Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 1018–1025

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Business Research

Sponsorship effects on brand image: The role of exposure and

activity involvement☆
Reinhard Grohs a,⁎, Heribert Reisinger b
a
University of Innsbruck, Austria
b
University of Vienna, Marketing Department, Oskar-Morgenstern-Platz 1, A-1090 Vienna, Austria

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Sponsorships capture a significant proportion of marketing budgets. In firm evaluations of the effectiveness of
Received 16 November 2010 sponsorship engagements, image improvements represent the most important company objective. This study
Received in revised form 11 August 2011 develops and tests a framework for explaining how exposure and activity involvement moderate the effects of
Accepted 14 October 2011
event image, event–sponsor fit, and event commercialization on sponsor image. Using empirical data collected
Available online 22 August 2013
at a large sporting event with multiple sponsors, the authors show that increased sponsorship exposure reduces
Keywords:
sponsor image if respondents perceive a low fit between the event and sponsor or high levels of event commer-
Sponsorship cialization. Involvement in the sponsored activity improves the sponsor's image, in that the effect of event com-
Sponsorship effectiveness mercialization is positive for highly involved persons. This paper concludes with some reasons for the findings,
Sponsor image formation implications for the choice and design of sponsorships, and further areas for research.
Sports © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
The humble beginnings of sponsorship as a marketing communica-
tion tool in the 1970s led to a period of rapid growth in the 1980s and
throughout the 1990s (e.g., Meenaghan, 2001). Increased sponsorship
activities and expenditures paralleled a deepened understanding of
what sponsorships could and could not achieve. This growing body of
knowledge fostered a shift in sponsorship objectives; modern sponsor-
ships are particularly successful in changing or strengthening con-
sumers' perceptions and brand images, because of their credibility
(Balasubramanian, 1994), ability to create goodwill toward the sponsor
(Crimmins & Horn, 1996; McDonald, 1991), and avoidance of blatantly
obvious commercial intentions (Quester & Thompson, 2001). When
companies support specific activities, the image of the sponsored
event can transfer to the sponsor and benefit the image of that spon-
soring company (Gwinner, 1997; IEG, 2003). Consequently, managers
rank the promotion of corporate and brand image as their most im-
portant sponsorship goals (e.g., Schnittka, 2011; Tomczak, Mühlmeier,
Brexendorf, & Jenewein, 2008).
Existing research confirms that sponsor image is a function of the
image of the sponsored activity and the fit between the event and
the sponsor (e.g., Gwinner & Eaton, 1999), though the role of event
commercialization is less clear. Lee, Sandler, and Shani (1997) sug-
gest that increased commercialization might harm sponsor image,
but McDaniel and Mason (1999) cannot find empirical evidence of
this proposition. Confusion also remains about the role of two im-
portant components of consumer responses to sponsorship; expo-
sure to the sponsorship and involvement in the sponsored activity.
This study aims to clarify the (moderating) role of sponsorship expo-
sure and activity involvement in the sponsor image formation process.
No prior research investigates the moderated relationships of event
image, event–sponsor fit, event commercialization, sponsorship expo-
sure, and activity involvement, and this study thereby contributes to a
richer understanding of the mechanisms underlying sponsor image for-
mation. The following sections provide a theoretical rationale for the
framework, describe the hypotheses, and then detail the empirical test
of these hypotheses in relation to a large sponsored sporting event,
with many different sponsors and respondents with varying levels of
sponsorship exposure and activity involvement. From a theoretical per-
spective, developing and testing a framework of sponsor image, drivers,
and moderators enhances understanding of conditions in which spon-
sor image improvement is likely. Companies can benefit from the find-
ings that provide suggestions about how to conceptualize and execute
sponsorship programs to improve firm images effectively.

☆ The authors thank two anonymous reviewers and the editor of this special issue 2. Sponsorship research: literature review and hypotheses
for helpful comments and suggestions. This research received funding from the
Jubilaeumsfonds grant no. 8568, Austrian National Bank (Oesterreichische Nationalbank). 2.1. Brand image
⁎ Corresponding author at: University of Innsbruck, Brand Research Laboratory and
Department of Strategic Management, Marketing and Tourism, Universitaetsstrasse 15,
A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria. Tel./fax: +43 512 507 7210, +43 512 507 2842.
According to Aaker (1992, pp. 109–110), brand image is “a set of
E-mail addresses: reinhard.grohs@uibk.ac.at (R. Grohs), heribert.reisinger@univie.ac.at associations, usually organized in some meaningful way.” Associations
(H. Reisinger). constitute pieces of information consumers hold about a particular

0148-2963/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.08.008
 R. Grohs, H. Reisinger / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 1018–1025
brand, which comprise product-related or non-product-related attri-
butes; functional, experiential, or symbolic benefits; and overall brand
attitudes (Keller, 1993). Some brands position themselves as corporate
social responsibility brands (Du, Bhattacharya, & Sen, 2007), that is, they
focus on social benefit associations.
Sponsorships aim to improve brand image on these dimensions.
