Revisiting the team identification-value-purchase relationship in the team-licensed merchandise consumption context: a multidimensional consumer value approach.

Kwon, Youngbum ; Kwak, Dae Hee

Introduction

Retail sales of sport team-licensed merchandise continue to grow. In US professional sport leagues, retail sales of merchandise have also increased dramatically over the past two decades, from $5.3 billion in 1990 to $12.8 billion in 2011 (Licensing Letter, 2012). Although the US sports licensing market is dominated by professional sport leagues (e.g., Major League Baseball, the National Football League, the National Basketball Association, and the National Hockey League), these trends have not been confined to professional sports. For instance, the overall retail sales of collegiate licensed products reached $4.62 billion in 2012, which was greater than those of every professional sport's properties, with the exception of Major League Baseball (Greenberg, 2013). For non-team-specific licensing, the International Olympic Committee's licensing revenue has tripled from $66 million in 19972000 to $185 million in 2005-2008 (Olympic Marketing Fact File, 2012). As such, licensing teams' trademarks and logos have been a viable revenue source for many professional and collegiate sport properties.

The increase in licensed merchandise sales reflects consumption behavior led by strong allegiance between fans and sport properties-players, teams, leagues and events (e.g., Kwon & Armstrong, 2002, 2006). The relationship between a fan and his/her favorite team (e.g., team identification, image congruence) serves as a main predictor of consumption behavior toward team-licensed merchandise (Kwak & Kang, 2009; Kwon & Armstrong, 2002, 2006). More recently, some researchers have found that the influence of the fan-team relationship on purchase decisions is mediated by product evaluations such as perceived value (Kwon, Trail, & James, 2007) and perceived quality (Kwak & Kang, 2009). As the previous findings suggest, purchasing team-licensed merchandise is not solely driven by team identification or image congruence, but the influence of fan-team relationship is mediated by evaluations of the product. However, it should be noted that the notion of perceived value in Kwon et al.'s study was operationalized based on a trade-off between quality and price, which is a value-for-money-conceptualization (e.g., Monroe, 1990). Likewise, Kwak and Kang's study (2009) used product quality perception (e.g., Zeithaml, 1988) as a mediating variable, in which conceptualization focused on the functional aspect of perceived value.

In the present study, we extend previous research in this area by incorporating a multidimensional value framework (e.g., Sheth et al., 1991) as a key mediating variable in sport consumers' decisions to purchase a team-licensed product. This notion is in line with the broader perspective that sport consumption can fulfill various consumer needs (Holt, 1995). Following Holt's discussion on various consumption-related experiences, we contend that buying a sport team's merchandise (e.g., jerseys, hats, etc.) is a manifestation of "symbolic consumption" (e.g., Belk, 1985; Levy, 1959; Heere, Walker, Yoshida, Ko, Jordan, & James, 2011; Holbrook & Hirschman, 1993) that satisfies multiple consumer needs. For instance, fans may buy licensed products to experience emotional reward (e.g., excitement, pride; Holbrook & Hirschman, 1993), to display self-identity (e.g., "I am a Yankees fan"; Heere et al., 2011), and to socialize with others (e.g., sense of belonging; Holt, 1995). The symbolic nature of sport consumption behavior has been well-documented in the literature. Heere and colleagues (2011) found that consuming licensed merchandise is a direct function of team identity, which is predicted by multiple team-brand communities (e.g., university, city, state, etc.). Although not specifically related to licensed merchandise consumption per se, Holt (1995) identified that people engage in sport consumption behavior for various reasons (e.g., socializing, communing, entertainment, etc.), which supports the idea that purchasing team-licensed products can be considered symbolic consumption (Levy, 1959). Therefore, the price-oriented unidimensional value approach (cf. Kwon et al., 2007) would not adequately capture various symbolic meanings associated with buying a licensed product (Babin, Darden, & Griffin, 1994). In the present study, we aim to extend the previous research by taking a holistic approach (e.g., Holbrook & Hirschman, 1993; Rintamaki et al., 2006; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001) to contemplate various value propositions associated with licensed merchandise and their influence on consumption behavior.

The present study contributes to the literature on licensed merchandise in several ways. First, previous studies have employed either value-for-money or functional quality perception as a key mediator (cf. Belk, 1985; Holbrook & Hirschman, 1993). The present study extends previous research by employing a multidimensional value approach (see Sheth, Newman, & Gross, 1991; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001) to capture a broad range of product meanings (i.e., functional, emotional, and social values) associated with buying a team-licensed product. Furthermore, examining the relative strength of multiple value dimensions will advance our knowledge regarding which value proposition is driving the purchase decision.

Second, although there are hundreds of different product categories that bear the team logo or name on the product, no prior research has examined the potential moderating role of product category (i.e., hedonic vs. utilitarian) on the relationship between team identification and product evaluations. Our study extends the research in this area by positing that the team identification effect on product evaluations is moderated by product category. That is, based on Katz' (1960) symbolic-utilitarian framework, we manipulate product category on a symbolic-utilitarian continuum to determine whether the relationship between team identification and product evaluation is different for utilitarian (e.g., pen, USB flash drive) and hedonic (e.g., apparel, luxury watch) products.

Third, our study employed a quasi-experimental design to further examine licensed product purchase behavior in a marketing communication context. Using print advertisements as research stimuli, we gauged respondents' evaluations of the specific products depicted in the advertisements. Therefore, findings from this study will provide more applicable implications for managers to effectively market those products.

Theoretical Background

Licensed Merchandise Literature Previous studies on consumption behavior related to team-licensed merchandise have provided an important theoretical understanding of the behavior of those who consume sport-licensed merchandise: that fan-team relationship constructs (e.g., team identification, image congruence) play a key role in motivating sport consumers to purchase licensed merchandise (e.g., Kwak & Kang, 2009; Kwon & Armstrong, 2002; 2006; Kwon, Kim, & Mondello, 2008). Table 1 summarizes previous empirical research on licensed merchandise consumption behavior.

In line with the team identification effect on fan behavior (e.g., Wann & Branscombe, 1990, 1993), Kwon et al. (2007) identified that perceived consumer value mediates the relationship between team identification and purchase intention. Kwon et al.'s study based its argument on the work of Grewal, Krishnan, Baker, and Borin (1998), which asserts the mediating role of perceived consumer value between brand name and purchase intention. More recently, Kwak and Kang (2009) found that products' quality perception mediates the impact of self-team follower image congruence on purchase decisions. They also suggested that the consumption of licensed merchandise is driven by the symbolic meanings a sport fan derives from using the product (also see Kwon & Armstrong, 2006). Their assertions seem to be consistent with Levy's (1959) notion of symbolic consumption, which posits that individuals do not buy products for their functionality, but are driven by the meanings of products. That is, material objects can often embody symbolic meanings, above and beyond the tangible and physical aspects of consumer goods. Parsons (2002) further supported Levy's notion of symbolic purchase by stressing the finding that consumers tend to look for brands with greater perceived symbolic benefits when purchasing products. For instance, purchasing and wearing a fleece jacket bearing a team's logo conveys symbolic meanings (e.g., "I am a fan of this team") above and beyond the functionality of the product--e.g., outerwear made with microfleece to keep the body warm in cold weather.

