Sei sulla pagina 1di 16

Sport Management Review,2005,8,255-270

0 2005 SMAANZ

Are Multiple Points of Attachment Necessary to Predict Cognitive, Affective, Conative, or Behavioral Loyalty?

Harry H. Kwon,

Florida State University

Galen T. Trail

University of Florida

Dean F. Anderson

Iowa State University

KEY WORDS: attachment, team identification, loyalty

Team identification has been shown to predict cognitive, affective, conative, and behavioural dimensions of sport spectatorship. Recently, the Point of Attachment Index was introduced as a comprehensive measure of a sport fan's different points of attachment within sport. The PAI, as studied here, is composed of six different points of attachment (i.e., team, players, coach, sport, university, and level of sport). The primary focus of this study was to determine whether fewer subscales from the Points of Attachment Index would satisfactorily predict cognitive, affective, conative, and behavioural dimensions of sport spectatorship. Data were collected from 358 university students (154 male, 204 female. The attachment to the team subscale explained a significant and meaningful amount of variance in BIRGing, satisfaction, conative loyalty, and attendance behaviour. Three of the other subscales (university, level, and coach), when added into each of the regression equations, explained a small but statistically significant amount of the remaining variance.

Hany H. Kwon is with the Sport Management, Recreation Management &Physical Education Department at Florida State University. Galen T. Trail is with the Department of Tourism, Recreation, & Sport Management at the University of Florida, and Dean F. Anderson is with the Department of Health and Human Performance at Iowa State University.Email for Kwon:

kwon@coe.fsu.edu

256

Kwon. Trail& Anderson

It has been over a decade since Wann and Branscombe (1993) developed a scale purported to measure fans' level of identification with their team. Considerable effort has followed their work. Team identification has been shown to predict

cognitive (Trail,Anderson, & Fink, 2005; Trail, Fink, &Anderson, 2003), affective (Madrigal, 1995; Matsuoka, Chelladurai, & Harada, 2003), conative (Melnick & Warn, 2004; Warn, 2002; Wann & Branscombe, 1993), and behavioural (Laverie

& Amett, 2000) dimensions of sport spectatorship. Furthermore, many studies have

examined the construct of team identification itself and have developed scales that

attempted to measure the construct (e.g., Mahony, Madrigal, & Howard, 2000; Trail

& James, 2001; Trail, Fink et al., 2003).

These researchers have typically treated team identification as uni- dimensional. However, recent research has suggested that there may be additional points of attachment, rather than just attachment to the team (Funk, Mahony, Nakazawa, & Hirakawa, 2000,2001; Funk, Mahony, & Ridinger, 2002; Kwon & Armstrong, 2004; Robinson & Trail, 2005; Robinson, Trail, Dick, & Gillentine, 2005; Robinson, Trail, & Kwon, 2004; Trail, Robinson, Gillentine, & Dick, 2003). Although Funk and colleagues have termed these concepts "motives", their ideas regarding these constructs represent an attachment to a specific entity. On the other hand, Trail and colleagues have framed these points of attachment within the identity theory of Stryker (1968, 1980, 1994), under the guise of different role identities. Along with this effort, recent research suggests that identification with the team, as a unidimensional scale, may not be adequate to explain why people maintain loyalty or why they spectate.Thus, one would expect that more points of attachment would lead to more loyalty. Thus, sport marketers should be able to explain and predict more about sport consumers' cognitive,affective, conative, and behavioural loyalty with more dimensions of attachment.

Point of Attachment Index (PAI)

Recently, the Point of Attachment Index (PAI; Robinson & Trail, 2005; Trail, Robinson, et al., 2003) was introduced as a comprehensive measure of a sport fan's different role identities within sport. The major thrust of the PA1 is that sport consumers may have multiple identities regarding different aspects of a sport team (e.g. the team, the players, the coach, the community, the sport, the university, and the level of sport). Trail, Robinson, et al. (2003) found that the seven subscalesof the PA1 had good reliability and good convergent and discriminant validity. Robinson and Trail (2005) found good internal consistency (a = .75 - 35; AVE values = .50 to .68) within the PA1 subscales with the exception of the attraction to the university subscale (a = .69; AVE = .48), which was only adequate. Using a modified version of the PA1 to make it applicable to golf spectators (e.g. eliminating the attachment

Points of Attachment

257

to team and attachment to coach subscales), Robinson et al. (2004) noted good convergent validity and internal consistency on five subscales: players, community, sport, tour type, and charities.

