See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/258421243

Conceptualization and Measurement of Fan Engagement: Empirical Evidence

From a Professional Sport Context

Article  in  Journal of Sport Management · July 2014

DOI: 10.1123/jsm.2013-0199

CITATIONS READS

193 22,209

4 authors:

Masayuki Yoshida Brian Scott Gordon

Hosei University University of Kansas
48 PUBLICATIONS   1,663 CITATIONS    51 PUBLICATIONS   743 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Makoto Nakazawa Rui Biscaia

University of Tsukuba University of Bath
23 PUBLICATIONS   796 CITATIONS    116 PUBLICATIONS   1,450 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Teams and Sponsors View project

An experimental examination of activist type and effort on brand image and purchase intentions View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Masayuki Yoshida on 29 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Sport Management, 2014, 28, 399-417
http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2013-0199 Official Journal of NASSM
© 2014 Human Kinetics, Inc. www.JSM-Journal.com
ARTICLE

Conceptualization and Measurement of Fan Engagement:

Empirical Evidence From a Professional Sport Context
Masayuki Yoshida
Biwako Seikei Sport College
Brian Gordon
University of Wisconsin–La Crosse
Makoto Nakazawa
University of Tsukuba
Rui Biscaia
Universidade de Lisboa

In the sport management literature, limited attention has been devoted to the conceptualization and measure-
ment of fan engagement. Two quantitative studies were completed to validate the proposed fan-engagement
scale composed of three defining elements (management cooperation, prosocial behavior, and performance
tolerance). The results from Study 1 provide evidence of convergent and discriminant validity for the three-
factor model of fan engagement. In Study 2, we assess nomological validity by examining the antecedents
and consequences of fan engagement and found that team identification and basking in reflected glory played
a particularly important role in increasing the three dimensions of fan engagement. Furthermore, the results
indicate that performance tolerance has a positive effect on purchase intention. These findings highlight the
importance of the sequential relationships between team identification, performance tolerance, and purchase
intention.

Keywords: fan engagement, customer engagement, nontransactional behavior, extra-role behavior, coopera-
tion, prosocial behavior

Sport fans are defined as “individuals who are
interested in and follow a sport, team and/or athlete”
(Wann, Melnick, Russell, & Pease, 2001, p. 2). A grow-
ing number of researchers suggest that loyal sport fans
will engage in various forms of behavior related to sport
teams (Bristow & Sebastian, 2001; Funk & James, 2001;
Hunt, Bristol, & Bashaw, 1999; Holt, 1995). Sport fans’
engagement in following their favorite teams includes
attending sporting events, watching games on televi-
sion, purchasing a number of team products, reading
sport magazines and newspapers, and talking with
others about sport (Bristow & Sebastian, 2001; Funk &
James, 2001; Hunt et al., 1999). Highly engaged sport
fans are likely to focus not only on self-interested tasks
(e.g., attending, watching, reading, and purchasing) but
Masayuki Yoshida is with Biwako Seikei Sport College in Otsu,
Shiga, Japan. Brian Gordon is with the University of Wisconsin-
La Crosse in La Crosse, WI. Makoto Nakazawa is with the
University of Tsukuba in Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan. Rui Biscaia is
with CIPER, Universidade de Lisboa, Portugal. Address author
correspondence to Masayuki Yoshida at yoshida-m@bss.ac.jp.
also on tasks that benefit their favorite sport teams (e.g.,
supportive displays of sport fandom, positive word-of-
mouth, and collaborative event attendance; de Ruyter
& Wetzels, 2000; Swanson, Gwinner, Larson, & Janda,
2003) and other fans (e.g., sharing knowledge about a
team with other fans, cooperative communications in the
stands, and consumer-to-consumer helping behaviors in
fan communities; Dietz-Uhler & Murrell, 1999; Fisher
& Wakefield, 1998). Such team- and others-oriented
behaviors are referred to as extrarole behaviors (Ahearne,
Bhattacharya, & Gruen, 2005; Podsakoff, MacKen-
zie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). In consumer behavior
research, a number of extrarole behaviors have been
investigated, such as positive word-of-mouth, recruit-
ing new consumers, providing suggestions for product
improvement, participating in new product development,
and collaborating with other consumers (Ahearne et al.,
2005; Bettencourt, 1997; Füller, Matzler, Hoppe, 2008;
Gruen, Summers, & Acito, 2000).
Theorizing about the development of sport fan loy-
alty, Funk and James (2001) stipulate that such engag-
ing behaviors are specifically observable at the stage of

399
400  Yoshida et al.
allegiance that reflects the extent to which an individual’s
commitment to a sport team is persistent and resistant. To
explain fans’ commitment to sport teams, many useful
constructs have been developed in the sport manage-
ment literature, including team identification (Wann
& Branscombe, 1990), team identity (Heere, James,
Yoshida, & Scremin, 2011), fan loyalty (Funk & James,
2001), psychological commitment to team (Mahony,
Madrigal, & Howard, 2000), psychological connection
to team (James, Kolbe, & Trail, 2002), team attachment
(Mahony, Nakazawa, Funk, James, & Gladden, 2002),
spectator-based brand equity (Ross, Russell, & Bang,
2008), and consumer-team relationship quality (Kim,
Trail, & Ko, 2011). However, previous research has
focused on the attitudinal aspect of sport fans and has
largely ignored fans’ unique behavioral responses. In
view of the limitations of the existing research, a con-
ceptual model and scale items for measuring sport fans’
engagement behaviors have yet to be developed in the
sport context. Such an endeavor would satisfy a glaring
void in the sport management literature and is the aim
of the current study.
In recent years, the idea of customer engagement
has attracted significant attention from researchers
(Brodie, Hollebeek, Juric, & Ilic, 2011; Schau, Muñiz,
& Arnold, 2009; van Doorn, Lemon, Mittal, Nass, Pick,
Pirner, & Verhoef, 2010; Verhoef, Reinartz, & Krafft,
2010). Notably, past research on relationship marketing
has been conducted primarily on the transactional side
of a consumer-company relationship (Grewal, Monroe,
& Krishnan, 1998; Rust, Lemon, & Zeithaml, 2004).
Transactional consumer behavior is based on a trade-off
between costs and benefits, is an in-role behavior, and
is typically executed according to company guidelines.
Researchers have investigated the predictor variables of
customer retention (e.g., repeat purchase, cross-buying,
and word-of-mouth activity) in the exchange of money,
time, and effort for a product (a physical good or a ser-
vice; Grewal et al., 1998; Rust et al., 2004). On the other
hand, nontransactional consumer behavior (e.g., volun-
tary participation in marketing programs, collaborative
product customization, and social bonding with fellow
brand users) has been largely ignored but has become
increasingly important in a networked society in which
consumers can easily interact with other consumers and
companies through the Internet and other new media
(Schau et al., 2009; Verhoef et al., 2010). The idea of cus-
tomer engagement captures a variety of nontransactional
consumer behaviors (Verhoef et al., 2010) and can be
useful for explaining how consumers and firms cocreate
new value propositions in nontransactional buyer-seller
exchanges (Hoyer, Chandy, Dorotic, Krafft, & Singh,
2010; van Doorn et al., 2010).
There are three particular items of note to consider
regarding this study. First, unlike previous sport manage-
ment studies, this work focuses on sport fans’ unique
behavioral responses and presents a conceptual model of
fan engagement in nontransactional, extrarole behaviors.
Second, by analyzing the nontransactional side of sport
consumer behavior, the current study extends previous
sport marketing research that is based mainly on the
transactional side of exchange. Third, the current study
adds to the body of knowledge in the sport management
literature, where fan engagement has lacked empirical
attention. Given the limitations of previous research,
the purposes of this study are to (a) define the concept
of fan engagement and develop a scale for measuring
the construct, (b) investigate the reliability and validity
of the proposed fan-engagement scale, and (c) assess
nomological validity by examining the antecedents and
consequences of fan engagement. Through a thorough
review of the relevant literature, the following section
addresses the conceptual background of fan engagement.
Conceptual Background
Fan engagement is a specific form of customer engage-
ment in the sport context. In marketing, researchers
define customer engagement as a consumer’s sponta-
neous, interactive, and cocreative behaviors primarily
in nontransactional consumer-company exchanges to
achieve his or her individual and social purposes (Brodie
et al., 2011; van Doorn et al., 2010; Verhoef et al., 2010).
Because engaged consumers provide referrals and recom-
mendations for specific products, customer engagement
is a key element in firms’ strategies on solution develop-
ment, new product development, and customer retention
(Hoyer et al., 2010; Marketing Science Institute [MSI],
2010; Verhoef et al., 2010).
Customer Engagement in the Marketing
Literature
Despite its widely recognized importance, there is a
considerable amount of confusion regarding the con-
ceptualization of customer engagement. Customer
engagement has been viewed as a cognitive appraisal,
an affective attachment, a behavioral response, or a
combination of these (Brodie et al., 2011). Furthermore,
customer engagement has been viewed as a global (over-
all) or multidimensional construct (Brodie et al., 2011).
In this study, we attempt to alleviate the aforementioned
conceptual confusion and fill a considerable gap in the
literature. A review of the relevant literature reveals
that three divergent conceptualizations exist in previous
research: (a) cognitive, (b) behavioral, and (c) cognitive/
affective/behavioral. In the following section, we first
explain the difference between the cognitive and behav-
ioral approaches to the conceptualization of customer
engagement. Second, we further differentiate between
the unidimensional and multidimensional approaches.
The cognitive and behavioral approaches.  In the
literature, the most widely supported conceptualization
of customer engagement is a behavior-based model (MSI,
2010; Schau et al., 2009; van Doorn et al., 2010; Verhoef
et al., 2010). Van Doorn et al. (2010) define customer
engagement as “a customer’s behavioral manifesta-