Socio-sponsorship, or the sponsorship of charitable organizations and
causes, is particularly useful for changing social benefit associations
and overall brand attitudes (e.g., Dean, 2002; Simmons & Becker-Olsen,
2006). Professional sports sponsorships instead primarily strengthen
brand image by providing links to specific brand benefits and attributes
(e.g., Grohs, Wagner, & Vsetecka, 2004; Gwinner & Eaton, 1999). Sport
events communicate a desired brand personality to the target market
of the event, through the emotions and feelings that the event evokes
(i.e., user and usage imagery; Keller, 1993), as well as convey benefits,
such as prestige and status, that are inherent to certain types of sport
events (symbolic benefits; Keller, 1993). Brand image improvement
through sponsorship depends on influential factors related to the spon-
sored activity, the sponsor, and the individual consumer. Fig. 1 depicts
the effects of event image (a factor related to the sponsored activity),
event–sponsor fit (related to the sponsor), event commercialization
(related to the sponsored activity), as well as sponsorship exposure
and activity involvement (both related to the individual consumer) on
sponsor image.
2.2. Drivers of sponsor image
2.2.1. Event image
Similar to brands, sporting events and art exhibitions share specific
associations and characteristics. In line with Keller's (1993) definition
of brand image, an event image includes the perceptions of an event,
as reflected by the event's associations held in consumers' memory.
Two theories are predominantly used to explain how event image
influences sponsor image: classical conditioning theory and the mean-
ing transfer model (e.g., Cornwell, Weeks, & Roy, 2005). Using classical
conditioning research in advertising, Speed and Thompson (2000)
suggest that pairing a sponsor (conditioned stimulus) with an event
(unconditioned stimulus) results in event associations becoming at-
tached to the brand in the consumer's memory. The meaning transfer
model (McCracken, 1989) implies that cultural meanings move to a
brand that is linked to a widely accepted symbol with a particular mean-
ing. In a sponsorship context, meaning transfers to the sponsor by a link
of the brand to the sponsored event (Gwinner, 1997), through their si-
multaneous presentation. Several empirical studies also support the
image transfer concept in a sponsorship context (e.g., Otker & Hayes,
1987; Stipp & Schiavone, 1996). Therefore,
H1. Perceptions of the event image positively affect perceptions of the
sponsor image.
Sponsorship
Exposure
Event Image H1 + H4 +/0 H5 _ H6 _
H2 + Sponsor
Event-sponsor Fit
Image
H3 _
Event H7 _ H8 +
Commercialization
Activity
Involvement
Fig. 1. Proposed model of sponsor image formation.
1019
2.2.2. Event–sponsor fit
The fit between a sponsored activity and a sponsor depends on con-
sumer perceptions and consists of functional and image dimensions
(Gwinner, 1997). Functional fit is high if a sponsor's product might be
used at the event (e.g., a tire manufacturer sponsors a car race). Image
fit is high if attributes associated with the event overlap with attributes
associated with the sponsor (e.g., a prestigious car manufacturer spon-
sors a high-class golf tournament).
Most research suggests a positive relation between perceived event–
sponsor fit and perceived sponsor image (Gwinner, 1997; Meenaghan,
2001), according to the product match-up hypothesis from advertising
research. This hypothesis states that prominent product endorsers are
more effective if their image matches the product's image (Gwinner &
Eaton, 1999; Ohanian, 1991). Stimulus relatedness also exerts positive
effects on consumer evaluations of an advertised product (Lynch &
Schuler, 1994). For example, Till and Busler (2000) report a positive
influence of a perceived fit between a celebrity spokesperson and a
product on consumer attitudes toward the endorsed brand. For spon-
sorships, the match-up hypothesis implies that the degree of perceived
similarity between the sponsor and sponsored event exerts a positive
influence on consumer responses (Gwinner, 1997; Gwinner & Eaton,
1999; McDaniel, 1999). In addition, d'Astous and Bitz (1995), Gwinner
and Eaton (1999), and Simmons and Becker-Olsen (2006) show empir-
ically that sponsor image improves when recipients perceive a high
event–sponsor fit. Therefore,
H2. Event–sponsor fit positively affects perceptions of sponsor image.
2.2.3. Event commercialization
Event commercialization refers to the sponsor-initiated commercial
activity surrounding special events (Lee et al., 1997), including the
communication activity of all sponsors in relation to the sponsored
event. Attitudes toward event commercialization reflect consumer
reactions to these activities (Lee et al., 1997). Growing concerns sug-
gest that well-known events are losing their identity by becoming
over-commercialized (e.g., Lee et al., 1997; Murphy, 2007), which
may cause spectators and consumers to develop negative attributions of
sponsorships (Dean, 2002). Rifon, Choi, Trimble, and Li (2004) find that
an attribution of self-serving company motives (e.g., enhancing company
profits or reputation) is related to consumer perceptions of corporate
exploitation. Although no detailed analysis describes the relationship of
event commercialization, corporate sponsorship exploitation, ascribed
company motives, and attitudes toward sponsors, several authors posit
that increased event commercialization harms the overall consumer
experience and triggers negative attitudes toward the sponsor (Dean,
2002; Lee et al., 1997; Rifon et al., 2004). Of the few empirical assessments
of the effects of event commercialization (e.g., Cornwell et al., 2005),
McDaniel and Mason (1999) find no direct effect on sponsor image. In
line with attribution theory though, the present study maintains:
H3. Event commercialization negatively affects perceptions of sponsor
image.
