Personality fit in NASCAR: an evaluation of driver-sponsor congruence and its impact on sponsorship effectiveness outcomes.

Dees, Windy ; Bennett, Gregg ; Ferreira, Mauricio 等

Introduction

Marketing managers link their brands with a sporting event in which consumers are passionate and loyal (Gwinner & Swanson, 2003; Madrigal, 2001) to accomplish two primary objectives which are: (1) to increase brand awareness and (2) to transform or enhance brand image (Gwinner & Eaton, 1999). "Fostering a favorable image for a brand is frequently an important corporate objective and sponsorship helps define a brand personality through its inferred association with the sport property" (Brown, 2002, p. 188). This research study will focus on the second corporate objective mentioned previously which is brand image enhancement. One of the concepts closely related to brand image enhancement that has been explored by marketing researchers is the concept of brand personality (Aaker, 1997; Chatman & Barsade, 1995; Ekinci & Hosany, 2006; Plummer 1985).

According to marketing literature, a major factor in consumer brand choice is the perceived brand personality of the product or service offering (Aaker, 1997; Plummer, 1985). Consumers often purchase brands on the sole basis of the perceived brand personality of the product as compared to that product's competitors (Wysong, Munch, & Kleiser, 2002). Therefore, brands with well-established and favorable brand personalities may possess advantages in the marketplace, because consumers have elicited positive attitudes and purchase intentions toward these brands (Aaker, 1999; Wysong et al., 2002). Another factor affecting brand choice is celebrity endorsement. Having a celebrity, such as a famous athlete, endorse the brand often persuades consumers to purchase the product or service. However, the success of the endorsement may depend on the pairing of the person and the product (Martin, 1996).

Previous research on celebrity endorsement has suggested that consumers like brands and are more persuaded to purchase them if the celebrity endorser is a good "fit" (Martin, 1996). Therefore, brands with strong, established personalities may or may not benefit from celebrity endorsement, depending on whether the endorser's personality is a good fit with the brand. In the context of National Association of Stock Car Auto Racing (NASCAR), where virtually all fans choose their favorite driver based on his personality (Amato, Peters, & Shao, 2005), and the driver's major sponsor is likely to be a highly recognized brand with its own ingrained personality, it is important to investigate the congruence or match-up effects between the two in order to determine whether personality fit influences consumers' response to NASCAR sponsorships.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

The concept of fit, or relatedness, between a sponsor's brand and a sponsored event or celebrity has been researched quite extensively in the marketing (McDaniel, 1999; Roy & Cornwell, 2004; Smith, 2004) and advertising fields (Costanzo & Goodnight, 2005; Gwinner & Eaton, 1999; Kammins, 1990). While Amis, Pant, and Slack (1997) examined the "fit" between corporations and their sponsored properties, no known sport sponsorship studies have looked at the relationship between individual athletes and their major corporate sponsors to determine what constitutes good fit and whether or not this fit influences the effectiveness of the sponsorship pairings (Koo, Quarterman, & Flynn, 2006). Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine if personality fit between NASCAR drivers and their major sponsors affects the sponsorship outcomes of consumer attitudes toward the sponsor, attitudes toward the brand, and purchase intentions during a NASCAR event. Moreover, fan identification and product involvement were examined as moderators between personality fit and the three sponsorship outcomes. The significance of these two variables as moderators is explained in further detail in the review of literature.

Literature Review

NASCAR

Previous research on NASCAR fans has determined that "virtually all fans chose a favorite driver based on his personality" (Amato, Peters, & Shao, 2005, p. 71). The sport of NASCAR is full of colorful driver personalities and established brand-name sponsors. These athletes are celebrity endorsers and represent the products or brands which sponsor their race cars and racing teams. They are branded with the logo of their major sponsor on their cars, uniforms, helmets, and even in their racing pits. NASCAR drivers also come to be known by the major sponsor of their cars. For instance, during the telecast of a NASCAR event, announcers will refer to the "DuPont car" or the "Home Depot car" instead of Jeff Gordon and Joey Logano, respectively. These drivers and brands become inextricably linked through sponsorship, and consumers recognize the connection between the two. It is one of the most apparent linkages between an athlete endorser and a product, since the driver and brand are constantly referenced together during the actual competition. In essence, NASCAR drivers could be considered brands themselves. Thus, corporate sponsorship of NASCAR drivers has become a marketing strategy of firms trying to differentiate their brands and influence brand choice (Amato et al., 2005).