tions that have a brand or firm focus, beyond purchase,
resulting from motivational drivers” (p. 254). Engaged
consumers’ behavioral manifestations include numer-
ous nontransactional behaviors such as word-of-mouth
activity, recommendations, consumer-to-consumer
interactions, blogging, and writing reviews (MSI, 2010).
Furthermore, the valuation model of Kumar et al. (2010)
indicates that the nontransactional aspects of customer
engagement value include customer referral value, cus-
tomer influence value, and customer knowledge value.
Following these contentions, researchers have reached
similar conclusions that customer engagement reflects a
consumer’s nontransactional behavior and is a significant
route for creating, building, and enhancing consumer-
firm relationships (Hoyer et al., 2010; Libai, Bolton,
Bügel, de Ruyter, Gotz, Risselada, & Stephen, 2010;
MSI, 2010; Verhoef et al., 2010).
On the contrary, another contemporary view of cus-
tomer engagement is based on cognition and is derived
from Sprott, Czellar, and Spangenberg’s (2009) “brand
engagement in self-concept” (BESC). BESC refers to
consumers’ tendency to incorporate their own favorite
brands into the self-concept. To measure BESC, their
8-item scale captures the elements of self-brand connec-
tion, brand identity, person-brand fit, and self-definition.
Although BESC explains the notion that multiple brands
are integrated into a consumer’s self-concept, Brodie
et al. (2011) criticize that BESC focuses primarily on a
consumer’s cognitive attitudes toward brands and fails
to capture the defining components of customer engage-
ment (e.g., consumer-to-consumer interactions, solution
development, and cocreation in service relationships).
To properly define the customer-engagement construct,
consumers’ interactive, cocreative experiences should be
included in its conceptualization as suggested by MSI
(2010), van Doorn et al. (2010), Verhoef et al. (2010) and
Brodie et al. (2011).
The unidimensional and multidimensional ap-
proaches.  Another important issue to consider is
how customer engagement is measured and whether the
construct is unidimensional or multidimensional. The
conceptual model of van Doorn et al. (2010) indicates
that customer engagement is behavioral and consists of
multiple defining indicators such as valence (i.e., positive
or negative reactions), modality (i.e., extrarole behavior),
scope (i.e., temporal and geographic scopes), impact (i.e.,
intensity, breadth, and longevity of impact), and consum-
ers’ purpose (i.e., engagement objects). In addition, Keller
(2003) operationalized the construct of active engagement
in regards to a brand using a behavioral approach. Both of
these approaches advocate for a unidimensional approach
to the measurement of customer engagement. On the
other hand, other researchers include cognitive and
affective components as well as behavioral reactions in
their conceptual models as an illustration of the multidi-
mensional approach. For example, the scale development
study of Vivek (2009) verifies that customer engagement
is a three-dimensional construct, composed of enthusi-
Fan Engagement   401
asm (emotion), conscious participation (behavior), and
social interaction (behavior). In a more comprehensive
manner, several researchers conceptualize that customer
engagement is a hybrid construct of cognitive, affective,
and behavioral aspects (Brodie et al. 2011; Hollebeek,
2011; Patterson, Yu, & de Ruyter, 2006). According
to Patterson et al. (2006), the cognitive aspect reflects
absorption (i.e., concentration on an engagement object).
The affective dimension is composed of dedication (i.e.,
sense of belonging to a brand). The behavioral component
is represented by vigor (i.e., energy in interacting with a
brand) and interaction (i.e., two-way communications).
As noted above, the notable confusion concern-
ing the cognitive, affective, and behavioral aspects of
customer engagement highlights the importance of a
better understanding of the construct and represents a
gap in the literature. Most importantly, as suggested by
Brodie et al. (2011), the expression of specific cognitive,
emotional, and behavioral dimensions varies consider-
ably across engagement objects and contexts. In the next
section, drawing from the literature on sport marketing,
we attempt to derive conceptual support for sport fan
engagement.
Customer Engagement in the Sport
Marketing Literature
To explain the level of sport fandom and unique behav-
ioral patterns in spectator sport, the term “engage” is often
used in the sport marketing literature. We conducted a
keyword search using the term “engage” within the sport
marketing literature and identified publications with
customer engagement-related contents. Table 1 presents
a summary review of the relevant literature identifying
engagement points in the sport context. Although no
established scale is available for measuring customer
engagement in sport, three main streams of research
are relevant to this study: (a) customer engagement in
nontransactional behaviors, (b) customer engagement in
transactional behaviors, and (c) customer engagement in
long-term relationships with a sport team. The behavioral
approach to conceptualizing sport consumer engagement
is the most widely used, but varies across researchers (see
Table 1). The first theme that emerges is the focus on
nontransactional behaviors. In sport, engaged consum-
ers’ nontransactional behaviors include self-enhancement
by basking in reflected glory (BIRGing) and cutting off
reflected failure (CORFing; Cialdini, Borden, Thorne,
Walker, Freeman, & Sloan, 1976; Cialdini & Richard-
son, 1980), displays of sport fandom (Holt, 1995), social
interaction (Holt, 1995), play and rituals (Holt, 1995),
fan community-related behavior (Dietz-Uhler & Murrell,
1999; Fisher & Wakefield, 1998), performance tolerance
(de Ruyter & Wetzels, 2000), pregame tailgating parties
(James, Breezeel, & Ross, 2001), sharing knowledge of
a game/team (Westerbeek & Shilbury, 2003), supportive
word-of-mouth behavior (Swanson et al., 2003), basking
in spite of reflected failure (BIRFing; Campbell, Aiken,
& Kent, 2004), cutting off reflected success (CORSing;
402  Yoshida et al.

Campbell et al., 2004), and participation in memorable
marketing programs (Jowdy & McDonald, 2002). Of
these, several behaviors are self-oriented to increase
one’s self-esteem and public image (e.g., BIRGing and
CORFing), whereas other behaviors are team- and others-
oriented and include social, interactive, and collaborative
behaviors. The latter examples are extrarole behaviors
and are consistent with the general definition of customer
engagement (Brodie et al., 2011; MSI, 2010; van Doorn
et al., 2010; Verhoef et al., 2010).
The second theme in the literature is customer
engagement in transactional behaviors. Research has
focused on sport consumers’ transactional behaviors such
as attending games (Funk & James, 2001; Hunt et al.,
1999; Trail, Fink, & Anderson, 2003), watching games
on television (Funk & James, 2001; Hunt et al., 1999),
buying team products (Funk & James, 2001; Hunt et
al., 1999), purchasing peripheral game-related products
(Pritchard & Funk, 2006), and participating in fantasy
sports (Hunt et al., 1999). As the third research stream,
several researchers also suggest that sport consumers
may maintain a long-term relationship with a sport team
(James et al., 2002; Jowdy & McDonald, 2002). James
et al. (2002) suggest that sport consumers engage in
long-term relationships with their favorite sport teams
by forming an emotional and cognitive attachment to
the objects. Similarly, Jowdy and McDonald (2002)
reported that highly engaged sport fans consume sport
with a strong desire for long-term associations with their
favorite teams and actively participate in relationship-
building programs (e.g., fan loyalty program participa-
tion, season-ticket purchase, booster membership). These
findings indicate that the relational aspect of customer
engagement may be another indicator when investigating
the behavior of sport fans.
In summary, a growing body of research has identi-
fied the defining characteristics of customer engage-
ment in sport. A review of the literature indicates that
sport consumers engage in various behaviors, including
sport-related behaviors (e.g., attend, read, watch, listen,
and purchase), impression-management behaviors (e.g.,
BIRGing and CORFing), relationship-building behaviors

Table 1  Relevant Engagement Points in the Sport Context

Customer
Engagement In Relevant Engagement Points Source
Nontransactional Basking in reflected glory (BIRGing) and cutting off reflected failure Cialdini et al. (1976); Cialdini
behaviors (CORFing) and Richardson (1980)
Displays of sport fandom, social interactions, play, and rituals Holt (1995)
Behaviors that support a fan community Fisher and Wakefield (1998)
Social mobility, social creativity, social competition in a successful fan Dietz-Uhler and Murrell
community (1999)
Positive word-of-mouth and performance tolerance de Ruyter and Wetzels (2000)
Behavior to support positive attitudes toward a team Bristow and Sebastian (2001)
Pregame tailgating parties James et al. (2001)
Sharing knowledge about a game/team, engaging in social communica- Westerbeek and Shilbury
tion in the stands (2003)
Supportive word-of-mouth behaviors Swanson et al. (2003)
Basking in spite of reflected failure (BIRFing) and cutting off reflected Campbell et al. (2004)
success (CORSing)
Participation in memorable marketing programs Jowdy and McDonald (2002)
Transactional Attending games, watching games on television, buying products Hunt et al. (1999)
behaviors endorsed by a favorite athlete, or participation in a fantasy sports league
via the Internet
Attending games, watching games on television, purchasing team prod- Funk and James (2001)
ucts, reading sport magazines and newspapers, and listening to games
on the radio
Attending future sporting events Trail et al. (2003)
Peripheral game-related behavior (e.g., buying sport-related merchan- Pritchard and Funk (2006)
dise and wearing team clothing)
Relationship Maintaining a psychological connection to a sport team James et al. (2002)
Maintaining a long-term relationship with a sport team Jowdy and McDonald (2002)