Parsimonyvs. Comprehensiveness

Although the multidimensional approach has attracted recent attention from sport marketing scholars looking at sport consumers' identification with their favorite team, much research continues to use a unidimensional approach (Melnick & Wann, 2004; Trail et al., 2005; Trail, Fink, et al., 2003). The multidimensionalapproach has advantages over the unidimensional approach in that it covers a wider gamut of the sport consumers' psychologicalconstructs of identification. However, there is a trade off between comprehensiveness and parsimony, which can be evaluated to some extent by examining discriminant and predictive validity of multiple dimensions. In two recent studies (Kwon, Anderson, & Trail, 2003; Robinson & Trail, 2005) there have been indications that a more parsimonious model of identification, specific to multiple points of attachment, might be a better measure. Kwon et al. (2003) used six points of attachment to explain college students' consuming and wearing behaviour of university team licensed apparel. In their study, identification with community was deemed irrelevant because the city itself is small and known to be a university town. After a confirmatory factor analysis, Kwon et al. reduced the number of points of attachment dimensions to four (identification with player, university, team, and sport) due to high residuals and poor discriminant validity. Further evidence can be found in the work of Robinson and Trail (2005). Those authors used the seven points of attachment to examine aspects of the sporting event to which the spectators were psychologically attached. The results indicated that the mean values of identificationwith team (M= 4.95 on a 1 to 7 point Likert-type scale), sport (M = 4.90), and university (M = 4.88) were considerably higher than the other points of attachment (i.e., identification with level of sport, coach, players, community, M = 3.33 - 4.40; see Table 6 of Robinson & Trail, 2005). More importantly however, attachment to team, sport, and university were of primary importance in the resulting canonical variates: thus indicating that these three types of identification or attachment typically subsumed the remaining points of attachment. Although discriminant validity is an important part of any multidimensional model of attachment, predictive validity is just as important. Furthermore, in the above cases, the focus of the research was on fans, not necessarily spectators. In the Trail, Robinson, et al. (2003) research, where the focus was on comparing fans to spectatorson motives and points of attachment,the authors noted that differentpoints of attachment were related to different attendance motives depending on whether

258

Kwon, Trail &Anderson

the individual was solely a spectator or considered himself a fan. This indicated that, in some instances, multiple points of attachment are relevant; especially when examining spectators who may have low levels of team identification. Furthermore, although Kwon et al. (2003) found that only four points of attachment were distinct, they determined that three of those four points of attachment (team, university, and sport) were statistically significant determinants of five purchasing/wearing behaviours of sport-licensed apparel. This indicated that there may be at least three distinct predictors of sport consumer behaviour. In sum, the results of the Kwon et al. (2003) and the Robinson and Trail (2005) studies indicated that a contraction of the number of dimensions in the PA1 might be possible. If this is true and there is a lack of discriminant validity in the seven-factor model of PAI, then a more parsimonious model of attachment (i.e., a fewer number of dimensions) might be appropriate. However, it is not enough to only test the discriminant validity of the model, predictive validity needs to be examined as well. To test this, the relationships between the points of attachment and sport consumers' cognitions, affect, conation, and/or behaviours need to be evaluated. A comprehensive model should be retained if there is discriminant validity and multiple dimensions explain variance in the dependent variables. A more parsimonious model should be retained if there is no discriminant validity among the points of attachment dimensions. If discriminant validity does exist in the seven-factor model, but only a limited amount of additional variance is explained in sport consumers' cognitions, affect, conation, and/or behaviour by the inclusion of multiple dimensions, then a more parsimonious model again should be considered. The purpose of this study was to examine the reliability and construct validity of the Points of Attachment Index. However, we were primarily interested in determining whether fewer subscales of the PA1 would satisfactorily predict cognitive, affective, conative, and behavioural dimensions of sport spectatorship. We initially used a single dimension of the PA1 (attachment to the team) as a predictor. We then added two more dimensions (attachment to the university and attachment to the sport) as predictors based on the findings of Kwon and Armstrong (2004) and Robinson and Trail (2005). Finally, we added three more dimensions (attachment to the coach, the players, and the level of sport), based on the findings of Trail, Robinson, et al. (2003) and Robinson, Trail, and Kwon (2004). Through these hierarchical regression equations, we were able to evaluate the amount of variance that each set of points of attachment explained in the cognitive, affective, conative, and behavioural dimensions of sport spectatorship.