2.3. Moderator analysis
2.3.1. Sponsorship exposure
Sponsorship exposure refers to the amount of time spectators re-
ceive exposure to a sponsor message (Sandler & Shani, 1989). Exposure
might occur directly during the sponsored event or in the mass media
after the event. In line with classical conditioning theory, which posits
that more pairings increases the strength of the association between
an unconditioned and conditioned stimulus (Pavlov, 1927), the impact
of event image on sponsor image should be greater at higher levels
of sponsorship exposure. The meaning transfer model remains silent
about specific effects of exposure (McCracken, 1989). In a conceptual ar-
ticle, Gwinner (1997) discusses potential moderators of the meaning
1020 R. Grohs, H. Reisinger / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 1018–1025
transfer process in sponsorship but indicates no effect of level of expo-
sure during a single event. The next propositions therefore involve com-
peting hypotheses, both of which are plausible (Armstrong, Brodie, &
Parsons, 2001). Competing hypotheses can be useful (e.g., Sawyer &
Peter, 1983), particularly if prior knowledge implies two or more rea-
sonable explanations.
H4. Sponsorship exposure positively moderates the relationship be-
tween event image and sponsor image, such that the impact of event
image perceptions on sponsor image perceptions is more positive at
higher levels of sponsorship exposure.
H4competing. Sponsorship exposure does not moderate the relationship
between event image and sponsor image, such that the impact of event
image perceptions on sponsor image perceptions is independent of the
level of sponsorship exposure.
The elaboration likelihood framework provides theoretical reason-
ing for a moderating effect of sponsorship exposure on the impact of
event–sponsor fit on sponsor image. High exposure increases the likeli-
hood of central information processing (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Brief
exposures do not prompt spectators to elaborate on the content of the
sponsorship message, because the message is not a focal point of atten-
tion. However, consistent exposures may cause a person to form new
memory associations and relate that new information to existing atti-
tudes, knowledge, and feelings. In the process, the person likely rehearses
cognitive content beyond the persuasive message (Greenwald, 1968). If
preexisting attitudes are congruent with the sponsorship, the observer
should forgo effortful message scrutiny; otherwise, preexisting ar-
guments may be more persuasive than memory associations, such
that a spectator might question the substance of a persuasive message
(Priester & Petty, 1995). Priester and Petty (2003) show that informa-
tion from an untrustworthy endorser prompts thoughtful elaboration,
whereas information from trustworthy endorsers often gets unthink-
ingly accepted.
In sponsorships, more exposure increases the likelihood of reflecting
on preexisting attitudes (e.g., perceived fit between event and sponsor)
and elaborating on the message content if the message is not intuitively
credible. If these attitudes appear inconsistent with the sponsorship
message, the recipient rejects the sponsorship (given that preexisting
attitudes toward the sponsor are reasonably stable). The influence of
event–sponsor fit on sponsor image thus depends negatively on addi-
tional exposure:
H5. Sponsorship exposure negatively moderates the relationship be-
tween event–sponsor fit and sponsor image, such that the impact of
fit on sponsor image perceptions is less positive at higher levels of spon-
sorship exposure.
A similar theoretical rationale supports a moderating effect of spon-
sorship exposure on the relationship between event commercialization
and perceptions of sponsor image. Exposure increases the likelihood of
elaboration (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986); by reflecting on event commer-
cialization and the potential exploitation of the event by the sponsor,
the spectator develops skepticism about the sponsorship. Therefore,
the influence of event commercialization on sponsor image is affected
negatively by additional exposure:
H6. Sponsorship exposure negatively moderates the relationship be-
tween event commercialization and sponsor image, such that the impact
of commercialization on sponsor image perceptions is more negative at
higher levels of sponsorship exposure.
2.3.2. Activity involvement
Activity involvement is genuine enthusiasm caused by a strong and
solid interest in a specific activity that results from the perceived personal
relevance of the activity (Lardinoit & Derbaix, 2001; Zaichkowsky, 1985).
Activity involvement can be conceptualized as interest in the event
(Lardinoit & Derbaix, 2001) or in the underlying activity, such as sports
(see Lascu, Giese, Toolan, Guehring, & Mercer, 1995). Higher levels of ac-
tivity involvement increase awareness of event sponsors and knowledge
of the event–sponsor link (Grohs et al., 2004; Johar, Pham, & Wakefield,
2006).
The elaboration likelihood framework provides a rationale for a
moderating effect of activity involvement on the relationship between
event–sponsor fit and sponsor image. Higher activity involvement in-
creases elaboration on the content of the event and processing of related
activities, such as the sponsorship (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). If preexisting
attitudes are congruent with the sponsorship, the person unthinkingly
accepts the sponsorship information (Priester & Petty, 2003); if not, the
greater processing by highly involved spectators likely leads individuals
to scrutinize sponsorship information and reflect on their preexisting at-
titudes, such as, for example, a negative perceived fit between the event
and sponsor (e.g., Priester & Petty, 1995). This kind of pre-existing knowl-
edge then reduces the credibility of the sponsorship or acceptance of
sponsorship information (Priester & Petty, 2003). Consequently, higher
activity involvement should have a negative influence on the effect of
event–sponsor fit on sponsor image:
H7. Activity involvement negatively moderates the relationship be-
tween event–sponsor fit and sponsor image, such that the impact of fit
on sponsor image perceptions is less positive at higher levels of activity
involvement.