(e.g., loyalty program participation, season-ticket pur-
chase, and booster membership), and nontransactional
extrarole behaviors (e.g., social interaction, word-of-
mouth, and participation in marketing programs). In
the following study, we address how fan engagement is
conceptualized and measured in spectator sport.
Study 1: Conceptualization and
Measurement of Fan Engagement
The objectives of Study 1 were to (a) define fan engage-
ment in the sport context, (b) generate survey items for the
proposed construct, and (c) provide evidence of reliability
and validity for the proposed fan-engagement scale.
Conceptualization
On the basis of the literature review (see Table 1), we
developed a typology of sport consumers’ engagement
behaviors (see Figure 1). Focusing on the two axes of
customer activity (transactional or nontransactional)
and customer role (in-role or extrarole), we identified
four types of engagement behavior in spectator sport:
sport-related behaviors, relationship-building behaviors,
impression-management behaviors, and fan-engagement
behaviors. Although several studies in the sport market-
ing literature include transactional consumer behaviors
in customer engagement, our focus was primarily on
nontransactional exchanges. As shown in Figure 1,
transactional behaviors are sport-related (e.g., attend,
watch, purchase, and read) or relational (e.g., fan loyalty
program participation and season-ticket purchase), and
these behaviors can be captured by traditional measures of
repurchase behavior, media consumption, merchandising,
Figure 1 — Four types of engagement behavior in spectator sport.
Fan Engagement   403
and relationship equity. On the other hand, fan engage-
ment is a sport consumer’s prosocial behavior (de Ruyter
& Wetzels, 2000) that benefits not only a sport team but
also team management and other fans in nontransactional
exchanges (Ahearne et al., 2005; Bettencourt, 1997;
Dholakia, Blazevic, Wiertz, & Algesheimer, 2009).
We further distinguished between in-role and
extrarole behaviors. In the sport consumer context, in-
role behaviors are behaviors shaped by self-interest (e.g.,
attending, watching, and reading) when following a sport
team. On the other hand, extrarole behaviors are behaviors
that are directed toward a sport team and other fans on
the basis of a consumer’s moral obligation as a fan (de
Ruyter & Wetzels, 2000). To share a collective feeling of
success with a sport team and other event attendees, sport
fans often engage in prosocial, extrarole behaviors (e.g.,
positive word-of-mouth, collaborative event attendance,
and helping other fans; de Ruyter & Wetzels, 2000). In
contrast, spectators who do not have a strong feeling
of obligation to support sport teams rarely engage in
extrarole behaviors that go beyond self-interested tasks
(e.g., attending, watching, and reading). Sport consumers’
self-enhancement tactics (i.e., BIRGing and CORFing)
are self-oriented and thereby considered in-role behaviors
(see Figure 1).
In this study, we define fan engagement as a sport
consumer’s extrarole behaviors in nontransactional
exchanges to benefit his or her favorite sport team, the
team’s management, and other fans (Ahearne et al.,
2005; Bettencourt, 1997; de Ruyter & Wetzels, 2000;
Dholakia et al., 2009; van Doorn et al., 2010). Consistent
with research in marketing (Ahearne et al., 2005; Bet-
tencourt, 1997; Brodie et al., 2011; Dholakia et al., 2009),
the elements of management cooperation (i.e., helping
team management) and prosocial behavior (i.e., helping
404  Yoshida et al.
other fans) were included in our conceptual framework.
In addition to these two elements, a sport fan’s persistent
behavior (i.e., helping a sport team) was included in our
model because loyal sport fans’ extrarole behaviors are
consistent and stable over an extended period of time
regardless of game valence, player performance, team
standings, and player transfer to other teams (Funk &
James, 2001; Mahony et al., 2000). Similarly, fan engage-
ment is an effort-intensive behavior (Brodie et al., 2011)
that requires performance tolerance to overcome negative
team performance, service failure, and negative infor-
mation (de Ruyter & Wetzels, 2000; Yi & Gong, 2013).
Stable and persistent fan behavior (as described by perfor-
mance tolerance) can improve the atmosphere at games,
aid in team performance, positively influence other fans
of the team, and increase ticket and merchandising sales.
The concept of performance tolerance is grounded in
the sport context and will help sport teams prevent fan
switching behavior (de Ruyter & Wetzels, 2000; Yi &
Gong, 2013). In line with these considerations, we posit
that fan engagement is a multidimensional, behavioral
construct composed of management cooperation, pro-
social behavior, and performance tolerance.
Method
Measurement.  The construct of fan engagement
consists of three defining attributes: management
cooperation, prosocial behavior, and performance
tolerance. The concept of management cooperation
refers to a sport consumer’s collaborative, constructive
participation in the value creation and service delivery
process at sporting events (e.g., providing constructive
feedback to event personnel to enhance the event
experience, assisting event personnel to ensure the
safety of spectators at the event site, and abiding by the
organizations’ policies regarding ethical fan conduct;
Auh, Bell, McLeod, & Shih, 2007; Bettencourt, 1997).
The element of prosocial behavior captures the notion
that sport consumers engage in network development
such as interpersonal and computer-mediated fan-to-fan
helping behaviors on behalf of the team (Brodie et al.,
2011; Dholakia et al., 2009; van Doorn et al., 2010).
The concept of performance tolerance reflects a sport
consumer’s engagement by the display of team-related
products even during unsuccessful team performance
(de Ruyter & Wetzels, 2000). We adapted items from
previous research to measure the element of management
cooperation (Auh et al., 2007; Bettencourt, 1997).
Prosocial behavior was measured with a 4-item scale
adapted from Dholakia et al.’s (2009) helping others
scale. To measure performance tolerance, a 4-item
scale was adapted from De Ruyter and Wetzels’s (2000)
performance tolerance scale. Through these processes,
12 items were constructed (see Table 2). The wording
was modified to reflect the sport consumer’s view and
fan engagement behavior.
Next, the initial items were content analyzed through
a procedure based on Tian, Bearden, and Hunter’s (2001)
scale development. The items were submitted to a panel
of four sport marketing researchers from four different
universities. They were asked to rate each statement
as not representative (0), somewhat representative (1),
or clearly representative (2) of the construct defini-
tion. Items evaluated as clearly representative by three
reviewers and no worse than somewhat representative by
a fourth reviewer were retained. In addition, the judges
were asked to provide suggestions for changing words
and phrases in the items. This process eliminated three
items, leaving 9 items (see Table 2).
Back translation.  To minimize discrepancies between
the original and translated instruments, back translation
was conducted. The survey instrument was first translated
into Japanese by one of the authors. To test the equivalence
between the original and Japanese instruments, back-
translation into English was conducted by another native
of Japan who is also fluent in English. To verify the
accuracy of the translation, a U.S.-born American citizen
assessed differences in meaning between the original and
back-translated instruments. The comparison of the two
forms led to the conclusion that both instruments reflect
the construct domain.
Pilot study.  Before conducting our main study, we
pretested the proposed fan-engagement instrument with
undergraduate students at a private university in Japan.
Our goal at this pilot study was to establish the reliability
of the scale. A total of 64 students from sport marketing
and sport sponsorship classes were invited to participate
in the study. Eleven students were eliminated from the
data set because they had not attended any professional
sporting events in the past twelve months, leaving 53
subjects (n = 53). The participants rated, on the basis
of favorite sport teams and previous experiences at
professional sporting events, their engagement levels
in management cooperation, prosocial behavior, and
performance tolerance on a seven-point Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
The psychometric properties of the items were
assessed through an examination of internal consistency
via IBM SPSS (Version 20.0; see Table 2). The item-to-
total correlations (ITTC) for all items were greater than
the recommended cutoff point of .50 (Zaichkowsky,
1985). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for management
cooperation, prosocial behavior, and performance toler-
ance were .86, .85, and .97, respectively. The results indi-
cate that the three dimensions were internally consistent,
confirming the reliability of the initial measures.
Main study.  For the main study, we collected data from
spectators at a professional soccer game in a midsized
city in east Japan. The soccer club belonged to the Japan
professional football league’s (J. League) Division II.
Although this project was part of the official marketing
research conducted by the J. League, the selection of
this club was a matter of convenience. Questionnaires
were distributed in the stands before the game started.
To collect data as systematically as possible, we used
 Table 2  Psychometric Properties of the Fan-Engagement Scale in Study 1
Pilot Study (n = 53) Main Studyb (n = 402)
Construct Item ITTC α λ CR AVE
Management cooperation .86 .92 .80
I try to work cooperatively with my team. .79 .91
I do things to make my team’s event management easier. .75 .93
The employees of (team name) get my full cooperation. .66 .84
I make constructive suggestions to the team on how to improve its service.a — —
Prosocial behavior .85 .89 .73
I often interact with other fans to talk about issues related to (team name). .81 .91
I often advise other fans on how to support (team name). .73 .89
I spend time on social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) sharing information with other fans of (team name). .68 .76
I attend games of (team name) to share my experiences with other fans.a — —
Performance tolerance .97 .98 .95
I wear apparel which represents the fans of (team name) even if the team has an unsuccessful season. .91 .96
I display the logo of (team name) on my clothing even if (team name) do not perform well. .96 .99
I wear clothing that displays the name of (team name) even if (team name) have an unsuccessful season. .97 .97
I wear clothing that displays important messages about my team even if (team name) play poorly.a - -
ϕ Matrixc (Main Study; n = 402)
Construct 1 2 3
1. Management cooperation .80 .48 .38
2. Prosocial behavior .69** .73 .27
3. Performance tolerance .62** .52** .95
Notes. **p < .01. ITTC = item-to-total correlation. CR = composite reliability. AVE = average variance extracted.
aThese items were eliminated because of concerns regarding content validity. b χ2 (24) = 56.45; χ2/df = 2.35; CFI = .99; NNFI = .99; RMSEA = 0.058; SRMR = .027. c Correlations are taken from
ϕ matrix using LISREL (Version 8.8; Scientific Software International, Skokie, IL) and are reported in the lower triangle of the ϕ matrix; squared correlations are depicted in the upper triangle of
the ϕ matrix. The AVE values for the three fan-engagement dimensions are shown in boldface italic on the diagonal.