Points of Attachment

Method

Participants

Participants were 154 male and 204 female students (N=358) enrolled in Health and Human Performance classes at a large mid-westem university in the United States. The students received class credit for completing the survey. The average age of the respondents was 20.53 (SD = 2.54), and they had attended the school for approximately two years on average. Most of the respondents (93.6%), self identified as CaucasianlWhite and most (92.0%) also self identified as fans of the target team (the university's football team) for 7.4 years on average.

Instrumentation

The questionnaire included six of the seven subscales (attachment to the team,

sport, university, player, level, and coach) of the Point of Attachment Index (Trail, Robinson, et al., 2003). These six subscales have shown good reliability and construct validity in past research (Robinson & Trail, 2005; Trail, Robinson, et al., 2003). Each subscale of the PA1 had three items, which were anchored by a seven point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The questionnaire also included a cognitive loyalty measure (the BIRGing subscale; Trail, Anderson, & Fink, 2005), an affective loyalty measure (satisfaction subscale; Trail et al., 2005), a conative loyalty measure (Intentions for Sport Consumption Behaviour Scale; Trail et al., 2005), and a behavioural loyalty measure (number

of games attended). All of the items in the dependent measures used a seven point

Likert-type scale from 1(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), except for number

of games attended.

Data Analyses

A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the PA1 (i.e., the six points of attachment

scales) was performed via structural equation modeling. Measures of fit included Steiger's (1989) root-mean-square-error of approximation (RMSEA, a measure of discrepancy per degrees of freedom), and the test of close fit (Browne & Cudeck, 1992). The RMSEA is thought to alleviate problems associated with model fit that are not addressed by chi-square based statistics (Browne & Cudeck, 1992; Mulaik, James, Van Alstine, Bennet, Lind, & Stilwell, 1989), thus those indices are not included in the RAMONA statistical package. However, we have included the chi- square value divided by the degrees of freedom as a frame of reference. RMSEA values less than .05 indicate that a model has a close fit. Values of .08 or less indicate reasonable fit, and models having RMSEA values higher than. 10 should not be considered (Browne & Cudeck, 1992). Hu and Bentler (1999) have recently suggested that values less than .06 instead of .05 indicate that a model has a close fit.

260

Kwon, Trail & Anderson

Internal consistency measures (alpha coefficients)for each scale or subscale, are reported to indicate how well the items correlate with each other within a specific scale. Values greater than .70 are assumed to be adequate (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Average Variance Extracted values (AVE) were calculated to determine whether each of the items contributed to the scale's underlying theoretical construct. AVE values above .50 indicate that the scales have good convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Four separate hierarchical regression analyses were performed to determine the degree to which points of attachment predicted the four dependent measures:

BIRGing, post-season satisfaction with attending, game attendance, and future game attendance intentions. Prediction would be an indication of construct validity. The six PA1 subscales served as independent variables. The attachment to the team subscale was forced to enter as the first block. Then the attachment to the university and the attachment to the sport subscales were forced to enter as the second block. Finally, the remaining subscales (player, level, and coach) were forced to enter as the third block. Because of the probability of the four dependent variables being correlated, the alpha levels were set at .O1 for all analyses. The four separate hierarchical regression analyses allowed us to compare the variance explained in each of the dependent measures by the singlesubscale, the three subscales combined, and then all six subscales together, to determine whether significantand meaningful additional amounts of variance were explained.

Results

The RMSEA for the confirmatory factor analysis on the six-factor PA1 showed reasonable fit (RMSEA, E = .078; CI = .069, .087;pc,oS,< 0.001, x21df= 3591120 = 2.99). In addition, only 9.8% of the residuals were greater than .10 indicating that the sample correlation matrix and the reproduced correlation matrix did not differ much.

