RMSEA value was 0.07, lower than the recommended cut-off point (0.08). The %^ difference between the initial and the revised model was significant at the 0.05 level, indicating that the revised model has a significantly better fit (Ax' =38.61, d.f = 4). All hypotheses were confirmed by the conceptual model, and the new paths were significant at the 0.05 level as can be seen in Figure 3. We added the new paths and accepted the revised model because the proposed relationships were in line with the related literature on co-branding and brand equity. Moreover, the 'backward' paths, although not hypothesised, were reasonable because according to evaluative conditioning theory, in addition to 'forward' conditioning, 'backward' conditioning can take place

312


0) •a

n o o

E o

S-

5

o a. /I

O 01

s2 1 c 6 O Q.

O

"5! •n

o

It re¿

I

£ £

i'È wo «

S

ai

01 3

ai

313


as well (de Houwer 2001). Furthermore, the stahility index value (0.80) did not exceed the recommended cut-off point of 1.0, indicating that the hackward effects did not disturh the equilihrium of the model (Kline 2006). In relation to parsimony, the parsimony fit indices (PGFI and PNFI) were compared in the proposed and the revised model. The PGFI produced a value of 0.60 for the revised model, compared to a PGFI of 0.62 for the proposed model. Moreover, the PNFI (0.68) of the revised model was slightly lower than that of the hypothesised model (0.69). The values of the two models in the ahove parsimony fit indices indicate that parsimony is not lost in the revised model (Hair et al. 2006). The total, direct and indirect effects on the endogenous variahles of the revised model were all significant, whereas all constructs used in the model presented significant positive direct and/or indirect effects.

Discussion of findings An emerging challenge in corporate hrand management is how to develop, manage and leverage corporate hrand partnerships. The present study investigates how sponsorship alliances hecome co-hranded partnerships that henefit hoth parties involved, via attitude formation hetween hoth corporate hrands. Our study provides empirical evidence for the attitude formation in corporate co-hranding in the context of sport sponsorship, and supports Motion et al.'s (2003) assertion that sponsorship is not a simple exchange transaction, hut a more strategic and complex partnership within the co-hranding continuum. The present study contrihutes to the co-hranding and sponsorship literature, hy introducing evaluative conditioning (EC) as the theoretical framework under which attitudes are formed in corporate hrand alliances. The study shows that EC occurs in a special case of co-hranding and sponsorship, and confirms de Houwer et al.'s (2001) suggestion that, for EC to take place, the nature of the relationship hetween a conditioned stimulus and an unconditioned stimulus is critical - that is, the pairing of a sport hrand to a sponsor hrand can shift sport consumers' evaluations in a more positive direction towards the sponsor hrand, resulting in increased sponsor hrand equity and positive word of mouth. More importantly, in line with EC that supports hackward effects, the findings of the present study also show that, in sponsorship, hackward and forward conditioning procedures can take place at the same time and thus the partner hrands can hoth henefit from this co-hranding relationship. This finding confirms the notion that reciprocal effects can influence affective attitudes for the sport hrand (e.g. sport hrand involvement and hrand self-expression) and reinforce the emotional honds with the sport hrand. Moreover, the current findings confirm the EC notion that 'effects are smaller with hackward than with forward conditioning procedures' (Stuart et al. 1987; de Houwer et al. 2001, p. 856). Specifically, our study shows that, in sponsorship, the forward effects from a sport hrand to a sponsor hrand are larger than the hackward effects from the sponsor hrand to the sport hrand, hut hackward effects although small are statistically significant.

314


Furthermore, we enrich the EC literature by showing that forward and backward conditioning can take place in a dynamic field context. So far, studies on EC have examined either the forward conditioned (Martin 8c Levey 1978) or the backward conditioned procedures (Hammerl ôcGrabitz 1993). In marketing, EC has been examined in the context of advertising, where forward and backward conditioning were studied separately (Stuart etal. 1987). For example, advertisers use backward conditioning when they present a conditioned stimulus (e.g. a smiling face) before displaying the product they are trying to sell (unconditioned stimulus) in their ads. The present study suggests that forward and backward evaluative conditioning can take place at the same time in the sponsorship context. The role of brand maturity/brand equity in co-branding has not yet been clarified and the findings of the related literature are contradictory (Grossman 1997; Leuthesser et al. 2003; Washburn et al. 2004). For our study we cbose two mature brands of high equity so there is a win-win situation and both hrands benefit from tbe partnership. The literature that supports the secondary brand should not be as well known, as the parent brand in co-branding usually examines only the forward effects (from the parent/high-equity brand to the secondary/low-equity brand) (Simonin & Rutb 1998). In tbis case, the forward effects from the parent/high-equity brand to the secondary/ low-equity brand are found to be larger (Wasbburn et al. 2000). The logic behind this approach is that, when using unknown brands, consumers are not pre-exposed to these hrands and therefore they have not developed associations with them. However, research shows that in this type of co-branding, the low-equity brand does not harm the parent brand, but it does not benefit it either (Simonin & Ruth 1998; Washburn et al. 2000). Thus, when botb brands in co-branding are mature and of bigh equity, it is more difficult for consumers to attach new associations to them (Shimp 1991; Shimp et al 1991). According to Shimp (1991), one way to deal with this problem is to show the mature brands in a different context (e.g. show Vodafone in a sponsorship context). This notion might explain why sponsorships are considered effective marketing communication and strategic tools, and are chosen by many mature/high-equity brands. The findings of our study support that sponsorship is an effective context where mature/high-equity hrands could be paired and develop co-brands. Furtbermore, they indicate that this co-branding case is a 'win-win' deal for both brands involved because botb are benefited by this partnership, with the sponsorship brand gaining more by further leveraging its brand equity. In tbe current paper, we introduce the attachment construct into the co-branding literature and suggest that it operates as a powerful determinant of consumers'reactions to co-branding. We complement previous research on brand extensions (Fedorikhin et al. 2008) by shovñng that the positive effect of brand attachment on consumer reactions is also present in a co-branding situation. Specifically, the findings show that strong emotional attachment with the sport brand (parent brand) constitutes a necessary prerequisite in building brand equity for tbe secondary brand (sponsor brand). Previous research disregarded the role of emotional bonds in co-branding and their role in building brand equity (Washburn et al 2000,2004; Kahuni et al. 2009). The present