405
406  Yoshida et al.
a mixture of convenience and proportionate sampling
that was stratified by both age and gender. Before
distributing the questionnaires, 22 trained surveyors
observed an assigned block of the stands to estimate the
percentages of each gender (male/female) and age group
(ages between 18 and 29/ages between 30 and 49/ages
of 50 and above) among the spectators. Each surveyor
was responsible for distributing 20 self-administered
questionnaires according to the estimated gender and
age percentages. Of the 431 questionnaires distributed,
428 were returned, for a response rate of 99.3%. Among
the 428 forms returned, 26 were rejected because many
items were left blank. Thus there was a final usable
response rate of 93.3% (402 usable responses). Of the
total sample, 65.8% of the respondents were male. The
average age of the respondents was 39.9 years old. Age
was also classified into six categories. Approximately
one third of the subjects were between 30 and 39 years
old (30.3%), 28.6% were between 40 and 49 years old,
20.5% were 50 years or older, and 12.8% were between
20 and 29 years old.
Results
Assessment of the measures.  The psychometric
properties of the items were assessed through a confir-
matory factor analysis (CFA) using LISREL (Version
8.8; Scientific Software International, Skokie, IL). The
fit of the CFA for Study 1 is acceptable with, χ2 (24)
= 56.24, p < .01, χ2/df = 2.35, comparative fit index
(CFI) = .99, non-normed fit index (NNFI) = .99, root-
mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.058,
standardized root-mean-square residual (SRMR) = .027
(Hu & Bentler, 1999). Scale statistics, including factor
loadings (λ), composite reliability (CR), and average
variance extracted (AVE) values, are presented in Table
2. All items were loaded on their respective factors,
which ranged from .76 to .99. The CR values for all fac-
tors were greater than the recommended cutoff point of
.60 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988), indicating that the proposed
constructs were internally consistent. A further assess-
ment of construct reliability and discriminant validity
was conducted by an examination of the AVE values. The
AVE values for the three dimensions ranged from .73 to
.95, providing evidence of construct reliability (Fornell
& Larcker, 1981). Discriminant validity is indicated
when the AVE estimate for each construct exceeds the
squared correlations between the respective constructs.
In a total of three cases, the AVE values were consider-
ably greater than any squared correlations between the
dimensions (see Table 2). Thus, discriminant validity
was indicated.
Discussion
Study 1 was conducted to develop a conceptual model of
fan engagement and to assess the construct validity of the
proposed fan-engagement scale with college student and
sport consumer samples. The current study included the
three dimensions of management cooperation, prosocial
behavior, and performance tolerance that constitute fan
engagement. The elements of management cooperation
and prosocial behavior are attributed to the emerging
customer engagement theory in marketing (Brodie et
al., 2011; van Doorn et al., 2010; Yi & Gong, 2013). In
addition, on the basis of attitude-strength studies in the
sport marketing field (Funk & James, 2001; Mahony et
al., 2000), the dimension of performance tolerance was
believed to be a critical factor underlying fan engagement
in sport. This consideration led to the inclusion of perfor-
mance tolerance in our conceptual model. Conceptually,
the three-dimensional model reflects the professional
sport context, because professional sporting events can
create an environment in which sport consumers interact
with other fans (Oliver, 1999), cocreate unique experi-
ences (Decrop & Derbaix, 2010), and follow both suc-
cessful and unsuccessful teams (Mahony et al., 2000).
The results in Study 1 support our multidimensional
conceptualization.
Study 1 represents the initial effort to empirically test
the proposed multidimensional model of fan engagement.
Additional effort should be made to ascertain whether the
three dimensions and other cognitive (e.g., team identi-
fication), affective (e.g., positive affect), and behavioral
(e.g., BIRGing) constructs are distinct. In the next study,
we attempt to validate the proposed conceptualization
using a new sample of sport consumers. Through an
examination of the antecedents and consequences of fan
engagement, further evidence of construct and nomologi-
cal validity will be provided.
Study 2: Assessing Construct
and Nomological Validity
The objectives of Study 2 were (a) to provide further
evidence of construct validity of the fan-engagement scale
and (b) to assess its nomological validity by investigating
the antecedents and consequences of fan engagement.
Building from the sport management literature, we
examine three antecedents (team identification, positive
affect, and BIRGing) and two consequences (purchase
intention and referral intention) of fan engagement. We
attempt to extend previous research by incorporating fan
engagement into a traditional framework of sport con-
sumer behavior (Madrigal, 1995; Matsuoka, Chelladurai,
& Harada, 2003, Trail, Anderson, & Fink, 2005). In the
following section, research hypotheses are derived to
theorize the role of fan engagement in the formation of
sport consumer behavior.
Hypotheses
Previous research on sport consumer behavior has
focused on constructs such as team identification (Mad-
rigal, 1995; Matsuoka et al., 2003; Trail et al., 2005),
positive affect (Harrolle, Trail, Rodriguez, & Jordan,
2010; Trail et al., 2005; Wakefield, Blodgett, & Sloan,

1996), and BIRGing (Madrigal, 1995; Trail, Kim, Kwon,
Harrolle, Braunstein-Minkove, & Dick, 2012). This sec-
tion provides our rationale to integrate fan engagement
into a traditional framework of sport consumer behavior.
Figure 2 shows the preestablished relationships between
the traditional constructs. The preestablished paths in
the literature are denoted in solid arrows, and the newly
hypothesized paths are depicted in dotted arrows (see
Figure 2).
Antecedents of fan engagement.  In spectator sport,
Trail et al. (2005) provide one perspective on the ante-
cedents of fan engagement. Viewed broadly, there are
two primary routes to drive sport consumption behavior:
cognitive and affective. In the sport management litera-
ture, team identification and positive affect have been
used as significant cognitive and affective predictors of
fan loyalty (Madrigal, 1995; Matsuoka et al., 2003; Trail
et al., 2005). In this study, team identification is defined
as a consumer’s perceived connectedness to a sport team
and the tendency to experience the team’s successes
and failures as one’s own (Gwinner & Swanson, 2003;
Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Positive affect is defined as a
pleasurable feeling state that reflects emotions such as
Figure 2 — Nomogolical validation: assessing the antecedents and consequences of fan engagement.
Fan Engagement   407
happiness, joy, and contentment when watching sporting
events (Mazodier & Merunka, 2012; Wakefield et al.,
1996). Sport management researchers have confirmed
the predictive power of both team identification and
positive affect for behavioral consequences (Matsuoka
et al., 2003; Trail et al., 2005; Wakefield et al., 1996). In
the current study, we further propose that team identifi-
cation and positive affect are each positively related to
fan engagement (Figure 2). This proposition stems from
the emerging theory of customer engagement in market-
ing (van Doorn et al., 2010; Verhoef et al., 2010). Van
Doorn et al. (2010) conceptualize that consumer-based
antecedents of customer engagement include cogni-
tive identity, affective responses, trust, commitment,
consumption goals, resources, and perceived costs and
benefits. In empirical research, Ahearne et al. (2005) find
that consumer-company identification leads to consumer
extrarole behaviors such as cooperation, service learn-
ing, and advocacy. In addition, Auh et al. (2007) suggest
that a consumer’s affective commitment has a positive
impact on consumer cooperation behavior. According to
these studies, consumers will be more likely to engage in
extrarole, cooperative behaviors if they have higher levels
of consumer-team identification and greater affective
408  Yoshida et al.
responses to a sport team. Because our research model
includes three fan engagement dimensions (management
cooperation, prosocial behavior, and performance toler-
ance), the following hypotheses are proposed:
Hypothesis 1: Team identification has positive effects
on management cooperation (H1a), prosocial behav-
ior (H1b), and performance tolerance (H1c).
Hypothesis 2: Positive affect has positive effects on
management cooperation (H2a), prosocial behavior
(H2b), and performance tolerance (H2c).
We attempt to extend the existing literature by
examining the effect of BIRGing on fan engagement.
BIRGing refers to a sport spectator’s tendency to publicly
display his or her association with a successful sport
team (Cialdini et al., 1976). BIRGing may emerge when
a person has a sense of accomplishment based on the
glory of his or her favorite team and publicizes one’s
relationship with the successful team through the display
of visible products such as team apparel (Cialdini et al.,
1976). Previous research provides a theoretical basis for
the relationship between BIRGing and fan engagement.
From one perspective, the favorable external image of a
company strengthens a consumer’s extrarole behaviors
such as cooperation, service learning, and advocacy
(Ahearne et al., 2005). BIRGing, like the external image
of a company, has been discussed in terms of its role of
enhancing one’s external image and self-esteem (Cialdini
et al., 1976; Cialdini & Richardson, 1980). According to
Cialdini et al. (1976), BIRGing is an image-management
tactic that sport consumers often use to display their
connections with a highly successful sport team to
increase self-esteem. Discussion of customer extrarole
behaviors (Ahearne et al., 2005) suggests that customer
engagement is not only intrinsically motivated (i.e.,
driven by team identification and positive affect) but also
extrinsically motivated (i.e., BIRGing) in light of the
visible social setting in which sport consumers support
and cooperate with their favorite sport teams. We test
the following hypothesis derived from these arguments:
Hypothesis 3: BIRGing has positive effects on
management cooperation (H3a), prosocial behavior
(H3b), and performance tolerance (H3c)
Consequences of fan engagement.  Recent studies
provide support for the impact of fan engagement on
behavioral consequences. Conceptually, van Doorn et
al. (2010) and Verhoef et al. (2010) contend that higher
levels of customer engagement will lead to greater repeat
purchase and consumption in transactional exchanges.
In addition, it is expected that customer engagement will
be positively related to a consumer’s friend-invitation
process (Kumar et al., 2010). More engaged consumers
are more likely to invite friends to future sporting events.
On the basis of this discussion, we attempt to empiri-
cally examine the impact of fan-engagement behaviors
(i.e., management cooperation, prosocial behavior, and
performance tolerance) on a consumer’s purchase and
referral intentions. Therefore, the following hypotheses
are derived:
Hypothesis 4: Management cooperation has posi-
tive effects on purchase intention (H4a) and referral
intention (H4b).
Hypothesis 5: Prosocial behavior has positive effects
on purchase intention (H5a) and referral intention
(H5b).
Hypothesis 6: Performance tolerance has positive
effects on purchase intention (H6a) and referral
intention (H6b).
Method
Measurement.  To measure the three dimensions
of fan engagement, the same measures used in Study
1 were administered in Study 2. To measure team
identification (Trail & James, 2001), positive affect
(Mazodier & Merunka, 2012), BIRGing (Trail et al.,
2012), purchase intention (Yoshida & James, 2010;
Yoshida, James, & Cronin, 2013a), and referral inten-
tion (Wangenheim & Bayón, 2007), we adapted items
used to measure the constructs from previous research
(see Appendix A). Fan engagement, team identification,
positive affect, BIRGing, and purchase intention were
measured with a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Refer-
ral intention was measured with a single-item scale by
asking respondents how many individuals they intend
to invite to the soccer club’s future games in the cur-
rent season.
Data collection.  In Study 2, data were collected from
spectators attending another J. League Division II game
in a large city in western Japan. As in Study 1, we used a
mixture of convenience and proportionate sampling that
was stratified by both age and gender. Questionnaires
were distributed in the stands before the start of the
game. Before distributing the questionnaires, 17 trained
surveyors observed an assigned block of the stands to
estimate the percentages of each gender (male/female)
and age group (ages between 18 and 29/ages between
30 and 49/ages of 50 and above) among the spectators.
Each surveyor was responsible for distributing 30 self-
administered questionnaires according to the estimated
percentages of gender and age.
Of the 500 questionnaires distributed, 493 were
returned, for a response rate of 98.6%. Among the 493
forms returned, 21 were rejected because many items
were left blank, which yielded a final usable response
rate of 94.4% (n = 472). Of the total sample, 64.6%
of the respondents were male. The average age of the
respondents was 40.77 years old. Age was also trans-
formed into a categorical variable. Approximately one
third of the subjects were between 40 and 49 years old
(31.4%), 26.7% were 50 years old and above, 18.9% were
between 30 and 39 years old, and 18.0% were between
20 and 29 years old. The correlations between observed