Theoretical Framework

Previous research examining celebrity endorsement as well as event sponsorship has been theoretically based on the match-up hypothesis (Gwinner, 1997; Gwinner & Eaton, 1999; Kahle & Homer, 1985; McCracken, 1989; McDaniel, 1999). The match-up hypothesis is similar to congruence theory, which proposes that individuals can more easily process, store, and retrieve information if it is related or similar to previous information or experiences (Cornwell, Weeks, & Roy, 2005). The match-up hypothesis suggests that consumers' response to advertising, or in this case sponsorship, will be impacted by the similarity between the endorser's (NASCAR driver) personality and the brand's personality (McDaniel, 1999). According to this theory, the more commonalities between the two, the more likely consumers will remember and relate the endorser and brand, and respond in a favorable manner. Less congruent endorsers and brands may be less memorable and, therefore, elicit weaker responses from consumers exposed to the match (Cornwell et al., 2005; McDaniel, 1999). It is hypothesized in this study that a stronger congruence, or fit, between driver and brand personality would increase sponsorship effectiveness.

Fit

The term "fit" has been used throughout much of the sponsorship literature referring to the relatedness, similarity, relevance, or congruence of event-sponsor relationships or celebrity endorser-brand relationships (Becker-Olsen & Hill; 2006; Gwinner, 1997; McDonald, 1991; Poon & Prendergast; 2006; Rifon, Choi, Trimble, & Li, 2004; Roy & Cornwell, 2004). Fit is defined as the "synergy between what the company does in its business and the detail of the sponsorship" (McDonald, 1991, p. 36). Overall fit can be measured in a multitude of ways (Smith, 2004). According to Smith (2004), companies who choose to sponsor an event may consider their degree of fit among six different types of association: (1) Product attribute, (2) User imagery, (3) Brand personality, (4) Functional benefits, (5) Experiential benefits, and (6) Symbolic benefits. While levels of overall fit between sponsor and event have been explored to some degree in the realm of sport using several of these types of associations (Gwinner & Eaton, 1999; Koo et al., 2006; McDaniel, 1999), the aspect of a sponsor's brand personality and how its fit with an event influences sponsorship effectiveness has not been examined. Previous research has indicated that sponsors who support a cause that fits well with their firm could generate positive attitudes toward the sponsor (Rifon et al., 2004) as well as influence consumers' cognitive and conative responses to sponsorship (Poon & Prendergast, 2006).

Brand Personality

Brand personality is a construct derived from the study of human interaction and examines how people attach meanings to brands. It is defined as "the human characteristics of a brand" (Aaker & Fournier, 1995, p. 393-394). A brand often develops its own individual personality, and the characteristics or attributes associated with it help differentiate the brand from competitors. An empirical study conducted by Aaker (1997) examining brand personality revealed that brands are often described using the same Big Five dimensions of personality that are used to describe people. The Big Five dimensions of brand personality are Sincerity, Excitement, Competence, Sophistication, and Ruggedness (Wysong et al., 2002).

Brand personality has been an accepted and extensive topic of study among advertising and marketing researchers for decades (Gardner & Levy, 1955; Landon, 1974; Aaker, 1997; Ekinci & Hosany, 2006). Historically, the construct of brand personality has been used to examine peoples' perceptions of consumer goods (Aaker, 1997). More recently, however, brand personality has been used to explore whether or not consumers ascribe personality characteristics to service industries such as tourist destinations and how brand personality affects their behaviors (Ekinci & Hosany, 2006). "Brand personality is important because consumers may choose one brand over another based solely on its personality" (Wysong, Munch, & Kleiser, 2002, p. 512). Brand personality also has a strong impact on consumers' attitudes and behaviors, including their brand attitudes and brand loyalty (Aaker, 1999). Therefore, the first three research questions developed to guide this study are as follows:

RQ1: Will personality fit be positively related to attitude toward the sponsor?

RQ2: Will personality fit be positively related to attitude toward the brand?

RQ3: Will personality fit be positively related to purchase intentions?

A review of the relevant literature pertaining to the constructs of attitude toward the sponsor, attitude toward the brand, and purchase intentions will now be examined.

Attitude Toward the Sponsor

An attitude toward an advertiser is an individual's favorable or unfavorable evaluation of a particular organization, such as an event sponsor. Attitude toward the sponsor has been examined in previous research with respect to event-sponsor fit. Roy and Cornwell (2003), for example, hypothesized that attitude toward the sponsor would be positively related to event-sponsor congruence. They found that participants who perceived higher levels of congruence between event and sponsor also held more positive attitudes of the sponsors. Conversely, participants who scored the events and sponsors low on congruence, held more negative views of the sponsors. The authors encouraged event managers and sponsors to be strategic in forming long-term sponsorship arrangements, as being well-paired based on organizational goals and image could be critical to sponsorship success (Roy & Cornwell, 2003).

Attitude Toward the Brand

Attitude toward the brand, or brand attitude, represents the consumer's overall evaluation of the brand, and these attitudes are often precursors to behavioral response. (Keller, 1993; Wilkie, 1986). According to Keller's (1993) dimensions of brand knowledge, brand attitudes are a type of brand association that builds overall brand image. Consumers form attitudes toward different brands based on what the brands have to offer, such as their personality (Aaker, 1997). Brands provide various attributes and benefits, and consumers judge the attributes and benefits before developing attitudes regarding the overall brand (Keller, 1993). These attitudes strongly influence their future behavior such as purchase intentions and actual purchases (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Madrigal, 2001; Spears & Singh, 2004).