The concept of goodwill suggests a positive influence of activity in-
volvement on the relationship between event commercialization and
sponsor image. When people appreciate the benefits of sponsorship
for activities with which they are highly involved, they feel grateful to
sponsors and show more goodwill toward the company (Meenaghan,
2001). If a sponsor appears to be exploiting the event though, these in-
volved persons likely reject the company. According to Dees, Bennett,
and Villegas (2008, p. 82) highly involved people are “extremely sensi-
tive to the behavior of corporate sponsors with respect to the treatment
of their preferred activity, and they will react positively or negatively
according to this behavior.” Empirically, Dees et al. find a significant pos-
itive correlation between involvement and goodwill and hence find on
average a positive relation between the two constructs. Thus activity in-
volvement should moderate the relationship between event commer-
cialization and sponsor image positively:
H8. Activity involvement positively moderates the relationship be-
tween event commercialization and sponsor image, such that the im-
pact of event commercialization on sponsor image perceptions is less
negative at higher levels of activity involvement.
3. Method
3.1. Event and sponsors
For the empirical test of the hypotheses, the focal event was the
Beach Volleyball World Tour in Klagenfurt, Austria. This study focuses
on sports sponsorships, because more than two-thirds of all sponsor-
ship money goes to sports (Crompton, 2004; Meenaghan, 1998). The in-
ternational, large-scale event also supports comparisons of different
sponsors, all of which receive standardized sponsorship packages. This
event lasted for several days and therefore exposed different spectators
to different amounts of sponsorship. The four main sponsors analyzed
for this study were Seat in the automobile industry, Nokia as a mobile
phone brand, Red Bull energy drinks, and Zipfer beer. The commercial
activities of these sponsors included banners at the volleyball courts
and the event location; company stalls that promoted products, held
 R. Grohs, H. Reisinger / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 1018–1025
lotteries, and engaged in other communication activities; and sponsor-
ship information listed on the event and sponsor websites.
3.2. Measures
Event image and sponsor image for each sponsor needed to be
operationalized to assess the magnitude of image transfer. Developing
image scales for sponsored activities and sponsors is cumbersome;
Hansen and Scotwin (1995) therefore argue for individual image scales
for each sponsor, depending on the sponsored activity and industry
type. Using established image scales (e.g., Aaker, 1997, brand personal-
ity; Malhotra, 1981, product concepts) may distort the findings, because
image transfer takes place only in the image dimensions that the spon-
sored event represents. The Beach Volleyball World Tour, for example,
probably can improve a sponsor's image in terms of perceived youthful-
ness (an item from Malhotra, 1981) or excitement (Aaker, 1997), but
not enhance perceived stability (Malhotra, 1981) or sincerity (Aaker,
1997). Furthermore, image transfer depends on the product category.
Beach volleyball tends to be associated with speed, so this image dimen-
sion might transfer to a car manufacturer sponsor, whereas the dimen-
sion would not be applicable to a beer brand sponsor. Hence, measuring
the sponsor image individually for each sponsor with distinctive image
items is necessary. Finally, the event image for each sponsor needs to be
measured with corresponding image items for the sponsor, to ensure
correct assessments of the image transfer from the event to the sponsor.
This study therefore uses a separate image scale for each sponsor and a
corresponding scale to operationalize the event image.
To construct image scales, McDonald (1991) suggests a qualitative
pretest to elicit the relevant image items, whereas Speed and Thompson
(2000) propose starting from established scales (Aaker, 1997; Malhotra,
1981) and selecting the items that suit the purpose of the study. The
present research combined both approaches. For each sponsor, the
authors generated image items using the repertory grid method with
a sample of eight respondents who had some affinity for sports events
and the sponsor brands (e.g., Embacher & Buttle, 1989; Marsden &
Littler, 2000). These items were supplemented with items from previous
image scales (Aaker, 1997; Gwinner & Eaton, 1999; Malhotra, 1981). One
of the authors and a professional sports event organizer selected the final
set of items by agreement, in line with the objectives of the sponsoring
companies. Respondents rated sponsor image for all four sponsors, and
also indicated how these items related to the sponsored event, on
seven-point semantic differential scales. Appendix A provides the
image items for each sponsor.
The measure of event–sponsor fit relies on a five-item, seven-point
rating scale from Speed and Thompson (2000). Perceived event com-
mercialization was assessed with a five-item, seven-point rating scale
based on work by Lee et al. (1997). To measure sponsorship exposure,
items asked respondents how many days they had spent at the Beach
Volleyball World Tour event. For activity involvement, respondents pro-
vided self-assessments of their involvement with beach volleyball on a
modified, five-item, seven-point rating scale (adapted from Laurent &
Kapferer, 1985; Zaichkowsky, 1985). The questionnaire items for these
four constructs appear in Appendix B.
3.3. Data collection
The interviews either took place directly at the event or afterwards.
In the latter case, respondents received information about the Beach
Volleyball World Tour to refresh their memory and indicated whether
(and how) they had seen the event. For the former, the data were collect-
ed through personal interviews held on all five days of the tournament,
at different times of day, and in different locations within the event
arena. The event organizer confirmed that the sample demographics
represented the spectator distribution reasonably well (57% men, mean
age = 25.1 years). Respondents first assessed the length of their stay
(in days) at the event thus far, their image of the event, activity
1021
involvement, and perceived event commercialization, as well as their
perceptions of the fit between the event and sponsors and sponsor
images for the four sponsors. Before the fit and sponsor image items, re-
spondents learned that the four companies were sponsors. The sample
comprises 214–218 respondents per sponsor; eliminating cases with
missing values resulted in 180–185 usable responses per sponsor (over-
all, 729 responses).
