PROOF. Measuring Attitudinal Loyalty: Separating the Terms of Affective Commitment and Attitudinal Loyalty. Bob Heere. Florida State University

Transcription

1 Journal of Sport Management, 2008, 22, Human Kinetics, Inc. Measuring Attitudinal Loyalty: Separating the Terms of Affective Commitment and Attitudinal Loyalty Bob Heere Florida State University Geoff Dickson Auckland University of Technology Current marketing research on attitudinal constructs such as commitment and loyalty is characterized by conceptual confusion and overlap. This study aims to improve the clarity of these terms by separating the commitment and loyalty constructs. It also provides a new scale for measurement of team loyalty. Commitment is a construct that is cross-sectional in nature and is internal to the individual. Alternatively, loyalty is longitudinal in nature and should be regarded as the result of interaction between negative external changes in the environment and the individual s internal level of commitment. The proposed scale has its origins with the Psychological Commitment to Team model. Our revisions to the scale provide the needed longitudinal dimension. The new Attitudinal Loyalty to Team Scale (ALTS), which has resistance to change as a central feature, demonstrates both reliability and validity. Sport marketers limited control over their product is a distinguishing feature of sport marketing (Mullin, Hardy, & Sutton, 2007). The ability to create fan loyalty is important because of the heterogeneous nature of the service provided and because of the organization s dependence on the team s performance (Funk & Pastore, 2000; Mahony, Madrigal, & Howard, 2000). The Boston Red Sox and the Chicago Cubs are examples of organizations that have managed to maintain a loyal fan base in the absence of regular championship success. Consumer loyalty is a widely studied construct within the marketing discipline and is recognized as one of four components of brand equity alongside brand awareness, brand associations, and perceived quality (Aaker, 1991). Consumer loyalty might provide added value to the brand as well as a halo effect. This halo effect might also be associated with preventing the erosion of market share during price and promotion wars by providing the firm with time to respond to environmental Heere is with the Dept. of Sport Management, Recreation Management, and Physical Education, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL Dickson is with the Division of Sport and Recreation, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand. 227

2 228 Heere and Dickson threats (Amis, Slack, & Berrett, 1999). Loyalty as part of brand equity arguably plays a large role within this process of delayed exit. Confusion exists, however, regarding the use of terms to measure seemingly similar constructs such as attachment, allegiance, commitment, and loyalty. Although many authors have noted slight differences among the constructs (Beatty & Kahle, 1988; Dick & Basu, 1994; Morgan & Hunt, 1994), there is a consensus that, as currently used, they overlap. For example, Pritchard, Havitz, and Howard (1999) developed a model in which loyalty could be regarded as a latent outcome of resistance to change within the commitment process. Within the field of sport marketing, Mahony, Madrigal, and Howard (2000) were the first to develop an instrument to measure team loyalty. The Psychological Commitment to Team scale (PCT) was an extension of mainstream marketing research that considered attitudinal loyalty and commitment to be distinct constructs (Pritchard et al., 1999). Despite this, Mahony and his colleagues elected to use commitment and attitudinal loyalty interchangeably. The interchangeable approach has since been used by others within the sport marketing field (e.g., Funk & Pastore, 2000; Gladden & Funk, 2002). To make matters even more complicated, recent research has moved away from the terms of commitment and loyalty, preferring instead to use attachment and allegiance (Funk & James, 2001, 2006). They proposed that the psychological commitment process of a fan toward a team should be considered in terms of four stages: awareness, attraction, attachment, and allegiance. Although their definitional separation of attachment and allegiance is at the foundation of the difference proposed in this study, their measurement of the two constructs is not. For their measurement of allegiance, they rely on Gladden and Funk (2002), who do not differentiate between commitment and loyalty. Therefore, to measure allegiance (loyalty), Funk and James (2001, 2006) use commitment items from Gladden and Funk (2002). Perhaps as a consequence of the lack of clarity among these terms, several reliability and validity issues have been noted regarding instruments developed to measure these constructs. Kwon and Trail (2003) criticized Mahony and his colleagues (2000) research and specifically commented on the lack of validity and low factor loadings associated with many of the items. In addition, the multidimensional team loyalty scale of Trail, Anderson, and Fink (2000) could not adequately obtain discriminant validity for the attitudinal constructs within the scale. To solve these reliability and validity issues around the measurement of loyalty specifically, attitudinal loyalty it is necessary to differentiate loyalty from commitment. The purpose of this study is to suggest the difference between commitment and loyalty. Such a distinction will help to overcome the reliability and validity issues associated with measurement of affective commitment using existing loyalty scales (cf. Kwon & Trail, 2003; Trail et al., 2000). After proposing new definitions for both commitment and loyalty, we describe the creation of a reliable and valid unidimensional scale to measure attitudinal loyalty. Conceptual Framework As illustrated in Figure 1, we propose affective commitment to be a psychological state internal to the individual, which is the result of an initial attraction process. Affective commitment toward a product or service is a consequence of a consumer s