Purchase Intentions

According to Spears and Singh (2004, p. 56), "Purchase intentions are an individual's conscious plan to make an effort to purchase a brand." Purchase intentions indicate the level of motivation that an individual has to complete a purchase behavior. The greater the level of motivation, the more likely the person will actually make a purchase. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) suggest that purchase intentions are the link between attitudes and behavior. Consumers must have an intention to purchase a product or service before the action takes place; therefore, purchase intentions are an antecedent to actual purchase behaviors.

Current research exploring the link between attitudes and purchase intentions has demonstrated that there is a strong relationship between the two. Zhang, Won, and Pastore (2005) found that positive attitudes toward commercialization of intercollegiate athletics led to greater purchase intentions of corporate sponsors' brands. A more recent study conducted by Koo, Quarterman, and Flynn (2006) revealed that higher levels of attitude toward the brand among Bowl Championship Series (BCS) Championship viewers also led to greater purchase intentions toward corporate sponsors' products. Consumers with lower brand attitude levels were less likely to consider purchasing from event sponsors. These studies support the notion of Spears and Singh (2004) that purchase intentions represent a "favorable intent" to actually purchase products and services from companies.

Fan Identification

Social identity theory is often used to explain fan behavior in terms of how fans interact with one another in settings where they are supporting their favorite teams and players (Madrigal, 2001; Gwinner & Swanson, 2003). Social identity theory suggests that individuals join groups based on the need to fulfill a certain personal identity, and that being a member of certain groups can provide such an identity. For example, Gwinner and Swanson (2003) state that the prestige of certain organizations may attract group membership because individuals want to appear more prominent or influential. Madrigal (2001) found that fan identification with a university moderated the relationship between attitudes toward corporate sponsors and purchase intentions. When fans rated their attitudes toward corporate sponsors low on the survey scale, those who also rated themselves as highly identified with the university were more likely to purchase from the sponsors than fans who rated themselves low in identification with the university. Highly identified fans seem to desire group affiliation even when their attitudes are negative towards sponsorship in general. Therefore, the fourth research question in this study is the following:

RQ4: Will fan identification moderate the relationship between personality fit and (a) attitude toward the sponsor, (b) attitude toward the brand, and (c) purchase intentions?

Product Involvement

Product involvement refers to "how connected or engaged a product class is to an individual's values" (Traylor, 1981, p. 51). Product involvement is an important aspect of marketing because it can influence how people respond to products and services (Kokkinaki, 1999). If consumers are exposed to marketing communication that is intended to influence their attitudes and behaviors regarding the product being marketed, the level of involvement the consumer has with the product becomes critical. Studies have shown that product involvement has a moderating effect in these situations (Nkwocha et al., 2005; Kokkinaki, 1999). One study found that product involvement moderated the relationship between product fit and attitude toward brand extensions. In this study (Nkwocha et al., 2005), complementarity was found to be significant in the evaluation of low-involvement brand extensions and insignificant in the evaluation of high-involvement brand extensions. Another study (Kokkinaki, 1999) revealed that product involvement moderated the relationship between attitudes and usage intentions as well as the relationship between past behavior and actual usage behavior. Therefore, the final research question in this study is the following:

RQ5: Will product involvement moderate the relationship between personality fit and (a) attitude toward the sponsor, (b) attitude toward the brand, and (c) purchase intentions?

Methods

Data for this exploratory study were collected through paper-and-pencil surveys at a NEXTEL Cup event, the NASCAR Samsung 500 at Texas Motor Speedway, in Fort Worth, Texas. There were several hundred surveys distributed to willing participants prior to the start of the race.

Permission was granted by the public relations department of Texas Motor Speedway to approach participants as they entered the main gate of the NASCAR Fan Zone area just outside the grandstand of Texas Motor Speedway. As they came through the main entrance, fans were asked if they would be willing to participate in a study regarding the sponsorship of NASCAR drivers. Only participants 18 and older who were attending the speedway were eligible to participate in the study. Four hours prior to the start of the race, data collectors began sampling respondents. Data collectors were trained, volunteer undergraduate and graduate majors in sport management. They were instructed to obtain a random sample by approaching every fourth person and asking him or her to participate in the study and provide willing participants with a survey and informed consent card. This process was repeated until one hour before race time and spectator flow into the venue increased. Data collectors were then instructed to solicit responses from every tenth person. Each participant who was selected, and agreed to take part, completed a 5-7 minute survey.

Operationalizing of the Constructs

Some of the measures of the constructs were adapted from previous studies through an extensive literature review involving all the constructs. The items used to measure driver and brand personality were modified from Aaker's (1997) study of the dimensions of brand personality, which utilized the same Big Five dimensions of personality in the psychology literature that are used to describe human personalities. The items were measured individually using a seven-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 (Not accurate) to 7 (Very accurate).