Bagozzi and Yi (1988) suggested that a percentage greater than

model fit. Although the RMSEA value does not indicate good fit (only reasonable fit), the six factors showed good convergent validity and reliability (Table 1). The alpha coefficients ranged from .83 to .87 and the AVE (Average Variance Extracted) values ranged from .635 to .725 for the six PA1subscales. Furthermore,no construct correlation between any two subscales was within two standard errors of unity (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988),nor did any squared correlation exceed the AVE value of any referent subscale (Fornell & Larker, 1981), thus indicating discriminant validity (Table 2). The internal consistency and the convergentvalidity measures for the three dependent scales were adequate as well (Table 3). The alpha coefficients ranged from .71 to .87 and the AVE values ranged from .48 to .75.

10% indicated poor

Points of Attachment

261

Table 1: Factor Loadings($,) AverageVariance ExtractedValues (AVE), Alpha Coefficients (a), Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for the Points of Attachment Index.

Item

AVE

a

M

SD

Attachment to the team

 

,701

,870

4.56

1.37

I

consider myself to be a "real" fan of the basketball team

.826

4.93

1.54

would experience a loss if I had to stop being a fan of the team

I

.801

4.15

1.63

Being a fan of the basketball team is very important to me

.883

4.56

1.47

--

- -- --

Attachment to the sport

 

.644

.830

4.66

1.50

First and foremost I considermyself a (specific sport, e.g. football)fan

.817

4.87

1.71

(Specific sport)

is my favorite sport

.748

3.99

1.96

I

am a (specific

sport) fan at all levels (e.g. high school,

.839

5.07

1.59

college. professional)

 

Attachment to the university

 

.635

.829

5.23

1.03

identify with numerous aspects of the university rather than with just its team

I

.788

5.25

1.19

I

feel a part of the university, not just its teams

 

.816

5.12

1.21

I

support the

university as a whole, not just its athletic

.787

5.29

1.26

teams

Attachment to the players

 

.725

.871

3.94

1.26

identify with an individual player@)on the team than with the team

I

.758

3.94

1.47

am a big fan of specific players more than I am a fan of the team

I

.929

3.92

1.40

consider myself a fan of certain players rather than a fan of the team

I

.859

3.90

1.37

Attachment to the

level of sport

 

.641

.829

4.60

1.26

am a fan of is playing

I

collegiate (specific sport) regardless

of who

.760

4.98

1.50

don't identify with one specific college (specific team, but collegiate (specific sport) in general

I

sport)

.740

4.15

1.42

consider myself a fan of collegiate(specific sport), and not just one specific team

I

,893

4.63

1.48

Attachment to the coach

 

.720

.873

3.96

1.28

I am a big fan of Coach (name)

 

.714

4.56

4.41

I

follow the (sport) team because I like Coach (name)

.888

3.67

1.45

am a fan of the (sport) team because they are coached by Coach (name)

I

.928

3.62

1.46

262

Table 2: Correlations among PA1 subscales.

Kwon, Trail & Anderson

Subscale

Sport

University

Player

Coach

Level

Team

.640

.542

.348

.616

.434

University

.250

.287

.273

Player

Coach

Level

Table 3: Factor Loadings0,Average Variance ExtractedValues (AVE), Alpha Coefficients (a),Means(M)and StandardDeviations(SD)for the Dependent Subscales.

Item

fl

AVE

a

M

SD

BIRGing

.686

.87

4.54

1.23

would like to this team

I

let others

know about my association with

.804

4.74

1.31

I like

would

to

publicize

my connection with this team

.83 1

4.34

1.41

I like to

would

tell others about my

association with this team

.849

4.62

1.33

Satisfaction

.478

.71

4.90

1.05

I satisfied

was

with

my

decision to

attend

.705

5.21

1.27

I satisfied

was

with

my

spectating experience

.732

4.90

1.31

I satisfied with the

was

game experience

.633

4.68

1.24

Conativeloyalty

 

.754

.84

4.43

1.23

I am

more

likely to

attend future games

.869

4.90

1.45

I am more

likely to purchase the team's merchandise

.905

4.26

1.32

I am

more

likely

to

buy (team name) clothing

.829

4.11

1.38

Number of

home games attended

3.89

2.62

Results of the first multiple regression analysis (Table4), indicated that the firstblock (attachment to the team) explained a significant amount of the variance in BIRGing (R2 = .430). The second block (attachment to the university and attachment to the sport) explained a significant, although small, amount of additional variance (AR2

= .026). The third block (attachment to the player, attachment to the level of sport, and attachment to the coach) also explained a significant, albeit small, amount of additional variance in BIRGing, (AR2= -019).