variables and the raw means and standard deviations for
all survey items are shown in Appendix B.
Results
Assessment of the measures.  Through a CFA using
LISREL (Version 8.8), we assessed the psychometric
properties of the scale items. The fit indices indicate
the measurement model is an acceptable fit to the
data, (χ 2 (182) = 467.41, χ 2/df = 2.57, CFI = .99,
NNFI = .98, RMSEA = 0.058, SRMR = .036). Scale
statistics, including factor loadings (λ), CR, and AVE,
are presented in Table 3. All items were loaded on their
respective constructs, and the factor loadings for the
latent constructs ranged from .70 to .99. The CR values
for all factors were greater than the recommended
cutoff point of .60 (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988). A further
assessment of construct reliability and discriminant
validity was conducted by an examination of AVE
values. The AVE values for the proposed constructs
ranged from .65 to .93, providing evidence of construct
reliability (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Discriminant
validity was assessed by comparing the AVE estimate
for each construct with the squared correlations between
the respective constructs (see Table 3). In all cases,
the AVE values were considerably greater than any
squared correlations between all pairs of the constructs.
Therefore, discriminant validity was indicated (Fornell
& Larcker, 1981).
Hypothesis testing.  Table 4 shows the results of
hypothesis testing. The hypothesized model demonstrated
an acceptable fit to the data, χ2 (186) = 500.65, χ2/
df = 2.71, CFI = .99, NNFI = .98, RMSEA = 0.059,
SRMR = .044. The effects of team identification on
BIRGing, management cooperation, prosocial behavior,
performance tolerance, and purchase intention were
positive and significant. The impact of team identification
on referral intention was not significant. These results
provided support for H1a, H1b, and H1c. As an affective
antecedent, the construct of positive affect had significant
influences on BIRGing, management cooperation,
performance tolerance, and purchase intention, whereas
positive affect had no significant impact on prosocial
behavior and referral intention. Thus, H2a and H2c were
supported, whereas H2b was rejected. Furthermore, we
tested the impact of BIRGing on the fan engagement
dimensions. The findings indicate that BIRGing
positively influences management cooperation, prosocial
behavior, and referral intention in support of H3a and H3b.
However, when performance tolerance and purchase
intention were the endogenous variables, BIRGing did
not approach statistical significance.
Moreover, we examined the effects of the three
dimensions of fan engagement on behavioral conse-
quences. The results indicate that purchase intention is
positively influenced by management cooperation and
performance tolerance, and referral intention is positively
affected by prosocial behavior. On the other hand, the
Fan Engagement   409
effects of management cooperation and performance
tolerance on referral intention were nonsignificant. In
addition, the impact of prosocial behavior on purchase
intention was nonsignificant. When taken together, H4a,
H5b, and H6a were supported, but H4b, H5a, and H6b were
not supported. The ability of the exogenous variables
to explain variations in the endogenous variables was
assessed by R2 values (see Table 4). The R2 values for
BIRGing, management cooperation, prosocial behavior,
performance tolerance, purchase intention, and referral
intention were .33, .64, .34, .47, .69, and .07, respectively.
Discussion
In assessing the magnitude of the path coefficients
(Cohen, 1988), the results in Study 2 are meaningfully
supportive of five hypotheses (H1a, H1c, H3a, H3b, and
H6a) and help us identify the antecedents and conse-
quences of fan engagement and generalize the findings to
a context that involves actual sport consumer behaviors.
The results indicate that (a) team identification is an
important precursor of all the dimensions of fan engage-
ment, (b) BIRGing is a predictor of management coopera-
tion and prosocial behavior, and (c) positive affect is a
statistically significant but not meaningful antecedent of
management cooperation and performance tolerance (the
amount of explained variance < 6%; Cohen, 1988). Study
2 explained the relationships between team identification,
positive affect, BIRGing, and fan engagement.
With respect to the consequences of fan engagement,
our study shows how a consumer’s purchase intention
is influenced by the fan-engagement dimensions and
other predictor variables. The findings indicate that
performance tolerance has a positive effect on purchase
intention even if the simultaneous effects of positive affect
and team identification are examined. In summation, the
results of Study 2 support the notion that team identifica-
tion, positive affect, BIRGing, and the fan-engagement
dimensions are distinct constructs that have significant
effects on purchase intention and nonsignificant impact
on referral intention.
General Discussion
Although research investigating issues on sport con-
sumers’ engagement behavior spans nearly 30 years
(see Table 1), we are still trying to understand how and
why it works. The results of this study further extend
our understanding by testing a model that integrates fan
engagement into a traditional sport consumer behavior
framework. Because examining the nontransactional,
behavioral facets of fan-engagement behaviors goes
beyond traditional sport management concepts such as
team identification, positive affect, and BIRGing, the
current study contributes significantly to the literature
and practice in four different ways.
First, we synthesized the recent conceptual develop-
ment of customer engagement in marketing (Brodie et
410
Table 3  Descriptive Statistics, ϕ Matrix, and the Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results
ϕ Matrixa (n = 472)
Construct 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 λ CR AVE
1. Team identification 1.00 .36 .30 .53 .19 .45 .56 .03 .83–.96 .93 .81
2. Positive affect .60** 1.00 .21 .34 .11 .24 .33 .01 .88–.95 .94 .85
3. BIRGing .55** .46** 1.00 .41 .30 .19 .21 .05 .88–.96 .95 .85
4. Management cooperation .73** .58** .64** 1.00 .33 .27 .39 .02 .75–.90 .88 .71
5. Prosocial behavior .43** .33** .55** .58** 1.00 .18 .15 .04 .70–.88 .86 .68
6. Performance tolerance .67** .49** .44** .52** .43** 1.00 .56 .03 .95–.99 .98 .93
7. Purchase intention .75** .58** .46** .62** .39** .75** 1.00 .02 .77–.86 .85 .65
8. Referral intentionb .18** .11* .22** .14** .21** .17** .15** 1.00 1.00 - -
Meanc 5.10 5.49 4.93 4.60 3.10 4.85 5.50 2.79
SDc 1.55 1.13 1.46 1.30 1.60 1.95 1.43 2.47

