Article Review #1 1 Min Kim HSTM 4445, T4 2016 3/16/16 Dwyer, B., & Yongjae, K. (2011). For love or money: Developing and validating a motivational scale for fantasy football participation. Journal of Sport Management, 25(1), 70-83. Approach This study used a mixed methods approach. Qualitative research was used in the form of a semistructured interview guide used to lead a focus group discussion. Open-ended questions were used to elicit reasons for participating in fantasy football. A quantitative research method was then used. From the data gathered in the focus group, a series of statements regarding the most popular reasons were developed. From these statements, a scaled-response, web-based survey with a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree was developed. Theoretical Rationale It is important for sport managers to understand what motivates fantasy sport consumers. This information is important, as it allows marketers to provide products and services that continually meet the needs and wants of sport consumers. Nearly 30 million people in North America participate in some type of fantasy sport league. A large portion of these participants represent corporate America’s most highly-coveted group of consumers. This group included Caucasian males, ages 18-45, with Bachelor’s Degrees and an annual income of at least $78,000. Fantasy sport is becoming an increasingly effective way to reach these valuable consumers. Primary Question What is the consumer motivation for fantasy sports participants? Article Review #1 2 Variables This study focused on and measured the validity of three participant motivations: (a) entertainment/escape, (b) competition and (c) social interaction. These variables were measured by study participants completing a scaled response survey where they rated their level of agree/disagreement of 12 statements. The instrument used in the study was the Motivation Scale for Fantasy Football Participants (MSFFP). Population The focus groups that were conducted included 23 Caucasian males, ages 23-35. They were selected by their willingness to participate in the focus group and their level of involvement in fantasy football. The final web-based survey used a sample of fantasy football participants on ESPN.com and Yahoo.com who indicated they were at least 18 years old. Of the 1,314 people who viewed the initial posting that solicited participation, 384 started the survey and 201 respondents completed it. Findings Gambling was an initial variable of the study but it was discovered early on that while gambling was an important motivation for some fantasy football participants it was not a good predictor of Sport-related media consumption. Participants of fantasy football are motivated by the social interaction it provides and use it to “stay in contact and/or connect with family, friends, and coworkers.” Competition is a large motivation and adds greatly to consumption behavior. To improve performance, participants motivated by competition actively seek out sport statistics, player stats and team strategy. This potentially leads to “a higher demand for NFL products and services.” Article Review #1 3 Strengths and Weaknesses of the Article Strengths  The statements developed for the Motivation Scale for Fantasy Football Participation (MSFFP) were easy to understand and rate by participants.  The study had a pretty good response rate and a good sample size.  The theoretical basis for the study was strong, with a lot of previous research cited in support of their study.  The initial focus groups encouraged open discussion to gain a vast and comprehensive look at the motivations of fantasy football participants. The most popular statements were cross-referenced by two independent content evaluators. Weaknesses  The sample was somewhat homogenous, comprised mainly of young, highly educated males. This could underestimate the correlations and impact generalization of the study to other groups.  The sample for the focus group was somewhat limited  Only fantasy football was studied in this study, while there are other forms of fantasy sports.  Only positive motives were included in this study, and constraints were not. HSTM 4445 Article Review Assignment Purpose: To help you become familiar with research and research methodology in the social sciences. To begin reading and understanding peer-reviewed research articles within the field of Sport & Fitness Management. Instructions: Go to the Troy University Libraries Homepage and locate a research article from a scholarly journal from the list below (it must be from one of the journals listed below!): • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Journal of Sport Management Journal of Sport Behavior Journal of Sport Psychology Sport Management Review Sport Marketing Quarterly European Sport Management Quarterly International Journal of Sport Management International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing International Sports Journal Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing Journal of Issues in Intercollegiate Athletics Journal of Legal Aspects of Sport Journal of Sports Economics Journal of Sport Tourism Marquette Sport Law Journal Women in Sport and Physical Activity Journal Your article cannot be a Book Review or conceptual article. It must include an actual research study (in which data were collected and analyzed). It can be either qualitative or quantitative in nature. Steps For Locating an Article: 1) Go to the Troy Libraries Homepage: http://library.troy.edu/ 2) Click on Full Text Journal Title Search. 3) Next to the box “Title begins with,” type the first few words in the journal you would like to search. 4) Find your journal from the list provided and click on the blue link next to it, which will take you to the database in which it is located (e.g., SPORTDiscus, Academic Search Complete, SAGE Premier, etc.). a. (You may need to log into the Libraries using your Troy e-mail username and password) 5) You can now search for an article two different ways: a. Search via keyword search in the box (e.g., athlete burnout, sport marketing, fan identification, etc.). Click on the articles listed (look for the PDFs). b. Browse through the journal issues and read the titles of the articles for an article of interest. 