International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship

Consumer-brand relationships in sports products and repurchase intention: An

application of the investment model
Weisheng Chiu, Doyeon Won,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Weisheng Chiu, Doyeon Won, (2016) "Consumer-brand relationships in sports products and
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Usakti At 07:47 06 September 2017 (PT)

repurchase intention: An application of the investment model", International Journal of Sports

Marketing and Sponsorship, Vol. 17 Issue: 3, pp.243-259, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-08-2016-013
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-08-2016-013
Downloaded on: 06 September 2017, At: 07:47 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 71 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 834 times since 2016*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:551360 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1464-6668.htm

Consumer-brand relationships Sports

products and
in sports products and repurchase
intention
repurchase intention
243
An application of the investment model
Received 9 May 2014
Weisheng Chiu and Doyeon Won Revised 3 March 2015
Department of Sport and Leisure Studies, Yonsei University, Accepted 28 October 2015
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Usakti At 07:47 06 September 2017 (PT)

Seoul, South Korea

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the key determinants of brand commitment in
sports products based on the investment model and seeks to predict consumers repurchase intention.
Design/methodology/approach Data from a survey questionnaire (n = 247) were analysed
primarily using structural equation modelling techniques.
Findings The results support the investment models hypothesis that brand commitment is
weakened by the quality of alternative options but strengthened by consumers satisfaction with and
investment in the brand. Moreover, brand commitment had a positive influence on consumers
repurchase intention.
Originality/value Using the investment model of commitment processes, the study provides useful
information on consumer-brand relationships and repurchase intention.
Keywords Consumer-brand relationship, Brand commitment, Repurchase intention,
Investment model, Investment size, Quality of alternatives
Paper type Research paper

Executive summary
Numerous studies have examined the consumer-brand relationship in recent years
(Fournier and Alvarez, 2012; Reimann et al., 2012). These studies generally assume that
brands are humanized in the minds of consumers and can be treated as relational
partners. The extant literature has proposed abundant constructs in the consumer-
brand relationship, but, among these constructs, commitment is considered the central
concept (Sung and Campbell, 2009; Sung and Choi, 2010). Brand commitment has been
regarded as an influential construct for understanding consumer behaviours and
customers retention and connection to a brand (Baldinger and Rubinson, 1996;
Sargeant and Lee, 2004).
The investment model is an approach to exploring consumers long-term
commitment in their relationships with brands. According to the investment
paradigm of interpersonal relationships, individuals commitment to a relationship
is determined by their satisfaction with it, the size of their investment in it, and the
quality of alternatives to the relationship (Rusbult, 1980; Rusbult et al., 1998). The
investment model concept also applies to the long-term relationships between
consumers and brands. Consumers commitment to a brand relationship is also
International Journal of Sports
regulated by their satisfaction with it, the size of their investment in it, and the quality Marketing and Sponsorship
of alternatives to the relationship. Moreover, brand commitment is expected to enhance Vol. 17 No. 3, 2016
pp. 243-259
consumers repeated purchasing behaviour. Accordingly, hypotheses were established Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1464-6668
and tested. DOI 10.1108/IJSMS-08-2016-013
 IJSMS Data for this study were collected from 247 consumers who had recently purchased
17,3 branded sports products. To maintain the robustness of the study, all of the
respondents were asked, before completing the questionnaire, What is the brand of
the racket you recently purchased?. After indicating the brand, participants completed
the questionnaire for the brand scenario of their choice. Each construct of the measures
(i.e. satisfaction, investment size, quality of alternatives, and repurchase intention) was
244 based on the literature related to the investment model (Rusbult, 1980; Rusbult et al.,
1998) and the consumer-brand relationship (Fullerton, 2005; Kim et al., 2008; Sung and
Choi, 2010).
The results of the conrmatory factor analysis (CFA) revealed that the measures
exhibited good measurement properties. Furthermore, the proposed model was
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Usakti At 07:47 06 September 2017 (PT)

evaluated using structural equation modelling (SEM), which tested the hypothesized
relationships among the constructs. Consistent with theoretical expectations, all of the
hypothesized path coefficients were found to be statistically significant ( p o 0.001).
The results indicate that brand commitment is weakened by the quality of alternative
options but strengthened by consumers satisfaction with, and investment in, the
brand. Moreover, brand commitment had a positive influence on consumers
repurchase intention.
The present study contributes to our understanding of the investment model and
confirms that this model is applicable to the sports industry context. Moreover, the
findings provide insightful implications for sports brand companies; it was found that
investment size, operationalized by switching costs, was the strongest predictor
of brand commitment and that investment size appears to mitigate a diminishing level
of brand commitment. Thus, it is recommended that sports marketers develop effective
approaches to increase consumers own investment of time and money in their
relationships with branded sports products in order to enhance their commitment
to the relationships and stay loyal to the brand.

Introduction
Since Fournier (1998) proposed the concept of the brand relationship (i.e. the bond
between a consumer and a brand), numerous studies have examined and validated the
applicability of treating brands as interpersonal relationship partners in the context of
brand consumption (Fournier and Alvarez, 2012; Reimann et al., 2012). Given that
consumers tend to attribute human characteristics to non-human objects, brand
personification can be linked to anthropomorphism and, therefore, comprehended with
the interaction between brands and consumers (Delbaere et al., 2011). The extant
literature suggests that numerous constructs are contained in the consumer-brand
relationship, including brand commitment (Sung and Campbell, 2009; Sung and Choi,
2010; Wang, 2002), attachment (Thomson et al., 2005), devotion (Pichler and
Hemetsberger, 2007), trust (Elliott and Yannopoulou, 2007), and love (Batra et al., 2012;
Carroll and Ahuvia, 2006). These studies assume that brands are humanized in the
minds of consumers and can be treated as relational partners.
Among these constructs, commitment is considered the central concept in the
consumer-brand relationship (Sung and Campbell, 2009; Sung and Choi, 2010).
Commitment represents an individuals tendency to maintain a relationship and his or
her feeling of psychological attachment (Rusbult, 1980). Further, brand commitment refers
to a consumers long-term attitudinal temperament towards a brand, often reflecting
emotional attachment to the brand within a product category (Chaudhuri and Holbrook,
2002; Gundlach et al., 1995). In the consumer-brand relationship literature, brand
 commitment has been regarded as an influential construct for understanding consumer Sports
behaviours (Sargeant and Lee, 2004). Amine (1998) proposed that brand commitment is products and
the determinant of purchase behaviour and plays a central role in consumers true brand
loyalty. Moreover, brand commitment is also a key factor that influences customers
repurchase
retention and connection to a brand (Baldinger and Rubinson, 1996). intention
In recent years, in order to comprehend consumers long-term commitment in their
relationships with brands, a considerable number of studies have successfully applied 245
the investment model to brand commitment (Breivik and Thorbjrnsen, 2008; Bgel
et al., 2010; Sung and Campbell, 2009; Sung and Choi, 2010). According to the
investment paradigm of interpersonal relationships, individuals commitment to a
relationship is determined by their satisfaction with it, the size of their investment in it,
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Usakti At 07:47 06 September 2017 (PT)