Although some previous studies on licensed merchandise have conceptualized that buying team licensed merchandise is a symbolic purchase behavior (i.e., Kwak & Kang, 2009; Kwon et al., 2007), they have focused their value propositions on a functional perspective. For example, Kwon et al. (2007) considered the monetary proposition to capture the consumer value, which is inconsistent with the conceptualization of their proposed model. Kwak and Kang (2009) used product quality perception as a mediating variable, which only focuses on the functional aspect of the product. While previous research has significantly contributed to our understanding of sport consumers' licensed merchandise consumption behavior, we still know little about the influence of other meanings associated with licensed merchandise consumption.

Therefore, in the present study, we adopt holistic characteristics of consumer value (Rintamaki et al., 2006; Babin et al., 1994; Holbrook, 1994; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001) to extend the previous line of research in this area. Given that consumers' product choice is motivated by multiple values associated with the product (Sheth et al., 1991), incorporating a multidimensional consumer value framework could contribute to our understanding of licensed merchandise consumption behavior.

Multidimensional Consumer Value Framework Previous business and marketing research has well-documented the notion of multiple consumer values. According to Holbrook (1994), consumers perceive one or more values of a product, often referred to as multidimensional consumer values. Sheth, Newman, and Gross (1991) conceptualized that consumers' product choice is a function of multiple values, suggesting that more than one value dimension can transpire in any given choice and situation. Building on the work of Sheth et al. (1991), many have applied a multidimensional consumer value proposition to different contexts (e.g., Rintamaki et al., 2006; Sheth et al., 1991; Sweeney et al., 1996; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001; Wang, Lo, Chi & Yang, 2004; Williams & Soutar, 2000). However, as Sheth et al. (1991) addressed, various studies have focused on three (i.e., functional, social, and emotional values) of five dimensions (i.e., functional, social, emotional, epistemic, and conditional values). For example, Sweeney, Soutar, Whiteley and Johnson (1996) attempted to qualitatively test the three main dimensionalities of Sheth et al.'s consumption value construct-functional, social, and emotional.

In the licensed merchandise consumption context, it seems plausible that fans would be motivated by various value dimensions above and beyond the functional quality of the product. For instance, buying a licensed product would provide fans excitement and pride (emotional value), and sense of belonging (social value). To facilitate our understanding of multidimensional consumer values in the licensed merchandise domain, it seems appropriate to incorporate three value propositions (i.e., functional, emotional, and social values).

Functional value is concerned with the effectiveness and efficiency of a product (good or service). Functional value is defined as the "perceived utility acquired from an alternative's capacity for functional, utilitarian, or physical performance" (Sheth et al., 1991, p. 160). From a functional value perspective, the use of the product is understood as fulfilling task-related needs of consumers (Barbin et al., 1994; Holbrook & Batra, 1987). In this sense, several scholars describe consumers as rational economic men or utility calculators (see Rintamaki et al., 2006; Marshall, 1890). Previous licensed merchandise literature has adopted this value approach (i.e., Kwak & Kang, 2009). On the other hand, emotional value (often called experiential value) derives from the feelings and emotions that a product (or service) generates in consumers. That is, emotional value refers to the facets of consumer behavior that are primarily multisensory, affective, experiential, and fantasy-related (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). Emotional value is more subjective and personal than functional value because of its self-purposeful and self-oriented attributes (Holbrook & Batra, 1987). Even though functional value and emotional value appear to be distinct entities, both value constructs can co-exist in products and services. Research has suggested that a combination of rational and emotional factors leads to the appeal of a product or a service (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001).

Lastly, social value is the perceived utility derived from an alternative's association with one or more specific social groups (Sheth et al., 1991). According to Sweeney and Soutar (2001), social value is defined as "the utility derived from the product's ability to enhance social self-concept" (p. 211). This value is concerned with the social perspective on a product or a service. That is, a social group's assessment of a product (or a service) is a key in understanding social value. Highly visible products (e.g., apparel), thus, are frequently associated with a high level of social value.

Conceptual Development, Model, and Hypotheses

Effects of Team Identification on Multidimensional Consumer Values and Attitudes Prior research has suggested that team identification directly influences consumer values. Kwon et al. (2007) posited that fans are more likely than nonfans to value their team-licensed goods. It is not surprising that individuals who strongly identify themselves with a sport team would want to buy apparel or other products that bear the team logo to express their team identity (e.g., social value). In other words, highly identified fans would value the licensed product considerably more than less identified fans. According to social identity theory, individuals not only strive to maintain and enhance their group reputation (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), but also make an effort to improve their group's standing against other groups (Riketta & Landerer, 2005). Additionally, a strong fan-team relationship will motivate consumers to favorably evaluate licensed products on other value dimensions. For instance, fans who closely identify with the team would experience emotional rewards (e.g., pride, excitement) when purchasing a licensed product. With regard to functional value, previous studies have shown that the fan-team relationship construct (i.e., team identification and image congruence) has a direct positive effect on perceived quality of the licensed product (Kwak & Kang, 2009).

With regard to the effect of team identification on attitude toward the licensed product, previous research has shown a positive link between team identification and attitude (e.g., Mael & Ashforth, 1992). Since purchasing team-licensed merchandise is related to maintaining fans' self-esteem or creating a sense of bonding with other fans of the team (Kwon et al., 2004, Wann & Branscombe, 1990), strong team identification will have a positive impact on consumers' overall judgments of the licensed product. Therefore, it is hypothesized that team identification will have a direct effect on product evaluations-perceived consumer values and attitudes toward licensed merchandise.

H1: Team identification will have a direct and positive effect on perceived consumer values.

H2: Team identification will have a direct and positive effect on attitudes toward team-licensed merchandise.