The product involvement items were from Mittal's (1989) study of consumer involvement. The items were measured using a seven-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree). Fan identification was measured using Madrigal's (2001) items from his beliefs-attitudes-intentions hierarchy study. The items were measured using a seven-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree). The items measuring attitude toward the sponsor, attitude toward the brand, and purchase intentions were constructed from the Lafferty el al. (2002) study of corporate and endorser credibility. Attitude toward the sponsor and attitude toward the brand were measured using a seven-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 (Bad) to 7 (Good), 1 (Unfavorable) to 7 (Favorable), and 1 (Unpleasant) to 7 (Pleasant). Purchase intentions were measured using a seven-point Likert-scale ranging from 1 (Unlikely) to 7 (Likely), 1 (Improbable) to 7 (Probable), and 1 (Impossible) to 7 (Possible).

Sample Profile

In all, 385 questionnaires were collected--a number that exceeds the requirements for a finite population of 191,000 spectators (the total number of spectators in attendance at the event) (Krejcie & Morgan, 1970). Due to incomplete responses, 38 of the questionnaires had to be discarded, bringing the final sample to 347.

The demographic variables analyzed in this study were gender, age, ethnicity, marital status, education level, and household income. The socio-demographic composition of this sample was similar to that of Spann's (2002) study of NASCAR culture. Some of the percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding and/or missing responses. There were more males (58%) than females (38%), and the overwhelming majority (82%) of respondents were Caucasian. The age brackets and their corresponding percentages were: 18-24 (11%), 25-34 (26%), 35-44 (34%), 45-54 (18%), and 55 and older (8%). Over 62% of the sample was married and 23% were single. Thirty-one percent of respondents were high school graduates and 46% had some college or were college graduates. Sixty-seven percent of the sample had household incomes over $40,000 with 24% reporting incomes over $85,000.

Development of Measures

The initial question of the survey asked respondents to identify their favorite NASCAR driver and his major sponsor (name on the hood of the racecar), then answer the remainder of the survey based on that pairing. In order to determine the level of personality fit between NASCAR driver and major sponsor, an index was created. This was done by subtracting the sponsor personality scores from the driver personality scores and recording the differences for each of the 15 personality items. For example, if a respondent scored the driver's personality a "7" on the wholesome item and the sponsor's personality a "5" for the same item, then the overall fit score for wholesome would be a "2". Since there could also be negative fit scores due to the sponsor's personality being rated higher than the driver's, absolute values of the personality fit scores were taken. The personality fit index ranged from 0 (perfect fit--no discrepancy between driver and sponsor personality) to 6 (no fit--complete discrepancy between driver and sponsor personality). Therefore, low numbers on the fit index indicate good fit, and high numbers on the fit index indicate poor fit.

Due to the exploratory nature of this study, the items measuring the five dimensions of the brand personality construct were factor analyzed using the principal components technique with direct oblimin rotation to identify underlying relationships or factors. This factor analysis technique was used as it is consistent with Aaker's (1997) process and other exploratory studies which have investigated the brand personality construct (Ekinci & Hosany, 2006). The use of factor analysis in this study ensures that the items used create unidimensional measures of the brand personality dimensions of interest (Aaker, 1997). Component analysis is often used when the primary objective is to identify the minimum number of factors in an instrument that account for the maximum portion of the variance in an original data set (Hair et al., 1995; Morton & Friedman, 2002). The results of the factor analysis suggested that three dimensions of brand personality were present rather than five (Aaker, 1997). The first factor accounted for 59.37% of the variance. The items that loaded in factor one were regarded as the unidimensional construct of Excitement/Ruggedness (Dimension 1). The items that loaded in factor two were considered to be the unidimensional construct of Competence/Sophistication (Dimension 2) and accounted for 6.80% of the variance. Factor three included the unidimensional construct of Sincerity (Dimension 3) and explained 6.53% of the variance. One item, "Imaginative," was deleted from the study, as it loaded on factor one and factor two. Reliability measures were calculated for each of the three dimensions of personality fit. Coefficient alpha reliability tests run for each construct satisfied Nunally's (1978) criterion of .60 or higher as a standard for an exploratory research study.

Results

There were five research questions proposed in this study. These questions guided the exploration of personality fit and its impact on consumers' responses to NASCAR sponsorship.

Research question 1, which predicted a positive relationship between personality fit and attitude toward the sponsor, was tested through bivariate correlations. As seen in Table 3, each of the three personality dimensions was significantly correlated with the dependent variable, attitude toward the sponsor: Dimension 1 (r = -.432, p = .000), Dimension 2 (r = .350, p = .000), and Dimension 3 (r = -.378, p = .000). The negative correlations are due to the scoring of the personality fit index. The personality fit index ranged from 0 (perfect fit--no discrepancy between driver and sponsor personality) to 6 (no fit--complete discrepancy between driver and sponsor personality). Therefore, low numbers on the fit index for each of the three dimensions indicated good fit and resulted in higher attitude toward the sponsor scores; thus, the correlations have a negative sign. The same can be seen for the correlations in research questions two and three.