and the quality of alternatives to the relationship (Rusbult, 1980; Rusbult et al., 1998).
The investment model concept can also be applied to the long-term relationships
between consumers and brands. Consumers commitment to a brand relationship is
also regulated by their satisfaction with it, the size of their investment in it, and the
quality of alternatives to the relationship.
Sports consumers, particularly sports participants, may have a unique
relationship with branded sports products as they exercise frequently with the
products they purchase. Stevens et al. (2005) suggested that consumers who exercise
have preferences for specific brands. As with human relationships, sports consumers
treat branded sports products as partners as they exercise or compete in sporting
events, forming committed relationships with the products. These branded sports
products are also tools for better performance on the court, and consumers may
therefore purchase and use particular branded sports products. Moreover, brands in
sports product categories have been shown to have a significant symbolic value for
consumers (Del Rio et al., 2001; Hogg et al., 1998). For example, badminton
participants may wear a specific brand of sports shoes or sportswear to express their
self-concept, and may use a brand of rackets used by popular athletes to improve
their performance when playing badminton. The committed consumer-brand
relationship is strengthened by this process.
The perspective of humanized relationships between consumers and branded sports
products has been paid insufficient attention in the sport management literature. Most
studies have focused on product-related attributes and conceived branded sports
products merely as objects of buying and consumption (Bauer et al., 2008), neglecting
the elements that can influence the commitment between consumers and sports brands.
Thus, in order to improve their theoretical contribution to sport management, scholars
should adopt existing robust theories or models from different fields and apply them to
sport-specific contexts (Chalip, 2006; Cunningham, 2013; Pitts, 2001).
Accordingly, the present study sought to identify consumer-brand relationships in
sports products based on the investment model by exploring the effects of perceived
satisfaction, investment size, and alternatives, as well as to examine consumers
repurchase intention towards branded sports products. The findings of this study can
provide deeper insights regarding the development and continuance of consumer-
brand relationships in sports products from a long-term perspective.

Theoretical background and hypotheses development

The investment model. The investment model was developed to understand
commitment in romantic relationships (Rusbult, 1980; Rusbult et al., 1998). It is
a theory of the process by which individuals become committed to their relationships
 IJSMS as well as the circumstances under which feelings of commitment erode and
17,3 relationships end (Rusbult et al., 1994, p. 116). Aligning and extending the major
concepts of interdependence theory (Kelley and Thibaut, 1978; Thibaut and Kelley,
1959), the investment model proposes that an individuals commitment to personal
relationships is determined by three factors. One of these is satisfaction: the more
satisfied one is with a relationship, the greater the relationship commitment. Another
246 factor is the quality of alternatives (e.g. whether one perceives that there are no other
interesting partners or feels too insecure to live alone). The lower the quality of
alternatives, the more committed one is to the relationship. The final factor is the
investment size; the relationship commitment is determined by how much time and
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Usakti At 07:47 06 September 2017 (PT)

energy people have invested in the relationship. These three distinct factors reflect
different but related aspects of dependence in a relationship. Satisfaction refers to the
positive vs negative emotions experienced in the relationship. The quality of
alternatives denotes the average quality of the outcomes available to the participant
from the best alternative relationships. The investment size represents the survival of
the relationship in the face of tempting alternatives and uctuating satisfaction.
The interplay of these three factors determines the level of commitment to a
relationship (Le and Agnew, 2003).
According to a meta-analysis by Le and Agnew (2003) involving 52 studies and
almost 12,000 subjects, the three antecedent factors above are all correlated
significantly with commitment, and each made a unique contribution to explaining the
degree of relationship commitment. That is, all three factors are essential to predicting
and explaining commitment. It should be noted that the interplay between these three
factors accounts for over 61 per cent of the variance in commitment, indicating a
strongly collective influence of the three factors on commitment. Moreover, Bgel et al.
(2010), in a study with 1,386 subjects, compared consumers commitment in five
different sectors: the banking industry, health insurance, supermarkets, mobile telecom
providers, and the automotive industry. All of the sectors revealed similar results,
confirming that the investment model is applicable to various areas.
Although the investment model was originally applied to interpersonal
relationships, Le and Agnew (2003) suggested that it could be extended to such
areas as organizational commitment, persistence with hobbies or activities, loyalty to
specific objects, and purchase behaviours. Recently, the investment model was also
used to elucidate the relationships between consumers and brands. It is reasonable to
suggest that the relationships consumers form and maintain with brands share
qualities similar to those of human relationships because consumers consider brands as
viable relationship partners (Aggarwal, 2004; Fournier, 1998). Empirical studies have
also provided evidence that the investment model is applicable to and suitable for
consumer-brand relationships (Breivik and Thorbjrnsen, 2008; Li and Petrick, 2008;
Sung and Campbell, 2009; Sung and Choi, 2010). Therefore, based on the investment
model, the current study attempted to advance our understanding of consumer-brand
relationships by exploring how consumers perceived satisfaction, investment size, and
quality of alternatives affect their brand relationship commitment.
Satisfaction. According to the investment model, a consumers satisfaction with a
relationship is needed for him/her to continually maintain his/her commitment to the
relationship. If one is gratified by his/her relationship, he/she is more likely to commit to
the relationship (Rusbult, 1980; Rusbult et al., 1998). Likewise, the important role of
satisfaction in brand commitment has been thoroughly researched in the marketing
 literature, suggesting that consumers satisfaction is likely to encourage stronger Sports
commitment to a brand (Brown and Peterson, 1993; Fullerton, 2005; Gruen, 1995; Sung products and
and Campbell, 2009; Sung and Choi, 2010; Wang, 2002). Oliver (2010) proposed a
comprehensive perspective on the concept of satisfaction with a product, which is
repurchase
defined as a judgment that a product feature, or the product itself, provides a intention
pleasurable level of consumption-related fulfilment, including levels of under- or over
fulfilment (p. 8). In consonance with the investment model, satisfaction represents an 247
individuals fulfilment response to a relationship. Once a consumer develops a
relationship with a brand, it is essential for him or her to perceive the relationship as
gratifying in order to commit to continuing the relationship (Rusbult, 1980). Consumers
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Usakti At 07:47 06 September 2017 (PT)