315


Study confirms Park et al.'s (2006) speculation that brand attachment is more than an attitudinal construct and accounts for higher-order consumer behaviours associated with commitment to a relationship. However, this research shows that attachment is not only a characteristic of the relationship between a consumer and a brand (Park et al. 2006), but the connecting chain that leads to attitude formation in co-branding. Finally, the results of the study showed that, when consumers' self-concept (inner and social self) is expressed through a sport brand (team), consumers enter into a relationship vwth it, become attached to it and process any information associated with the sponsor brand such as a partner brand in co-branding. In a co-branding context, brand attachment not only refiects the strong linkages between a consumer's self and the parent brand, leading to 'automatic retrieval of thoughts and feelings about the brand' (Park et al. 2006), but through evaluative conditioning (associative learning) accounts for brand-equity-relevant behaviours for the secondary brand/sponsor brand (increased familiarity, favourable image and personality) and increased word of mouth.

Implications for sport brand managers and sponsors The results of the study indicate that brand attachment plays an important role in sponsorship effectiveness by developing sponsor brand equity and positive word of mouth. Sport brand managers should, therefore, develop strategies to increase consumer brand/ team attachment levels by increasing consumer involvement with the team and brand self-expression, as discussed by Alexandris et al. (2012). The affective dimension of consumer involvement can be built by targeting consumers' feelings and emotions via promotions, perhaps including the players and the coach of the team, the organisation of special events for families and the distribution of souvenirs of the sport brand. The cognitive component of involvement can be built with the provision of information about the sport brand, the players and the coach by using the brand's website, newsletters and official sport brand magazines. In terms of brand self-expression, sport brand managers should develop strategies in order to make their consumers feel that the sport brand/team expresses their inner-self (e.g. their values and personality) and enhances their social self Developing sport brand personalities and building images that project values that allow self-expression constitute a necessary avenue for sport brand managers. Moreover, in order to retain and even increase attachment with a sport brand/team, we propose the application of relationship marketing programmes as another managerial direction. Relationship marketing can be employed by developing formal and informal communication channels with sport consumers. Provision of information about the sport brand/team products and services, delivery of quality services and development of loyalty programmes are key tactics in relationship marketing. Turning our discussion to the sponsor's perspective, corporate sponsors should seek opportunities to develop partnerships with sport brands/teams whose consumers have strong emotional bonds. Thus, sponsors should evaluate how attractive sport brands are for sponsorship opportunities, based on consumers' involvement levels and the symbolic properties that a brand holds for consumers.

316


In terms of brand equity, the results of the study indicate that sponsor brand familiarity and personality are determined by the attachment level with the sport brand. Furtbermore, sponsor brand familiarity and personality exhibited backward effects on sport brand involvement and self-expression. These results indicate that, not only can the sponsor benefit from this partnership but the sport brand can profit from tbe increased sponsor brand familiarity and specific personality cbaracteristics. Thus, a sport brand can acquire image from the sponsor (e.g. prestigious, high-equity sponsors'brands), leading to increased consumer involvement and self-expression of the sport brand. The backward effects indicate that, in addition to the sponsors, the sport brands sbould also promote and communicate the sponsorship; the increased sponsor brand promotion will enhance the motivation factors of the sport brand consumers. Furthermore, sponsors should make efforts to increase consumers' familiarity with their brands, through various communication and promotional activities that support the sponsorship contract (e.g. game promotions, happenings, product demonstrations), and project personality characteristics (e.g. excitement and sincerity) that are attractive to the consumers of sport brands. On the other hand, since the image is also transferred from the sponsor to the sport brand, sport brand managers sbould aim to attract sponsors whose personalities (exciting and sincere) fit with the personality of the team.