3 Measuring Attitudinal Loyalty 229 ability to satisfy their motivations through the consumption of that product or service (cf. Wann, Melnick, Russell, & Pease, 2001). Affective commitment is viewed as a cross-sectional construct, which can only be measured at a single point in time. When negative changes occur to the product or service such that the individual is less likely to have his or her motivations satisfied, attitudinal loyalty should then be regarded as the construct that measures the willingness of the individual to maintain their commitment to the team. It is proposed that attitudinal loyalty can be examined by measuring the differences in commitment held by a person toward a product or service under differing conditions of satisfaction. Therefore, although commitment is regarded as a cross-sectional measure of an individual s psychological evaluation of the organization, loyalty measures the longitudinal differences between two cross-sectional moments as a result of a negative interaction between individual and environment. Loyalty and Commitment The Psychological Commitment to Team scale (PCT) was the first attempt within sport marketing to develop an instrument to measure team loyalty (Mahony et al., 2000). Although subsequent testing of the PCT scale questioned the validity of the scale, no alternative items were proposed to improve its reliability or validity (Kwon Figure 1 The team loyalty process.

4 230 Heere and Dickson & Trail, 2003). This article argues that the validity issues raised by Kwon and Trail were associated with the confusion between the meaning of the terms commitment and loyalty. In their original research, Mahony and his colleagues used the terms interchangeably and defined loyalty as a stage of strong commitment. This article argues, however, that loyalty is best considered as the individual s resistance to change the strength of commitment rather than commitment itself (cf. Pritchard et al., 1999). Our argument proposes that commitment is an internal psychological state of mind possessed by an individual toward an object. In contrast, loyalty is a result of the interaction between negative external changes and the internal psychological connection. In Table 1, an overview is given of the scales used in sport management research to measure loyalty. In the table, we redefine these items based on their definition of commitment and loyalty (either behavioral or attitudinal) and the previous experience of one of the authors in identity research (Heere, 2005; Heere & James, 2007a, 2007b). As demonstrated in Table 1, based on the operationalizations different authors choose, each of the scales measures several different concepts. Attitudinal constructs such as affective commitment or affective loyalty are used interchangeably and are used within the same scale as behavioral elements. In addition, both the Funk and Pastore scale (2000) and Mahony et al. s scale (2000) use identity constructs such as importance and self-categorization, whereas this last scale also includes two items that appear to measure one s personality rather than one s commitment to the team. Therefore, to test the attitudinal loyalty concept, we propose an alternative approach that uses items strictly chosen to measure the resistance to commitment change. Table 1 Overview of Existing Loyalty Scales Authors Gladden & Funk (2002) Items I would be willing to defend my favorite team publicly, even if it caused controversy. (behavioral loyalty) I could never change my affiliation from my favorite team to another professional team. (affective loyalty) I consider myself a committed fan of my favorite team. (affective commitment) I would watch my favorite team regardless of which team they were playing against at the time. (behavioral loyalty) Given the choice, I would increase the amount of time I spend following (i.e., watching, reading, attending, etc.) the Cleveland Indians during the baseball season. (behavioral commitment) I would watch a game featuring the Cleveland Indians baseball team regardless of which team they were playing against. (behavioral loyalty) I am a committed fan of the Cleveland Indians baseball team. (affective commitment) How willing are you to defend the Cleveland Indians publicly, even if it causes controversy? (behavioral loyalty) (continued)