Points of Attachment

263

Table 4: Hierarchical Multiple Regression of Points of Attachment on BIRGing.

Model

B

SEB

P

R

R2

AR2

AF

dfl

dfL

Sig.

 

AF

Step 1

.656

.430

.430

265.99

1

352

< .001

Team

.591

.036

.656

Step 2

.676

.457

.026

8.53

2

350

<.001

Team

.517

,047

,574

University

.217

.053

.181

sport

.009

.039

.011

Step 3

.690

.476

.019

4.16

3

347

.006

Team

.456

.051

.506"'

University

.236

.053

.196"'

sport

.063

.045

.077

Player

-.043

.043

-.044

Level

-.I14

.049

-.117"

Coach

.135

.049

.141"

In the secondmultiple regression analysis (Table 5), the first block (attachmentto the team) explained a significant amount of the variance in satisfaction (R2= .263). The second block (attachmentto the university and attachment to the sport) explained a

significant, but

(attachment to the player, attachment to the level of sport, and attachment to the coach) did not explain a significant amount of additional variance in satisfaction. In the third multiple regression analysis, the first block (attachmentto team) explained a significant amount of the variance in conations (Table 6; R2 = .340). The second block (attachmentto the university and attachment to the sport) explained a significant, although small, amount of additional variance (AR2= -019).The third block (attachment to the player, attachment to the level of sport, and attachment to the coach) also explained a significant, although small, amount of additional variance in conations, (AR2= .024). In the fourth multiple regression analysis, the first block (attachmentto the team) explained a significant amount of the variance in attendance (Table 4; R2 = .241). Neither the second block (attachmentto the university and attachment to the sport) nor the third block (attachmentto theplayer, attachment to the level of sport, and attachment to the coach) explained a significant amount of additional variance in attendance.

small, amount of additional variance (AR2= .036). The third block

264

Kwon, Trail &Anderson

Table 5: Hierarchical Multiple Regression of Points of Attachment on Satisfaction.

Model

B

SEB

/j

R

R2

AR2

AF

dfl

dfL

Sig.

 

AF

Step 1

.512

.263

.263

124.31

1

349

< .001

Team

.394

.035

.512

Step 2

.547

.299

.036

8.98

2

347

< .001

Team

.312

.045

.406"'

University

.217

.051

.213"'

sport

.021

.038

.030

Step 3

.550

.303

.004

0.64

3

344

.591

Team

.292

.051

.380

University

.219

.052

.214

Player

-.W .042

-.053

Level

.OM

.049

.007

Coach

,057

,048

.070

*** p < .001

Table 6: Hierarchical Multiple Regression of

Points of Attachment on Conative Loyalty

Model

B

SEB

/j

R

R2

AR2

AF

dfl

dfL

Sig.

 

AF

Step 1

.583

.340

.340

183.05

1

356

<.001

Team

.523

.039

.583

Step 2

.599

.359

.019

5.26

2

354

.006

Team

.451

.051

.503

University

.183

.057

.156

Step 3

.618

.382

.024

4.46

3

351

.004

Team

.362

.056

.403"'

University

.I72

.057

.146"

sport

.003

.049

.004

Player

-.002

.046

-.002

Level

.008

,053

.008

Coach

.I82

.053

.189"

Points of Attachment

265

Table 7: Blocked Hierarchical Multiple Regression of Points of Attachment on Attendance

B Model B SEB R R2 AR2 AF dfl df2 Sig. AF Step 1 .490
B
Model
B
SEB
R
R2
AR2
AF
dfl
df2
Sig.
AF
Step 1
.490
.241
.241
111.52
1
352
<.001
Team
Step 2
Team
University
sport
Step 3
Team
University
sport
Player
Level
Coach