6) Print off your chosen article (PDF is the best format). Carefully read through the article one time. Then, go back through the article and write a report based upon the following: 1) Begin with a proper citation of the research article in correct APA 6th edition format. a. APA resources: i. http://www.apastyle.org/ (look at the Tutorials here) ii. http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/ iii. http://www.vanguard.edu/faculty/ddegelman/index.aspx?doc_id=796 iv. http://www.liu.edu/CWIS/CWP/library/workshop/citapa.htm 2) Identify the study as qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods in approach. 3) Identify the theoretical rationale on which the research is based. a. Why, according to the author(s), is the study necessary and important? b. What specific theory(ies) or literature is used to support the rationale? 4) State the primary question(s) posed by the researcher(s). a. If specific hypotheses or research questions are given, state them. 5) Identify the variables that the authors measured to complete the study. a. How were the variables measured (i.e., what instruments and/or procedures were used)? 6) Identify the group (sample or population) that participated in the study. 7) Briefly report the results of the study, including major research findings. 8) Provide your opinion on the relative strengths and weaknesses of the article. Formatting:      Your article needs to be typed: 12-pt Times New Roman font and double-spaced. Your name, course number and date should appear at the top, right-hand corner of the page. The next line should include the title of the assignment: Article Review #1. The APA citation should appear next, just as it would appear on a References list (should include a hanging indent if longer than one line). Make sure you are properly citing the article. Use the tutorials above. If this is not correct, I will not even grade the rest of the assignment. The next sections of the review should come in the order above, separated by sections. Use bullets, number, and bolding to clearly mark the sections. Make sure you are making use of the content you have been reading in the book. SOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND PERSONALITY, 2015, 43(2), 177-192 © Society for Personality Research http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2015.43.2.177 CREATING SHARED VALUES BETWEEN NATIONAL TEAM IDENTITY AND GLOBAL EVENT BRAND EQUITY WOONG KWON Hoseo University HYUN-WOO LEE Georgia Southern University YUKYOUM KIM Seoul National University We proposed and empirically examined a social identity-brand equity model for global sporting events. In the model, we focused on the functional organization of mutual benefits between fans’ identification with a national team and global event brand equity. We applied a 2-step approach to assess the simultaneous equation models and utilized the bootstrapping method to examine the direct, indirect, and total effects. Participants were 280 students of diverse nationalities (102 women, 178 men; Mage = 23.84 years, age range: 18–37 years). The results indicated that attributes of local experience and global phenomena are intertwined in the formation of positive local identification with national teams and the brand equity of a global sporting event. Managers and researchers should further identify and elaborate on ways and means of creating value in order to foster the universal sport market. Keywords: team identity, behavioral involvement, brand equity, global sporting event, creating shared values. Global sporting events such as the Olympic Games and the FIFA™ World Cup are now among the most powerful brands in the world. For instance, it was reported that a firm that specializes in valuations had ranked the brand value of the Olympic Games as second in the world, between Apple and Google (Morley, 2012). In another report (Ozanian, 2013), the Olympic Games and the FIFA™ Woong Kwon, Graduate School of Sport Science, Hoseo University; Hyun-Woo Lee, School of Health and Kinesiology, Georgia Southern University; YuKyoum Kim, Department of Physical Education, Seoul National University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Hyun-Woo Lee, Hollis Building – Room 1124A, School of Health and Kinesiology, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro GA 30460, USA. Email: hlee@georgiasouthern.edu 177 178 TEAM IDENTITY AND EVENT BRAND EQUITY World Cup were rated as the most valuable brands for national competition sporting events, at US$348 million and US$160 million, respectively, based on the amount of revenue generation per day of the event. In marketing reports from the International Olympic Committee (IOC, 2012) and the International Federation of Association Football (Fédération Internationale de Football Association; FIFA™, 2010), the focus has been on understanding strategic marketing opportunities. Further, in previous research on global sporting events, the focus has been on sponsorship (e.g., Deitz, Evans, & Hansen, 2013; Speed & Thompson, 2000), economic impact (e.g., Lee & Taylor, 2005; Porter & Fletcher, 2008), and brand infringement (e.g., Sandler & Shani, 1989; Séguin & O’Reilly, 2008). Despite the valuable contribution of the above studies, there is still insufficient knowledge of how consumer perspectives that constitute psychological constructs of fan experience influence the individual consumer’s perception of brand equity. In this study, our aim was to extend and integrate theories of collective identity and brand equity that are phenomenologically related in the context of global sporting events. Specifically, we sought to illuminate the identification of fans with their national team (national team identity) and customer-based brand equity as essential constructs for successful global marketing of sporting events. We elaborated on the relationship between national team identity and brand equity by synthesizing theoretical models of collective identity and branding (e.g., Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004; Keller, 1993, 2003; Ross, Russell, & Bang, 2008; Underwood, Bond, & Baer, 2001). Accordingly, we outlined a social identity-brand equity (SIBE) model for global sporting events – hereafter referred to as the global SIBE model – in which we proposed that local fan experience of social interaction, development of a national team history, and fans’ behavioral involvement with a