In addition, 240 other people, per sponsor, received a short, fictitious
press release about the Beach Volleyball World Tour, summarizing the
event and mentioning the four sponsors, three months after the event.
These respondents, selected by means of convenience sampling, had
similar demographic characteristics to those of the spectators at the
event (42% men, mean age = 25.7 years). In personal interviews, they
responded to the same questions and indicated whether they had seen
reports about the event on television (yes/no). Respondents also noted
overall attitudes toward sponsor brands on a three-item, seven-point se-
mantic differential scale (“bad/good,” “negative/positive,” “unfavorable/
favorable”; Simmons & Becker-Olsen, 2006). These answers validated
the sponsor image dimensions in a MIMIC model. After eliminating
respondents who failed to complete the questionnaire, the sample
consisted of 234–236 responses for each sponsor (overall, 939 responses).
3.4. Measure validation
The data from the respondents questioned after the event indicates
the validity of the image dimensions. A MIMIC model was estimated
with LISREL 8.51 for each sponsor with the respective image dimensions
as direct causes of overall attitude toward the sponsor and the three over-
all attitude items as reflective indicators of the construct (e.g., Jöreskog &
Goldberger, 1975). The next step eliminated any non-significant image
dimensions in an iterative process, starting with the one with the lowest
t-values (e.g., Diamantopoulos & Winklhofer, 2001). The revised models
showed an acceptable fit for all four sponsors, and the variance explained
(R2) in the latent attitude toward the sponsor construct was at least 43%.
The fit indices, variance explained, and retained image dimensions are in
Appendix A.
The authors assessed the reliability and validity of the reflective
multi-item scales for event–sponsor fit for each sponsor, event com-
mercialization and activity involvement. Confirmatory factor analyses
showed composite reliabilities equal or greater than .87, and average
variance extracted estimates of at least .57 for all scales and sponsors,
indicating good psychometric properties (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988; see
Appendix B). Evidence of discriminant validity exists, because the aver-
age variance extracted estimates are greater than all squared correlation
estimates between constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; cf., Appendix B
and Table 1: the smallest AVE estimate 0.57 is greater than the largest
squared correlation coefficient between constructs 0.542 = 0.29).
3.5. Model estimation
The tests of the proposed hypotheses used moderated regression
analysis (e.g., Du et al., 2007; Homburg & Fürst, 2005). Data from
Table 1
Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix.a
Mean EI ESFIT ECOM SEXPO AINV
Sponsor image (SI) 4.7 0.21⁎ 0.54⁎ 0.01 0.07⁎ 0.26⁎
Event image (EI) 5.8 0.12⁎ −0.18⁎ 0.16⁎ 0.41⁎
Event–sponsor fit (ESFIT) 4.1 0.04 0.14⁎ 0.28⁎
Event commercialization 3.6 −0.04 −0.04
(ECOM)
Sponsorship exposure (SEXPO) 1.5 0.40⁎
Activity involvement (AINV) 3.8
a
All variables were measured on seven-point rating scales except for sponsorship expo-
sure (measured in days); N = 1668.
⁎ Correlation is significant at the .01 level.
1022 R. Grohs, H. Reisinger / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 1018–1025

respondents questioned during and after the event were used simulta- 4. Results
neously for hypotheses testing. The sponsor image for sponsor i rated by
respondent j (SIij) was a function of the event image as rated by respon- The descriptive results indicate very positive event image evalua-
dent j (EIj), event–sponsor fit of sponsor i rated by respondent j (ESFITij), tions, and sponsor image evaluations higher than the scale midpoint
and perceived event commercialization as rated by respondent j (ECOMj). (Table 1). An ANOVA with the type of study and each sponsor as inde-
The moderators were sponsorship exposure rated by respondent j pendent variables shows that sponsor image is significantly better in
(SEXPOj), activity involvement rated by respondent j (AINVj), and an in- the live condition (F = 96.15, p b .01) and significantly different across
dicator variable (STUDY) representing the exposure condition (data col- sponsors (F = 89.20, p b .01). No significant interactions emerge be-
lection during vs. after the event). The test of the hypothesized tween sponsor and condition (F = .64, p = .59).
relationships then used the following regression model (the multiplica- Table 2 contains the OLS regression results. The model fits the data
tive formulation accounts for the moderating effects; cf., Baron & Kenny, well (F = 71.50, p b .01) and explains 42% of the variance in sponsor
1986): image. Event image has a significant positive effect on sponsor image
(standardized β1 = .15, p b .01), in support of the image transfer concept
in H1. Event–sponsor fit is the most important driver of sponsor image
SI ij ¼ β0 þ β1  EI j
overall, with a significant positive effect on sponsor image (standardized
þβ2  ESFIT ij
β2 = .52, p b .01). That is, sponsors with higher perceived fit with the
þβ3  ECOM j
þβ4  EI j  SEXPO j event have a better sponsor image, in support of H2. The impact of
þβ5  ESFIT ij  SEXPO j event commercialization on sponsor image is not significant though,
þβ6  ECOM j  SEXPO j in contrast with H3.