Limitations and future research The present research has several limitations qualifying for further investigations in the fields of sponsorship and co-branding. The proposed model was tested in the context of corporate sponsorship, limiting our ability to generalise the results to other corporate co-branding cases. Furtbermore, issues related to the measurement of the theoretical constructs should be addressed. First of all, as discussed, brand familiarity, image and personality were used as elements of brand equity, following Keller's (1993) model. However, there have been more elements used in the literature to measure brand equity, such as brand recall, attitudes, associations, perceived quality and brand loyalty (Pappu ôc Quester 2006). A more complete measurement of brand equity will give further validation to the proposed model. The measurement of brand personality is a second issue that should be pointed out. While Aaker's original model includes the dimensions of sincerity, excitement, competence, sophistication and ruggedness, in the present study only the dimensions of sincerity and excitement were finally included, since the rest of the dimensions were not supported with our analysis. This is, however, not unusual, since the construct validity of the six-dimensional personality model has not been supported in other previous studies either (Azoulay & Kapferer 2003), and especiaUy in the context of sports (please see the related review of literature in Tsiotsou 2012). Finally, the team attachment and sponsor image scales that we used need improvement: as discussed, several of their original items were dropped from the analysis, which raises questions about their validity. These scales need further development, with the consultation of other published attachment and image scales, respectively, in order to improve their validity and reliability. The above-mentioned constructs may be

317


conceptually well defined in the literature, but it seems that the instruments developed to measure them are not. As such, indicators that might be believed to be needed to measure the constructs did not appear to be so with our particular sample. As previously discussed, the theoretical model ofthe study was tested on a sample of fans of two professional soccer teams in Greece. Several issues relating to the context and the sample of the study should be addressed, since tbey influence the degree to which the findings can be generalised. First of all, both the sport brands were strong in terms of brand equity expressed as the most known teams in the country, with the highest winning records, larger sport fans size and attachment levels. Furthermore, they were both partnered wdth mature/high-equity sponsor brands (well-known telecommunications companies) and have been in these sponsorship deals for several years. Future studies should include more sport brands and sponsor brands with varying degrees of brand equity (e.g. high sport brand equity with low sponsor brand equity and maturity level (e.g. high sport brand equity/maturity witb low sponsor brand equity/maturity and vice versa), in order to test and validate the proposed model. Moreover, future research should examine which other contexts, besides sport sponsorsbip, are more appropriate in pairing two mature/high-equity brands (e.g. other types of sponsorship and endorsement). EC sbould be studied in the sponsorship and other real-life contexts by taking into account the effects of implicit and explicit attitudes, cognitive load, emotional intelligence, mood state and focus of valence, which have been tested only in experimental studies (Gibson 2008; Walter 8c Grigoriadis 2004; Gast 8c Rothermund 2011; Hasford et al. 2011). Because causality (forward and backward effects) cannot be proven witb survey data and SEM analysis, we also recommend that future endeavours should take a longitudinal experimental perspective in studying EC in the context of sponsorship. This approach will provide valuable information not only about the forward and backward effects in sponsorship, but it can capture the fluctuations and any changes that might take place over a specific period of time. Moreover, the data were gathered from consumers of a single country (Greece). Using samples from other countries could help in validating the proposed model and providing useful insights in developing international corporate co-branding relations. A replication of the study to other types of sponsorship (e.g. sport endorsements, and sponsorships of sport events, arts, cultural events and festivals) and co-branding situations is proposed. Brand extensions is another research context under which evaluative conditioning could be tested. Furthermore, other relational constructs, such as sport brand love, loyalty and trust, as well as brand equity outcomes (e.g. sponsors' brands purchase intentions), should be incorporated in our model and tested in order to provide a better understanding of the role of relationship quality elements and transfer of values in sponsorship.

318


Appendix: Scales used in the study SPORT BRAND INVOLVEMENT (we used the mean score ofthe two dimensions) Hedonic (Higie 8cFeick 1988) My team is: Not fun Unappealing Boring Unexciting

Dull

1 1

2 2

3

4

5

6

3

4

5

6

1 1 1

2

3

4

2 2

3

4 4

5 5 5

6 6 6

2

3 3 3 3 3

5 5 5 5 5

6 6 6 6 6

3

7 7 7 7 7

Fun Appealing Interesting Exciting Fascinating

Importance (Zaichkowsky 1994) Unimportant Means nothing to me Does not matter Insignificant Of no concern

1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2

4 4

4 4 4

7

7 7 7 7

Important Means a lot to me Matters to me Significant Of concern to me

SPORT BRAND SELF-EXPRESSION (Carroll & Ahuvia 2006) (Strongly disagree 1-Strongly agree 7) (we used the mean score of the two dimensions) Inner self My team symholises the kind of person I really am inside My team refiects my personality My team is an extension of my inner self My team mirrors the real me Social self My team contrihutes to my image My team adds to a social 'role' I play My team has a positive impact on what others think of me My team improves the way society views me My team improves the way myfi-iendsview me TEAM ATTACHMENT (James 8c Ross 2002) (Strongly disagree 1-Strongly agree 7) I feel like the team is my team I feel like I am a memher of the team It is important for me to he a fan of my team I feel connected to my team* I go to games so I can he part of my team* I feel like I am a 'real' fan of the team* I would experience a loss if I had to stop heing a fan of my team*