Research question 2, which predicted a positive relationship between personality fit and attitude toward the brand, was tested through bivariate correlations. Each of the three personality dimensions was significantly correlated with the dependent variable, attitude toward the brand: Dimension 1 (r = -.394, p = .000), Dimension 2 (r = -.343, p = .000), and Dimension 3 (r = -.399, p = .000).

Research question 3, which predicted a positive relationship between personality fit and purchase intentions, was also tested through bivariate correlations. Each of the three personality dimensions was significantly correlated with the dependent variable, purchase intentions: Dimension 1 (r = -.365, p = .000), Dimension 2 (r = -.310, p = .000), and Dimension 3 (r = -.303, p = .000).

Research questions 4 and 5 were tested through hierarchical moderated regression following Cohen, Cohen, West, and Aiken's (2003) guidelines. Specifically, all variables were first centered to the mean (to reduce the threat of multicollinearity). Dimension 1 (Excitement/Ruggedness), Dimension 2 (Competence/Sophistication), and Dimension 3 (Sincerity), fan identification, and product involvement were entered first followed by the interaction terms. For attitude toward the sponsor, fan identification ([beta] =.226, p=.000) and product involvement ([beta] =.400, p=.000) both had significant direct effects on the dependent variable. There was also a significant Dimension 3 x fan identification interaction (P =.160, p=.000). For attitude toward the brand, fan identification ([beta] =.311, p=.000) and product involvement ([beta] =.224, p=.000) again had significant direct effects on the dependent variable. However, there were no significant interaction effects for attitude toward the brand. For the dependent variable, purchase intentions, only product involvement ([beta] =.530, p=.000) had a significant direct effect. There were no significant interaction effects for purchase intentions.

Discussion

Research question 1 assessed whether personality fit would be positively related to attitude toward the sponsor. According to the bivariate correlations, there was a positive relationship between the personality fit of NASCAR drivers and their major sponsors and consumers' attitude toward the sponsor. When there was a higher degree of personality fit between the driver and sponsor, respondents also demonstrated more positive attitudes toward the sponsor.

This outcome is consistent with previous literature on fit (Roy & Cornwell, 2003), which suggests that high levels of fit produce positive affective and behavioral responses, while low fit "makes people less certain of a firm's positioning" (Becker-Olsen & Simmons, 2002, p. 287). Additionally, our results support Martin's (1996) findings that athlete endorsers and products that fit well often lead to valuable advertising results such as positive consumer attitudes toward the firm.

Research question 2 assessed whether personality fit would be positively related to attitude toward the brand. According to the correlation analysis, there was a positive relationship between the personality fit of NASCAR drivers and their major sponsors and consumers' attitude toward the brand. When there was a higher degree of personality fit between the driver and sponsor, respondents also demonstrated more positive attitudes toward the brand. This finding corroborates previous research that indicates that better fit between events and sponsors or celebrity endorsers and products leads to more positive consumer brand attitudes (Koo et al., 2006; Speed & Thompson, 2000).

This finding is critical since parent companies sponsoring NASCAR (e.g., Mars) often have multiple brands advertised within the sport (e.g., M&M's, Snickers), but promote each brand separately by placing it on the hood of a different racecar and linking it to an individual NASCAR driver through sponsorship (Kyle Busch #18, Ricky Rudd #88). Another prime example would be Anheuser-Busch, which has more than 60 varieties of alcoholic beverages, but that use the firm's flagship beer, Budweiser, as the major sponsor of Kasey Kahne and the #9 car. Companies that pair their brands effectively with a congruent NASCAR personality may be able to simultaneously differentiate and promote their brands within the same sporting event and to the same target audience.

Research question 3 assessed whether personality fit would be positively related to purchase intentions. According to the correlations, there was a positive relationship between the personality fit of NASCAR drivers and their major sponsors and consumers' purchase intentions. When there was a higher degree of personality fit between the driver and sponsor, respondents demonstrated greater intentions to purchase products and services from the sponsors of the NASCAR drivers.

Once again, the results extend contemporary research on fit by supporting the fact that better personality fit between athlete endorser and sponsor may improve sponsorship outcomes, such as purchase intentions. In particular, these results support the ideas of Poon and Prendergast (2006), who suggest that fit not only influences consumers' cognitive and affective responses to sponsorship, but their conative processes as well. This result is compelling because it indicates that personality fit, as a sponsorship effectiveness antecedent, would be an important factor for event and marketing managers to consider when selecting sponsorship arrangements that are most congruent and have the strongest financial potential.