global event will mutually influence the formation of national team identity and global event brand equity. Research Model Development In the context of international business studies, the concept of creating shared values – the focus of which is societal needs and their connection with societal and economic progress in the operating community – has recently been illuminated as a way to reinvent capitalism and supersede the conventional concept of corporate social responsibility (Porter & Kramer, 2011). While social responsibility can counteract the narrow perception that capitalism is to blame for society’s failures, realigning a corporation’s purpose to focus on creating shared values and moving beyond trade-offs can broaden its full potential to meet societal needs (Porter & Kramer, 2011). Porter and Kramer further suggested that “by reconceiving products and markets, redefining productivity in the value TEAM IDENTITY AND EVENT BRAND EQUITY 179 chain, and building supportive industry clusters at the company’s locations” (p. 7), a company has three distinct ways to increase the value of one of these areas in order to create opportunities in others. Although the concept of creating shared values is relatively new, the practice of creating value for society is already well-known to the management of global sporting events. By meeting the societal needs of their fan community, managers of global sporting events are continually attempting to cocreate values among the fans. As organizers of international and local events prepare for an event, multiple sport entities cooperate with each other; publicity by global broadcasting organizations boosts the significance of the event, and corporate sponsors support and foster such events as global festivals. We find it rather surprising that this phenomenon is only intuitively understood and practiced without an overarching framework. Therefore, basing our model on the broad idea of creating shared values, we reconceptualized SIBE in the context of global sporting events. The extension and respecification of the model is grounded in theories of identity (Ashmore et al., 2004; Tajfel, 1978), involvement (Funk & James, 2001; Zaichkowsky, 1985), and brand equity (Keller, 1993; Pappu, Quester, & Cooksey, 2007; Ross, 2006; Ross et al., 2008). Our conceptualization consists of constructs reflecting spectators’ perceptions about (a) their identification with their national team and (b) the brand equity of a global sporting event where their national team competes. Following Keller’s (1993) original concept of brand equity, we adopted an associative network memory model in conceptualizing the connection between formation of local identification with the team and brand equity. According to the conceptualization of collective identity (Ashmore et al., 2004) and the cognitive–affective system theory of personality (Mischel & Shoda, 1995), dynamics of group experiences and the developmental history of local norms are considered as elements of national team identity and brand equity. In particular, we considered social interaction and team history to be essential determinants of the formation of local identification with the national team and brand equity. Formation of National Team Identity Ashmore et al. (2004) described every individual’s identity as being inherently social in origin and observed that connotations of social identity have been found to be more problematic than collective identity in terms of explaining its functional role across disciplinary perspectives. Further, Ashmore et al. identified self-categorization, evaluation, importance, attachment and sense of interdependence, social embeddedness, behavioral involvement, and content and meaning as the seven elements of collective identity, which is “a subjective claim or acceptance by the person whose identity is at stake” (p. 81) whereby an empathetic interdependence exists between self and other. 180 TEAM IDENTITY AND EVENT BRAND EQUITY Researchers in the sport field (e.g., Dimmock, Grove, & Eklund, 2005; Heere, James, Yoshida, & Scremin, 2011) have assessed identification with a team as a reflective measure, whereas in the original conceptualizations emphasis was placed more on how identity is formed (Ashmore et al., 2004; Tajfel, 1978). Specifically, according to Ashmore et al., the individual’s collective identity should be a construct formed of the seven constituent elements, rather than a reflective construct. Taking into account the formative nature and interplay of these elements of collective identity, there is a gap in the literature in terms of recognizing the relationships among these elements and across different entities associated with a collective identity. Therefore, in the context of global sporting events, our aim was to identify those elements that are influential in the formation of national team identity. From a managerial perspective, it is also important to analyze how these elements affect the brand equity of sporting events. Formation of Customer-Based Brand Equity of a Global Sporting Event Keller (1993) defined consumer-based brand equity as “the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand” (p. 2). According to the associative network memory model, Keller conceptualized brand equity as occurring when a consumer is aware of the brand and has developed positive associations with it. From a cognitive perspective (for a review, see Warren, 2006), the dynamics of the consumer’s perception of a brand and his/her behavioral tendencies are not limited to a single entity. For instance, companies seek to achieve synergetic effects by collaborating with other companies. An example of this is IBM’s joint partnerships to develop semiconductor technologies (Pisano & Verganti, 2008). Consumers develop brand associations through the amalgamated image of multiple entities. Again, one example of this is the social impact Starbucks cocreates with nongovernmental organizations (Brugmann & Prahalad, 2007). Nevertheless, although previous researchers have supported the multidimensionality of brand knowledge (Keller, 2003), we are not aware of any research in the sport field focused on identifying the connection of fans’ perceptions in regard to diverse entities. That is to say, associative memories of a global sporting event and its brand are constructed from perceptions