Notes. *p < .05. **p < .01. χ2 (182) = 467.41, χ2/df = 2.57, comparative fit index = .99, non-normed fit index = .99, root-mean-square error of approximation = 0.058, standardized root-mean-square residual
= .027. BIRGing = basking in reflected glory.
a Correlations are taken from ϕ matrix using LISREL (Version 8.8; Scientific Software International, Skokie, IL) and are reported in the lower triangle of the ϕ matrix. Squared correlations are depicted in

the upper triangle of the ϕ matrix. b The construct of referral intention was measured on a single-item scale (“The number of referrals I will make for attending (team name)’s future games in this season”).
c The mean scores and standard deviations for the eight constructs are calculated using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 20.0).
 Fan Engagement   411

Table 4  Nomological Validation: Hypothesis Testing

Standardized Path
Path Coefficient Hypothesis Testing
Team identification → BIRGing .43** (7.78)
Team identification → Management cooperation .47** (9.41) H1a Supported
Team identification → Prosocial behavior .19** (3.22) H1b Supported
Team identification → Performance tolerance .55** (10.33) H1c Supported
Team identification → Purchase intention .33** (5.00)
Team identification → Referral intention .09 (1.02)
Positive affect → BIRGing .20** (3.83)
Positive affect → Management cooperation .15** (3.45) H2a Supported
Positive affect → Prosocial behavior .02 (.29) H2b Not supported
Positive affect → Performance tolerance .13** (2.66) H2c Supported
Positive affect → Purchase intention .12** (2.63)
Positive affect → Referral intention –.02 (–.33)
BIRGing → Management cooperation .32** (7.52) H3a Supported
BIRGing → Prosocial behavior .44** (8.11) H3b Supported
BIRGing → Performance tolerance .08 (1.78) H3c Not supported
BIRGing → Purchase intention –.03 (–.56)
BIRGing → Referral intention .16* (2.25)
Management cooperation → Purchase intention .13* (1.99) H4a Supported
Management cooperation → Referral intention –.12 (–1.35) H4b Not supported
Prosocial behavior → Purchase intention –.03 (–.71) H5a Not supported
Prosocial behavior → Referral intention .13* (2.11) H5b Supported
Performance tolerance → Purchase intention .43** (8.81) H6a Supported
Performance tolerance → Referral intention .07 (1.03) H6b Not supported
R2 Fit indices
BIRGing .33 χ2(df) 500.65(186)
Management cooperation .64 χ2/df 2.71
Prosocial behavior .34 CFI .99
Performance tolerance .47 NNFI .98
Purchase intention .69 RMSEA .059
Referral intention .07 SRMR .044
Notes. *p < .05. **p < .01. BIRGing = basking in reflected glory. CFI = comparative fit index. NNFI = nonnormed fit index. RMSEA = root-
mean-square error of approximation. SRMR = standardized root-mean-square residual.

al., 2011; van Doorn et al., 2010; Verhoef et al., 2010)
and the defining attributes of sport fans’ engagement
behavior (e.g., de Ruyter & Wetzels, 2000; Fisher &
Wakefield, 1998; Holt, 1995). Traditionally, the con-
cept of customer engagement has been viewed as both
a transactional and a nontransactional behavior in the
sport marketing literature (see Table 1). However, given
the theoretical perspective of Verhoef et al. (2010), we
excluded transactional consumer behavior from the
idea of fan engagement and conversely included the ele-
ments of management cooperation, prosocial behavior,
and performance tolerance behaviors in our model (see
Figure 2). We added the dimension of performance tol-
erance to the conceptualization (de Ruyter & Wetzels,
2000) because enthusiastic sport consumers engage
in conspicuous displays of sport fandom to maintain
their commitment to a favorite team even if the team
is unsuccessful and performs poorly (Funk & James,
2001; Mahony et al., 2000). Incorporating the theoreti-
cally relevant element grounded in sport phenomena
will advance our understanding of fan engagement in
spectator sport.
As a second contribution, the current study repre-
sents one of the first attempts to validate the idea of fan
engagement in the sport management field. Past research
predominantly viewed customer engagement as a global
construct (Keller, 2003; Schau et al., 2009; Sprott et
al., 2009). Although a more recent study (Brodie et al.,
2011) demonstrated a multidimensional approach to the
conceptualization of customer engagement, there has
412  Yoshida et al.
been a lack of empirical research on the dimensionality
of customer engagement. In this research, measures for
the three dimensions of fan engagement (management
cooperation, prosocial behavior, and performance
tolerance) were generated, refined, and validated with
spectators attending at two professional soccer events.
The factor analyses in Study 1 and Study 2 were sup-
portive of the convergent and discriminant validity of
the proposed fan-engagement scale.
Our third major finding is that team identification
and BIRGing are the dominant factors in enhancing fan
engagement (see Table 4). Team identification was found
to be a significant predictor of management cooperation,
prosocial behavior, and performance tolerance. It is also
worth noting that BIRGing had a more powerful effect
on the dimension of prosocial behavior than team iden-
tification. However, the construct of positive affect had
only small effects on the fan-engagement dimensions.
This means that team identification and BIRGing play a
particularly important role in increasing consumers’ level
of fan engagement.
Fourth, this research explains the important mediat-
ing role of performance tolerance in the development of
loyalty intentions. The results of hypothesis testing (see
Table 4) indicate that the effects of performance toler-
ance and team identification on purchase intention are
positive and significant. This research also reveals team
identification to have a significant effect on performance
tolerance. Thus, this study extends previous team identi-
fication theory by suggesting that performance tolerance
may partially mediate the relationship between team
identification and purchase intention.
For practitioners, some conclusions can be drawn
that may better inform their marketing decisions. The
results from this article clearly demonstrate that pur-
chase intention is affected by fan-engagement behaviors.
Engaging consumers in extrarole behaviors will enhance
the likelihood of repeat purchasing. By providing
extrarole engagement opportunities for consumers (e.g.,
consumer-to-consumer interactions, voluntary participa-
tion in marketing programs, collaborative product cus-
tomization, and reciprocal service learning and delivery),
sport marketers may be able to contribute to increasing
the profitability of engaged consumers. This is especially
important with the proliferation of social media, where
sport organizations can engage their fan base as well as
foster fan-to-fan social interaction.
Given the significant impact of fan engagement on
sport consumer behavior, sport marketers should begin
to measure fan engagement to monitor and benchmark
the level of engagement among their target fan base. This
information can be used and integrated into marketing
strategies. For example, sport marketers can monitor fan
engagement to assess the impact of operational changes
(e.g., merchandise mix, facilities, fan loyalty programs,
fan communities, and social media) on fans’ engagement
level. In addition, sport leagues should consider measur-
ing fan engagement of all teams to evaluate which teams
are successful or unsuccessful in engaging consumers and
eventually for increasing profitability.
Limitations and Directions for
Future Research
Several limitations may influence the results of this study.
First, the proposed fan-engagement scale was tested in
a spectator sport setting. The lack of applicability of the
findings to other settings should be acknowledged. The
factor structure depends on the context, and the defining
attributes may change over time. Additional effort should
be made to identify which engagement points will have
greater importance in other settings. The relevance of the
engagement dimensions varies across sports (e.g., ama-
teur and professional sports), consumption types (e.g.,
spectator and participant sports), athletic levels (Division
I and Division II), and event types (e.g., recurring events,
annual events, and participant- versus spectator-driven
events).
Second, results of the current study explained only
7% of the variance in referral intention. Although the
effects of BIRGing and prosocial behavior approached
statistical significance, these influences are not mean-
ingful because of the small effect size (Cohen, 1988).
On the other hand, as marketing researchers have been
interested in both self-brand connection and communal-
brand connection (e.g., Rindfleisch, Burroughs, & Wong,
2009), there might be two different types of sequential
relationships: (a) the relationships among team identifica-
tion, performance tolerance, and purchase intention on
the basis of self-team connection and (b) the relationships
among BIRGing, prosocial behavior, and referral inten-
tion on the basis of communal-team connection. Future
research should use more accurate measures of referral
intention to improve the predictive power of BIRGing
and prosocial behavior for referral intention.
Third, we did not examine how consumer behav-
ior is contingent on consumer characteristics such as
demographic, psychological, and relational moderators
(Yoshida & Gordon, 2012). A suggestion for future
research is to examine the moderating effects of these
demographic, psychological, and relational variables on
the relationship between nontransactional fan engage-
ment behavior and transactional consumer behavior.
The fourth limitation might be the omission of
important variables. For example, we examined only
purchase and referral intentions in Study 2 and did not
include additional behavioral consequences. As shown in
Table 1, transactional sport consumer behavior contains a
variety of game-related (e.g., attend, read, watch, listen,
purchase, BIRFing, and CORSing) and relationship-
building (e.g., fan loyalty programs, season-ticket pur-
chase, fan appreciation day participation, and premium
seating) activities. Future research should address the
relationship between fan engagement and various trans-
actional behaviors.