Discussion

Theprimaryfocusof this studywas to examinethe validityand reliabilityofthe Points of Attachment Index subscales. Specifically, we wanted to determine whether fewer subscales of the PA1 would satisfactorily predict cognitive, affective, conative, and behavioural dimensions of sport spectatorship. The PA1 had reasonable fit statistics and the six dimensions indicated good convergent and discriminant validity. Thus, solely based on the psychometric properties of the PAI, there is no reason to reduce the number of dimensions. The attachment to the team dimension explained a significant and large amount of variance in all four sport spectator aspects (cognition, affect, conation,

and behaviour) ranging from 24% in attendance to 43% in

BIRGing. The addition

of the attachment to the university and the attachment to the sport dimensions of the PA1to the regression equation contributed significant,but small, amounts of variance

to BIRGing, satisfaction, and conative loyalty, but not to attendance behaviour; however the effect was due solely to attachment to the university, as attachment to the sport was never a significanatpredictor. Considering that the largest amount of additionalvariance explainedwas only 3.6%(in Satisfaction),one might questionthe added value of the above two subscales. Furthermore,when the final three subscales (attachment to theplayers, level of sport, and coach) were entered into the equation,

266

Kwon, Trail &Anderson

a significant additional amount of variance was explained only in BIRGing and

conative loyalty. In both cases the meaningfulness of this variance (less than 2.5%)

might easily be questioned, especially considering the addition of nine items to the questionnaire. As Cohen (1988) noted, when the variance explained is around 2%, it

is

"just barely escaping triviality" @. 413) and may not be meaningful, even though

it

is significant. Nevertheless, the

added significant prediction was due primarily to

the effect off attachment to coach, as attachment to player was never a significant predictor, and attachment to level was only a significantpredictor of BIRGing. As only four of the six dimensions of the Points of Attachment model were ever predictive, these findings lend only partial support to the model. Neither attachment to sport nor attachment to player was predictive in any of the four regressions. Although these two dimensions make sense theoretically, more work

is

needed to establish their relevance, to improve the quality of their measurement,

or

both. The studentswere highly identifiedwith the university; however, attachment

to

the university was only correlated with attachment to the team at approximately

.5, indicating that the shared variance was only 25%. This suggests that some

respondents view themselves as students and not necessarily fans of the team. This

is

further supported in that 8% of the respondents indicated that they were not fans

of

the team at all. This aspect needs to be researched further in the future.

The ability of the single dimension of attachment to the team to explain a large amount of variance in cognitive dimensions of sport spectatorship, BIRGing in

this case, is also not surprising as Trail and colleagues (Trail et al., 2005; Trail, Fink

et al., 2003) have shown that team identificationexplained variance in both BIRGing

and CORFing. Furthermore, both Madrigal (1995) and Matsuoka et al. (2003) have shown that team identification is related to satisfaction. However, in both cases correlations between the two were considerably smaller than the present results. Team identification has been shown to explain variance in conative loyalty as well.

Wann and colleagues have shown positive relationships between their measure of team identificationand various aspects of conative loyalty (Melnick & Wann, 2004; Wann, 2002; Wann & Branscombe, 1993)as have Matsuoka et al. (2003). James and

Trail (in press) also showed that team identification explained a significant amount

of variance in future attendance consumptions and future merchandise consumption

(conative loyalty). Finally, Laverie and Arnett (2000) showed that identity salience was positively correlated with attendance, but attachment to the team was not. In general, our results support the previous research that indicated that attachment to the team does predict different aspects of sport fandom and/or spectatorship, at least

to some extent.

Unfortunately,little research has examined the relationships among the other points of attachment and cognitive, affective, conative, or behavioural dimensions.A few exceptions exist however. Kwon et al. (2003) found that identification with the