towards multiple entities. A marketing tactic commonly practiced in the sport industry is the use of strategies aimed at forming societal and economic values through collaborations across diverse entities. In studies of brand equity in sport, scholars have examined the associative psychological factors. However, most of these studies have been conducted at the level of sport teams (e.g., Ross et al., 2008; Underwood et al., 2001). Considering the significance of megaevents as global celebrations, we believe that it is necessary to expand the boundaries of the concept of brand equity in sport. Thus, we conceptualized the global SIBE model. TEAM IDENTITY AND EVENT BRAND EQUITY 181 Research Model and Hypotheses In the global SIBE model, we consider social interaction, history, and behavioral involvement in relation to the sporting event as determinants of national team identity and event brand equity. To reiterate, we have underlined social interaction and team history as crucial elements of fan experience, whereby their cognitive evaluation affects the fans’ identification with the national team and their perception of the global sporting event brand equity. In this model, behavioral involvement with the event is conceptualized as playing a mediating role in the paths between national team identity and event brand equity. Social interaction and team history. We considered fan experience as a unique emotive spectacle among the members (Underwood et al., 2001), and argued that the social interaction of the fan group can be categorized as a socially engaged culture for celebrating national identity. That is, people sharing emotion and their sense of bonding while cheering for their national team will trigger in-group socialization (Ashmore et al., 2004; Niedenthal & Brauer, 2012). We also considered the social norm of the team history as representatives of their country on an international stage, with this social norm functioning as the fans’ internal and external evaluation of their identification with the national team (Ashmore et al., 2004). The past development of norms in an individual’s cognitive–affective system will reinforce how he or she consumes and reacts to a global sporting event, and behavioral profiles will develop as the individual experiences global sporting events (Mischel & Shoda, 1995). Lee, Kim, Newman, and Kim (2013) described how such emotional interaction and sharing a collective history can affect the formation of a social identity. They highlighted that engagement in, and evaluation of, the collective embodiment of the fan experience catalyze the coalescing of fan identity. According to Keller (1993), in the individual’s memory these associations constitute the brand equity of the event in time and place. Thus, the constructs of social interaction and team history as experiential and evaluative constructs affecting national team identity and global event brand equity led us to form the following hypotheses: Hypothesis 1: Social interaction will positively influence fans’ national team identity and global event brand equity. Hypothesis 2: Team history will positively influence fans’ national team identity and global event brand equity. Behavioral involvement. Ashmore et al. (2004) defined behavioral involvement as the “degree to which the person engages in actions that directly implicate the collective identity category in question” (p. 83). In studies focused on sport, researchers have indicated that an increase in the individual’s level of involvement and interaction with a sports team leads to positive identification with that team (James, Kolbe, & Trail, 2002; Lock, Taylor, Funk, & Darcy, 2012). As behavioral involvement can be a clear expression of the associative group 182 TEAM IDENTITY AND EVENT BRAND EQUITY identities (Heere et al., 2011), and as such associative identities affect people’s perceptions (Keller, 1993; Mischel & Shoda, 1995), behavioral involvement with an event can influence people’s perception of event brand equity and national team identity. Behavioral involvement with a global sporting event is not a direct subdimension of national team identity. Rather, such involvement is associated with the individual’s entire experience of a global sporting event, which affects his or her perspective (e.g., collective identity and brand equity; Ashmore et al., 2004; Keller, 1993; Mischel & Shoda, 1995). Thus, the behavioral involvement of the individual in connection to the consumption of the global sporting event is crucial to understanding the formation of collective identity in regard to a national team and the brand equity of the event. Fans’ perceptions of their national teams and the global sporting event coexist and are associated with each other, so that fan behaviors of celebrating their collective national team identity cannot be isolated from how those fans value the global sporting event. Hence, we identified behavioral involvement as an important construct affecting the formation of national team identity and global sporting event brand equity. As such, in the global SIBE model there are many mediation effects among the constructs operating in a causal chain. Mediation effects. In the global SIBE model, we have described how, when sport fans value the social time and space offered during a global sporting event and respect the history (e.g., success) of the national team, they will be more interested in, and motivated to seek out and talk about, the event, that is, to be more involved with the team and event. The more the fans are involved in the event, the more they will consider supporting the national team to be important and the more they will want to express their love for, and affiliation with, the group, that is, the more they will want to be identified with the team. The more the fans are identified with their team, the more they will become familiar with the global sporting event and the more they will become associated with a positive image of the event as a national celebration on stage, that is, they will perceive positive brand equity. We reasoned that it can be presumed that these psychological constructs are significantly correlated. Adapting the concepts of the associative network memory model (Keller, 1993) of brand knowledge and the interplay among the seven elements of collective identity (Ashmore et al., 2004), in