þβ7  ESFIT ij  AINV j The interactions between event image and sponsorship exposure are
þβ8  ECOM j  AINV j not significant, in support of the alternate hypothesis, H4competing. The
þγ 1  SEXPO j þ γ 2  AINV j þ γ3  STUDY interaction of exposure and reversed event–sponsor fit has a significant
þγ 4  EI j  STUDY þ γ5  ESFIT ij  STUDY þ γ6  ECOM j  STUDY negative effect on sponsor image (standardized β5 = −.08, p b .01).
XI−1
Therefore, when event–sponsor fit is low, increased sponsorship expo-
þ δi  SDi þ εij ;
sure reduces perceived sponsor image, in support of H5. The interaction
i¼1
between sponsorship exposure and event commercialization has a sig-
nificant negative impact on perceived sponsor image (standardized
where STUDY = 1 if the data collection took place after the event and 0 β6 = −.05, p = .04), in line with H6, such that event commercializa-
if the data collection took place at the event. To separate main from tion has a more negative impact on sponsor image evaluations if spon-
interaction effects, the model includes the (non-hypothesized) direct sorship exposure is high. Contrary to H7, the interaction between
effects of sponsorship exposure and activity involvement on sponsor activity involvement and reversed event–sponsor fit is not significant,
image (Du et al., 2007). The main effect of the indicator variable but as predicted in H8, event commercialization has a more positive ef-
STUDY captures possible absolute differences in sponsor image between fect on sponsor image if activity involvement is high. The results show a
respondents interviewed directly at the event or after the event. The in- significant positive parameter estimate for the interaction between per-
teractions of the indicator variable STUDY and the three drivers event ceived event commercialization and activity involvement (standardized
image, event–sponsor fit and event commercialization control for moder- β8 = .06, p = .02). Furthermore, sponsorship exposure has a significant
ating effects of the exposure condition on the relationship between these negative direct impact on sponsor image (standardized γ1 = −.08,
factors and sponsor image. The dummy variables SDi, i = 1, …, I − 1 ac- p b .01); activity involvement has no significant direct impact.
count for potential differences across sponsors i = 1, …, I, such as those Significant differences in absolute sponsor image means depend on
due to dissimilar sponsor images before the event, the idiosyncratic the type of data collection (during vs. after the event; standardized
operationalization of sponsor images, external shocks, or other marketing
activities undertaken by sponsors during the event. Finally, εij is the error
term. Table 2
Moderated regression resultsa (dependent variable: sponsor image SI).
This model formulation assumes fixed effects of all explanatory var-
iables but shifting intercepts for the different data collection intervals Hypothesis Effect Parameter Standardized coefficient Significance
(γ3) and sponsors (δi). Therefore, the model calibration step pools the Constant β0 – p = 0.04
information over all sponsors. Because of the potential occurrence of dif-
H1 EI β1 0.15 p b 0.01
ferent numbers of observations per sponsor and pragmatic reasoning, H2 ESFIT β2 0.52 p b 0.01
the model postulates identical, independently distributed error terms, H3 ECOM β3 0.03 p = 0.42
and ordinary least squares (OLS) is used for the parameter estimation. H4/H4competing EI ∗ SEXPO β4 −0.01 p = 0.53
The analysis began with the calculation of an average index value for H5 ESFITb ∗ SEXPO β5 −0.08 p b 0.01
H6 ECOM ∗ SEXPO β6 −0.05 p = 0.04
the retained image items for each sponsor and the corresponding event
H7 ESFITb ∗ AINV β7 0.01 p = 0.84
image constructs. The averaged multi-item scales for event–sponsor fit, H8 ECOM ∗ AINV β8 0.06 p = 0.02
event commercialization, and activity involvement form a composite. In SEXPO γ1 −0.08 p b 0.01
line with prior research (e.g., Aiken & West, 1991; Cohen, Cohen, West, AINV γ2 0.04 p = 0.11
& Aiken, 2002; Du et al., 2007), the continuous variables of the moder- STUDY γ3 −0.08 p b 0.01
EI ∗ STUDY γ4 −0.03 p = 0.48
ated regression are mean centered.
ESFIT ∗ STUDY γ5 −0.04 p = 0.34
To study the interaction between event–sponsor fit and sponsorship ECOM ∗ STUDY γ6 −0.04 p = 0.29
exposure (or activity involvement), a reversal of the scale of the fit items SDSeatc δ1 0.16 p b 0.01
ensures ease of interpretation. High inconsistency results from high ex- SDNokiac δ2 0.34 p b 0.01
SDRedBullc δ3 0.07 p b 0.01
posure (activity involvement) and low event–sponsor fit. The interac-
F = 71.50, p b 0.01, R2 = 0.42
tion of high exposure (activity involvement) and low fit numerically
a
indicates high inconsistency on the part of the sponsor with the rever- N = 1668.
b
Reversed scale.
sal. If inconsistency is high, there should be a negative impact on spon- c
Coefficients for sponsor-specific dummy variables must be interpreted with respect to
sor image (H5, H7), reflected in negative parameter estimates for the the base level sponsor Zipfer; a significant positive regression coefficient indicates that for
respective relationships. the corresponding sponsor brand image is significantly higher than for sponsor Zipfer.