5 Measuring Attitudinal Loyalty 231 Table 1 (continued) Authors Funk & Pastore (2000) Mahony et al. (2000) Items It would be difficult for me to be a fan of the Cleveland Indians baseball team. (identity/ self-categorization) I might rethink my allegiance to my favorite team if this team consistently performs poorly. (affective loyalty) I would watch a game featuring my favorite National Football League (NFL) team regardless of which team they are playing. (behavioral loyalty) I would rethink my allegiance to my favorite team if management traded away its best players. (affective loyalty) Being a fan of my favorite NFL team is important to me. (identity / Importance) Nothing could change my allegiance to my favorite NFL team. (affective loyalty) I am a committed fan of my favorite NFL team. (affective commitment) It would not affect my loyalty to my favorite NFL team if management hired a head coach that I disliked very much. (affective loyalty) I could easily be persuaded to change my favorite NFL team preference. (personality) I have been a fan of my favorite team since I began watching professional football. (identity / self-categorization) I could never switch my loyalty from my favorite NFL team even if my close friends were fans of another team. (affective loyalty) It would be unlikely for me to change my allegiance from my current favorite NFL team to another. (personality) It would be difficult to change my beliefs about my favorite NFL team. (affective loyalty) You can tell a lot about a person by their willingness to stick with a team that is not performing well. (personality) My commitment to my favorite NFL team would decrease if they were performing poorly and there appeared little chance their performance would change. (affective loyalty) Funk and James (2001) define loyalty as a highly developed attitude that is persistent, resistant to change, creates biases in cognitive processing, and provides a guide to behavior. This suggests that some consumers might be considered as irrational consumers (i.e., the consumer possesses a cognitive bias) who have committed themselves to an organization despite a possible lack of product-related motivational constructs. In the sport context, many consumers appear irrational

6 232 Heere and Dickson in their support of a team as they continue to support it even when it lacks core attractions (e.g., on field success, star players). To measure fan loyalty, it is necessary to understand why fans become loyal to a team. A broad range of research, in which the fans are seen as rational individuals who make choices based on their motivations, has focused on consumer motives for becoming involved with a sport team (e.g., Kahle, Kambara, & Rose, 1996; Milne & McDonald, 1999; Sloan, 1989; Trail & James, 2001; Wann et al., 2001; Zillmann, Bryant, & Sapolsky, 1989). Although many researchers have focused on attitudinal constructs such as importance, intensity, extremity, certainty, knowledge, identity, expectancy, and satisfaction (e.g., Funk & Pastore, 2000; Trail et al., 2000) to measure loyalty, this article pursues an alternative approach by drawing upon motivational research. Several of the constructs that Funk and Pastore examined appear to relate more to the identity process than to the loyalty process (cf. Ashmore, Deaux & McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004). Although it is acknowledged that these constructs have a strong relationship with loyalty, we contend that it is inappropriate to integrate them into loyalty research. This is because many of the constructs are cross-sectional and internal to the individual. Consequently, these constructs are more relevant to identity or commitment processes than they are to the loyalty process. The motivational research approach is well suited to our argument because of its focus on the relationship between the individual and the environment rather than on the psychological state of the individual. In addition, this approach provides the opportunity to integrate the initial attraction process with the longitudinal process of loyalty. Motivational Research and Team Loyalty Wann (1995) was one of the first researchers to formulate an overall psychological framework to analyze the motivation of fans, which he suggested could be measured using his Sport Fan Motivation Scale (SFMS). That scale incorporated eight subscales to assess sport-fan motivation: group affiliation, aesthetic, self-esteem, economic, eustress, escape, entertainment, and family. Upon review, this model had shortcomings that necessitated revisions (Wann et al., 2001). Specifically, the original SFMS recognized family as being the only socializing agent thereby failing to recognize peer groups, school, and community groups as other important socializing agents (cf. Kenyon & McPherson, 1973). Consequently, Wann (1995) combined the need to affiliate with other socialization agents into a single group-affiliation construct. We propose that either the group-affiliation construct is multidimensional and should therefore be divided among different socialization agents (e.g., friends, colleagues, family), or group affiliation is unidimensional, and the family construct should be incorporated within the overall construct of group affiliation. The failure to do either might have contributed to the validity problems associated with the SFMS. Second, Sloan s (1989) research identified five psychological factors that might explain sport-fan motivation: (1) salubrious effects, (2) stress and stimulation-seeking, (3) catharsis and aggression, (4) entertainment, and (5) achievement-seeking. In the Wann s (1995) model, however, four of these motivations are altered (seeking of achievement into self-esteem, catharsis aggression into escape), renamed (stress/