319


BRAND IMAGE (Aaker 1996; Martinez & de Chematony 2004) (Strongly disagree 1-Strongly agree 7) The brands of the team's sponsor has good value for money There is a reason to buy tbe sponsor brand instead of otbers* The sponsor of the team and its brand have personality The sponsor brand is interesting* I have a clear impression of the type of people who consume the sponsor brand* The sponsor brand is different from competing brands* BRAND PERSONALITY (Aaker 1997) (Not at all descriptive 1-Extremely descriptive 7) (we used the mean score of the dimensions: sincerity and excitement) The sponsor brand is: Sincerity Dovra-to-earth Family oriented Small-town Honest Sincere Real Wholesome Original Cheerful Sentimental Friendly

Excitement Daring Trendy Exciting Spirited Cool Young Imaginative Unique Up-to-date Independent Contemporary Reliable

Competence Hard-working Secure Intelligent Tecbnical Corporate Successful Leader Confident

Sophistication Upper-class Glamorous Good looking Charming Feminine Smooth Ruggedness Outdoorsy lVTascnlinp ' * ' " . ~ '

I I I I I I I .

estern iougn Rugged

SPONSOR BRAND E^MILIARITY (Alba & Hutchison 1987) (Strongly disagree 1-Strongly agree 7) I have experience with the sponsor brand I have good knowledge about the sponsor brand I am very familiar with the sponsor brand* WORD OF MOUTH (Zeithaml et al 1996) (Strongly disagree 1-Strongly agree 7) I say positive tbings about the brand of tbe sponsor I encourage my friends and relatives to buy sponsor brand I recommend the sponsor brand to someone who seeks my advice I propose to my friends and relatives to buy the sponsor brand* * Items dropped from the analysis

320


References Aaker, A.D. (1996) Building Strong Brands. New York, NY: The Free Press. Aaker,J.L. (1997) Dimensions of brand peisonaiity. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 347-356. Alba,J.W. & Hutchinson, J.W. (1987) Dimensions of consumer expertise. Journal of Consumer Research, 13, 411-454. Alexander, N. (2009) Defining brand values through sponsorship. International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, 37(4), 346-357. Alexandris, K. ôcTsiotsou, R.H. (2012) Segmenting soccer spectators by attachment levels: a psychographic profile based on team self-expression and involvement. European Sport Management Quarterly, 12(1), 65-81. Alexandris, K.,Tsaousi, E. & James, J. (2007) Predicting sponsorship outcomes from attitudinal constructs: the case of a professional haskethaU event. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 16(3), 130-139. Alexandris, K.,Tsiotsou, R. & James, J. (2012) Testing a hierarchy of effects model of sponsorship eííectiveness. Journal of Sport Management, 26, 363-378. Anderson, E.W. (1998) Customer satisfaction and word of mouth. Journal of Service Research, 1(1), 5-17. Anderson, J.C. & Gerbing, D.W. (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423. Azoulay, A. & Kapferer, J.N. (2003) Do brand personality scales really measure brand personality? Brand Management, 11(2), 143-155. Bagozzi, R.P. &Yi, Y. (1988) On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science, 16(1), 74—94. Bal, C , Quester, RG. & Boucher, S. (2007) Emotions and sponsorship marketing, yí^/ma^, 486, 51-52. Bennett, R. (1999) Sports sponsorship, spectator recall and false consensus. European Journal of Marketing, 33(3/4), 291-313. Brucks, M. (1985) The effects of product class knowledge on information search behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 12,1—15. Carroll, B.A. &c Ahuvia, A.C. (2006) Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love. Marketing Letters, 17(2), 79-89. Chaudhuri, A. & Holhrook, M.B. (2001) The chain of effects from hrand trust and brand affect to brand performance: the role of brand \oyAty. Journal ofMarketing, 65, 81-93. Chien, M.R, CornweU, B.T. & Pappu, R. (2010) Sponsorship portfoho at a brand-image creation strMe^. Journal ofBusiness Research, 64(2), 142-149. Church, A.T. & Burke, RJ. (1994) Exploratory and confirmatory tests of the Big Five and TeUegen's three and four-dimensional models. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 276-279. Cliffe, S.J. & Motion, J. (2005) Building contemporary brands: a sponsorship-based strategy. Journal of Business Research, 58,1068-1077. Cordell, V.V. (1997) Consumer knowledge measures as predictors in product evaluation. Psychology & Marketing, 14,241-260. Cornwell, T.B., Roy, D. & Steinard, E. (2001) Exploring managers'perceptions of the impact of sponsorship on brand ecîty. Journal of Advertising, 30(2), 41-51. CornweU,T.B., Humphreys, M.S., Maguire, A.M., Weeks, C.S. ScTellegen, C L . (2006) Sponsorship-hnked marketing: the role of articulation in memory. Journal of Consumer i?«fflrcÄ, 33(3), 312-321. Crimmins, J. & Horn, M. (1996) Sponsorship: from management ego trip to marketing success. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(4), 11-20.