 R. Grohs, H. Reisinger / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 1018–1025
γ3 = −.08, p b .01). Respondents questioned at the event show higher
sponsor image evaluations. This finding is consistent with the ANOVA
results. No significant parameter estimates appear for the interactions
between the type of data collection and the three predictors. Also in
line with the ANOVA results, the sponsor images for the four sponsors
differ significantly, as indicated by the significant parameter estimates
for the sponsor dummies.
5. Discussion
5.1. Theoretical contribution
Understanding how brand image change in sponsorship works is a
fundamental step toward the development of a comprehensive frame-
work of sponsorship effectiveness, measures, and drivers. The present
research clarifies how sponsor image depends on various factors related
to the individual consumer, the sponsored event, and the sponsor. Three
factors exert a significant direct effect on sponsor image: event image,
event–sponsor fit, and sponsorship exposure. A positive event image
and high perceived fit benefit sponsor image; higher levels of sponsor-
ship exposure reduce this value. Sponsorship exposure also interacts
with event–sponsor fit, such that a longer sponsorship exposure results
in a less positive sponsor image if event–sponsor fit is low. Similarly,
longer sponsorship exposures result in more negative effects of per-
ceived event commercialization. The impact of event commercialization
on sponsor image is positive for highly involved spectators though.
This study presents empirical evidence that specific attributes and
characteristics associated with a sponsored event, such as excitement,
energy, or coolness, can transfer to the sponsor. The results do not
point to an impact of the immediacy of a direct participation or the re-
cency of the experience during the interview, as indicated by the finding
that the effect of event image on sponsor image does not differ significant-
ly between consumers who attended the beach volleyball tournament
and answered questions during the event and spectators questioned
three months after the competition ended.
The observation that increased sponsorship exposure does not ben-
efit the positive effect of event image on sponsor image supports the
meaning transfer model as a theoretical foundation for image transfer.
Classical conditioning instead would predict a stronger image transfer
in the case of increased exposure. These results are tentative but can
serve as a starting point for more detailed examinations, perhaps in con-
trolled experimental designs.
Event–sponsor fit is a key determinant of sponsor image. This robust
finding aligns with previous studies (Crimmins & Horn, 1996; d'Astous
& Bitz, 1995; Gwinner & Eaton, 1999). The comparison of different
drivers of sponsor image provides strong evidence for the decisive rele-
vance of an image-based or functional fit in sponsorships. The interaction
of sponsorship exposure with event–sponsor fit also indicates that when
spectators realize a potential misfit between the event and the sponsor,
their realization triggers a cognitive reaction. Thus the consideration of a
recipient's attitudes, as induced by the longer exposure to a sponsorship,
may be more important for persuasion than the positive effects achieved
through constantly perceiving the event and the sponsor together.
The results differ for activity involvement. In contrast with the elab-
oration likelihood model, this study does not indicate that perceptions
of the sponsor are less positive when event–sponsor fit is low. Perhaps
involvement with the sport or event does not relate directly to elabora-
tion about the sponsor. Consumers highly involved with the sponsored
activity also express higher goodwill toward sponsors (e.g., Meenaghan,
2001), which likely makes the sponsor appear more likeable and
trustworthy. Thus involved consumers avoid elaborating on nega-
tive preexisting information, such as a potentially low fit (Priester &
Petty, 2003), and accept the sponsorship message without scrutiny.
The impact of event commercialization on sponsor image emerges
as less negative than expected. Consumers generally do not oppose
event commercialization, because they recognize the contribution of
1023
sponsors to making the event happen. Only in cases of high sponsorship
exposure do consumers seem to perceive companies as excessively
exploiting the event. Event commercialization even has a positive im-
pact on sponsor image for highly involved spectators, who are particu-
larly grateful for companies that sponsor an event they value highly
and for whom event commercialization makes the sponsorship more
salient.
Finally, sponsorship exposure exerts a significantly negative direct
effect on sponsor image. The excessive coverage of the beach volleyball
event (and their sponsors) in this study might annoy consumers,
resulting in less positive perceptions of the sponsor brand. These
short-term negative effects of increased exposure to one specific
sponsorship activity appear diametrically opposed to the potential
long-term gains of continuous sponsorships. For example, studying
sponsorships that last several years, Cornwell, Roy, and Steinard (2001)
and Quester and Thompson (2001) find a positive impact on sponsor
image perceptions.
5.2. Managerial implications
Managers can use the findings of the present study to increase their
ability to develop successful sponsorships. The results are not applicable
to all kinds of sponsorships but offer useful guidelines for choosing and
executing effective sponsorships. First, sponsorships can transfer
meanings assigned to specific activities onto sponsors, independent
of the recency of exposure to the sponsored event and of consumers' in-
volvement with the activity. Even extending the proposed model to in-
clude the moderating effect of activity involvement on the relationship
between event image and sponsor image produces virtually identical
results; the parameter for the interaction term is not significant. There-
fore, companies should realize they can use sponsorships to transfer as-
sociations from an activity among desired target groups, following the
sponsored event.
Second, firms should choose to sponsor events with which they share
either a functional or an image fit. High fit benefits sponsor image for
both more and less involved consumers. Furthermore, firms should
communicate this link to exploit the full potential of sponsorships
(e.g., Cornwell, Humphreys, Maguire, Weeks, & Tellegen, 2006). In this
respect, integrated marketing communications may help establish or
strengthen the link between the event and the sponsor.