7 Measuring Attitudinal Loyalty 233 stimulation-seeking into eustress) or omitted (salubrious effects). Entertainment is the only motive that is retained. These alterations present a number of validity issues that remain unaddressed (Trail & James, 2001). Trail and James (2001) worked from the model of Trail, Anderson, and Fink (2000) to suggest nine motives for sport consumption: achievement, acquisition of knowledge, aesthetics, drama or eustress, escape, family, physical attractiveness of participants, the quality of physical skill of the participants, and social interaction. Subsequent testing demonstrated satisfactory levels of validity and reliability, but family and physical attraction seemed to need further refinement. The work on motivation demonstrates that fans motives are multidimensional. Motives are thought to be relatively stable over time. On the other hand, a team s characteristics (e.g., performance, players) are not. Therefore, it makes sense to measure attitudinal loyalty by determining the attitudinal commitment of fans to the organization in those circumstances when the organization is less able to satisfy the consumer s motivations. To demonstrate, fan loyalty could be measured utilizing the following statement: I would continue to support my team although they are not successful. A high score of agreement on this item would suggest that the fan is loyal to the team despite the lack of satisfaction for motivations grounded in successful team performance. Research Design This study incorporated the eight stages proposed by Churchill (1979). In Stage 1, the attitudinal loyalty construct was defined. The sample items for the pilot study were developed in Stage 2. In Stage 3, data were collected for the initial study (N = 187) at a large southeastern university in the United States (Study 1). In Stage 4, the reliability and validity of the items were assessed using several tests. The proposed items were refined in Stage 5. Stage 6 included a second round of data collection among 311 undergraduate students at the same southeastern U.S. university (Study 2). In Stage 7, reliability and validity tests were conducted for the sample using the different statistical analysis techniques, as well as exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Stage 8 involved identifying implications of the survey and providing norms for future data collection using the new scale. Study 1 For Stage 1, Funk and James s (2001) definition of attitudinal loyalty was refined to create a clearer distinction from commitment. We argue that attitudinal loyalty is the result of the interaction between negative external changes and the highly developed attitude of an individual, which is characterized by persistence, resistance to change, biasing in cognitive processing, and a guide to behavior based on the interaction between negative external changes and the individual s attitude. Initial development of items for Stage 2 was derived from Mahony et al. s (2000) PCT scale, and revisions were undertaken based on the motivational model of Trail and James (2001). To avoid confusion between commitment and loyalty, we refer to our scale as the Attitudinal Loyalty to Team Scale (ALTS). Based on the motivational model of Trail and James (2001), the nine motivational constructs for fans to support a team formed the foundation for testing one s commitment