321


Crompton, J.L. (1996) The potential contributions of sports sponsorship in impacting the product adoption process. Managing Leisure, 1(4), 199-212. de Houwer, J., Thomas, S. ôcBaeyens, F (2001) Associative learning of likes and dislikes: a review of 25 years of research on human evaluative conditioning. Psychological Bulletin, 127(6), 853-869. Diamantopoulos, A., Smith, G. & Grime, 1. (2005) The impact of brand extensions on brand personality: experimental evidence. European Journal ofMarketing, 39(1/2), 129-149. Elliott, R. (1998) Symbolic meaning and postmodern consumer culture. In D. Brownlie, M. Saren, R. Wensley & R. Whittington (eds) Rethinking Marketing: Towards Critical Marketing Accountings. London: Sage, 111-125. Elliott, R. & Wattanasuwan, K. (1998) Brands as resources for the symbolic construction of identity. International Journal oJAdvertising, 17(2), 131-144. Farrelly, F , Quester, P. & Greyser, S.A. (2005) Defending the co-branding benefits of sponsorship B2B partnerships: the case of ambush marketing. Journal of Advertising Research, 45(3), 339-348. Fedorikhin, A., Park, W.C. & Thomson, M. (2008) Beyond fit and attitude: the effect of emotional attachment on consumer responses to brand extensions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, IS, 221-291. Floyd, F.J. & Widaman, K.F. (1995) Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 286-299. Fornell, C. & Larcker, D.F. (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal ofMarketing Research, 28, 39-50. Fournier, S. (1998) Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343-373. Fournier, S. & Yao, J.L. (1997) Reviving brand loyalty: a reconceptualization within the framework of consumer-brand relationships. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 14,451-472. Gast, A., & Rothermund, K. (2011). What you see is what wiU change: evaluative conditioning effects depend on a focus on valence. Cognition and Emotion, 25, 89-110. Gibson, B. (2008). Can evaluative conditioning change attitudes toward mature brands? New evidence from the implicit association test. Journal of Consumer Research, 35,178-188. Grönroos, C. (2000) Service Management and Marketing: A Customer Relationship Management Approach. New York, NY: Wiley. Grossman, R.P. (1997) Co-branding in advertising: developing effective associations. Journal oJ Product and Brand Management, 6(3), 191-201. Gwinner, K. & Swanson, S. (2003) A model of fan identification: antecedents and sponsorship ontcomes. Journal of Services Marketing, 17, 275-294. Gwinner, K.P. & Eaton, J. (1999) Building brand image through event sponsorship: the role of image transier. Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 47-57. Hair, J.F, Black, W . C , Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. ScTatbam, R.L. (2006) Multivariate Data Analysis (6th edn). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Hammerl, M. & Grabitz, H.J. (1993) Human evaluative conditioning: order of stimulus presentation. Integrative Physiological and Behavioral Science, 28,191-194. Hammerl, M. 8c Grabitz, H.J. (1996) Human evaluative conditioning without experiencing a valued event. Learning and Motivation, 27,278-293. Harvery, B., Gray, S. & Despain, G. (2006). Measuring the effectiveness of true sponsorship. Journal of Advertising Research, December, 398—409. Hasford, J., Hardesty, D.M. & Kidwell, B. (2011). Evaluative conditioning revisited: an affective information processing model. Proceedings of the North American Conference of the Association for Consumer Research, Vol. 39, p. 549. St. Louis, MA: ACR.