tend to have a higher level of psychological attachment to a brand if they continuously

receive a hedonic or symbolic fulfilling value from the brand. That is, if the relational
brand continues to offer superior benefits that lead to satisfaction with the relationship,
the consumer will commit to sustaining the relationship with the brand.
Investment size. The size of the investment in consumer relationships is considered as
one way of cementing relations. In interpersonal relationships, the investment size refers
to the direct resources attached to a relationship, such as time, effort, and money. It also
refers to the indirect resources binding one to the relationship, including shared
memories, activities and objects, or events uniquely associated with the relationship
(Rusbult, 1980; Rusbult et al., 1998). In the marketing literature, investments in consumer-
brand relationships are often investigated from the perspectives of switching and
termination costs. Switching costs refer to the technical, financial or psychological
factors which make it difficult or expensive for a customer to change brand (Beerli et al.,
2004, p. 258). The investment size of consumers reflects the costs involved in switching to
another brand (Burnham et al., 2003; Klemperer, 1988). When customers have inputted an
initial investment in certain products, or when the costs of switching brands are expected
to be high, it can be construed that consumers are more likely to commit to, and remain
in, the relationship. Switching costs are directly proportional to the extent of the
investment. If an individual has invested a lot in a relationship with a brand, the costs
involved in switching to another brand will be greater. The size of the consumer
investment is likely to psychologically influence the decision to remain in a relationship
and to strengthen the commitment to that relationship. Stated another way, the higher a
consumers investment size in a brand is, the more difficult it is for him or her to change
brands (Beerli et al., 2004; Hess et al., 2011).
Quality of alternatives. According to the investment model, the quality of alternatives
has a reverse influence on the maintenance of the relationship commitment.
In interpersonal relationships, individuals become less committed to a relationship
when they feel that they have high-quality alternatives to the existing relationship, or
when they perceive the potential alternatives to be comparable to the existing
relationship. In a similar vein, the marketing literature has explored the quality of
alternatives under various names. It has been labelled perceived attractiveness
of alternatives (Bendapudi and Berry, 1997; Colgate and Lang, 2001; White and
Yanamandram, 2007), competitive price perceptions (Bolton et al., 2004; Varki and
Colgate, 2001), or competitive inuences (Kumar, 2002). Whatever the name, there is
widespread agreement that the presence of competitors and consumers perception of
them play an important part in commitment. Consumers prefer to evaluate and compare
brands with multiple reference points (Yim et al., 2007). Consequently, when consumers
perceive the desirability and availability of alternatives (i.e. the number of competing
 IJSMS brands or quality of competing brands), it may affect their commitment negatively
17,3 (Sung and Campbell, 2009; Sung and Choi, 2010). Thus, if consumers perceive unique
values and benefits of the brand or a low quality of alternatives, they may be willing to
commit to their relationship with the brand (Chaudhuri and Holbrook, 2002).
Consumers brand commitment. Brand commitment has been defined as the
degree to which the consumer is emotionally attached to the relationship with a
248 particular brand in a product class (Wang, 2002, p. 59). In the marketing field,
scholars generally recognize that brand commitment has two components: an
affective component and a continuance component (Amine, 1998; Fullerton, 2003,
2005; Gilliland and Bello, 2002). Affective commitment is the trusty and joyful
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Usakti At 07:47 06 September 2017 (PT)

attachment of consumers to the partner, while continuance commitment is the

incessant relationship with the partner in the future.
Furthermore, brand commitment has been viewed as a necessary condition of
brand loyalty (Dick and Basu, 1994; Knox and Walker, 2001; Pritchard et al., 1999).
Although brand commitment is closely related to brand loyalty, they represent two
distinct concepts. As suggested by Warrington and Shim (2000), brand commitment
implies an attitudinal dimension whereas brand loyalty implies a behavioural
dimension. Recent studies reported that brand commitment can encourage repeat
purchasing behaviour (Fullerton, 2005; Kim et al., 2008; Li and Petrick, 2008). In line
with the investment model, the consequence of commitment is the persistence and
maintenance of the relationship (Rusbult, 1980; Rusbult et al., 1998). Repeated
purchasing behaviour can be regarded as consumers endeavour to persist and
maintain their relationship with the specific brand and, consequently, to develop a
long-term connection to it.
Based on the above discussion, the conceptual model and hypotheses are
proposed below:
H1. Consumers satisfaction level has a positive influence on their commitment
towards a sports brand.
H2. Consumers investment size has a positive influence on their commitment
towards a sports brand.
H3. The quality of alternative options has a negative influence on consumers
commitment towards a sports brand.
H4. Consumers brand commitment has a positive influence on repurchase intention
(Figure 1).