Research questions 4 and 5 assessed whether fan identification and product involvement would moderate the relationship between personality fit and (a) attitude toward the sponsor, (b) attitude toward the brand, and (c) purchase intentions. The results of this study demonstrated that fan identification and product involvement were significant indicators of NASCAR consumers' attitude toward the sponsor and attitude toward the brand. Product involvement was also a significant indicator of NASCAR consumers' purchase intentions, but did not have any moderating effects on the relationship between personality fit and any of the dependent variables. Fan identification did moderate the relationship between personality fit on Dimension 3 (Sincerity) and attitude toward the sponsor. While these results do not provide sufficient evidence to support moderation, the results are important nonetheless. These results confirm that highly identified fans possess strong positive emotions toward the sponsors of their favorite sporting events and athletes as well as the endorsers' advertised brands. Additionally, the more relevant and important the brand is to the consumer, the more likely they are to purchase that brand. NASCAR fans in this study that selected a favorite driver who was endorsing a product highly relevant to them, were much more likely to purchase the brand than fans who supported drivers with non-relevant brands.

Limitations of the Study

While this research makes theoretical contributions to the sport sponsorship literature as well as the analysis of the brand personality construct, it is essential to consider the limitations of the study. Conducting future research that addresses these limitations may further strengthen the sport marketing and sponsorship literature.

The first limitation of the study is that it was conducted using a convenience sample. Although respondents were selected using random sampling techniques, their voluntary participation was required and, therefore, the sample may not be completely representative of the NASCAR population. Additionally, the sample consisted of 347 responses and a larger sample may have been more representative and provided more generalizable results.

Another limitation of the study is that the findings may only be representative of a specific group (NASCAR fans). Since the study asked respondents to identify their favorite NASCAR driver and his major sponsor, then answer the questionnaire based on that pairing, the results provide insight into the attitudes and intentions of NASCAR fans, but not the necessarily the fans of other individual sports.

Furthermore, the sample in this NASCAR study was predominantly Caucasian (82%). When the demographics of a sample are skewed in one or more categories, it may be difficult to relate the findings to another sample with a different demographic composition. Although it is not uncommon for the sport of NASCAR to have a large Caucasian audience, it does make generalizing the results of sponsorship effectiveness research to another sport unrealistic. For instance, consumers' perceptions of personality fit between NASCAR drivers and sponsors may be an important facet of sponsorship effectiveness in stock car racing, but it may not be as critical in other professional genres such as action sports for athlete-sponsor personalities to be congruent. Future research on personality fit and its effects on sponsorship in other professional sports are warranted.

References

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

Aaker, J. (1999). The malleable self: The role of self-expression in persuasion. Journal of Marketing Research, 36, 45-57.

Aaker, J., & Fournier, S. (1995). A brand as a character, a partner, and a person: Three perspectives on the question of brand personality. Advances in Consumer Research, 22, 391-395.

Amato, C. H., Peters, C. L. O., & Shao, A. T. (2005). An exploratory investigation into NASCAR fan culture. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 14, 71-83.

Amis, J., Pant, N., & Slack, T. (1997). Achieving a sustainable competitive advantage: A resource-based view of sport sponsorship. Journal of Sport Management, 11, 80-96.

Becker-Olsen, K. L., & Hill, R. P. (2006). The impact of sponsor fit on brand equity: The case of nonprofit service providers. Journal of Service Research, 9(1), 73-83.

Becker-Olsen, K. L., & Simmons, C. J. (2002). When do social sponsorships enhance or dilute equity? Fit, message source, and the persistence of effects. Advances in Consumer Research, 29, 287-289.

Brown, G. (2002). Taking the pulse of Olympic sponsorship. Event Management, 7, 187-196.

Chatman, J. A., & Barsade, S. G. (1995). Personality, organizational culture, and cooperation: Evidence from a business simulation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 423-443.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence-Erlbaum.

Cornwell, T. B., Weeks, C. S., & Roy, D. P. (2005). Sponsorship-linked marketing: Opening the black box. Journal of Advertising, 34(2), 21-42.

Costanzo, P. J., & Goodnight, J. E. (2005). Celebrity endorsements: Matching celebrity and endorsed brand in magazine advertisements. Journal of Promotion Management, 11(4), 49-62.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Ekinci, Y., & Hosany, S. (2006). Destination personality: An application of brand personality to tourism destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 45, 127-139.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Gardner, B. B., & Levy, S. J. (1955). The product and the brand. Harvard Business Review, 33, 33-39.

Gwinner, K. (1997). A model of image creation and image transfer in event sponsorship. International Marketing Review, 14(3), 145-158.

Gwinner, K., & Eaton, J. (1999). Building brand image through event sponsorship: The role of image transfer. Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 47-57.

Gwinner, K., & Swanson, S. (2003). A model of fan identification: Antecedents and sponsorship outcomes. Journal of Services Marketing, 17(3), 275-294.

Kahle, L. R., & Homer, P. M. (1985). Physical attractiveness of the celebrity endorser: A social adaptation perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 11(4), 954-961.