Effects of Multidimensional Consumer Values on Purchase Behavior

According to Sheth et al. (1991), a consumer value theory "may be used to predict consumption behavior, as well as to describe and explain it" (p. 168). Sweeney and Soutar (2001) argue that the consumer value scale can be used "to determine what consumption values drive purchase attitude and behavior" (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001, p. 203). In Kwon et al.'s (2007) study, the authors found that consumer value has an effect on purchase intentions. This result is in line with previous findings that consumer value has a significant influence on behavioral intentions (Patterson & Spreng, 1997; Pura, 2005). Pura (2005) examined the effects of perceived consumer value on attitudinal and behavioral components of loyalty in the service setting. More recently, Ruiz-Molina and Gil-Saura (2008) provided empirical support indicating the existence of a relationship between multidimensional consumer values and consumer attitudes in four different retail activities (i.e., grocery, textile/footwear, electronics/electrical appliance, and furniture/wood/decorations); multidimensional consumer values explained 39%, 39%, 47%, and 56% of the variances in purchase attitude in the respective retail settings. Therefore, we predict that perceived consumer values will be positively associated with attitudes toward the product. Furthermore, based on the theory of reasoned action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980), we also hypothesize that consumer attitudes will affect purchase intention. Extensive literatures in marketing and social psychology have documented the predictability of relationships between attitudes on behavioral intentions (e.g., Ajzen, 2001). The theory posits that an individual's behavioral intention depends on the person's attitude (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). In examining the attitude-behavior relationship, Bagozzi, Baumgartner, and Yi (1989) showed that behavioral intentions serve as important mediator in the attitude-behavior link, suggesting that positive attitude will have a direct impact on goal-directed behavior intentions. Therefore, we propose that attitude toward team-licensed merchandise will have a direct and positive impact on purchase intentions.

H3: Perceived consumer value will have a direct and positive impact on attitude toward team licensed merchandise.

H4: Attitude toward team-licensed merchandise will have a direct and positive impact on purchase intentions toward the product.

Moderating Role of Product Category

There is a myriad of team-licensed product categories that bear the logo or trademark of a sport team. For instance, Manchester United Football Club, one of the most successful global sport brands, has more than 200 licensees in over 130 countries (ManchesterUnited.com, 2013). Considering a wide range of licensed products available for professional and collegiate sport teams, we consider product category as a potential moderator that would have an impact on how consumers evaluate licensed products. Previous consumer behavior researchers have identified the existence of two different types of motivations that influence buying decisions-utilitarian/functional and symbolic/hedonic (e.g., Katz, 1960; Mittal, 1988). Park, Jaworski, and MacInnis (1986) contended that consumers' needs could be classified in a dichotomous fashion as being either functional or symbolic. Utilitarian or functional goals refer to the maximization of utility for problem-solving (Katz, 1960), whereas symbolic needs focus on 'expressive' goals (Mittal, 1988; Park et al., 1986). According to Mittal (1988), expressive goals include sensory enjoyment, self-concept fulfillment, and social goals. Studies have found that certain products can be positioned to satisfy various consumer needs (Bhat & Reddy, 1998; Katz, 1960; Ratchford, 1987). For instance, products can be purchased to satisfy consumers' functional or utilitarian needs (cleaners, pen), symbolic or self-expressive needs (watch, apparel), and both symbolic and utilitarian needs (automobiles, athletic shoes; Bhat & Reddy, 1998; Ratchford, 1987). Our position is that most products serve functional/symbolic needs to some extent (Mittal, 1988). Thus, the symbolic-utilitarian framework (Katz, 1960) is proposed here as a point of distinction rather than as a dichotomy. The framework provides a systematic baseline to classify products along the symbolic-utilitarian continuum, which is found to be useful in theory testing (Bhat & Reddy, 1998). Following Mittal's (1988) classification scheme, we group products into either hedonic-oriented licensed products (e.g., team-branded apparel) or utilitarian-oriented licensed products (e.g., team-branded USB flash drive) and examine whether the product cat egory influence fans' licensed merchandise purchase decision processes.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Take, for example, the case of a fan browsing a hedonic product-a luxury watch bearing the team logo. Given that symbolic characteristics are inherent in the product itself (e.g., prestige, status symbol), the relationship between team identification and multidimensional consumer value perceptions would be more pronounced than the relationship between team identification and attitude toward the product. That is, multidimensional consumer value would play a pivotal role in mediating the effect of team identification on attitude toward the product. On the other hand, when a fan is browsing a utilitarian product-a USB flash drive bearing the team logo-attitude toward the product would not require many higher-order valuation processes. Rather, product preference would be a direct function of team identification due to the product's functional characteristic. This is because consumers' preference for utilitarian products would be based on relatively lower-order processes that do not require much cognitive effort or control (e.g., Scarabis, Florack, & Gosejohann, 2006; Wilson, Lindsey, & Schooler, 2000). Based on this discussion, we propose the following hypothesis:

H5: Product category will moderate the effects of team identification on multidimensional consumer value and attitude toward team-licensed merchandise.

Moderating Effect of Performance Priming

In addition to product category, we consider performance priming as another potential moderator in consumer valuation of licensed merchandise. Given the uncertainty of outcome inherent in the competitive sport context, one can argue that the extent to which team identification contributes to various value propositions (functional, emotional, and social) is likely to be accentuated when the team is successful, but decreased when the team is unsuccessful. For instance, when a team is having a successful season (e.g., winning a national championship), fans would place greater value on team-licensed merchandise than when the team is struggling. This reasoning is also based on the notions of Basking in Reflecting Glory (BIRG; Cialdini et al., 1976) and Cutting Off Reflected Failure (CORF; Snyder, Lassegard, & Ford, 1986). BIRGing/CORFing are two self-esteem related processes that have been applied to sport spectators (e.g., Wann & Branscombe, 1990). People tend to associate themselves with successful others (BIRGing), while they distance themselves from unsuccessful others to protect their self-esteem (CORFing). As such, it is likely that team performance would moderate the influence of team identification on product evaluations.

H6: The effect of team identification on licensed merchandise evaluation is more pronounced under positive performance priming than under a negative priming condition.

Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual framework of the current study.

Method

Participants and Procedures An online survey was administered to students and alumni (N = 203) originating from two large Midwestern universities in the US Among the total 203 usable samples, 64% were male and 36% were female; the mean age was 28.4 years (range 19 to 80 years old, SD = 11.7). Participants viewed a consent form on the first page. Participants were then asked to answer questions about team identification. Next, each participant was randomly exposed to one of two fictitious articles (positive performance priming vs. negative performance priming) about the team. A positive condition predicted that the team would have a promising year in the new season, while negative publicity described the team in a more critical and skeptical manner. In order to enhance the source credibility, each article was presented via a popular sports magazine brand (Sports Illustrated) and the byline gave a fictitious reporter's name.i After reading the article, participants viewed one of four print advertisements containing the image of a licensed product and its description. Two primarily utilitarian products (USB flash drive and pen) and two primarily hedonic products (luxury watch and outer jacket) were selected based on a pretest (N=30).ii Each advertisement contained the name of the product, image of the product, and brief information about the product. To minimize potential confounding effects, no additional product-related cues (e.g., price, colors, etc.) were given. After participants viewed the advertisement, they responded to questionnaires measuring three value dimensions, attitude toward the product, and purchase intention, followed by demographic items.