322


Helmig, B., Huber,J.A. ScLeeflang, PS.H. (2008) Co-branding: the state ofthe art. Schmalenbach Business Review, 60, 359-377. Higie, R.A. & Feick, L.F. (1988) Enduring involvement: conceptual and methodological issues, in Snill, T (ed.) Advances in Consumer Research, 690—696. Hoek, J., Gendall, P., Jeffcoat, M. & Orsman, D. (1997) Sponsorship and advertising: a comparison of their eííects. Journal ofMarketing Communications, 3(1), 21-32. Hofmann, W., de Houwer, J., Pemgini, M., Baeyens, F. & Crombez, G. (2010) Evaluative conditioning in humans: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(3), 390-421. Hosany, S., Ekinci, Y. ocUysal, M. (2006) Destination image and destination personality: an application of branding theories to tourism places. Journal of Business Research, 59, 638-642. IEG (2012) Economic uncertainty to slow sponsorship growth in 2012. Available online at: http://wvvw.sponsorship.com (accessed 5 March 2013). Ismail, A.R. & Spinelli, G. (2012) Effects of hrand love, personality and image on word of mouth: the case of fashion brands among young consumers. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 16(4), 386-398. James, J. 6c Ross, S. (2002) The motives of sports consumers: a comparison of major and minor league hsisehaH. International Journal of Sport Management, 3(3), 180-198. Javalgi, R.G., Traylor, M.B., Gross, A.C. & Lampman, E. (1994) Awâreness of sponsorship and corporate image: an empirical investigation. Journal of Advertising, 23(4), 47-58. Joreskog, K.G. & Sorbom, D. (1989) LISREL 7: User's Reference Guide. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software. Kahuni, A.T, Rowley, J. & Bisardi, A. (2009) Guilty by association: image 'spÜl-over' in corporate co-branding. Corporate Reputation Review, 12(1), 52-63. Karg, A. & McDonald, H. (2010) Investigating the effect of sponsor level, length, prominence and relatedness on recall and residual recall rates over time' in Iyer, E. and Coulter, R. (eds) AMA 2010: Enhancing Knowledge Development in Marketing. Proceedings ofthe 2010 American Marketing Association Summer Educators Conference. Vol. 21, pp. AA7—AA8. Chicago: American Marketing Association. Keller, K.L. (1993) Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal ofMarketing Research, 29,1-22. KeUer, L.L. (2003) Strategic Brand Management (2nd edn). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Kent, R.J. & Allen, C.T. (1994) Competitive interference effects in consumer memory for advertising: the role of brand familinrity. Journal ofMarketing, 58, 97-105. Kline, R.B. (2006) Reverse arrow dynamics: formative measurement and feedback loops. In G.R. Hancock & R.O. Mueller (eds) Structural Equation Modeling: A Second Course. USA: Information Age Publishing, Inc., 58-59. Krishnan, H.S. (1996) Characteristics of memory associations: a consumer-based brand equity perspective. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13(4), 389-405. Kuzma, J.R., Veltri, F.R., Kuzma, A.T & Miller, J.J. (2003) Negative corporate sponsor information: the impact on consumer attitudes and purchase intentions. International Sports Journal, 7(2), 140-147. Kyle, G., Graefe, A., Manning, R. & Bacon, J. (2004) Effect of activity involvement and place attachment on recreationists' perceptions of setting density. Journal ofLeisure Research, 36(2), 209-231. Laczniak, R.N., DeCarlo,TE. & Ramaswami, S. (2001) Consumers' responses to negative word-of-mouth communication: an attribution theory perspective. Journal of Consumer

Psychology,\\{\),Sl-n. Lee, H.S. & Cho, CH. (2009) The matching effects of hrand and sporting event personality: sponsorship impMcdíúons. Journal of Sport Management, 23(1), 41-64.

323


Leuthesser, L., Kohli, C. 8c Suri, R. (2003) 2+2=5? A framework for using co-branding to leverage a brand. Brand Management, 11(1), 35-47. Levey, A.B. ôc Martin, I. (1975) Classical conditioning of human 'evaluative' responses. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 4, 205-207. Madrigal, R. (2001) Social identity effects in a belief-attitude-intentions hierarchy: implications for corporate sponsorship. Psychology & Marketing, 18,145-165. Mangold, G., Miller, F. &c Brockway, G. (1999) Word-of-mouth communication in the service murketphce. Journal of Services Marketing, 13(1), 73-89. Martin, 1. & Levey, A.B. (1978) Evaluative conàiûonïng. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1,57-102. Martinez, E. Sc de Chernatony, L. (2004) The effect of brand extension strategies upon brand ima.ge. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 21(1), 39-50. McCracken, G. (1989) Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsement pmcess. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3), 310-321. McDonald, M.H.B., de Chernatony, L. & Harris, F. (2001) Corporate marketing and service brands - moving beyond the fast-moving consumer goods model. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 335-352. Meenagban,T. (2001) Understanding sponsorship effects. Psychology & Marketing, 18(2), 95-122. Morgan, R.M. & H u n t , S.D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal ofMarketing, 58 (July), 20-38. Motion, J., Leitch, S. & Brodie, R.J. (2003) Equity in corporate co-branding: the case of Adidas and the All Blacks. European Journal ofMarketing, 37(7/8), 1080-1094. Murray, K. (1991) A test for services marketing theory: consumer information acquisition Activities. Journal ofMarketing, 55(Fall), 10-25. Nebenzahl, I. & Hornik, J. (1985) An experimental study of the eflfectiveness of commercial billboards in televised sports arenas. International Journal of Advertising, 4 (1), 27—36. Olson, E.L. &Tj0m0e, H.M. (2003) The effect ofperipheral exposure to information on brand preference. European Journal ofMarketing, 37(1/2), 243-255. Pappu, R. &, Quester, P. (2006) Does customer satisfaction lead to improved brand equity? An empirical examination of two categories of retail hï'i.nas. Journal ofProduct and Brand Management, 15(1), 4-14. Park, C.W., Maclnnis, D.J. 6c Priester, J. (2006) Brand attachment: construct, consequences, and causes. Foundation and Trends in Marketing, 1(3), 191-230. Park, C.W., Mothersbaugh, D.L. ôcFeick, L. (1994) Consumer knowledge assessment./oar?!«/ of Consumer Research, 21, 71—82. Patterson, M. (1999). Re-appraising the concept of brand iroàgc. Journal of Brand Management, 6,409-426. Petty, R.E. & Cacioppo, J.T. (1984) The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: central and peripheral routes to persudîon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 69-81. Piacentini, M. & Mailer, G. (2004) Symbolic consumption in teenagers' clothing choices. Journal of Consumer Behavior, 3, 251-262. Quester, P. & Farrelly, F. (1998). Brand association and memory decay effects of sponsorship: the case of the Australian Formula One Grand Vrix. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 7(6), 539-556. Richins, M.L. & Bloch, P.H. (1986) After the new wears off: the temporal context of product involveraent. Journal of Consumer Research, 13,280-285. Rifon, N.J., Choi, S.M., Trimble, C S . & Li, H. (2004) Congruence effects in sponsorship: the mediating role of sponsor credibility and consumer attributions of sponsor mouve. Journal of Advertising, 33(1), 29-42.