Kammins, M. A. (1990). An investigation into the "match-up" hypothesis in celebrity advertising: When beauty may be only skin deep. Journal of Advertising, 19(1), 4-13.

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57, 1-22.

Kokkinaki, F. (1999). Predicting product purchase and usage: The role of perceived control, past behavior, and product involvement. Advances in Consumer Research, 26, 576-583.

Koo, G., Quarterman, J., & Flynn, L. (2006). Effect of perceived sport event and sponsor image fit on consumers' cognition, affect, and behavioral intentions. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 15, 80-90.

Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.

Landon, E. L. (1974). Self-concept, ideal self-concept, and consumer purchase intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 1, 44-51.

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

Martin, J. H. (1996). Is the athlete's sport important when picking an athlete to endorse a nonsport product? Journal of Consumer Marketing, 13(6), 28-43.

McCracken, G. (1989). Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsement process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3), 310-321.

McDaniel, S. R. (1999). An investigation of match-up effects in sport sponsorship advertising: The implications of consumer advertising schemas. Psychology & Marketing, 16(2), 163-184.

Nkwocha, I., Bao, Y., Johnson, W. C., & Brotspies, H. V. (2005). Product fit and consumer attitude toward brand extensions: The moderating role or product involvement. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 13(3), 49-61.

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

Plummer, J. T. (1985). How personality makes a difference. Journal of Advertising Research, 24(6), 27-31.

Poon, D. T. Y., & Prendergast, G. (2006). A new framework for evaluating sponsorship opportunities. International Journal of Advertising, 25(4), 471-488.

Rifon, N. J., Choi, S. M., Trimble, C. S., & Li, H. (2004). Congruence effects in sponsorship. Journal of Advertising, 33(1), 29-42.

Roy, D. P., & Cornwell, T. B. (2004). The effects of consumer knowledge on responses to event sponsorships. Psychology & Marketing, 21(3), 185-207.

Smith, G. (2004). Brand image transfer through sponsorship: A consumer learning perspective. Journal of Marketing Management, 20, 457-474.

Spann, M. G. (2002). NASCAR racing fans: Cranking up an empirical approach. Journal of Popular Culture, 36(2), 352-360.

Spears, N., & Singh, S. N. (2004). Measuring attitude toward the brand and purchase intentions. Journal of Current Issues and Research in Advertising, 26(2), 53-66.

Speed, R., & Thompson, P. (2000). Determinants of sport sponsorship response. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 226-238.

Traylor, M. B. (1981). Product involvement and brand commitment. Journal of Advertising Research, 21(6), 51-56.

Wilkie, W. (1986). Consumer behavior. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Wysong, S., Munch, J., & Kleiser, S. (2002). An investigation into the brand personality construct, its antecedents, and its consequences. American Marketing Association, Winter, 512-518.

Zhang, Z., Won, D., & Pastore, D. L. (2005). The effects of attitudes toward commercialization on college students' purchasing intentions of sponsors' products. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 14(3), 177-187.

Windy Dees, PhD, is an assistant professor of sport management at Georgia Southern University. Her research focuses on the effectiveness of sport sponsorship.

Gregg Bennett, EdD, is an associate professor and Director of the Center for Sport Management Research and Education at Texas A&M University. His research interests include the action sports segment and effective event marketing.

Mauricio Ferreira, PhD, is the head of Marketing Science at Hypothesis Group. His research interests are centered on understanding consumer behavior with a particular emphasis on consumer choice.

Table 1.

Questionnaire Items

Brand and Driver Personality items

How accurately do the words listed below describe your favorite
driver and his major sponsor?

Honest, Down-to-Earth, Wholesome
Daring, Spirited, Imaginative
Reliable, Intelligent, Successful
Upper-class, Charming, Glamorous
Rugged, Tough, Outdoorsy

Attitude Toward the Sponsor items

When I think of the company that is the major sponsor of my
favorite driver, I personally see it as:

Bad/Good
Unfavorable/Favorable
Unpleasant/Pleasant

Attitude Toward the Brand items

When I think of the brand on the hood of my favorite driver's car,
I personally see it as:

Bad/Good
Unfavorable/Favorable
Unpleasant/Pleasant

Purchase Intentions items

How likely would it be that you purchase your favorite driver's
sponsoring brand the next time you need that
type of product or service?

Unlikely/Likely
Improbable/Probable
Impossible/Possible

Fan Identification items

How important is it to you that your favorite driver wins?
How strongly do you see yourself as a fan of your favorite driver?
How important is being a fan of your favorite driver to you?

Product Involvement items

I have a strong interest in my favorite driver's sponsoring brand.
My favorite driver's sponsoring brand is very important to me.
For me, my favorite driver's sponsoring brand matters.

Table 2.