Finally, the effects of positive affect on fan engage-
ment and loyalty intentions were weak or nonsignificant
in the context of professional soccer. On the contrary,
Yoshida, James, and Cronin (2013b) found that the major
predictor of consumer behavioral intentions is positive
affect in the college football setting. If the impact of posi-
tive affect varies across American and Japanese sports, the
weak or nonsignificant effects of positive affect on behav-
ioral consequences might be implausible in American
sport. This limitation reinforces an earlier point regarding
the need to test these ideas in a variety of sport contexts.
This study was driven by important research ques-
tions, including how fan engagement is conceptualized
and measured in the sport setting and the roles of fan
engagement in a framework of sport consumer behavior.
Conceptualizing the nontransactional side of extrarole
consumer behavior, the proposed fan-engagement
construct extends previous research that has primarily
focused on the transactional aspect of sport consumer
behavior. The fan-engagement scale developed here
provides numerous opportunities to continue advancing
our knowledge of sport consumer behavior.
Acknowledgment
This research was funded by the Japan Professional Football
League (J. League).
References
Ahearne, M., Bhattacharya, C.B., & Gruen, T. (2005).
Antecedents and consequences of customer-company
identification: Expanding the role of relationship market-
ing. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 574–585.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.574
Auh, S., Bell, S.J., McLeod, C.S., & Shih, E. (2007). Co-pro-
duction and customer loyalty in financial services. Journal
of Retailing, 83, 359–370. doi:10.1016/j.jretai.2007.03.001
Bagozzi, R.P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural
equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 16(1), 74–94. doi:10.1007/BF02723327
Bettencourt, L.A. (1997). Customer voluntary performance:
Customers as partners in service delivery. Journal of Retail-
ing, 73, 383–406. doi:10.1016/S0022-4359(97)90024-5
Bristow, D.N., & Sebastian, R.J. (2001). Holy cow! Wait ‘til
next year! A closer look at the brand loyalty of Chicago
Cubs baseball fans. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18,
256–275. doi:10.1108/07363760110392976
Brodie, R.J., Hollebeek, L.D., Juric, B., & Ilic, A. (2011). Cus-
tomer engagement: Conceptual domain, fundamental prop-
ositions, and implications for research. Journal of Service
Research, 14, 252–271. doi:10.1177/1094670511411703
Campbell, R.M., Aiken, D., & Kent, A. (2004). Beyond BIRG-
ing and CORFing: Continuing the exploration of fan
behavior. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 13, 151–157.
Cialdini, R.B., Borden, R.J., Thorne, A., Walker, M.R., Free-
man, S., & Sloan, L.R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory:
Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality and
Fan Engagement   413
Social Psychology, 34, 366–375. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.34.3.366
Cialdini, R.B., & Richardson, K.D. (1980). Two indirect tactics
of image management: Basking and blasting. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 406–415.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.39.3.406
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Decrop, A., & Derbaix, C. (2010). Pride in contemporary sport
consumption: A marketing perspective. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 38, 586–603. doi:10.1007/
s11747-009-0167-8
de Ruyter, K., & Wetzels, M. (2000). With a little help from my
fans: Extending models of prosocial behaviour to explain
supporters’ intentions to buy soccer club shares. Journal of
Economic Psychology, 21, 387–409. doi:10.1016/S0167-
4870(00)00010-6
Dietz-Uhler, B., & Murrell, A.J. (1999). Examining fan reac-
tions to game outcomes: A longitudinal study of social
identity. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22(1), 15–27.
Dholakia, U.M., Blazevic, V., Wiertz, C., & Algesheimer,
R. (2009). Communal service delivery: How custom-
ers benefit from participation in firm-hosted virtual P3
communities. Journal of Service Research, 12, 208–226.
doi:10.1177/1094670509338618
Fisher, R.J., & Wakefield, K. (1998). Factors leading to group
identification: A field study of winners and losers. Psychol-
ogy and Marketing, 15, 23–40. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-
6793(199801)15:1<23::AID-MAR3>3.0.CO;2-P
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equa-
tion models with unobservable variables and measurement
error. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
doi:10.2307/3151312
Füller, J., Matzler, K., & Hoppe, M. (2008). Brand community
members as a source of innovation. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 25, 608–619. doi:10.1111/
j.1540-5885.2008.00325.x
Funk, D.C., & James, J.D. (2001). The Psychological Con-
tinuum Model: A conceptual framework for understanding
an individual’s psychological connection to sport. Sport
Management Review, 4, 119–150. doi:10.1016/S1441-
3523(01)70072-1
Grewal, D., Monroe, K.B., & Krishnan, R. (1998). The
effects of price-comparison advertising on buyers’
perceptions of acquisition value, transaction value, and
behavioral intentions. Journal of Marketing, 62, 46–59.
doi:10.2307/1252160
Gruen, T.W., Summers, J.O., & Acito, F. (2000). Relationship
marketing activities, commitment, and membership behav-
iors in professional associations. Journal of Marketing, 64,
34–49. doi:10.1509/jmkg.64.3.34.18030
Gwinner, K., & Swanson, S. (2003). A model of fan
identification: Antecedents and sponsorship out-
comes. Journal of Services Marketing, 17, 275–294.
doi:10.1108/08876040310474828
Harrolle, H., Trail, G., Rodriguez, A., & Jordan, J. (2010).
Conative loyalty of Latino and non-Latino professional
baseball fans. Journal of Sport Management, 24, 456–471.
414  Yoshida et al.
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.
Hollebeek, L.D. (2011). Demystifying customer brand engage-
ment: Exploring the loyalty nexus. Journal of Marketing
Management, 27(7-8), 785–807. doi:10.1080/02672
57X.2010.500132
Holt, D.B. (1995). How consumers consume: A typology of con-
sumption practices. The Journal of Consumer Research,
22, 1–16. doi:10.1086/209431
Hoyer, W.D., Chandy, R., Dorotic, M., Krafft, M., & Singh,
A. (2010). Consumer Cocreation in New Product Devel-
opment. Journal of Service Research, 13, 283–296.
doi:10.1177/1094670510375604
Hu, L.T., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes
in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria
versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling,
6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
Hunt, K.A., Bristol, T., & Bashaw, R.E. (1999). A conceptual
approach to classifying sports fans. Journal of Services
Marketing, 13, 439–452. doi:10.1108/08876049910298720
James, J., Breezeel, G., & Ross, S. (2001). A two-stage study
of the reasons to begin and continue tailgating. Sport
Marketing Quarterly, 10, 221–222.
James, J.D., Kolbe, R.H., & Trail, G.T. (2002). Psychological
connection to a new sports team: Building or maintain-
ing the consumer base? Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11,
215–226.
Jowdy, E., & McDonald, M.A. (2002). Relationship marketing
and interactive fan festivals: The Women’s United Soccer
Association’s ‘soccer sensation.’ International Journal of
Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 4, 295–311.
Keller, K.L. (2003). Strategic brand management: Building,
measuring and managing brand equity (2nd ed.). Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kim, Y.K., Trail, G., & Ko, Y.J. (2011). The influence of relation-
ship quality on sport consumption behaviors: An empirical
examination of the relationship quality framework. Journal
of Sport Management, 25, 576–592.
Kumar, V., Aksoy, L., Donkers, B., Venkatesan, R., Wiesel,
T., & Tillmanns, S. (2010). Undervalued or overval-
ued customers: Capturing total customer engagement
value. Journal of Service Research, 13, 297–310.
doi:10.1177/1094670510375602
Libai, B., Bolton, R., Bügel, M.S., de Ruyter, K., Götz, O.,
Risselada, H., & Stephen, A.T. (2010). Customer-to-
customer interactions: Broadening the scope of word of
mouth research. Journal of Service Research, 13, 267–282.
doi:10.1177/1094670510375600
Madrigal, R. (1995). Cognitive and affective determinants of
fan satisfaction with sporting event attendance. Journal of
Leisure Research, 27, 205–227.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B.E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater:
A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational
identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13,
103–123. doi:10.1002/job.4030130202
Mahony, D.F., Madrigal, R., & Howard, D.R. (2000). Using the
psychological commitment to team (PCT) scale to seg-
ment sport consumers based on loyalty. Sport Marketing
Quarterly, 9, 15–25.
Mahony, D.F., Nakazawa, M., Funk, D.C., James, J.D., &
Gladden, J.M. (2002). Motivational factors influencing
the behavior of J. League spectators. Sport Management
Review, 5(1), 1–24. doi:10.1016/S1441-3523(02)70059-4
Marketing Science Institute. (2010). MSI 2010-2012 research
priorities. Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
Matsuoka, H., Chelladurai, P., & Harada, M. (2003). Direct and
interaction effects of team identification and satisfaction
on intention to attend games. Sport Marketing Quarterly,
12, 244–253.
Mazodier, M., & Merunka, D. (2012). Achieving brand loyalty
through sponsorship: The role of fit and self-congruity.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40, 807–
820. doi:10.1007/s11747-011-0285-y
Oliver, R.L. (1999). Whence consumer loyalty? Journal of
Marketing, 63(5), 33–44. doi:10.2307/1252099
Patterson, P., Yu, T., & de Ruyter, K. (2006, December). Under-
standing customer engagement in services. Proceedings
of the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy
(ANZMAC) Conference 2006: Advancing theory, maintain-
ing relevance, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. Retrieved
September 3, 2012, from http:// conferences.anzmac.org/
ANZMAC2006/documents/Pattinson_Paul.pdf.
Pritchard, M.P., & Funk, D.C. (2006). Symbiosis and substitu-
tion in spectator sport. Journal of Sport Management, 20,
299–321.
Rindfleisch, A., Burroughs, J., & Wong, N. (2009). The safety
of objects: Materialism, existential insecurity, and brand
connection. The Journal of Consumer Research, 36, 1–16.
doi:10.1086/595718
Ross, S.D., Russell, K.C., & Bang, H. (2008). An empirical
assessment of spectator-based brand equity. Journal of
Sport Management, 22, 322–337.
Rust, R.T., Lemon, K.N., & Zeithaml, V.A. (2004). Return on
marketing: Using customer equity to focus marketing
strategy. Journal of Marketing, 68, 109–127. doi:10.1509/
jmkg.68.1.109.24030
Schau, H.J., Muñiz, A.M., & Arnold, E.J. (2009). How brand
community practices create value. Journal of Marketing,
73(5), 30–51. doi:10.1509/jmkg.73.5.30
Sprott, D., Czellar, S., & Spangenberg, E. (2009). The impor-
tance of a general measure of brand engagement on market
behavior: Development and validation of a scale. JMR,
Journal of Marketing Research, 46, 92–104. doi:10.1509/
jmkr.46.1.92
Swanson, S.R., Gwinner, K., Larson, B.V., & Janda, S. (2003).
Motivations of college student game attendance and word-
of-mouth behavior: The impact of gender differences.
Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12, 151–162.
Tian, K.T., Bearden, W.O., & Hunter, G.L. (2001). Consum-
ers’ need for uniqueness: Scale development and valida-
tion. The Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 50–66.
doi:10.1086/321947
Trail, G.T., Anderson, D.F., & Fink, J.S. (2005). Consumer
satisfaction and identity theory: A model of sport spectator
conative loyalty. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 14, 98–112.