the global SIBE model we have established a framework to connect social values with the economic values of brand equity (Porter & Kramer, 2011). In our effort to deconstruct the causal chains in the proposed model, we expected that examination of the mediating effects would allow us to identify the contribution of behavioral involvement and national team identity to the brand equity of a global sporting event. Therefore, we proposed the following hypotheses: TEAM IDENTITY AND EVENT BRAND EQUITY 183 Hypothesis 3: Fans’ behavioral involvement in a global sporting event will act as positive mediator in the path between national team identity and event brand equity. Hypothesis 4: National team identity will act as a positive mediator in the paths to global event brand equity. Method Participants We recruited students of diverse nationalities (N = 280; men = 178, women = 102) from the international programs of several large universities in South Korea as respondents for our study. The average age of the students was 23.84 years (SD = 3.79, range = 18–37 years). Among the group, 81 were Korean-Americans because many second- or third-generation members of the families of people who were Korean emigrants to the USA come back to their parents’ or grandparents’ home country to study at international schools. A further 90 of the participants were Korean, 25 were Chinese, 22 were North American, 20 were Japanese, 13 were Mongolian, 12 were from a country on the European continent, 4 were from a South American country, and 13 were from other Asian countries. Procedure We used a field survey to conduct an empirical examination of the theoretical framework of the study. From among the various types of global sporting events, we selected the Olympic Games for examination in the current study because so many people in the world are aware of this event and because there are many participating nations (International Olympic Committee, 2012). We used a nonprobability method of judgmental sampling for the data collection. Three graduate students were trained to assist us and they administered the survey near each university’s international program office building. They approached students in person and provided information about the survey. After obtaining the consent of a student, a survey form was given to him or her. To take part, students had to be aware of the subject event (i.e., the Olympic Games) and have knowledge of their national team’s performance at the Olympic Games. Directions were provided for each scale in the survey and the students were free to ask questions or opt out at any time. Out of 350 survey forms distributed, 317 were collected and 280 were used after excluding those that contained incomplete data. Measures Measures of social interaction (SI), team history (TH), and team identification (TI), taken from the Spectator-Based Brand Equity (SBBE; Ross et al., 2008) scale, were used to measure service environment (sport marketplace char- 184 TEAM IDENTITY AND EVENT BRAND EQUITY acteristics of group experience and history/tradition), and the respondents’ collective identification with their national team. To measure involvement (INV), items from Zaichkowsky’s (1985) scale were adopted. Items from Pappu et al. (2007) were used to measure the consumer-based brand equity (CBBE) of the Olympic Games. There were three items for each construct, and the response format for the items was a 7-point Likert-type scale anchored by 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree. As there were two target objects of measurement (i.e., national team and the Olympic Games), respondents were reminded of the target object in each case before answering the respective items. A section in which respondents provided information on their demographic characteristics followed at the end of the survey form. Data Analysis Measurement model. In the measurement model, we evaluated the psychological properties of the modified items. Accordingly, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of all five constructs (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988) to evaluate the measurement of collective identity and brand equity. To account for measurement errors, we used multiple fit indices to evaluate the data fit of the covariance-variance matrices associated with the measurement model (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Coefficients of reliability and average variance extracted (AVE) values were computed as evidence of convergent validity, and AVE values compared with the squared correlations among constructs to check for discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Structural model. To test Hypotheses 1 and 2 based on the structural model of global SIBE, we utilized the two-step modeling approach recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). Hence, after assessing the measurement model, we assessed a series of chi-square (2) difference tests. First, we considered a saturated model, equivalent to the measurement model, with paths from SI to CBBE, and from TH to CBBE, and these were added to the global SIBE model. Second, we compared an unconstrained model nested in the saturated model, and, as a result of this comparison, we eliminated an insignificant path. Third, the hypothesized global SIBE model was compared with the unconstrained model. Ultimately, for further analysis we accepted the most parsimonious model among those that fit the data without statistically significant differences. Bootstrap test. To test Hypotheses 3 and 4, we conducted a bootstrap test to examine the mediation effects of behavioral involvement and team identity. We used the bootstrap test because it has been found to be more powerful than the traditional Sobel’s test suggested by Baron and Kenny in 1986 (Zhao, Lynch, & Chen, 2010). In this test, we estimated percentile intervals and bias-corrected percentile intervals (Bollen & Stine, 1992). AMOS version 18.0 (Arbuckle, 2009) was used for all data analyses. TEAM IDENTITY AND EVENT BRAND EQUITY 185 Results Measurement Model The measurement model demonstrated a good fit according to calculation of standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), and comparative fit index (CFI), as follows: (2/df = 190.24/80 = 2.378, SRMR = .038, RMSEA = .070, CFI = .967). The psychometric properties of the measurement scales