Exploratory Principal Components Analysis (Direct Oblimin Rotation)
for Personality Fit

Personality Items Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Honest -.040 -.003 .928
Down-to-Earth .079 .031 .842
Wholesome .009 .062 .865
Daring .608 .214 .009
Spirited .737 .161 -.036
Imaginative .554 .440 .301
Reliable .421 .255 .301
Intelligent .222 .600 .124
Successful .355 .488 .077
Upper-Class .022 .813 .068
Charming -.062 .834 .087
Glamorous -.019 .828 .044
Rugged .842 -.042 .068
Tough .865 .007 .040
Outdoorsy .843 -.178 .115
Eigenvalues 8.91 1.02 0.99

Cronbach alpha (Reliability) .905 .894 .895
Factor means .177 .088 .239
Percentage of variance explained 59.37 6.80 6.52
Cumulative variance explained 59.37 66.17 72.70

Table 3.

Means, Standard Deviations (SD), and Bivariate Correlations of the
Variables

Variable Mean SD 1 2

1. Dimension 1 .177 1.42 --
 (Excitement/Ruggedness)
2. Dimension 2 .038 1.52 .806 ** --
 (Competence/Sophistication)
3. Dimension 3 .239 1.43 .704 ** .728 **
 (Sincerity)
4. Attitude Toward the 6.10 1.22 -.432 ** -.350 **
 Sponsor
5. Attitude Toward the 6.20 1.18 -.394 ** -.343 **
 Brand
6. Purchase Intentions 5.91 1.64 -.365 ** -.310 **
7. Fan Identification 6.32 1.12 -.154 ** -.162 **
8. Product Involvement 5.61 1.73 -.466 ** -.385 **

Variable 3 4 5 6

1. Dimension 1
 (Excitement/Ruggedness)
2. Dimension 2
 (Competence/Sophistication)
3. Dimension 3 --
 (Sincerity)
4. Attitude Toward the -.378 ** --
 Sponsor
5. Attitude Toward the -.399 ** .749 ** --
 Brand
6. Purchase Intentions -.303 ** .591 ** .592 ** --
7. Fan Identification -.172 ** .368 ** .416 ** .287 **
8. Product Involvement -.401 ** .600 ** .472 ** .607 **

Variable 7 8

1. Dimension 1
 (Excitement/Ruggedness)
2. Dimension 2
 (Competence/Sophistication)
3. Dimension 3
 (Sincerity)
4. Attitude Toward the
 Sponsor
5. Attitude Toward the
 Brand
6. Purchase Intentions
7. Fan Identification --
8. Product Involvement .387 ** --

Note. ** p<.001

Table 4.

Results of Moderated Regression Analysis for Attitude Toward the
Sponsor

Step B S.E. [beta] [DELTA] Adj.
 [R.sup.2] [R.sup.2]

Step 1 .41 ** .40
Dimension 1 -.133 .094 -.117
 Dimension 2 .137 .093 .121
 Dimension 3 -.084 .074 -.077
 FAN ID .262 .053 .226 **
 PROD INV .295 .037 .400 **
Step 2 .05 ** .45
Dime1 x FAN ID -.176 .095 -.163
 Dime2 x FAN ID -.165 .105 -.122
 Dime3 x FAN ID .169 .080 .160 *
 Dime1 x PROD INV .063 .054 .137
 Dime2 x PROD INV .084 .047 .175
 Dime3 x PROD INV -.057 .049 -.109

Note. ** p<.001, * p<.05

Table 5.

Results of Moderated Regression Analysis for Attitude Toward the Brand

Step B S.E. [beta] [DELTA] Adj.
 [R.sup.2] [R.sup.2]

Step 1 .34 ** .33
Dimension 1 -.167 .100 -.151
 Dimension 2 .098 .098 .089
 Dimension 3 -.146 .078 -.136
 FAN ID .356 .057 .311 **
 PROD INV .162 .039 .224 **
Step 2 .03 ** .36
Dime1 x FAN ID -.082 .101 -.078
 Dime2 x FAN ID -.135 .112 -.102
 Dime3 x FAN ID .133 .085 .129
 Dime1 x PROD INV -.070 .057 -.155
 Dime2 x PROD INV .093 .050 .200
 Dime3 x PROD INV .039 .051 .078

Note. ** p<.001

Table 6.

Results of Moderated Regression Analysis for Purchase Intentions

Step B S.E. [beta] [DELTA] Adj. R2
 [R.sup.2] [R.sup.2]

Step 1 .38 ** .37
 Dimension 1 -.086 .141 -.055
 Dimension 2 -.040 .139 -.026
 Dimension 3 .014 .110 .009
 FAN ID .128 .080 .079
 PROD INV .543 .055 .530 **
Step 2 .00 .37
Dime1 x FAN ID -.082 .142 -.055
 Dime2 x FAN ID .037 .157 .020
 Dime3 x FAN ID .018 .119 .012
 Dime1 x PROD INV -.003 .081 -.005
 Dime2 x PROD INV .033 .070 .049
 Dime3 x PROD INV .010 .072 .014

Note. ** p<.001