Satisfaction
H1

Investment H2 Brand H4 Repurchase

size commitment intention

H3
Figure 1. Quality of
Conceptual model alternatives
 Method Sports
Participants and procedure products and
Data were collected in two stages. In the pre-test stage, 100 questionnaires were given
to a coach of a community badminton club with a request to administer the
repurchase
questionnaires to the members. After a reminder, 85 completed questionnaires were intention
received, with a response rate of 85 per cent. The results showed that the Cronbachs
for the five scales of the study exceeded the recommended level (0.7) proposed by 249
Nunnally (1978), indicating good reliability. The inspection of the item-to-total
correlations showed that all items correlated highly with their own constructs.
Therefore, all of the items remained in the final survey.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Usakti At 07:47 06 September 2017 (PT)

Badminton is a popular spectator and participant sport in Asian countries. Along

with soccer, basketball, swimming, and tennis, it is ranked as one of the five most
popular sports in many Asian cities, including Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta,
Singapore, Delhi, Taipei, and Beijing (Hakuhodo, 2012). To be exact, badminton is the
second most-watched sport in a number of Asian cities, and the third most-practised
sport in 34 major Asian cities (Hakuhodo, 2012). In Taiwan, badminton is one of the
most popular participant sports, with many community clubs available for citizens to
practise it. Therefore, the data used in this survey were collected through the
convenience sampling of badminton club members in the region of Greater Taipei.
For badminton participants, rackets not only have a symbolic value, but are also
regarded as gadgets highly related to their performance. Thus, to maintain the
robustness of the study, respondents were asked, before filling out the questionnaires,
What is the brand of the racket you purchased?. After choosing the brand,
participants had to fill out the questionnaire under the brand scenario of their choice.
Of the 268 completed questionnaires, 21 were eliminated because of
missing information, leaving a total of 247 available questionnaires. The final
sample was dominated by male respondents (67.2 per cent, n 166) under the age
of 30 (61.9 per cent, n 153), and most of them held a college degree or higher
(96.8 per cent). In addition, most of them played badminton more than once per week
(40.1 per cent, n 99) and had been playing for one to three years (52.2 per cent,
n 129) (Table I).

Measures
The survey instrument was established based on the investment model scales (Rusbult
et al., 1998). The five sections consisted of consumer satisfaction, investment size,
quality of alternatives, brand commitment, and repurchase intention. The scales of
consumer satisfaction (four items), investment size (five items), and quality of
alternatives (five items) were adopted and modified from Sung and Choi (2010). Brand
commitment (six items) was measured with the items proposed by Fullerton (2005).
Finally, repurchase intention (three items) was adopted from the items of Fullerton
(2005) and Kim et al. (2008). All scale items were evaluated with a five-point Likert scale,
ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly agree.

Data analysis
The analyses included tests for skewness, kurtosis, and tolerance. Data analysis
proceeded in two stages, both of which utilized AMOS 18.0. First, the reliability and
validity of the measures were tested by CFA. Second, a SEM analysis was used to test
the hypotheses in the proposed conceptual model.
 IJSMS Characteristics Frequency %
17,3
Gender
Male 166 67.2
Female 81 32.8
Age
250 Less than 20 25 10.1
21-30 153 61.9
31-40 58 23.5
More than 41 11 4.5
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Usakti At 07:47 06 September 2017 (PT)

Education
High school 7 3.2
College 167 67.6
Graduate school 73 29.6
Frequency of playing badminton
Once per month 16 6.5
Twice a per month 65 26.3
Once per week 99 40.1
Over twice per week 67 27.1
Length of playing badminton (year)
Less than 1 3 1.2
Table I. 1-3 129 52.2
Sample demographic 3-6 101 40.9
characteristics More than 7 14 5.7

Results
Reliability and validity of measurement
The measurement model revealed an inadequate model fit proposed by Hu and Bentler
(1999), 2 688.573, df 199, 2/df 3.46, CFI 0.917, TLI 0.897, RMSEA 0.111.
The ratio of the models 2 and its degree of freedom, TLI, and RMSEA, fell out of the
recommended cut-off value. According to modification indices (MI) information, one of
the items for the quality of alternatives, My needs for satisfaction and necessity could
easily be fulfilled with an alternative relationship with a different brand, was
associated with multiple significant MIs. In addition, the factor loading is lower than
the suggested value (0.50). Thus, it was determined that dropping this item would
improve the model without compromising the theoretical meaningfulness of the
measure (Bentler and Chou, 1987; Byrne, 2001). The deletion of the item resulted in a
better fit of measurement model, 2 419.494, df 179, 2/df 2.344, CFI 0.957,
TLI 0.950, RMSEA 0.074 (see Table II).
Next, the reliability and validity of the scale were evaluated. As reported in Table I,
the reliability of the measures was investigated using Cronbachs and composite
reliability (CR) analyses. The values of Cronbachs were all over 0.70, which exceeded
the recommended level proposed by Nunnally (1978). The CR values ranged from 0.883
to 0.973, which fulfilled the criterion (0.70) suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981).
The validity of the measures was also examined using convergent validity and
discriminant validity. Convergent validity was investigated by factor loading and the
average variance extracted (AVE). The factor loadings of the construct indicators were
all higher than 0.50, and the AVE values were all greater than 0.05. All of the values
 met the criteria suggested by Hair et al. (2010). Moreover, discriminant validity was Sports
examined using a correlation analysis among the latent variable (Table III). products and
Discriminant validity is established when the AVEs of a construct exceed the shared
variances between the construct in the model (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Thus, the
repurchase
measures exhibit good measurement properties. intention