were suitable as all factor loadings were significant and in the predicted direction (p < .05); AVE values ranged from .66 for TH to .83 for SI; and reliability coefficients ranged from .85 for TH to .93 for SI. Additionally, all AVE values were larger than the squared correlations among constructs. Reiterating, the set of items in each scale showed adequate psychometric properties for the application and prediction of the hypothesized relationships, as the constructs had discriminant and convergent validity. Results of the CFA with the reliability coefficient and AVE, and the correlation matrix among the constructs are reported in Table 1. Structural Model Results of a series of 2 difference tests indicated that, among the three models tested, the alternative unconstrained model fit the data best. For the alternative unconstrained model, the results were Δ2(1) = 2.103, p > .05; 2/df = 192.34/81 = 2.375, SRMR = .039, RMSEA = .070, CFI = .967; for the saturated model these were 2/df = 190.24/80 = 2.378, SRMR = .038, RMSEA = .070, CFI = .967; and for the hypothesized model these were Δ2(1) = 11.364, p < .001; 2/ df = 203.70/82 = 2.484, SRMR = .047, RMSEA = .073, CFI = .964. Thus, the alternative unconstrained model was determined as the final model. In this, the path from SI to CBBE was eliminated because it was insignificant in the saturated model ( = .08, p = .14). The results of direct path estimates in the unconstrained model supported Hypotheses 1 and 2, as all paths were significant at alpha level .05. The proportion of variance explained in the endogenous variables (R2 values) ranged from 25.5% to 56.4%. Consequently, the alternative unconstrained model was selected (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988). Specification of the model and results of each path are presented in Figure 1. Bootstrap Test Bootstrap tests for mediation are reported in Table 2. Hypotheses 3 and 4 were supported as INV and TI showed complementary mediation (see Zhao et al., 2010). For Hypothesis 3, direct effects were stronger than indirect effects on both the relationship between SI and TI (64.53%), and that between TH and TI (76.40%). In regard to Hypothesis 4, the indirect effect between TH and CBBE was stronger (54.88%) than the direct effect but the direct effect was stronger for paths from INV to CBBE (90.51%).  .91 .98 .83 .88 .88 .66 .97 .95 .66 .79 .98 .88 .88 .78 .78 Factors and items Social interaction (SI) The national team lets me spend time with friends Being a fan of the team is a good way to meet other people I am able to see friends because of the team National team history (TH) The national team has a rich history The national team has been successful in the past The national team’s performance has been at the top level National team identification (TI) Supporting the national team is very important to me I want others to know that I am a fan of the national team The national team is my team Involvement towards the Olympic Games (INV) When reading newspapers or magazines, I prefer to read articles about the Olympic Games first I like to talk about the Olympic Games I am very interested in the Olympic Games Brand equity of the Olympic Games (CBBE) I am familiar with the Olympic Games I have heard about the Olympic Games The Olympic Games has excellent features as a global sport event .01 .01 .01 .02 .01 .02 .01 .01 .02 .01 .01 .01 .02 .02 .01 SE .86 .92 .90 .85 .93  .67 .79 .75 .66 .83 AVE .37 .34 .38 .33 1 SI Table 1. Loadings, Correlations, Reliability Coefficients, and Average Variance Extracted for Study Factors .56 .46 .62 1 TH .58 .57 1 TI .69 1 INV Factor correlations 1 CBBE 186 TEAM IDENTITY AND EVENT BRAND EQUITY 187 TEAM IDENTITY AND EVENT BRAND EQUITY Social interaction .13* .50*** .33*** .33*** Involvement (R2 = 25.6%) Team identification 2 (R = 50.1% .16* Brand equity (R = 56.4%) 2 .39*** .42*** .33*** Team history Figure 1. Finalized global sporting events social identity-brand equity model. Note. Maximum likelihood parameter estimates are standardized. * p < .05, *** p < .001. Table 2. Bootstrap Mediation Effects Effect  Bootstrap estimate  SE 95% Confidence interval Percentile Bias correction Social interaction → Involvement → Team identification .051 Direct effect .131** Indirect effect .071** .023 Total effect .203** .053 [.025, .234] [.030, .124] [.101, .306] [.028, .235] [.034, .129] [.099, .304] Team history → Involvement → Team identification Direct effect .421** .056 Indirect effect .130** .028 Total effect .551** .050 [.308, .527] [.078, .189] [.444, .643] [.304, .524] [.083, .195] [.444, .643] Social interaction → Team identification → Brand equity Direct effect – – Indirect effect .138** .037 Total effect .138** .037 – [.066, .215] [.066, .215] – [.070, .218] [.070, .218] Team history → Team identification → Brand equity Direct effect .231** .068 Indirect effect .281** .045 Total Effect .512** .055 [.097, .370] [.193, .376] [.396, .616] [.091, .363] [.195, .377] [.393, .615] Involvement → Team Identification → Brand Equity Direct effect .496** .056 Indirect effect .052* .025 Total effect .548** .050 [.376, .597] [.007, .101] [.444, .642] [.374, .596] [.011, .113] [.446, .644] Note. Estimates are standardized. * p < .0, ** p < .01. 188 TEAM IDENTITY AND EVENT BRAND EQUITY Discussion We proposed and empirically tested a model of global sporting event brand equity. The proposed model was used to extend the boundary of the original SIBE model into the global sporting event context, capture how societal values of a fan community can enhance brand equity, and open up possibilities for value creation through global sporting events. All paths were significant except the direct path from social interaction to brand equity. That is, social interaction had an influence on brand equity only via indirect effects. Overall, the results (see Figure 1) supported our propositions that social interaction and team history would positively influence national team identity and event brand equity (Hypotheses 1 and 2); that behavioral involvement would mediate the paths between national team identity and event brand equity (Hypothesis 3); and that national team identity would influence event brand equity (Hypothesis 4). Our findings provide insight into the mutual benefits of cooperation between entities involved in global sporting events. Of particular relevance