324


Rossiter,J.R. ôcAng, L. (1993) Brand equity building for new brands via appropriate advertising symbol selection, in Van Raaij,W.F. ôcBamossy, G.J. (eds) European Advances in Consumer Research, 1,125-132. Roux, E. & Boush, D.M. (1996) The role of familiarity and expertise in luxury brand extension evaluation. EMAC Conference Proceedings, Budapest, Hungary. Rozin, P., Wrzesnievsfski, A. & Byrnes, D. (1998) Tbe elusiveness of evaluative conditioning. Learning and Motivation, 29, 397-415. Shimp, T.A. (1991) Neo-Pavlovian conditioning and its implications for consumer theory and research. InT.S. Robertson 8c H.H. Kassarjian (eds) Handbook of Consumer Behavior. New York, NY: Prentice-Hall. Shimp, T.A., Stuart, E.W. & Engle, R.W. (1991) A program of classical conditioning experiments testing variations in tbe conditioned stimulus and conte'xt. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(June), 1-12. Simonin, B.L. & Rutb, J.A. (1998) Is a company known by the company it keeps? Assessing tbe spillover effects of brand alliances on consumer brand ittitude. Journal of Marketing Research, 35, 30-42. Sirgy, J.M., Lee, D-J., Johar, J.S &Tidwell,J. (2008) Effect of self-congruity witb sponsorship on brand loyalty. Journal of Business Research, 61,1091-1097. Speed, R. & Thompson, P. (2000) Determinants of sports sponsorship response. Journal of tbe Academy ofMarketing Science, 28, 226-238. Stuart, E.W., Sbimp, T.A. & Engle, R.W. (1987) Classical conditioning of consumer attitudes: four experiments in an advertising context. Journal of Consumer Research, 14, 334-351. Tbomson, M. (2006) Human brands: investigating antecedents to consumers' strong attachments to celehñties. Journal ofMarketing, 70,104—119. Till, B.D., Stanley, S.M. ôcPriluck, R. (2008) Classical conditioning and celebrity endorsers: an examination of belongingness and resistance to extinction. Psychology & Marketing, 25(2), 179-196. Tsiotsou, R. (2010) Brand loyalty tbrougb brand attacbment and brand trust: a relational perspective. 6tb Thought Leaders International Conference in Brand Management. Lugano, Switzerland, 1-14. Tsiotsou, R. (2012) Developing a scale for measuring the personality of sport tez.ms. Journal of Services Marketing, 26(4), 238-252. Tsiotsou, R. (2013) Sport team loyalty: integrating relationship marketing and a hierarchy of effects. Journal of Services Marketing, 21{i>), 458-471. Tsiotsou, R. & Alexandris, K. (2009) Delineating the outcomes of sponsorship: sponsor image, word of moutb, and purchase intentions. International Journal ofRetail and Distribution Management, 37(4), 358-370. Valette-Florence, P., Guizani, H. ôcMerunka, D. (2011) The impact of brand personality and sales promotions on brand ecûity. Journal of Business Research, 64,24—28. Venable, B., Rose, G., Busb, V. & Gilbert, F. (2005) The role of brand personality in charitable giving: an assessment and vaUdation. Journal of tbe Academy ofMarketing Science, 33(3), 295-312. Walliser, B. (2003) An international review of sponsorship research: extension and update. International Journal of Advertising, 22, 5-40. Walther, E. (2002) Guilty by mere association: evaluative conditioning and the spreading attitude effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 919-934. Walther, E. & Grigoriadis, S. (2004) Why sad people like shoes better: the influence of mood on the evaluative conditioning of consumer attitudes. Psychology and Marketing, 21, 755773. Washburn, J.H., Till, B.D. & Priluck, R. (2000) Co-branding: brand equity and trial effects. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 17(7), 591-604.