Hypotheses testing 251

In this study, as discussed before, brand commitment is a multi-dimensional scale that
measures affective and continuance commitment. In order to avoid the complexity and
inadequate fit of the conceptual model (Hall et al., 1999), item parcelling was conducted
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Usakti At 07:47 06 September 2017 (PT)

for the items of brand commitment. Thus, six items were parcelled into two indicators,
affective and continuance commitment, based on theoretical rationale (Fullerton, 2003,
2005; Gilliland and Bello, 2002), while the remaining constructs were left intact.
After item parcelling, SEM was used to examine the conceptual model. The results
indicated that the conceptual model demonstrated an adequate fit with 2 165.96,
df 71, 2/df 2.337, CFI 0.976, TLI 0.969, and RMSEA 0.074 (Hu and Bentler,
1999). The paths from satisfaction and investment size towards brand commitment
were all significantly positive ( p o 0.001), supporting the H1 and H2, whereas the path
from quality of alternatives towards brand commitment was significantly negative
( p o 0.001), supporting the H3. Finally, the path from brand commitment towards
repurchase intention was significantly positive ( po0.001), supporting the H4. Table IV
shows the results of the hypotheses testing in more detail.
Furthermore, the results of the current study were compared with those from the
literature on the investment model. Le and Agnew (2003) conducted a meta-analysis of
52 studies on the investment model. They found that satisfaction ( 0.510) was the
strongest predictor of commitment, whereas quality of alternatives ( 0.217) and
investment ( 0.240) were of similar absolute magnitude. Collectively, these three
factors accounted for an average of 61 per cent of the variance ( R2) in commitment.

Construct Number of items Cronbachs Factor loadings CR AVE

SAT 4 0.972 0.918-0.947 0.973 0.900

INV 4 0.878 0.743-0.853 0.883 0.654
QA 4 0.931 0.677-0.957 0.935 0.787
COM 6 0.923 0.755-0.901 0.923 0.667
REINT 3 0.910 0.871-0.959 0.917 0.788
Notes: 2 419.494, df 179, 2/df 2.344, CFI 0.957, TLI 0.950, RMSEA 0.074. SAT, Table II.
satisfaction; INV, investment size; QA, quality of alternatives; COM, brand commitment; RETNT, Summary results of
repurchase intention; CR, composite reliability; AVE, average variance extracted measurement models

SAT INV QA COM REINT

SAT
INV 0.707
QA 0.779 0.439 Table III.
COM 0.674 0.865 0.320 Factor correlations
REINT 0.695 0.782 0.487 0.826 between constructs
 IJSMS Moreover, Bgel et al. (2010), comparing consumers commitment among five different
17,3 sectors, found that the total variance explained (R2) was 62.0 per cent, similar results to
those of Le and Agnew (2003). Satisfaction ( 0.421) was the strongest predictor of
commitment, whereas quality of alternatives ( 0.310) and investment ( 0.265)
were of similar absolute magnitude. As shown in Table V, this study found that
investment size is the greatest predictor of brand commitment, followed by satisfaction
252 (0.424) and quality of alternatives (0.330). Collectively, these three factors accounted
for approximately 83 per cent of the variance in brand commitment. The comparison
suggests that the current replication of the investment model in consumer-brand
relationships protrudes the unique characteristics of branded sports products.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Usakti At 07:47 06 September 2017 (PT)

Multi-group analysis
To test whether the proposed model was applicable across groups, a multi-group
analysis was conducted for model stability (Byrne et al., 1989). Multi-group analysis
was conducted based on the six-step procedure of Hair et al. (2010) to test for structure
invariance. In the rst stage of the main equivalence tests, a simultaneous test of the
overall congural invariance of the model across the two groups was conducted.
Subsequently, a 2 test was done to examine the metric invariance, scalar invariance,
factor covariance invariance, factor variance invariance, and error variance invariance.
Before the multi-group analysis, the sample of this study (n 247) was split into male
(n 166) and female (n 81) samples.
The results revealed that the baseline model represents a fairly good fit across the
male and female groups: 2 400.033, df 224, 2/df 1.786, CFI 0.963, TLI 0.955,
and RMSEA 0.057. The results show that the model is plausible across the two
groups (Cudeck and Browne, 1983). Subsequently, a 2 test was conducted to examine
the invariance of the conceptual model, and it revealed an insignificant difference at a
significance level of 0.05. This indicates that the null hypothesis of equality of loadings
across the two groups was not rejected, supporting the full invariance across groups.

Discussion
The present study investigated the relationships between sport consumers and brands
based on the investment model proposed by Rusbult (1980). The findings suggest that

Hypothesis Path Standardized coefficient ( ) t-value Empirical result

H1 SATCOM 0.392 4.400*** Supported

Table IV. H2 INVCOM 0.722 9.646*** Supported
Structural equation H3 QACOM 0.250 3.757*** Supported
modelling results of H4 COMREINT 0.854 14.120*** Supported
the hypotheses Note: ***p o0.001

Independent variables Le and Agnew (2003) Bgel et al. (2010) Current study
Table V.
Comparison of SAT 0.510 0.421 0.392
current results INV 0.240 0.265 0.722
with those of QA 0.217 0.310 0.250
previous studies R2 0.610 0.619 0.810
 the investment model can offer useful guidance for understanding commitment in the Sports
relationships between sport consumers and brands. The three determinants of products and
interpersonal commitment in the investment model work well in a sports
consumer-brand relationship, as all three uniquely predicted brand commitment.
repurchase
Specifically, greater satisfaction and investment and fewer attractive alternatives lead intention
consumers to be more committed to their relationships with brands. Furthermore,
brand commitment leads to repeated purchase intention towards branded sports 253
products. The details and implications of these findings are discussed below.
Satisfaction was found to have a significant and positive effect on brand
commitment. This finding is completely in agreement with the results of Li and Petrick
(2008), Sung and Campbell (2009), and Sung and Choi (2010), which are based on the
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Usakti At 07:47 06 September 2017 (PT)