8 234 Heere and Dickson in a changing environment. The PCT constructs are achievement, acquisition of knowledge, aesthetics, drama or eustress, escape, family, physical attractiveness of participants, the quality of physical skill of the participants, and social interaction. The physical attraction of participants is not included within the ALTS scale because it has limited generalizability and because there were concerns about the validity of this factor in the Trail and James (2001) scale. This element is therefore replaced by another player-related variable: the presence of a star player (Gladden & Funk, 2002). Drama was also eliminated because it might not be generalizable; that is, the lack of drama is often associated with the dominant performance of a successful team against weaker opponents, which some fans might value but others might not, leading to inconsistency in measurement. The last two PCT constructs not included here are escape and the acquisition of knowledge. Escape describes the desire of an individual to get away from his or her own life and instead being committed to the team. Indeed, it could be argued that escape describes noncommitment because it is a push away from everyday life but not a pull to the team per se. The acquisition-of-knowledge construct is not included here because these items reflect a form of involvement with what the team enables rather than a motivation to attend or watch games. Involvement is part of the group-identity process rather than commitment (Heere & James, 2007a). Social interaction is measured by the perception of the opportunity to share connection to the team with friends. Finally, two general items about the loyalty toward the team copied from the PCT (Mahony et al., 2000) were added (see Table 2). A confirmatory-path analysis has previously demonstrated the adequacy of these items (Kwon & Trail, 2003). The objective of item choice is to formulate a unidimensional instrument. Data were collected in Stage 3. The survey was completed by 187 students at a university in the southeastern United States. Before the students were given the survey, it was explained that filling it out was voluntary and that it dealt with Table 2 ALTS Items Item Motivation 1. My commitment to the <team> would decrease if the games Aesthetics a would be ugly to watch. 2. Nothing could change my allegiance to the <team> General b 3. I would still be committed to the team regardless of the lack of Star players a any star players. 4. I would not give up my loyalty to the <team> even though my Family a family stops supporting the team. 5. My commitment to the <team> would decrease if they were Achievement a performing badly on a continuous basis. 6. I could never switch my loyalty from the <team> even if my Social affiliation b close friends were fans of another team. 7. I would still be committed to the team regardless of the lack of Physical skill a physical skill among the players. 8. It would be difficult to change my beliefs about the <team>. General b a Developed by the authors. b Developed by Mahony et al. (2000).

9 Measuring Attitudinal Loyalty 235 their loyalty to their favorite college football team. It was explained to students who were uninterested in college football that they should not fill out the survey. There were 132 male and 55 female respondents. The mean age of respondents was Utilizing a 7-point Likert scale, the mean score for each of the loyalty items ranged from 4.26 to 5.38 with a standard deviation ranging from to The range of means reflects the general tendency of respondents to rate items somewhat positively. Results of the reliability testing in Stage 4 are shown in Table 3. The initial reliability results show some issues with the first item (Loy1). Specifically, several other items had a correlation of less than 0.3 with this item and its total statistic was below 0.5. This might be a consequence of its negative wording. An exploratory-factor analysis was performed using principal components extraction with varimax rotations. Factors with eigenvalues greater than one were retained. Two factors were extracted (see Table 4). Both of the items that loaded Table 3 Reliability Testing for Study 1 Constructs Alpha a Interitem Correlation (Range) Item-to-Total Statistic Loy Loy Loy Loy Loy Loy Loy Loy Overall.8779 a Alpha values are presented on basis of item deleted. Table 4 Exploratory Factor Analysis for Study 1 Factors 1 2 Eigenvalues Variance Explained Items Loadings Loy Loy Loy Loy Loy Loy Loy Loy