325


Washburn, J.H., Till, B.D. &Priluck, R. (2004) Brand alliance and customer-based brandequity effects. Psychology ^Marketing, 21(7), 487-508. Yavas, U. & Shemwell, D.J. (1996) Competing for patients and pmÎA. Journal ofHealth Care Marketing, 16(2), 30-37. Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985) Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12,341-352. Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1994) The Personal Involvement Inventory: reduction, revision and application to •aAvtrtvàng. Journal of Advertising, 13(4), 59-70. Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L. & Parasuraman, A. (1996) The behavioral consequences of service quality./oar««/ ofMarketing, 60, 31-46.

About the authors Rodoula H. Tsiotsou (PhD) obtained her PhD from Florida State University and is currently an Associate Professor of Services Marketing at the Department of Business Administration, University of Macedonia, Greece. She is a visiting professor to the Master's in Services Management at Athens University of Economics and Business. She has co-edited with Prof Ronald Goldsmith the book Strategic Marketing in Tourism Services (Emerald), and she has guest edited special issues for the scientific journals: Service Industries Journal., Marketing Intelligence & Planning and Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics. She has published in a variety of international scientific journals such as the Service Industries Journal., Journal ofBusiness & Industrial Marketing., Journal of Marketing Management., Journal of Services Marketing., Journal of Marketing Communications., International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management and Journal of Sport Management. She serves on the editorial boards of tbe Service Industries Journal, the International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing and Tourismos. Her research interests include services marketing (focused on tourism and sports), brand management, relationship marketing, non-profit marketing and e-marketing. Kostas Alexandris is an Associate Professor at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece. He has been a faculty member at the Department of Recreation, Sport and Tourism at the University of Illinois, USA. He has published more than 60 research papers in international journals in the areas of sport, leisure and tourism management and marketing. His published work has received more than 2,000 internationals citations. He is Associate Editor of the Journal of Leisure Research and on the editorial boards of Sport Marketing Quarterly., Managing Leisure, Managing Service Quality and International Journal ofSport Management. He is also the author of the hook Performance Measurement and Leisure Management (Routledge). His research interest is in the area of consumer behaviour in sport, leisure and tourism. T. Bettina Cornwell (PhD in marketing. The University of Texas) is the Edwin E. and June Woldt Cone Professor of Marketing in the Lundquist College of Business at the University of Oregon. Prior to joining the University of Oregon, she was Professor of Marketing and Sport Management at the University of Michigan. From 2000-2007 she was at the University of Queensland. Her research focuses on marketing communications and consumer behaviour and often includes international and public policy

326


emphases. Bettina's research has recently appeared in t]\e Journal of Advertising, Journal of Advertising Research, Journal of Consumer Research, Journal ofExperimental Psychology: Applied, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science and Journal of Public Policy & Marketing. She currently serves on review boards including that oí th.e Journal of Public Policy & Marketing and Journal of Advertising. Her book Sponsorsbip in Marketing: Effective Communication through Sports, Arts, and Events wiU be pubUshed by Routledge in July of 2014. Address correspondence to: Rodoula Tsiotsou (PhD), Associate Professor of Services Marketing, Department of Business Administration, University of Macedonia, 156 Egnatia Street, TK 54636 Thessaloniki, Greece. Email:[email protected], [email protected]

327

Copyright of International Journal of Advertising is the property of Warc LTD and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Using evaluative conditioning to explain corporate co

Using evaluative conditioning to explain corporate co

Suggest Documents

Using evaluative conditioning to explain corporate co ...

Evaluative Conditioning Evaluative Conditioning - UGent

1 RUNNING HEAD: Evaluative Conditioning Evaluative ...

EVALUATIVE CONDITIONING IS INSENSITIVE TO BLOCKING Tom ...

Is Evaluative Conditioning Really Resistant to ...

Evaluative Conditioning and the Awareness Issue: Assessing ...

Evaluative Conditioning Procedures and the Resilience of ...

Evaluative Conditioning 2.0 - RePub, Erasmus University Repository

Cognition & Emotion Evaluative conditioning depends ...

Evaluative Conditioning as Memory-Based Judgment

Gast Rothermund JEPABP evaluative conditioning ... - Semantic Scholar

The Elusiveness of Evaluative Conditioning - Yale University

Is evaluative conditioning really resistant to ... - Bertram Gawronski

Evaluative Conditioning 2.0 - RePub, Erasmus University Repository

Verbal evaluative multi-CS conditioning enhances ... - Oxford Journals

Evaluative Conditioning in Humans: A Meta-Analysis - CiteSeerX

Can Evaluative Conditioning Change Attitudes toward Mature Brands ...

Evaluative Conditioning of Pictures by Affective Olfactory and Auditory

The Role of Evaluative Conditioning in Attitude Formation

Using Realist Social Theory to Explain Project

using structured hypermedia to explain algorithms

An Integrated Model to Explain How Corporate Social ... - MDPI

Canadian Evidence of Adherence to Comply or Explain Corporate ...

How to explain socially responsible corporate actions institutionally ...