Trail, G.T., Fink, J.S., & Anderson, D.F. (2003). Sport specta-
tor consumption behavior. Sport Marketing Quarterly,
12, 8–17.
Trail, G., & James, J. (2001). The motivation scale for sport
consumption: Assessment of the scale’s psychometric
properties. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 108–127.
Trail, G.T., Kim, Y.K., Kwon, H.H., Harrolle, M.G., Braunstein-
Minkove, J.R., & Dick, R. (2012). The effects of vicarious
achievement and team identification on BIRGing and
CORFing: Testing mediating and moderating effects.
Sport Management Review, 15, 345–354. doi:10.1016/j.
smr.2011.11.002
van Doorn, J., Lemon, K.N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D.,
Pirner, P., & Verhoef, P.C. (2010). Customer engage-
ment behavior: Theoretical foundations and research
directions. Journal of Service Research, 13, 253–266.
doi:10.1177/1094670510375599
Verhoef, P.C., Reinartz, W.J., & Krafft, M. (2010). Customer
engagement as a new perspective in customer man-
agement. Journal of Service Research, 13, 247–252.
doi:10.1177/1094670510375461
Vivek, S.D. (2009). A scale of consumer engagement (Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation). Department of Management
& Marketing, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL.
Wakefield, K.L., Blodgett, J.G., & Sloan, H.J. (1996). Measure-
ment and management of the sportscape. Journal of Sport
Management, 10, 15–31.
Wangenheim, F., & Bayón, T. (2007). The chain from customer
satisfaction via word-of-mouth referrals to new customer
acquisition. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
35, 233–249. doi:10.1007/s11747-007-0037-1
Wann, D.L., & Branscombe, N.R. (1990). Die-hard and fair-
weather fans: Effects of identification on BIRGing and
Fan Engagement   415
CORFing tendencies. Journal of Sport and Social Issues,
14, 103–117. doi:10.1177/019372359001400203
Wann, D.L., Melnick, M.J., Russell, G.W., & Pease, D.G.
(2001). Sport fans: The psychology and social impact of
spectators. New York, NY: Routledge.
Westerbeek, H.M., & Shilbury, D. (2003). A conceptual model
for sport services marketing research: Integrating quality,
value and satisfaction. International Journal of Sports
Marketing & Sponsorship, 5, 11–30.
Yi, Y., & Gong, T. (2013). Customer value co-creation
behavior: Scale development and validation. Journal
of Business Research, 66, 1279–1284. doi:10.1016/j.
jbusres.2012.02.026
Yoshida, M., & Gordon, B. (2012). Who is more influenced
by customer equity drivers? A moderator analysis in a
professional soccer context. Sport Management Review,
15, 389–403. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2012.03.001
Yoshida, M., & James, J.D. (2010). Customer satisfaction with
game and service experiences: Antecedents and conse-
quences. Journal of Sport Management, 24, 338–361.
Yoshida, M., James, J.D., & Cronin, J.J. (2013a). Sport event
innovativeness: Conceptualization, measurement, and its
impact on consumer behavior. Sport Management Review,
16, 68–84. doi:10.1016/j.smr.2012.03.003
Yoshida, M., James, J.D., & Cronin, J.J. (2013b). Value creation:
Assessing the relationships between quality, consump-
tion value, and behavioral intentions at sporting events.
International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship,
14, 126–148.
Zaichkowsky, J.L. (1985). Measuring the involvement con-
struct. The Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 341–352.
doi:10.1086/208520
Appendix A  Survey Items in Study 2
Construct Item λ CR AVE
Team identification .93 .81
I consider myself to be a “real” fan of (team name). .83
I would experience a loss if I had to stop being a fan of (team name). .90
Being a fan of (team name) is very important to me. .96
Positive affect .94 .85
Watching games of (team name) at this stadium makes me happy. .94
Watching games of (team name) at this stadium gives me pleasure. .95
I feel good when I watch games of (team name) at this stadium. .88
BIRGing .95 .85
I would like to let others know about my association with (team name) when the team wins. .88
I would like to publicize my connection with (team name) when the team plays really well. .96
I would like to tell others about my association with (team name) when the team performs well. .93
Management cooperation .88 .71
I try to work cooperatively with my team. .90
I do things to make my team’s event management easier. .87
The employees of (team name) get my full cooperation. .75
Prosocial behavior .86 .68
I often interact with other fans to talk about issues related to (team name). .87
I often advise other fans on how to support (team name). .88
I spend time on social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) sharing information with other fans of (team .70
name).
Performance tolerance .98 .93
I wear apparel which represents the fans of (team name) even if the team has an unsuccessful season. .95
I display the logo of (team name) on my clothing even if (team name) do not perform well. .99
I wear clothing that displays the name of (team name) even if (team name) have an unsuccessful season. .95
Purchase intention .85 .65
The probability that you will attend another sporting event of (team name) is (“very low/very high”). .78
The likelihood that you would actively buy additional products (apparel and goods) from (team name) is .86
(“very low/very high”).
The probability that you will spend more than 50% of your spectator sports budget on (team name) is .77
(“very low/very high”).
Referral intention - -
The number of referrals I will make for attending (team name)’s future games in this season is ____.a 1.00
Notes. a Referral intention was measured by a single item that asked the number of referrals.

416
View publication stats
Appendix B  Item Means, Standard Deviations (SD), and Pearson Correlations
Item Correlation Matrix (n = 472)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
1. TID1 1.00
2. TID2 .69 1.00
3. TID3 .79 .85 1.00
4. PA1 .46 .44 .46 1.00
5. PA2 .49 .50 .51 .90 1.00
6. PA3 .49 .49 .49 .84 .85 1.00
7. BIRG1 .54 .43 .51 .38 .43 .44 1.00
8. BIRG2 .54 .43 .50 .35 .39 .38 .84 1.00
9. BIRG3 .51 .42 .50 .37 .42 .40 .81 .90 1.00
10. MC1 .61 .60 .68 .45 .48 .49 .54 .56 .53 1.00
11. MC2 .51 .51 .57 .39 .43 .42 .44 .47 .45 .80 1.00
12. MC3 .46 .45 .50 .30 .34 .37 .45 .53 .50 .66 .69 1.00
13. PB1 .48 .38 .40 .27 .29 .34 .40 .42 .38 .49 .43 .54 1.00
14. PB2 .38 .32 .34 .23 .27 .27 .42 .44 .42 .46 .42 .49 .78 1.00
15. PB3 .36 .29 .31 .18 .21 .25 .34 .38 .36 .36 .29 .35 .60 .63 1.00
16. PT1 .61 .53 .62 .38 .43 .42 .37 .39 .38 .49 .46 .33 .38 .34 .28 1.00
17. PT2 .58 .50 .59 .40 .44 .43 .35 .38 .37 .47 .44 .31 .40 .33 .29 .95 1.00
18. PT3 .57 .50 .58 .41 .43 .42 .35 .39 .38 .48 .44 .31 .42 .33 .28 .93 .96 1.00
19. PI1 .48 .48 .52 .38 .42 .40 .30 .31 .31 .46 .43 .28 .31 .21 .21 .55 .54 .54 1.00
20. PI2 .52 .52 .55 .37 .43 .41 .33 .37 .37 .49 .47 .34 .37 .27 .23 .64 .66 .65 .68 1.00
21. PI3 .56 .58 .64 .40 .43 .37 .31 .33 .32 .47 .43 .31 .30 .25 .20 .62 .62 .61 .60 .69 1.00
22. RI .28 .19 .24 .14 .14 .12 a .30 .27 .26 .23 .19 .21 .26 .27 .20 .22 .21 .21 .21 .20 .20 1.00
Mean 5.58 5.44 5.43 5.17 4.98 5.17 4.95 4.88 4.96 4.74 4.80 4.27 3.43 2.94 2.95 4.91 4.80 4.82 5.76 5.38 5.33 2.79
SD 1.15 1.22 1.23 1.58 1.80 1.64 1.53 1.55 1.55 1.43 1.45 1.44 1.80 1.71 1.92 1.96 2.00 1.99 1.45 1.64 1.79 2.47
Notes. TID = team identification. PA = positive affect. BIRG = basking in reflected glory. MC = management cooperation. PB = prosocial behavior. PT = performance tolerance. PI = purchase intention. RI
= referral intention. All correlation coefficients are statistically significant at the .01 significance level (p < .01) unless otherwise noted.
a p < .05

417