investment model. Furthermore, this finding is also consistent with many studies on
the brand satisfaction-commitment relationship (Amine, 1998; Bloemer and Kasper,
1995; Wang, 2002). This indicates that satisfaction is the basic threshold that a brand
must achieve in order to develop brand commitment.
Investment size was also found to have a significant and positive effect on brand
commitment. This finding is consistent with previous studies (Li and Petrick, 2008;
Sung and Campbell, 2009; Sung and Choi, 2010). This finding also validates the
arguments that high switching or sunk costs lead to consumers commitment with
brands (Amine, 1998; Beerli et al., 2004; Dwyer et al., 1987; Lam et al., 2004). That is to
say, consumers tend to have higher brand commitment when the benefits they perceive
from the specific brand exceed the cost of switching to another brand. However, it is
worth noting that investment size is the greatest predictor of brand commitment in the
sports equipment setting. This finding is inconsistent with the results of non-sport
brand studies, indicating that satisfaction is the strongest predictor to brand
commitment (see Table V). This may be due to the unique nature of sports products.
Consumers are highly involved in sports with branded sports products. Meanwhile,
they can express their self-concept and achieve better performance while using
these branded sports products. Consumers may perceive greater benefits in
comparison to other non-sports products and therefore result in the significant
influence on brand commitment.
It is not surprising to have found that the quality of alternative options significantly
and negatively influences consumers brand commitment. The finding is in accordance
with the results of previous studies (Li and Petrick, 2008; Sung and Campbell, 2009;
Sung and Choi, 2010). This also fits with the notion that consumers perceived quality
of competitor brands has a negative effect on brand commitment (Desai and Raju, 2007;
Raju et al., 2009). When alternatives are limited in number or are unattractive,
commitment is stronger, whereas when desirable alternatives are perceived to be
readily available or of higher quality, commitment is weaker.
Finally, as hypothesized, brand commitment was found to have a positive influence
on repurchase intention. This finding is consistent with previous reports (Fullerton,
2005; Kim et al., 2008; Li and Petrick, 2008). According to the investment model, when
individuals become committed to their relationships, they are substantially more likely
to persist and maintain their relationships (Rusbult et al., 1998). That is, consumers
with high commitment to specific brands have a higher level of intention to repeatedly
purchase the same branded products and develop a long-term relationship.
The multi-group analysis found the model equivalence between male and female
groups and revealed that the investment model of the consumer-brand relationship is
stable and can be explained across genders. However, compared with previous studies
 IJSMS (Bgel et al., 2010; Le and Agnew, 2003), the current study shows that the factor of
17,3 investment size has an obvious higher factor loading than in previous studies.
This indicates the distinctive relationships between consumers and branded
sports products. Consumers who exercise may invest more money, effort, or time
in the branded sports products that they use (Stevens et al., 2005). This results in a
higher level of investment size and builds stronger commitment relationships with a
254 sports brand.
The present study contributes to the understanding of the investment model and
confirms that the model is applicable in the context of the sports industry. Moreover,
the findings of the current study provide implications for companies of sports
equipment brands. Investment size, operationalized by switching costs, was the
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Usakti At 07:47 06 September 2017 (PT)

strongest predictor of brand commitment, and the level of investment size appears to
mitigate a diminishing level of brand commitment. Thus, it is recommended that sport
marketers should develop effective approaches to increase consumers own investment
of time and money in relationships with branded sports products in order to enhance
their commitment to the relationships and to stay loyal to the brand. Marketers of
branded sporting goods need to come up with various kinds of events to get consumers
to engage with their products. For instance, sportswear marketers can hold sporting
events (e.g. the Asics road running race) attracting consumers to attend with their
shoes. In the case of badminton, which is the focus of this study, marketers can
organize training camps (such as the Yonex summer camp) for consumers to attend
with their rackets. Moreover, reward programmes such as the Nike reward programme
or the SmashCash reward programme can encourage consumers behavioural
investment in sports branded products. Indeed, the events or programs can create
deeper emotional connections, and a sense of bonding would be expected to intensify
the psychology or attitudinal dimension of consumer investment. Such events or
programs require a long-term orientation in strategic planning, resonating with the
relational paradigm.
In addition to hosting the events and programs, marketers can also provide an
engagement platform for consumers to participate in the design process of branded
sports goods. For example, the Nike ID website is the platform for customers to
design their own shoes from various styles and colours, including putting the flags of
the countries they want to support or their own names on their shoes. Through the
platform of the Nike ID website, Nike is connecting with consumers and enabling them
to put more effort, time, and money into the Nike products they want to purchase. This
strategic opportunity for Nike allows consumers to actively engage in the production of
products, and therefore establishes a stronger consumer-brand relationship.

Limitations and suggestions

This study may contain several limitations. First, the results may be limited to the
respondents who participated in the study. As only badminton participants were
included, the generalizability to different sports may be limited. Future studies should
apply this model to different sports, such as tennis, basketball, or baseball, as branded
products have different symbolic values for practitioners of different sports (Stevens
et al., 2005). Second, the present study only focused on the effects of three main variables
(namely, satisfaction, investment, and alternatives) on commitment, and potential
variables were not investigated. For a more comprehensive understanding of the
consumer-brand relationship, variables such as product involvement and consumers
behavioural intention should be taken into consideration in future research. Finally, the
 proposed model postulates a temporal sequence and directional influences among the Sports
variables. However, the cross-sectional design of the study made it impossible to products and
accurately examine the long-term relationship commitment to a brand. Thus,
longitudinal studies with better experimental controls are needed to capture the
repurchase
dynamics of brand commitment. intention

255
References
Aggarwal, P. (2004), The effects of brand relationship norms on consumer attitudes and
behavior, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 87-101.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Usakti At 07:47 06 September 2017 (PT)