Data Screening

The data were screened before being analyzed, and the level of normality in the dataset was assessed by the coefficients of skewness and kurtosis for all variables. An examination of the univariate statistics produced no values which were greater than 2.0 and 7.0 for univariate skewness and kurtosis, which indicated the level of normality in the dataset was not problematic (Curran, West, & Finch, 1996). Once univariate outliers are assessed from the data, multivariate outliers can be assessed for and removed (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 2010).

We followed the recommendation of Hair et al. (2010) and examined multivariate outliers. Multivariate outliers were identified with the use of Mahalanobis [D.sup.2] measure. Hair et al. (2010) recommend a conservative threshold of p < .001 for the multivariate outlier test. We removed 28 cases based on multivariate outlier detection, where both p-values of the Mahalanobis [D.sup.2] equaled .000.

Measures

Team Identification.

Team identification was measured with Robinson and Trail's (2005) three-item scale. This scale was used because it is parsimonious and has shown good internal consistency in previous studies (e.g., [alpha] = .85, Tail & James, 2001; [alpha] = .88, Fink, Trail, & Anderson, 2002). This scale consists of: "Being a fan of the university's football team is very important to me," "I am a committed fan of the university's football team," and "I consider myself to be a 'real' fan of the university's football team" (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree) ([alpha] = .95).

Multidimensional Perceived Consumer Values.

Consumer values were measured using eleven items from Sweeney et al. (1996), Sweeney & Soutar, (2001), and William & Soutar (2000). Three items were used to measure functional value ("This product: has consistent quality/is well made/has an acceptable standard of quality"), four items were used to measure emotional value ("This product: is one that I would enjoy/would make me want to use it/ would make me feel good/would give me pleasure"), and four items were used to measure social value ("This product: would help me to feel acceptable/would improve the way I am perceived/would make a good impression on other people/ would give me social approval"). All items were measured on a seven-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree) and were internally consistent (alpha coefficients were .94, .91, and .95, respectively).

Attitudes and Purchase Intentions.

Attitudes toward the product were measured using Yi's (1990) three 7-point bipolar scales anchored by the adjectives "good-bad," "pleasant-unpleasant," and "like-dislike." Purchase intentions were measured by Yi's (1990) three 7-point scales: "likely-unlikely," "possible-impossible," and "probable-improbable." The alpha coefficients for purchase attitude and purchase intentions were .85 and .89, respectively.

Results

Testing the Measurement Model

We randomly split the sample into two groups and examined the measurement model with each group (Gorsuch, 1983; Sharma, Shimp, & Shin, 1995). A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to assess measurement properties of the various scales with the first half of the sample (N = 101). After examining communality of variables, factor loadings, and fit indices, we removed two items and conducted another CFA with the second half of the sample (N = 102). This approach is often used when some items should be excluded in factor analysis (cf. Gorsuch, 1983; Sharma, Shimp, & Shin, 1995). With regard to using a relatively small sample size, we followed a set of rules to determine the appropriateness of our sample size: (1) absolute number of cases and (2) subject-to-variable ratio. First, Gorsuch (1983) and Kline (1979) recommended at least 100 cases as the absolute minimum number (MacCallum, Widaman, Zhang, & Hong, 1999). Second, many researchers suggest a subject-to-variable ratio of 5:1 is appropriate in conducting a CFA (e.g., Arrindell & van der Ende, 1985; Gorsuch, 1983; MacCallum et al., 1999). Given that our study included 20 variables for the first CFA (N/variables = 101/20 = 5.05) and 18 variables for the second CFA (N/variables = 102/18 = 5.67), our sample met these two criteria of the minimum sample. However, considering the relatively small sample size, the study took a conservative approach to further examine the following elements: communality of variables, standardized factor loading ([beta] coefficients), and model fit indices (e.g., CFI and TLI). A number of studies on factor recovery with small sample size (e.g., MacCallum et al., 1999; Preacher & MacCallum, 2002) argue that if the communalities of variables are high, the population factor structure characterized by low sample size can be adequately recovered. Following MacCallum et al. (1999), our study identified the communalities of variables (all greater than 0.6) in each CFA step. For model fit indices, we considered the CFI, TLI, and IFI because those indices are relatively less affected by sample size (e.g., Anderson & Gerbing, 1992).

The first CFA on the first half of the sample showed satisfactory fit indices ([chi square]/ df = 1.691; CFI = .944; TLI = .931; IFI = .945; SRMR = .086; RMSEA = .083), but standardized regression coefficients (factor loadings) for the first item of emotional value (i.e., the product is one that I would enjoy, [beta] = .416) and social value (i.e., the product would help me feel acceptable, [beta] = .450) were

lower than the suggested cutoff of .60 (Nunnally, 1978). Regarding the communalities of variables, the emotional value item (.428) was lower than the cutoff of .60 and the social value item was on the borderline (.609). Considering that these two items did not satisfy the cut-off criteria of both factor loadings and communality of variables, we eliminated these two items. After excluding two items, the second CFA on the second half of the sample was conducted and provided better overall fit indices ([chi square]/ df = 1.606; CFI = .961; TLI = .950; IFI = .961; SRMR = .068; RMSEA = .077). All factor loadings were greater than the cutoff of .60 and the communalities of all variables were greater than the cutoff of .60. Following Sharma et al.'s (1995) procedure, the analysis on the second partial sample was repeated for the total sample. The CFA on the total sample showed satisfactory fit indices ([chi square]/ df = 1.623; CFI = .979; TLI = .974; IFI = .980; SRMR = .065; RMSEA = .056) and factor loadings and communalities of all eighteen variables were greater than .60.

In the final step of testing the measurement model, we examined construct reliability (CR; otherwise known as composite reliability), average variance extracted (AVE), maximum shared squared variance (MSV), and average shared squared variance (ASV) for each construct with the total sample (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2010). As shown in Table 2, results indicated that all constructs met the recommended level of construct validity and reliability for each scale. Regarding convergent validity, each CR score was greater than 0.7 and its AVE score was greater than 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2010). Two tests were performed to evaluate discriminant validity. First, each MSV score and ASV of the four factors was less than its AVE score. Second, the square root of AVE exceeded the correlations of that construct and all others (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2010). All dimensions exhibited both convergent and discriminant validity.

Structural Model

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was utilized to test relationships among study constructs. Table 3 presents the results of the SEM, including goodness-offit statistics and coefficients. The model adequately fits the data: [chi square]/ df = 1.871; CFI = .971; TLI = .963; IFI = .971; SRMR = .087; RMSEA = .066.

As seen in Table 3, the regression paths from team identification to consumer values ([beta] = .351, p < .01) and purchase attitudes ([beta] = .203, p < .01) were significant, supporting Hypotheses 1 and 2. The regression path from consumer values to purchase attitudes was significant ([beta] = .651, p < .01), supporting Hypothesis 3. Lastly, as expected, the linkage between purchase attitudes and purchase intentions was positive and significant ([beta] = .590, p < .01), lending support for Hypothesis 4.