Points of Attachment

267

team, with the university, and with the particularsportwere significantdeterminants of purchasing and wearing behaviours of licensed sport-apparel. It also peripherally supported the findings of Robinson and Trail (2005) that identification with team, sport, and university are perhaps the primary aspects of points of attachment. However, in both of these cases, team identification was the primary component andlor predictor. There has been no research as far as we know that has looked at all of the points of attachment together and the relationship to different aspects of sport spectatorship or sport fandom. Thus, our results cannot be compared to any previous research in this regard. Regardless, a small but significant amount of additional variance was explained in only two of the dependent variables. Since at least four of the six-dimensions of the PA1 are reliable and valid, the issue of the usefulness (predictive ability) of multiple dimensions becomes important. Two arguments could be made here. The first being that the amount of additionalvariance explained by the combinationof identificationwith the university and identification with the sport explained barely more than a "tivial" amount of variance in these four dependent variables. Furthermore, when the additional three dimensions were added they were not significant in half of the dependent variables. Thus, including multiple dimensions of the PA1 in a survey may not be worth the extra time necessary for the respondents to answer the additional 6 to 15 items in certain situations. In addition, a more parsimonious model (i.e., fewer dimensions -probably the four that have been shown here to be predictive) may be easier to interpret and evaluate for researchers. Practitioners would benefit because of ease of data collection and applicability. The counter argument is this. There is theoretical value in, and statistical support for, a multidimensional model. Just because the increase in variance explained in the dependent variables is small, it does not mitigate the value of the added prediction, especially considering the correlationsbetween the different points of attachment.Three of five dimensionscombined (i.e., other than attachment to a team) did explain a significant amount of additional variance (up to 4.5%) in cognitive, affective, and conative aspects of sport spectatorship. Furthermore, fewer dimensions may not be appropriate in all situations. Each sport organisation has its own unique situation. Some organisations may have a great star player and thus the player attachment subscale might be more applicable in those situations and might explain more variance in cognitive, affective, conative and behavioural loyalty. Some organisations have a great coach and thus the attachment to the coach subscale would be applicable in those situations. In the present data set, the university analysed did not have an extremely popular player or a great coach. This could have had, and probably did have, a significant impact on the relevance of those two subscales to the respondents.

268

Kwon, Trail & Anderson

In addition, because a large percentage of respondents indicated that they were fans, points of attachment that may be more relevant to spectators. For example, sport and level of sport according to Trail, Robinson, et al. (2003), may not be highly associated with the dependent measures in this analysis, but may still be important aspects of specific game spectatorship. For example, an individual might be in Boston on a business trip and even though the individual is not a Red Sox fan, he or she decides to attend a game because he or she likes the game of baseball. This is true spectatorship with no allegiance to a particular participating team. The dependent measures in this study represent aspects of loyalty, be it cognitive, affective, conative or behavioural, and thus should be highly correlated with points of attachment focused on the teamlorganisation. However, those who are solely spectators and who are not highly identified with the team, as in the example above, would not exhibit loyalty, and therefore dependent measures of loyalty would not necessarily be valid measures of spectatorship for those individuals. Thus, each sport organisation would need to evaluate its own situation before determining which subscales might be most applicable and most meaningful. The current study has its limitation in terms of generalisability. Even though we are not claiming that the results can be generalised to other institutions, the limited generalisability from a convenience sampling method should be noted as well. The data were collected from students who were enrolled in the Department of Health and Human Performance. Thus, it can be conjectured that the general population may respond to the psychological attachment items differently.The data from a convenience sample may not represent the population parameters adequately. Consequently,future research needs to expand the framework to as many situations as possible.

Recommendationsand Summary

In sum, the reliability and construct validity of the six-dimension PA1 was encouraging. The attachment to the team subscale explained a significant and meaningful amount of variance in BIRGing, satisfaction, conative loyalty, and attendance behaviour. Three of the other subscales significantly explained only

a minimal amount of additional variance. However, academics and practitioners

should be careful in eliminating the other points of attachment until fbther research

is done. There may be instances in which the other attachment subscales,especially

attachment to university or to a specific sport, might be applicable. The same may apply to attachment to player or coach in specific instances. Further research should assist in these determinations.

Points of Attachment

References

269

Anderson, J. C. & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: Areview

and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 41 1-423. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16,7494. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods and Research, 21,230-258. Cohen, J. (1988). Statisticalpoweranalysisfor the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Fomell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981).Evaluatingstructuralequationmodels withunobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18,39-50. Funk, D. C., Mahony, D. F., Nakazawa, M., & Hirakawa, S. (2000). Spectator motives:

Differentiatingamong objects of attraction in professional football. European Journal for Sport Management, 7,51-67. Funk, D. C., Mahony, D. F., Nakazawa, M., & Hirakawa, S. (2001). Development of the Sport Interest Inventory (SII): Implications for measuring unique consumer motives at team sporting events. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship,

3,291-316.