in our study are the findings on the interrelations of fan perceptions of national teams and sport organizations. First, the scope of the effect of sport marketplace characteristics on team identity (Boyle & Magnusson, 2007; Underwood et al., 2001) is extended and the significance of this effect is supported in a global sporting event setting, where the behavioral involvement (Ashmore et al., 2004) of fans in relation to the event significantly mediated the identification process. Overall, direct effects of a successful team history were the most compelling in strengthening fan involvement and identification with the team. Second, we found it interesting that the relative cognitive and affective developmental histories (Mischel & Shoda, 1995) of fans’ perceptions (e.g., involvement with sporting event, identification with the national team) are mutually intertwined. Our results indicate that the indirect effects are all significant in the formation of national team identity and global sporting event brand equity. That is, the management of existing local societal values can be influential in defining markets and/or social harms of sporting events, which can potentially create internal costs for organizations (Porter & Kramer, 2011). For example, conflict between supporters of and protesters against the recent Brazil World Cup could be better managed by deconstructing and understanding the discrete elements of each party’s collective identity. Moreover, in studying aspects of global sporting events, such as economic impact and the effect of sponsorship, and in generalizing the managerial decision process, neglecting the societal impacts at the local level may be insufficient when regarding the paradigm of shared value creation. For example, allocating funds only to global organizations and sponsors may give rise to social problems in local TEAM IDENTITY AND EVENT BRAND EQUITY 189 communities. Recently, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has faced public scrutiny for its involvement in the appropriation of a large amount of funds that was not released back to the local communities. Rather, the money was given to organizers and their affiliates (i.e., corporate sponsors; Lubin & Delevingne, 2010). That is, despite the Olympic Movement that they advocate, the Olympic Games are becoming more commercialized. As such, relationships with sponsors are becoming increasingly disparate between the global level (The Olympic Partner programs) and the local level (the Olympic Games domestic sponsorship programs; IOC, 2012). Hence, considering the paradigm of shared value creation can be helpful to address this issue. The model we have developed opens up possibilities for reconsideration of the sociability of spectator sports, in the context of global sporting events. In line with the perception of sport as an alternative association and fellowship of individuals having sentiments, tastes, and attitudes in common (gemeinschaft; see Anderson & Stone, 1981), Ingham and McDonald (2003) considered significant sporting events as serving the generation of a spontaneous ritual process of unifying people (communitas). Connecting this to the cocreation of values and to how societal needs and psychological connections within a community are fostered by sporting organizations and their events at various levels can be considered in the future in terms of economic efficiency and mutual value creation (Porter & Kramer, 2011). That is, creating societal values through sport can also add value to a brand and, at the same time, this brand equity also creates social bonds and positive social psychological benefits through, for example, fans’ identification with the team and team pride (Lee et al., 2013). By considering the interrelationships among the constructs in the model we have presented at both national and global levels of fans’ perceptions, we have expanded the perspectives of understanding and managing brand equity of global sporting events. In developing this model, we believe that we have made an epistemological contribution to the connections between societal benefits and economic values in global sporting events. Although such dynamics already exist and are practiced in megaevents, these were only implied notions used in an intuitive way. To address this gap, we considered the psychological benefits of the fan experience as spectators at sporting events and we call for further studies to blend positive psychology with spectator sport. Limitations As our main objective in developing the global SIBE model was to build a feasible base on which to conduct empirical research that would serve as a stepping-stone for future studies, there are limitations in the model for future researchers to refine. Focusing on the positive fan experience, in developing the global SIBE model we did not consider the downsides of holding megaevents. 190 TEAM IDENTITY AND EVENT BRAND EQUITY For example, without careful preparation, global sporting events may provide limited benefits for the hosting countries, while costing them exponential amounts of money (Lubin & Delevingne, 2010). In addition, there are some factors of SIBE and SBBE identified by Underwood et al. (2001) and Ross et al. (2008) that deserve further elaboration in the model. For example, the early conceptual framework of SBBE (Ross, 2006) could be more rigorously applied in an empirical examination of SBBE in a global sporting event setting. Furthermore, there are other elements of collective identity that need attention (Ashmore et al., 2004). Our purpose in this study was to examine the relationships among the identified constructs of social interaction and team history. Although the multiple dimensionality of collective identity is not in doubt, our purpose was not to measure its underlying mechanisms and, thus, we used a unidimensional measure in the analysis. Moreover, by integrating social identity theory with the psychological continuum model (Funk & James, 2001), Lock et al. (2012) highlighted the need for longitudinal mixed-method studies to gain a better understanding of the process of development of team identification. Both the multiple dimensions of collective identity and the development process of identification are important. Therefore, in future studies researchers should further incorporate interdisciplinary approaches to scrutinize the dynamics of identification. References Anderson, D. F., & Stone, G. P. (1981). Sport: A search for community. In S. L. Greendorfer & A. Yiannakis (Eds.), Sociology of sport: Diverse perspectives (pp. 164-172). West Point, NY: Leisure Press. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423. http://doi.org/c76 Arbuckle, J. L. (2009). AMOS™ (Version 18). Chicago, IL: Amos Development Corporation. Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An organizing framework for collective identity: Articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 80-114. http://doi.org/cnc4rz Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. A. (1992). Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit measures in structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 21, 205-229. http://doi.org/bp8hm3 Boyle, B. A., & Magnusson, P. (2007). Social identity and brand equity formation: A comparative study of collegiate sports fans. Journal of Sport Management, 21, 497-520. Brugmann, J., & Prahalad, C. K. (2007). Cocreating business’s new social compact. Harvard Business Review, 85, 80-90. Deitz, G. D., Evans, R. D., Jr., & Hansen, J. D. (2013). Sponsorship and shareholder value: A re-examination and extension. Journal of Business Research, 66, 1427-1435. http://doi.org/xdv Dimmock, J. A., Grove, J. R., & Eklund, R. C. (2005). Reconceptualizing team identification: New dimensions and their relationship to intergroup bias. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 9, 75-86. http://doi.org/bz9w3v TEAM IDENTITY AND EVENT BRAND EQUITY 191 FIFA. (2010). The final statistical kit: Status after the 2010 FIFA World Cup. Retrieved from http:// fifa.to/16pgitI Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50. Funk, D. C., & James, J. (2001). The psychological continuum model: A conceptual framework for understanding an individual’s psychological connection to sport. Sport Management Review, 4, 119-150. http://doi.org/b3rtvp Heere, B., James, J. D., Yoshida, M., & Scremin, G. (2011). The effect of associated group identities on team identity. Journal of Sport Management, 25, 606-621. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55. http://doi.org/dbt Ingham, A. G., & McDonald, M. (2003). Sport and community/communitas. In R. Wilcox, D. Andrews, R. Pitter, & R. L. Irwin (Eds.), Sporting dystopias: The making and meaning of urban sport cultures (pp. 17-34). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. International Olympic Committee. (2012). Olympic marketing fact file. Retrieved from http:// bit.ly/1vUIx8q James, J., Kolbe, R., & Trail, G. (2002). Psychological connection to a new sports team: Building or maintaining the consumer base? Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11, 215-226. Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57, 1-22. Keller, K. L. (2003). Understanding brands, branding and brand equity. Interactive Marketing, 5, 7-20. http://doi.org/bsxpsm Lee, C.-K., & Taylor, T. (2005). Critical reflections on the economic impact assessment of a mega-event: The case of 2002 FIFA World Cup. Tourism Management, 26, 595-603. http:// doi.org/dtk4s3 Lee, H.-W., Kim, Y. D., Newman, J. I., & Kim, Y. (2013). Group emotion in spectator sport: An interdisciplinary approach to affective qualia. Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 5, 53-70. Lock, D., Taylor, T., Funk, D., & Darcy, S. (2012). Exploring the development of team identification. Journal of Sport Management, 26, 283-294. Lubin, G., & Delevingne, L. (2010, February 26). Olympics, Inc.: Inside the secretive, $6 billion world of the International Olympic Committee. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/ aNV0O6 Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive–affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246-268. http://doi.org/bd2x4s Morley, G. (2012, July 25). Is the Olympics worth more than Google? Retrieved from http://cnn. it/1svJnIr Niedenthal, P. M., & Brauer, M. (2012). Social functionality of human emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 259-285. http://doi.org/fdrsrd Ozanian, M. (2013, October 11). The Forbes Fab 40: The world’s most valuable sports brands 2013. Retrieved from http://onforb.es/1wDVMya Pappu, R., Quester, P. G., & Cooksey, R. W. (2007). Country image and consumer-based brand equity: Relationships and implications for international marketing. Journal of International Business Studies, 38, 726-745. http://doi.org/dkzjwj Pisano, G. P., & Verganti, R. (2008). Which kind of collaboration is right for you? Harvard Business Review, 86, 78-86. Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89, 62-77. 192 TEAM IDENTITY AND EVENT BRAND EQUITY Porter, P. K., & Fletcher, D. (2008). The economic impact of the Olympic Games: Ex ante predictions and ex poste reality. Journal of Sport Management, 22, 470-486. Ross, S. D. (2006). A conceptual framework for understanding spectator-based brand equity. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 22-38. Ross, S. D., Russell, K. C., & Bang, H. J. (2008). An empirical assessment of spectator-based brand equity. Journal of Sport Management, 22, 322-337. Sandler, D. M., & Shani, D. (1989). Olympic sponsorship vs. “ambush” marketing: Who gets the gold? Journal of Advertising Research, 29, 9-14. Séguin, B., & O’Reilly, N. J. (2008). The Olympic brand, ambush marketing and clutter. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 4, 62-84. Speed, R., & Thompson, P. (2000). Determinants of sports sponsorship response. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28, 226-238. http://doi.org/dgkvv3 Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of social relations. Oxford, UK: Academic Press. Underwood, R., Bond, E., & Baer, R. (2001). Building service brands via social identity: Lessons from the sports marketplace. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 9, 1-13. Warren, W. H. (2006). The dynamics of perception and action. Psychological Review, 113, 358-389. http://doi.org/dh69p9 Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 341-352. Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37, 197-206. Copyright of Social Behavior & Personality: an international journal is the property of Society for Personality Research 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.
Purchase answer to see full attachment