Testing the Moderating Effects

Once support for the main effects was found, the next step was to include the suggested moderator variables in the model in order to gain deeper insights into the relationships among team identification, consumer values, purchase attitudes, and purchase intentions. Following the procedure outlined by Dabholkar and Bagozzi (2002) and Homburg and Giering (2001), in the first step, an overall chi-square difference test for each of the moderator variables (product category and performance priming) was conducted. If there is a significant change in the chi-square between the two models, then it could be concluded that a moderating effect exists (Maiyaki, 2013). As shown in Table 4, the chi-square difference was 8.06 (p < 0.1) for product category, which indicates that there was a moderating effect of product category somewhere in the parameters of the research model. After obtaining this evidence, the specific moderating effects of product category were further examined. However, the chi-square difference was 1.61 (p > 0.1) for performance priming, suggesting no moderating effect of performance priming. Therefore, we rejected Hypothesis 6 and no further analysis was performed on the moderating effect of performance priming.

Regarding the specific moderating effects of product category, the relations between perceived consumer values and attitudes and purchase intentions toward sport-licensed merchandise were stronger for hedonic products than for utilitarian products but statistically not significant. The relationship between team identification and perceived consumer values was significantly stronger for hedonic products ([beta] = .540, p < .001) than for utilitarian products ([beta] = .209, p < .1). The direct impact of team identification on the attitude towards sport-licensed merchandise was significantly pronounced with utilitarian products ([beta] = .331, p < .001) while the impact was not significant for hedonic products ([beta] = .074, p > .05). These results suggest that the relationship between team identification, perceived value, and attitude towards merchandise differs depending on the product category. For instance, when fans evaluate utilitarian products, attitude formation is a direct function of team identification and perceived value. However, when fans consider hedonic products, team identification alone does not trigger a positive attitude towards the product but does so indirectly, through perceived value. Path coefficients also suggest that the relationship between team identification and perceived value is stronger for hedonic products (Table 4).

With regard to the multidimensional consumer values in the moderating model of product category, all three values (functional, emotional, and social) of perceived consumer value were significant and positive towards both utilitarian products (functional: [beta] = .415, p < .01; emotional: [beta] = .977, p < .01; social: [beta] = .677, p < .01) and hedonic products (functional: [beta] = .610, p < .01; emotional: [beta] = .907, p < .01; social: [beta] = .596, p < .01) (see Table 5). Specifically, emotional value was the most dominant consumption value that led to purchase decisions in both utilitarian ([beta] = .977, p < .01) and hedonic products ([beta] = .907, p < .01).

Discussion

Theoretical Contributions

The current study builds on existing research on the influence of perceived value on purchasing sport team-licensed merchandise (Kwak & Kang, 2009; Kwon et al., 2007). This study attempts to extend previous research in several ways. First, we employed a multidimensional consumer value framework (Sheth et al., 1991) to fully capture various meanings (e.g., functional, emotional, and social) that influence purchase decisions. This approach extends previous efforts at capturing value from a rather narrow unidimensional perspective. Using a multidimensional value framework is also in line with the notion of symbolic purchase that suggests that multiple product values influence consumers' decisions to buy team-licensed merchandise (Levy, 1959). Using a multidimensional approach allowed us to determine which value proposition is driving the purchase decision. Among functional, emotional, and social value dimensions, we found that emotional value plays the most dominant role in the product evaluation process, which subsequently leads to purchase intentions. The dominant role of emotional value was salient across product categories (utilitarian and hedonic), indicating that emotional rewards might be the primary benefits that fans seek when buying a licensed product. This finding is also in line with the notion that emotion serves as a crucial motivator of sport consumers' information processing and behavior (Kwak, Kim, & Hirt, 2011).

Second, we extend previous studies by demonstrating the moderating effect of product category in the relationship between team identification and product evaluations. We employed the symbolic-utilitarian framework (Katz, 1960) as a way of distinguishing product categories. Our findings suggest that the framework is useful in capturing differential effects of product category on consumers' licensed product purchase decision processes.

As with prior studies, team identification was shown to provide the impetus for positive licensed merchandise evaluations (e.g., Kwon et al., 2007). However, the relationship between team identification and perceived value of and attitude toward the product were found to be moderated by product category. Results from multigroup analyses showed that the relationship between team identification and multidimensional consumer values is stronger for hedonic products, while the relationship between team identification and purchase attitudes is stronger for utilitarian products (see Table 4). In the hedonic product conditions, the relationship between team identification and product attitude was fully mediated by perceived consumer values, suggesting that positive attitude formation toward a hedonic merchandise category (e.g., apparel) is enhanced only through positive perceived value of the product. In other words, the influence of perceived value becomes more pronounced when fans consider purchasing self-expressive or status symbol items (e.g., jewelries, watches, apparel) than when buying products for functional purposes (e.g., pen, USB flash drive). The moderating role of product categories along the symbolic-utilitarian continuum contributes to our understanding that fans may use different product evaluation processes depending on the licensed product's characteristics.

Managerial Implications

This investigation offers some insights for managers promoting team-licensed merchandise. Our findings suggest that strong team identification predisposes consumers to perceive greater functional, emotional, and social value of a licensed product. However, the impact of team identification on perceived value and attitude toward the product were different across product categories along the symbolic-utilitarian continuum. In particular, sport consumers seem to seek more symbolic meanings associated with the product when they purchase self-expressive and status symbol licensed goods such as watches and apparel. Therefore, more sophisticated product design, promotion, and delivery strategies should be implemented to effectively market symbolic licensed goods. From a functional value standpoint, licensors should identify reliable and reputable manufacturers to ensure the quality of the licensed products. Products failing to meet consumers' expectations of functional value will adversely affect sales.

Retailers can also enhance products' emotional value through unique product design and sales promotion. Recently, the New York Yankees launched a line of fragrances (another hedonic-oriented product) with the team's trademark embedded in the bottle and packaging (Neff, 2012). They offer a special edition to commemorate Mariano Rivera, one of the greatest Yankees of all time in Major League Baseball history. The special edition bottle contains an official screening of Rivera's Hall of Fame signature and is priced 20% higher than the regular fragrance bottle. Having such a unique product design will create greater desire in those fans who are emotionally attached to the retired pitcher. Another strategy to enhance the value of product would be to limit the availability of the product. A recent study suggests that enhancing perceived limitedness of availability can facilitate consumer reactions to a promotion (Byun & Sternquist, 2012). As such, developing a new product design (e.g., special edition) or limiting the period of time during which the product will be offered (e.g., playoff season only) can enhance the perceived value of licensed merchandise.