Amine, A. (1998), Consumers true brand loyalty: the central role of commitment, Journal of
Strategic Marketing, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 305-319.
Baldinger, A.L. and Rubinson, J. (1996), Brand loyalty: the link between attitude and behavior,
Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 22-36.
Batra, R., Ahuvia, A. and Bagozzi, R.P. (2012), Brand love, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 76 No. 2,
pp. 1-16.
Bauer, H.H., Stokburger-Sauer, N.E. and Exler, S. (2008), Brand image and fan loyalty in
professional team sport: a refined model and empirical assessment, Journal of Sport
Management, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 205-226.
Beerli, A., Martin, J.D. and Quintana, A. (2004), A model of customer loyalty in the retail banking
market, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 Nos 1/2, pp. 253-275.
Bendapudi, N. and Berry, L.L. (1997), Customers motivations for maintaining relationships with
service providers, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 73 No. 1, pp. 15-37.
Bentler, P.M. and Chou, C.-P. (1987), Practical issues in structural modeling, Sociological
Methods & Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 78-117.
Bloemer, J.M. and Kasper, H.D.P. (1995), The complex relationship between consumer
satisfaction and brand loyalty, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 311-329.
Bolton, R.N., Lemon, K.N. and Verhoef, P.C. (2004), The theoretical underpinnings of customer
asset management: a framework and propositions for future research, Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 271-292.
Breivik, E. and Thorbjrnsen, H. (2008), Consumer brand relationships: an investigation of
two alternative models, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 36 No. 4,
pp. 443-472.
Brown, S.P. and Peterson, R.A. (1993), Antecedents and consequences of salesperson job
satisfaction: meta-analysis and assessment of causal effect, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 63-67.
Bgel, M.S., Buunk, A.P. and Verhoef, P.C. (2010), A comparison of customer commitment in five
sectors using the psychological investment model, Journal of Relationship Marketing,
Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 2-29.
Burnham, T.A., Frels, J.K. and Mahajan, V. (2003), Consumer switching costs: a typology,
antecedents, and consequences, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 31
No. 2, pp. 109-126.
Byrne, B.M. (2001), Structural Equation Modeling with Amos: Basic Concepts, Applications, and
Programming, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
Byrne, B.M., Shavelson, R.J. and Muthn, B. (1989), Testing for the equivalence of factor
covariance and mean structures: the issue of partial measurement invariance,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 105 No. 3, pp. 456-466.
 IJSMS Carroll, B.A. and Ahuvia, A.C. (2006), Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love, Marketing
Letters, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 79-89.
17,3
Chalip, L. (2006), Toward a distinctive sport management discipline, Journal of Sport
Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Chaudhuri, A. and Holbrook, M.B. (2002), Product-class effects on brand commitment and brand
outcomes: the role of brand trust and brand affect, The Journal of Brand Management,
256 Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 33-58.
Colgate, M. and Lang, B. (2001), Switching barriers in consumer markets: an investigation of the
financial services industry, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 332-347.
Cudeck, R. and Browne, M.W. (1983), Cross-validation of covariance structures, Multivariate
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Usakti At 07:47 06 September 2017 (PT)

Behavioral Research, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 147-167.

Cunningham, G.B. (2013), Theory and theory development in sport management, Sport
Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 1-4.
Del Rio, A.B., Vazquez, R. and Iglesias, V. (2001), The effects of brand associations on consumer
response, Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 410-425.
Delbaere, M., McQuarrie, E.F. and Phillips, B.J. (2011), Personification in advertising, Journal of
Advertising, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 121-130.
Desai, K.K. and Raju, S. (2007), Adverse influence of brand commitment on consideration of and
preference for competing brands, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 7, pp. 595-614.
Dick, A.S. and Basu, K. (1994), Customer loyalty: toward an integrated conceptual framework,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 99-113.
Dwyer, F.R., Schurr, P.H. and Oh, S. (1987), Developing buyer-seller relationships, The Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 11-27.
Elliott, R. and Yannopoulou, N. (2007), The nature of trust in brands: a psychosocial model,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 Nos 9/10, pp. 988-998.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Fournier, S. (1998), Consumers and their brands: developing relationship theory in consumer
research, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 343-353.
Fournier, S. and Alvarez, C. (2012), Brands as relationship partners: warmth, competence, and
in-between, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 177-185.
Fullerton, G. (2003), When does commitment lead to loyalty?, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 5
No. 4, pp. 333-344.
Fullerton, G. (2005), The impact of brand commitment on loyalty to retail service brands,
Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 97-110.
Gilliland, D.I. and Bello, D.C. (2002), Two sides to attitudinal commitment: the effect of
calculative and loyalty commitment on enforcement mechanisms in distribution channels,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 24-43.
Gruen, T.W. (1995), The outcome set of relationship marketing in consumer markets,
International Business Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 447-469.
Gundlach, G.T., Achrol, R.S. and Mentzer, J.T. (1995), The structure of commitment in
exchange, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 78-92.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hakuhodo (2012), Sports popular in 14 Asian countries, 25 July, available at: www.hakuhodo.jp/
pdf/2012/20120725.pdf
 Hall, R.J., Snell, A.F. and Foust, M.S. (1999), Item parceling strategies in SEM: investigating the Sports
subtle effects of unmodeled secondary constructs, Organizational Research Methods,
Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 233-256.
products and
Hess, J., Story, J. and Danes, J. (2011), A three-stage model of consumer relationship investment,
repurchase
Journal of Product & Brand Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 14-26. intention
Hogg, M.K., Bruce, M. and Hill, A.J. (1998), Fashion brand preferences among young
consumers, International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, Vol. 26 No. 8, 257
pp. 293-300.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling: A
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Usakti At 07:47 06 September 2017 (PT)

Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-55.