Funk, D. C., Mahony, D. F., & Ridinger, L. L. (2002). Characterizing consumer motivation as individual difference factors: Augmenting the sport interest inventory (SII) to explain level of sport. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11,3343. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventionalcriteriaversus new alternatives.StructuralEquationModeling, 6, 1-55. James, J. D. & Trail, G.T. (in press). The relevance of team identification to sport consumptionbehavior intentions.International Sports Journal, 9(1). Kwon, H., & Armstrong, K. L. (2004). An exploration of the construct of psychological attachment to a sport team among college students: A multi-dimensional approach. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 13,94103. Kwon, H. H., Anderson, D. A., & Trail, G. T. (2003, June). The relationship between sport consumers' points of attachment and licensed merchandise consumption.

Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the North American Society of Sport Management, Ithaca, New York. Laverie, D. A., & Arnett, D. B. (2000). Factors affecting fan attendance: The influence of identity salience and satisfaction. Journal of Leisure Research, 32,225-246.

Madrigal, R. (1995). Cognitive and affective determinants of fan satisfaction with sporting

event attendance. Journal

of Leisure Research, 27,205-227.

Mahony, D. F., Madrigal, R., & Howard, D. (2000). Using the Psychological Commitment to Team (PCT) scale to segment sport consumers based on loyalty. Sport Marketing Quarterly,9, 15-25. Matsuoka, H., Chelladurai, P., & Harada, M. (2003). Direct and interaction effects of team identification and satisfaction on intention to attend games. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12,244-253.

270

Kwon, Trail & Anderson

Melnick, M. J., & Wann, D. L. (2004). Sport fandom influences, interests and behaviors among Norwegian University Students. International Sports Journal, 8 (Winter),

1-13.

Mulaik, S. A., James, L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stilwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105,43W5. Nunally, J. C., & Bemstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, McGraw-Hill. Robinson, M., & Trail, G. T. (2005). Relationships among spectator gender, motives and points of attachment in selected intercollegiate sports. Journal of Sport Management,

19,58-80.

Robinson, M., Trail, G. T. Dick, R., & Gillentine,A. (2005). Fans vs. spectators:An analysis of those who attend intercollegiate football games. Sport Marketing Quarterly. 14,

43-53.

Robinson, M., Trail, G. T., & Kwon, H. (2004). Motives and points of attachment of professional golf spectators. Sport Management Review, 7, 161-1 85. Steiger, J. H. (1989). EZPATH: A supplementaly module for SYSTAT and SYGRAPH. Evanston, IL: SYSTAT. Stryker, S. (1968). Identity salience and role performance: the relevance of symbolic interaction theory for family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 30,

558-564.

Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structure version. Menlo Park, CA:

BenjaminICummings. Stryker, S. (1994). Identity theory: Its development, research base, and prospects. Studies in Symbolic Interaction, 16,9-20. Trail, G. T., Anderson, D. F., & Fink, J. S. (2003, November). Consumer satisfaction and identity theory: A model of sport spectator conative loyalty. Paper presented at the Inaugural Conference of The Sport Marketing Association, Gainesville, Florida. Trail, G. T., Anderson, D. F., & Fink, J. S. (2005). Consumer satisfaction and identity theory: A model of sport spectator conative loyalty. Sport Marketing Quarterly 14, 98-1 12. Trail, G. T., Fink, J. S., & Anderson, D. F. (2003). Sport spectator consumption behavior. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12,8-17. Trail, G. T., & James, J. D. (2001). The motivation scale for sport consumption: Assessment of the scale's psychometric properties. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 108-127. Trail, G. T., Robinson, M. J., Gillentine, A., & Dick, R. (2003). Motives and points of attachment: Fans versus spectators in intercollegiate athletics. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12,217-227. Wann, D. L. (2002). Preliminary validation for a measure of assessing identification as a sports fan: The sports fandom questionnaire. International Journal of Sports Management, 3,103-1 15. Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1993). Sports fan: Measuring degree of identification with their team. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 1-17.