For utilitarian or functionally-oriented licensed products (e.g., pen, napkins, USB flash drive), our results showed that high team identification directly affects favorable attitudes toward the product, which leads to purchase intention. Therefore, managers should use a push strategy to make sure consumers are aware that the licensed products are available for purchase in the marketplace (online or in retail stores). Displaying utilitarian items in showrooms and using point-of-purchase displays might enhance the visibility of the products, which would entice fans interested in buying their favorite team's merchandise. Pricing tactics (e.g., quantity discounts, seasonal discounts, price bundling, etc.) lowering the perceived cost of the products might be effective strategies to encourage purchase decisions. Finally, regardless of the product category, we found that emotional value is the key driver of licensed merchandise consumption decisions. Thus, promotional materials tapping into emotional appeals (e.g., pride, fun, excitement) might be effective in creating consumption desire among fans.

Limitations and Suggestions for Future Studies There are some limitations that suggest directions for further research. First, we did not consider the effect of the manufacturer's brand in an effort to minimize the potential confounding effects. Although different brands within a single category can hold different meanings along the symbolic-utilitarian continuum (Aaker, 1997; Bhat & Reddy, 1998), we only focused on the product category-based processing, as in the licensed merchandise context, a sport fan would be less likely to consider other team brands in purchasing a licensed product. However, it is possible that manufacturer brands can also influence how fans perceive the value of a licensed product. Future research should examine both the effect of manufacturer brand and multidimensional consumer values and should explore which is more important to the relationship between team identification and decision making.

Second, the theoretical framework proposed herein could be tested in additional contexts (e.g., professional sports) to strengthen the generalizability of findings. Moreover, the theoretical framework could be expanded to include additional processes and individual difference variables (e.g., self-enhancement; Taylor, Strutton, & Thompson, 2012) that explain other aspects of consumer valuation processes of merchandise consumption.

References

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347-356.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1992). Assumptions and comparative strengths of the two-step approach comment on Fornell and Yi. Sociological Methods & Research, 20(3), 321-333.

Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 27-58.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Arrindell, W. A., & Van der Ende, J. (1985). An empirical test of the utility of the observations-to-variables ratio in factor and components analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9(2), 165-178.

Babin, B. J., Darden, W. R., & Griffin, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 644-656.

Bagozzi, R. P., Baumgartner, J., & Yi, Y. (1989). An investigation into the role of intentions as mediators of the attitude-behavior relationship. Journal of Economic Psychology, 10(1), 35-62.

Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74-94.

Belk, R. W. (1985). Materialism: Trait aspects of living in the material world. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3), 265-280. Bhat, S., & Reddy, S. K. (1998). Symbolic and functional positioning of brands. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 15(1), 32-43.

Byun, S., & Sternquist, B. (2012). Here today, gone tomorrow: Consumer reactions to perceived limited availability. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 20(2), 223-234.

Cialdini, R. B., & Kenrick, D. T. (1976). Altruism as hedonism: A social development perspective on the relationship of negative mood state and helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34(5), 907-914.

Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16-29.

Dabholkar, P. A., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2002). An attitudinal model of technology- based self-service: moderating effects of consumer traits and situational factors. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(3), 184-201.

Fink, J. S., Trail, G.T., & Anderson, D. F. (2002). An examination of team identification: Which motives are most salient to its existence? International Sports Journal, 6, 195-207.

Fisher, R. J., & Wakefield, K. (1998). Factors leading to group identification: A field study of winners and losers. Psychology & Marketing, 15(1), 2340.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382-388.

Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Greenberg, K. (2013, April 8). Big growth in college sports merchandising. Marketing Daily. Retrieved from http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/197323/big-growth-in-college- sports-merchandising.html

Grewal, D., Krishnan, R., Baker, J., & Borin, N. (1998). The effect of store name, brand name and price discounts on consumers' evaluations and purchase intentions. Journal of Retailing, 74(3), 331-352.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Heere, B., Walker, M., Yoshida, M., Ko, Y. J., Jordan, J. S., & James, J. D. (2011). Brand community development through associated communities: Grounding community measurement within social identity theory. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19(4), 407-422.

Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92-101.

Holbrook, M. B. (1994). The nature of customer value: An axiology of services in the consumption experience. In Rust, R. T. & Oliver, R. L. (Eds.). Service Quality: New Directions in Theory and Practice (pp. 21-71). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Holbrook, M. B., & Batra, R. (1987). Assessing the role of emotions as mediators of consumer responses to advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(4), 404-420.

Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1993). The semiotics of consumption: Interpreting symbolic consumer behavior in popular culture and works of art (Vol. 110). Berlin: de Gruyter.

Holt, D. B. (1995). How consumers consume: A typology of consumption practices. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(1), 1-16.

Homburg, C., & Giering, A. (2001). Personal characteristics as moderators of the relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty-an empirical analysis. Psychology & Marketing, 18(1), 43-66.

Kamakura, W. A., & Novak, T. P. (1992). Value-system segmentation: Exploring the meaning of LOV. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(1), 119-132.

Katz, D. (1960). The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24(2), 163-204.

Kline, P. (1979). Psychometrics and psychology. London: Academic Press. Kwak, D. H., & Kang, J. H. (2009). Symbolic purchase in sport: The roles of self-image congruence and perceived quality. Management Decision, 47(1), 85-99.

Kwak, D. H., Kim, Y. K., & Hirt, E. R. (2011). Exploring the role of emotions on sport consumers' behavioral and cognitive responses to marketing stimuli. European Sport Management Quarterly, 11(3), 225-250.

Kwon, H. H., & Armstrong, K. L. (2002). Factors influencing impulse buying of sport team licensed merchandise. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11(3), 151-163.

Kwon, H. H., & Armstrong, K. L. (2006). Impulse purchases of sport team licensed merchandise: What matters? Journal of Sport Management, 20(1), 101-119.

Kwon, H. H., Kim, H., & Mondello, M. (2008). Does a manufacturer matter in co-branding? The influence of a manufacturer brand on sport team licensed apparel. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 17(3), 163-172.

Kwon, H. H., Trail, G., & James, J. D. (2007). The mediating role of perceived value: team identification and purchase intention of team-licensed apparel. Journal of Sport Management, 21(4), 540-554.

Levy, S. J. (1959). Symbols for sales. Harvard Business Review, 37(4), 117124. Licensing Letter. (2012, April 16). Sports on the rebound: Retail sales of licensed goods based on sports properties rises 5.3% in 2011. Licensing Letter.

MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 84-99.

Madrigal, R. (2001). Social identity effects in a belief-attitude-intentions hierarchy: Implications for corporate sponsorship. Psychology & Marketing, 18(2), 145-165.

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(2), 103-123.