Kelley, H.H. and Thibaut, J.W. (1978), Interpersonal Relations: A Theory of Interdependence,
Wiley, New York, NY.
Kim, J.W., Choi, J., William, Q. and Han, K. (2008), It takes a marketplace community to raise
brand commitment: the role of online communities, Journal of Marketing Management,
Vol. 24 Nos 3/4, pp. 409-431.
Klemperer, P. (1988), Welfare effects of entry into markets with switching costs, The Journal of
Industrial Economics, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 159-165.
Knox, S. and Walker, D. (2001), Measuring and managing brand loyalty, Journal of Strategic
Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 111-128.
Kumar, P. (2002), The impact of performance, cost, and competitive considerations on the
relationship between satisfaction and repurchase intent in business markets, Journal of
Service Research, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 55-68.
Lam, S.Y., Shankar, V., Erramilli, M.K. and Murthy, B. (2004), Customer value, satisfaction,
loyalty, and switching costs: an illustration from a business-to-business service context,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 293-311.
Le, B. and Agnew, C.R. (2003), Commitment and its theorized determinants: a meta analysis of
the investment model, Personal Relationships, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 37-57.
Li, X. and Petrick, J.F. (2008), Examining the antecedents of brand loyalty from an investment
model perspective, Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 25-34.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Oliver, R.L. (2010), Satisfaction: A Behavioral Perspective on the Consumer, M.E. Sharpe,
Armonk, NY.
Pichler, E.A. and Hemetsberger, A. (2007), Hopelessly devoted to you towards an extended
conceptualization of consumer devotion, Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 34 No. 1,
pp. 194-199.
Pitts, B.G. (2001), Sport management at the millennium: a defining moment, Journal of Sport
Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Pritchard, M.P., Havitz, M.E. and Howard, D.R. (1999), Analyzing the commitment-loyalty
link in service contexts, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 333-348.
Raju, S., Unnava, H.R. and Montgomery, N.V. (2009), The moderating effect of brand
commitment on the evaluation of competitive brands, Journal of Advertising, Vol. 38 No. 2,
pp. 21-36.
Reimann, M., Castao, R., Zaichkowsky, J. and Bechara, A. (2012), How we relate to brands:
psychological and neurophysiological insights into consumer-brand relationships, Journal
of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 128-142.
 IJSMS Rusbult, C.E. (1980), Commitment and satisfaction in romantic associations: a test of the
investment model, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 172-186.
17,3
Rusbult, C.E., Drigotas, S.M. and Verette, J. (1994), The investment model: an interdependence
analysis of commitment processes and relationship maintenance phenomena, in
Canary, D. and Stafford, L. (Eds), Communication and Relational Maintenance,
Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 115-139.
258 Rusbult, C.E., Martz, J.M. and Agnew, C.R. (1998), The investment model scale: measuring
commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size, Personal
Relationships, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 357-387.
Sargeant, A. and Lee, S. (2004), Trust and relationship commitment in the United Kingdom
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Usakti At 07:47 06 September 2017 (PT)

voluntary sector: determinants of donor behavior, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 8,
pp. 613-635.
Stevens, J., Lathrop, A. and Bradish, C. (2005), Tracking generation Y: a contemporary sport
consumer profile, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 254-277.
Sung, Y. and Campbell, W.K. (2009), Brand commitment in consumer-brand
relationships: an investment model approach, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 17
No. 2, pp. 97-113.
Sung, Y. and Choi, S.M. (2010), I wont leave you although you disappoint me: the
interplay between satisfaction, investment, and alternatives in determining
consumer-brand relationship commitment, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 11,
pp. 1050-1073.
Thibaut, J.W. and Kelley, H.H. (1959), The Social Psychology of Groups, Wiley, New York, NY.
Thomson, M., MacInnis, D.J. and Park, C.W. (2005), The ties that bind: measuring the strength
of consumers emotional attachments to brands, Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol. 15
No. 1, pp. 77-91.
Varki, S. and Colgate, M. (2001), The role of price perceptions in an integrated model of
behavioral intentions, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 232-240.
Wang, G. (2002), Attitudinal correlates of brand commitment, Journal of Relationship
Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 57-75.
Warrington, P. and Shim, S. (2000), An empirical investigation of the relationship between
product involvement and brand commitment, Psychology & Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 9,
pp. 761-782.
White, L. and Yanamandram, V. (2007), A model of customer retention of dissatisfied business
services customers, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 298-316.
Yim, C.K.B., Chan, K.W. and Hung, K. (2007), Multiple reference effects in service evaluations:
roles of alternative attractiveness and self-image congruity, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 83
No. 1, pp. 147-157.
 Appendix Sports
products and
Items repurchase
Satisfaction
intention
SAT1 I feel satisfied with my relationship with this brand 0.918
SAT2 My relationship with this brand does a good job of fulfilling my needs 0.930
SAT3 My relationship with this brand makes me very happy 0.970
259
SAT4 My relationship with the brand is close to ideal 0.974
Investment size
INV1 Compared to other brands I know, I have invested a great deal in my relationship 0.779
Downloaded by UNIVERSITAS TRISAKTI, User Usakti At 07:47 06 September 2017 (PT)

with this brand

INV2 I feel very involved in my relationship with this brand 0.852
INV3 Many aspects of my life have become linked to my brand, and I would lose all of this 0.853
if the relationship with the brand were to end
INV4 I have put a great deal into my relationship with this brand that I would lose if the 0.743
relationship were to end
INV5 My needs for satisfaction and necessity could easily be fulfilled in an alternative 0.484
relationship with a different branda
Quality of alternatives
OA1 Other alternative brands in this product category are appealing to me 0.931
QA2 The brands other than this brand with whom I might become involved are very appealing 0.951
QA3 My alternatives to the relationship with this brand are close to ideal 0.957
QA4 If I were not using this brand, I would do fine. I would find another appealing brand to use 0.677
Brand commitment
AFF1 I feel emotionally attached to this brand 0.882
AFF2 This brand has a great deal of meaning for me 0.901
AFF3 I feel a strong sense of identification with this brand 0.785
CON1 It would be very hard for me to switch away from this brand right now even if I wanted to 0.755
CON2 My life would be disrupted if I switched away from this brand 0.793
CON3 It would be too costly for me to switch from this brand right now 0.769
Repurchase intention
REINT1 I will purchase the product of this brand next time 0.828
REINT2 This brand is my first choice when I purchase 0.959
REINT3 I will continue to be a loyal customer of this brand 0.871
Notes: AFF, affective commitment; CON, continuance commitment. aThe item was removed from the Table AI.
final analysis because of low factor loading The survey items

About the authors

Weisheng Chiu is an Assistant Professor of Sport Management in the Department of Physical
Education at The University of Suwon. He earned his PhD from the Yonsei University, Korea and
an MEd from the Graduate Institute of Sport and Leisure Management at the National Taiwan
Normal University. His research interests are in the areas of sport consumer behaviour and
marketing issues in the sport industry.
Doyeon Won is an Associate Professor of Sport Management in the Department of Sport and
Leisure Studies at the Yonsei University. Prior to joining Yonsei, he was on the Faculty at the
University of Georgia and the Ohio University. His research interests focus on business issues
relating to the sport industry. Doyeon Won is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
dwon@yonsei.ac.kr

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com