10 236 Heere and Dickson better on the second factor were negatively worded, suggesting that the distinctive shared covariance of these two items might be an artifact of phrasing even if the two items are true indicators of the same latent trait as the other items. In fact, the eigenvalue for the second factor at extraction was only 1.09, suggesting that a one-dimensional solution would be defensible. Given these findings along with the tests of internal consistency reported in Table 3 and the theoretical considerations already reviewed, it is reasonable to conclude that loyalty (as measured by these items) can be treated as a unidimensional construct. Nevertheless, following Churchill (1979), Item 1 (i.e., the one with an item-to-total statistic below.5) was dropped from the instrument. Study 2 In this phase of the study, 303 students (from a potential pool of 430) at the same southeastern U.S. university completed the revised seven-item ALTS survey. In this instance, 143 of the students were male, and 160 of the students were female. Ages were typical for an undergraduate population because 83.5% of the respondents were between the ages of 18 and 23 with 16.5% of the respondents being older than 23. The seven loyalty items had a mean score ranging from 4.48 to 5.51, with standard deviations ranging from 1.58 to Reliability testing of the second sample demonstrated adequate reliability (unidimensionality) with a Cronbach s alpha score of An exploratory factor analysis was then performed on data from the new sample. Results supported scale unidimensionality as only one factor had an eigenvalue greater than one, explaining 56.6% of the variance. Factor loadings ranged from.573 to.848, which indicated that all items had significant effect on the construct. A confirmatory-factor analysis was then conducted on each of the two samples (one from Study 1 and one from Study 2). Results from the first test, which was on the sample from Study 1, demonstrated an inadequate fit of the model. The fit was adequate, however, once Items 2, 4, and 5 were deleted. A confirmatory-factor analysis was then performed on the four-item scale using the sample from Study 2. Although the fit is not quite as good as the fit for the Study 1 sample, it is still adequate. (We speculate that the somewhat poorer fit might be because of inclusion of this scale in a larger team identity survey, which could have compromised participants concentration.) Results of the confirmatory factor analyses are shown in Table 5. Validity Testing Several techniques were used to examine the resulting scale s validity. First, convergent validity was examined with reference to Average Variance Extracted (AVE). As a rule of thumb, an AVE above.5 is evidence of convergent validity (Fornell & Larker, 1981). The AVE for the sample from Study 1 was.599; the AVE for the sample from Study 2 was.614. It is also important to assure that the convergent validity is not a consequence of item redundancy. Item level uniqueness is tested by examining correlations between items. All correlations were between.5 and.7 indicating that the items were distinct in both samples. The items never shared as much as 50% common variance.

11 Measuring Attitudinal Loyalty 237 Concurrent validity was tested by examining correlations between the ALTS items and the behavioral-involvement and private-evaluation constructs from the Team*ID scale (Heere, 2005). Significant correlations were found between attitudinal loyalty and behavioral involvement (r =.392) and attitudinal loyalty and private evaluation (r =.531). These findings are consistent with previous work demonstrating that loyalty influences behavior and private evaluation (Funk & Pastore 2000; Trail et al., 2000). Discussion Loyalty can be measured reliably and validly using a four-item scale (Items Loy3, Loy6, Loy7, and Loy8 from Table 3). Given the conceptual distinction of loyalty from commitment, we suggest that the ALTS be used when loyalty is being studied even if it is being studied cross-sectionally. The wording of all four items is explicitly designed to capture the distinctive feature of loyalty, resistance to change, even when the team s status declines. The ALTS is well suited to cross-sectional studies particularly those involving multiple variables because it is a comparatively succinct instrument that has good reliability and validity. This is not to say that we favor cross-sectional studies of loyalty over longitudinal studies of loyalty. We recognize that market researchers are often constrained to cross-sectional studies, but because the key point of interest is resistance to change, the best way to examine loyalty would be to study it longitudinally, particularly as a team s fortunes wax and wane. Indeed, one of the risks of studying attitudinal loyalty cross-sectionally is that a cross-sectional study could capture intended loyalty rather than actual loyalty. Longitudinal work is ultimately better suited to examining how fans attitudes toward the team do and do not change. Longitudinal work would enable studies of who changes and who does not, how they change, and why. Again, the ALTS would be a useful tool for such work. Several researchers have developed instruments that incorporate loyalty, often treating it as a multidimensional construct (e.g., Funk & Pastore, 2000; Park & Kim, 2000; Trail et al., 2000). There is, no doubt, useful information to be obtained using such instruments. Nevertheless, one of the resulting challenges is that commitment and loyalty would remain conceptually confounded. The advantage of the ALTS is that the confound is eliminated. It is useful to note that loyalty is relevant in settings beyond sport. It matters to membership organizations, communities, and product marketers. The distinction between loyalty and commitment is as relevant in those contexts as in the context of sport. The same approach used here could be used to refine measurement in those settings. Loyalty to sport teams could then be compared with other loyalties, and the relationships among those loyalties (e.g., the relatinship between team loyalty and community loyalty) could be examined. Such studies could help us to better understand the dynamics of loyalty and the consequent roles and uses of sport. References Aaker, D. (1991). Managing brand equity. New York: Free Press. Amis, J., Slack, T., & Berrett, T. (1999). Sport sponsorships as distinctive competence. European Journal of Marketing, 33,