Maiyaki, A. A. (2013). Moderating effect of individualism/collectivism on the association between service quality, corporate reputation, perceived value and consumer behavioural intention. Journal of Marketing & Management, 4(1), 1-20.

ManchesterUnited.com. (2013). About Manchester United. Retrieved from http://ir.manutd.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=133303&p=irol-irhome

Marshall, A. (1890). Principles of economics: An introductory volume. London: MacMillan.

Mittal, B. (1988). The role of affective choice mode in the consumer purchase of expressive products. Journal of Economic Psychology, 9(4), 499524.

Monroe, K. B. (1990). Price: Making profitable decisions. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Neff, J. (2012, March 13). Smells like team spirit: Yankees fragrance launches with big push. AdAge. Retrieved from http://adage.com/article/ adages/smells-team-spirit-yankees-fragrance-launches/233285/

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Olympic Marketing Fact File. (2012). International Olympic Committee. Retrieved from http://www.olympic.org/Documents/IOC_Marketing/ OLYMPIC-MARKETING-FACT-FILE-2012.pdf

Ozer, A., & Argan, M. (2006). Licensed team merchandise buying behavior: A study on Turkish fans. Innovative Marketing, 2(4), 117-130.

Park, C. W., Jaworski, B. J., & Maclnnis, D. J. (1986). Strategic brand concept- image management. Journal of Marketing, 50(4), 135-145.

Parsons, A. G. (2002). Brand choice in gift-giving: Recipient influence. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 11(4), 237-249.

Patterson, P. G., & Spreng, R. A. (1997). Modelling the relationship between perceived value, satisfaction and repurchase intentions in a business-to-business, services context: An empirical examination. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 8(5), 414-434.

Preacher, K. J., & MacCallum, R. C. (2002). Exploratory factor analysis in behavior genetics research: Factor recovery with small sample sizes. Behavior Genetics, 32(2), 153-161.

Pura, M. (2005). Linking perceived value and loyalty in location-based mobile services. Managing Service Quality, 15(6), 509-538.

Ratchford, B. (1987). New insights about the FCB Grid. Journal of Advertising Research, 27(4), 24-38.

Riketta, M., & Landerer, A. (2005). Does perceived threat to organizational status moderate the relation between organizational commitment and work behavior? International Journal of Management, 22(2), 193-200.

Rintamaki, T., Kanto, A., Kuusela, H., & Spence, M. T. (2006). Decomposing the value of department store shopping into utilitarian, hedonic and social dimensions: Evidence from Finland. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 34(1), 6-24.

Robinson, M. J., & Trail, G. T. (2005). Relationships among spectator gender, motives, points of attachment, and sport preference. Journal of Sport Management, 19(1), 58-80.

Ruiz-Molina, M. E., & Gil-Saura, I. (2008). Perceived value, customer attitude and loyalty in retailing. Journal of Retail & Leisure Property, 7(4), 305-314.

Scarabis, M., Florack, A., & Gosejohann, S. (2006). When consumers follow their feelings: The impact of affective or cognitive focus on the basis of consumers' choice. Psychology & Marketing, 23(12), 1015-1034.

Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991). Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values. Journal of Business Research, 22(2), 159-170.

Snyder, C. R., Lassegard, M., & Ford, C. E. (1986). Distancing after group success and failure: Basking in reflected glory and cutting off reflected failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (2), 382.

Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. Journal of retailing, 77(2), 203220.

Sweeney, J. C., Soutar, G. N., Whiteley, A., & Johnson, L. W. (1996). Generating consumption value items: A parallel interviewing process approach. Asia-Pacific Advances in Consumer Research, 2, 108-115.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Trail, G. T., & James, J. D. (2001). The motivation scale for sport consumption: Assessment of the scale's psychometric properties. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 108-127.

Taylor, D. G., Strutton, D., & Thompson, K. (2012). Self-enhancement as a motivation for sharing online advertising. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 22(2), 13-28.

Wang, Y., Lo, H. P., Chi, R., & Yang, Y. (2004). An integrated framework for customer value and customer-relationship-management performance: A customer-based perspective from China. Managing Service Quality, 14(2/3), 169-182.

Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1990). Die-hard and fair-weather fans: Effects of identification on BIRGing and CORFing tendencies. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 14(2), 103-117.

Williams, P., & Soutar, G. N. (2000, November). Dimensions of customer value and the tourism experience: An exploratory study. In Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference, 28.

Wilson, T. D., Lindsey, S., & Schooler, T. Y. (2000). A model of dual attitudes. Psychological Review, 107(1), 101-126.

Yi, Y. (1990). A critical review of consumer satisfaction. Review of Marketing, 4(1), 68-123.

Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2-22.

Youngbum Kwon, PhD, is a post doctoral researcher in the Department of Sport Management at the University of Michigan. His research interests include sponsorship-linked marketing, brand equity, and consumption values. Dae Hee Kwak, PhD, is an assistant professor and the co-director of the Michigan Center for Sport Management in the School of Kinesiology at the University of Michigan. His research interests include sport consumer behavior, sport consumer psychology, and experimental designs.

Table 1 Previous Literature on Licensed Merchandise Consumption
Behavior

Author(s)             Study type          Licensed
                                        merchandise

Kwak & Kang (2009)    Empirical       Licensed apparel
                                     of a professional
                                     basketball team in
                                           Korea

Kwon, Kim, &          Empirical          Co-branded
Mondello (2008)                    licensed apparel of a
                                   university in the U.S.

Kwon & Trail (2003)   Empirical         Two US Mid-
                                   western universities'
                                   football team products

Kwon, Trail, &        Empirical       Licensed apparel
James (2007)                         of a southeastern
                                   university's athletic
                                      team in the U.S.

Kwon & Armstrong      Empirical         University's
(2002)                                 team-licensed
                                        merchandise

Ozer & Argan (2006)   Empirical      Licensed products
                                     of a professional
                                   soccer team in Turkey

Fisher & Wakefield    Empirical         Home & away
(1998)                                team merchandise
                                     in a professional
                                        sport league

Author(s)                Value       Purpose
                      dimension(s)

Kwak & Kang (2009)        N/A        To examine the role of
                                     self-image congruence in
                                     licensed merchandise
                                     consumption.

Kwon, Kim, &              N/A        To examine the influence of
Mondello (2008)                      manufacturer brand on
                                     purchasing co- branded
                                     licensed products.

Kwon & Trail (2003)       N/A        To reexamine Mahony et al.'s
                                     (2000) psychological commit-
                                     ment to team (PCT) scale.

Kwon, Trail, &          Economic     To investigate the mediating
James (2007)            value *      effect of perceived value in
                                     the relationship between team
                                     identification and purchase
                                     intentions.

Kwon & Armstrong          N/A        To examine the tendencies toward
(2002)                               impulsive buying of team-licensed
                                     merchandise.

Ozer & Argan (2006)       N/A        To determine and analyze various
                                     factors motivating purchase of
                                     licensed products.

Fisher & Wakefield        N/A        To investigate the factors that
(1998)                               lead to identification across
                                     successful and unsuccessful
                                     groups

Author(s)             Main findings

Kwak & Kang (2009)    Self-image congruence directly and
                      indirectly affects purchase intentions via
                      perceived quality of the product.

Kwon, Kim, &          Attitude toward the manufacturer
Mondello (2008)       influences purchase decision. Impact of a
                      manufacturer's brand was lessened among
                      highly identified individuals.

Kwon & Trail (2003)   Several improvements for the PCT scale
                      by testing construct validity, concurrent
                      validity, and internal consistency.

Kwon, Trail, &        Team identification alone does not play a
James (2007)          role in purchase intentions. Perceived
                      value fully mediates the impact of team
                      identification on purchase intentions.

Kwon & Armstrong      Team identification is an antecedent to
(2002)                impulse buying of sport team-licensed
                      products, and influences the amount of
                      money spent on impulsive sport buying.

Ozer & Argan (2006)   Five factors emerged in purchasing a
                      licensed product (i.e., team identification,
                      store atmosphere, friend group, loyalty
                      and shopping enjoyment). Identification
                      had the greatest influence on buying
                      behaviors.

Fisher & Wakefield    Member involvement is an important
(1998)                factor leading to identification for
                      unsuccessful groups, whereas perceived
                      group performance plays a role in leading
                      to identification for successful groups.

Note. Summarized and organized by the authors. * Only Kwon et al.
(2007) applied perceived value in the research model.

Table 2 Summary of Reliability Coefficients, AVE, MSV, ASV, and
Correlations Among Variables.

Potential variable         Alpha    CR      AVE     MSV     ASV

Team Identification (TI)   .921    0.941   0.842   0.187   0.115
Consumer Values (CV)       .884    0.764   0.536   0.479   0.353
Purchase Attitude (PA)     .966    0.953   0.872   0.466   0.327
Purchase Intention (PI)    .909    0.895   0.740   0.479   0.284

Potential variable           TI        CV          PA          PI

Team Identification (TI)   0.918a
Consumer Values (CV)       0.339    0.732 (a)
Purchase Attitude (PA)     0.432    0.683       0.934 (a)
Purchase Intention (PI)    0.209    0.692       0.573       0.860 (a)

Summary of fit indices: [chi square]/df = 1.623; CFI = .979; NFI = .948
SRMR = .065; RMSEA = .056; TLI = .974; AGFI = .862

Note. Composite Reliability (CR), Average Variance Extracted (AVE),
Maximum Shared Squared Variance (MSV), Average Shared Squared
Variance (ASV); (a) indicates the square root of a given construct's
AVE

Table 3 Basic Model Effects

                                         Standardized       Hypothesis
                                          regression
                                     coefficient ([beta])

Team identification [right arrow]          .351 ***             H1
  Perceived consumer values
Team identification [right arrow]          .203 ***             H2
  Attitude towards sport-licensed
  merchandise
Perceived consumer values                  .651 ***             H3
  [right arrow] Attitude towards
  sport-licensed merchandise
Attitude towards sport-licensed            .590 ***             H4
  merchandise [right arrow]
  Purchase intention towards
  sport-licensed merchandise

                                      Support

Team identification [right arrow]    Supported
  Perceived consumer values
Team identification [right arrow]    Supported
  Attitude towards sport-licensed
  merchandise
Perceived consumer values            Supported
  [right arrow] Attitude towards
  sport-licensed merchandise
Attitude towards sport-licensed      Supported
  merchandise [right arrow]
  Purchase intention towards
  sport-licensed merchandise

Summary of fit indices for the proposed models tested: [chi square]/
df= 1.871; CFI = .971; NFI = .939 SRMR = .087; RMSEA = .066; TLI =
.963; AGFI = .845

Note. * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, and *** p < 0.01

Table 4 Chi-square Difference Test between Two Product Category
Groups (utilitarian vs. hedonic)

                     Constrained    Unconstrained   [DELTA][chi square]
                        model           model           (df=4)

Fit index:          407.293 (248)   399.231 (244)         8.062 *
  Chi-square (df)
  CFI                   .957            .958
  TLI                   .947            .947
  IFI                   .957            .958
  RMSEA                 .057            .056

Paths                                           Utilitarian   Hedonic
                                                 products     products

Team identification [right arrow]                 .209 *      .540 ***
Perceived consumer values

Team identification [right arrow] Attitude       .331 ***       .074
towards sport-licensed merchandise

Perceived consumer values [right arrow]          .587 ***     .709 ***
Attitude towards sport-licensed merchandise

Attitude towards sport-licensed                  .580 ***     .587 ***
merchandise [right arrow] Purchase intention
towards sport-licensed merchandise

Paths                                           [chi square]

Team identification [right arrow]                  403.235
Perceived consumer values

Team identification [right arrow] Attitude         404.078
towards sport-licensed merchandise

Perceived consumer values [right arrow]            399.561
Attitude towards sport-licensed merchandise

Attitude towards sport-licensed                    399.840
merchandise [right arrow] Purchase intention
towards sport-licensed merchandise

Paths                                           [DELTA][chi square]
                                                     (df = 1)

Team identification [right arrow]                    4.004 **
Perceived consumer values

Team identification [right arrow] Attitude           4.847 **
towards sport-licensed merchandise

Perceived consumer values [right arrow]                0.330
Attitude towards sport-licensed merchandise

Attitude towards sport-licensed                        0.609
merchandise [right arrow] Purchase intention
towards sport-licensed merchandise

Paths                                           Hypothesis    Support

Team identification [right arrow]                   H5       Supported
Perceived consumer values

Team identification [right arrow] Attitude                   Supported
towards sport-licensed merchandise

Perceived consumer values [right arrow]                         Not
Attitude towards sport-licensed merchandise                  supported

Attitude towards sport-licensed                                 Not
merchandise [right arrow] Purchase intention                 supported
towards sport-licensed merchandise

Note. * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, and *** p < 0.01

Table 5 Multidimensional Consumer Values in the Moderating Model of
Product Category

                                            Utilitarian product

                                             [beta]      p

Functional value [left arrow] Perceived       .415      ***
  consumer values
Emotional value [left arrow] Perceived        .977      ***
  consumer values
Social value [left arrow] Perceived           .677      ***
  consumer values

                                            Hedonic product

                                            [beta]    p

Functional value [left arrow] Perceived      .610    ***
  consumer values
Emotional value [left arrow] Perceived       .907    ***
  consumer values
Social value [left arrow] Perceived          .596    ***
  consumer values

Note. * p < 0.1, ** p < 0.05, and *** p < 0.01