12 238 Heere and Dickson Ashmore, R.D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An organizing framework for collective identity: Articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological Bulletin, 130, Beatty, S.E., & Kahle, L.R. (1988). Alternative hierarchies of the attitude-behavior relationship: The impact of brand commitment and habit. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16, Churchill, G.A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 16, Dick, A.S., & Basu, K. (1994). Customer loyalty: Toward an integrated conceptual framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22, Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 18(February), Funk, D.C., & James, J.D. (2001). The Psychological Continuum Model: A conceptual framework for understanding an individual s psychological connection to sport. Sport Management Review, 4, Funk, D.C., & James, J.D. (2006). Consumer loyalty: The meaning of attachment in the development of sport team allegiance. Journal of Sport Management, 20, Funk, D.C., & Pastore, D.L. (2000). Equating attitudes to allegiance: The usefulness of selected attitudinal information in segmenting loyalty to professional sports teams. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 9, Gladden, J.M., & Funk, D.C. (2002). Developing an understanding of brand associations in team sport: Empirical evidence from consumers of professional sports. Journal of Sport Management, 16, Heere, B. (2005). Internal and external group identities of a sports team: The development of a multi-dimensional team identity scale. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee. Heere, B., & James, J.D. (2007a). Stepping outside the lines: Developing a multi-dimensional team identity scale based on social identity theory. Sport Management Review, 10, Heere, B., & James, J.D. (2007b). Sports teams and their communities: Examining the role of external and internal group identities. Journal of Sport Management, 21, Kahle, L.R., Kambara, K.M., & Rose, G.M. (1996). A functional model of fan attendance motivations for college football. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 5, Kenyon, G.S., & McPherson, B.D. (1973). Becoming involved in physical activity and sport: A process of socialization. In G.L. Rarick (Ed.), Physical activity: Human growth and development (pp ). New York: Academic Press. Kwon, H., & Trail, G. (2003). A re-examination of the construct and concurrent validity of the Psychological Commitment to Team scale. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12, Mahony, D.F., Madrigal, R., & Howard, D. (2000). Using the psychological commitment to team (PCT) scale to segment sport consumers based on loyalty. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 9, Milne, G.R., & McDonald, M.A. (1999). Sport marketing: Managing the exchange process. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett. Morgan, R.M., & Hunt, S.D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58, Mullin, B.J., Hardy, S., & Sutton, W.A. (2007). Sport marketing (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Park, S.H., & Kim, Y.M. (2000). Conceptualizing and measuring the attitudinal loyalty construct in recreational sport contexts. Journal of Sport Management, 14, Pritchard, M.P., Havitz, M.E., & Howard, D.R. (1999). Analyzing the commitment-loyalty link in service contexts. Academy of Marketing Science, 27, Sloan, L.R. (1989). The motives of sports fans. In J.H. Goldstein (Ed.), Sports, games, and play: Social and psychological viewpoints (2nd ed., pp ). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

13 Measuring Attitudinal Loyalty 239 Trail, G., Anderson, D.F., & Fink, J. (2000). A theoretical model of sport spectator consumption behavior. International Journal of Sport Management, 1, Trail, G., & James, J. (2001). The Motivation Scale for Sport Consumption: Assessment of the scale s psychometric properties. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, Wann, D.L. (1995). Preliminary validation of the Sport Fan Motivation Scale. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 20, Wann, D.L., Melnick, M.J., Russell, G.W., & Pease, D.G. (2001). Sport fans: The psychology and social impact of spectators. New York: Routledge.