Third, companies should not enforce excessive sponsorship expo-
sure to increase their perceived images. On the contrary, exposure has
a negative impact on sponsor image, especially if consumers perceive
a low fit or high event commercialization. Consequently, companies
should take sponsorship exposure into account when deciding on
sponsorship communication, particularly for longer events such as
the Olympics or soccer's World Cup. To counteract negative effects
of exposure, sponsors must manage perceptions of fit between the
event and the sponsor, as well as event commercialization. Still, the ad-
equate amount of sponsorship exposure remains a complex issue, par-
ticularly in relation to other effects of exposure, such as the positive
impact on sponsor awareness (e.g., Johar et al., 2006).
Fourth, activity involvement is an important factor; for highly in-
volved spectators, perceived event commercialization has a positive im-
pact on sponsor image. This knowledge could help companies make
viable sponsorship decisions for or against specific events or activities.
This information also can help companies plan event commercialization
in accordance with target groups' involvement levels.
6. Limitations and further research
The regression model allows for brand-specific differences in spon-
sor image by including sponsor-specific indicator variables but assumes
fixed predictor effects. Additional studies should undertake more de-
tailed examinations of specific brands and product categories. Perceived
event commercialization also might depend on the product category.
1024 R. Grohs, H. Reisinger / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 1018–1025

Identifying why people regard certain communication activities as com- (continued)

Appendix A (continued)
mercialized might help companies ensure their sponsorship programs Sponsor Contrast Pole (1) Construct (7) MIMIC modelb
succeed. Red Bull Uncool Cool Chi2 (10) = 19.17, p = 0.04
This study touched on the theoretical foundations of image transfer (energy Drowsy Energetic GFI = 0.98
and contrasted predictions from the meaning transfer model and classi- drink) Pretentious Genuine SRMR = 0.018
cal conditioning theory. Further research should continue this endeavor Unhealthy Healthy CFI = 0.99
Unathletic Sportive
to tease out, in controlled environments, which mechanisms underlie Out Trendy
the transfer of associations from the event to the sponsor brand. Zipfer Unhealthy Healthy R2 = 0.44
Sponsorship exposure has a negative effect on sponsor image. A pilot (beer) Unsociable Sociable Chi2 (8) = 14.01, p = 0.08
study at the soccer Euro showed almost identical effects (findings avail- Unathletic Sportive GFI = 0.98
Outdated Up-to-date SRMR = 0.014
able on request). Cauberghe and De Pelsmacker (2010) observe a simi-
Mature Youthful CFI = 1.00
lar negative effect of increased exposure on brand attitude in the case of
a
sponsored advergames. Perhaps a non-hypothesized negative direct Respondents rated the (translated) items on a seven-point semantic differential scale. The
image dimensions in italics were retained because they showed significant positive load-
effect indicates an omitted mediator (Zhao, Lynch, & Chen, 2010). Re- ings on the latent attitude toward the sponsor construct.
searchers should investigate potential mediators (e.g., annoyance) to b
The MIMIC model goodness-of-fit measures resulted after eliminating image items that
understand how sponsorship exposure affects sponsor image. Exposure had nonsignificant loadings on the latent attitude toward the sponsor construct.
c
often correlates highly with activity involvement, and perhaps hardcore GFI—Goodness of fit index; SRMR—Standardized root mean square residual; CFI—
Comparative fit index.
fans are more dismissive of sponsorships. Although the correlation anal-
ysis in this study (Table 1) does not support this conclusion, this issue
needs further research.
The respondents reported a better sponsor image in absolute terms
if questioned directly at the event rather than after, which might indicate
recency and/or immediacy effects. This issue is important for sponsors.
Modeling customer holdout and hysteresis effects in the sponsorship Appendix B. Measures
context and accounting for unobserved heterogeneity among respon-
dents and sponsors thus would be fruitful (Johar et al., 2006). The present Construct Questionnaire items CRa AVEa
(translated)
analysis also does not include sponsorship leverage, or the dissemination
of sponsorship information through other communication tools. Further Event–sponsor fit –There is a logical connection Seat: Seat:
investigations might study the impact of leveraging strategies on sponsor Scale anchored between the event and 0.93b/ 0.72b/
at strongly “sponsor name”. 0.91c 0.67c
image. Distinguishing between direct and indirect effects of sponsorship disagree (1) –The image of the event and Nokia: Nokia:
leverage on sponsor image might be interesting. and strongly the image of “sponsor name” are 0.91b/ 0.68b/
Still to be explored is whether the observed effects generalize to other agree (7) similar. 0.92c 0.69c
sponsorships. In particular, the present study cannot identify which spe- –“Sponsor name” and the Red Bull: Red Bull:
event fit together well. 0.95b/ 0.78b/
cific element of the sponsorship mix influenced sponsor image percep-
–“Sponsor name” and the 0.93c 0.73c
tions. Other sports sponsorships (e.g., athletes or sports teams) may event stand for similar things. Zipfer: Zipfer:
lead to different results; other kinds of sponsorships, such as art exhibi- –It makes sense to me that 0.92b/ 0.71b/
tions or social events, also challenge the applicability of the present “sponsor name” sponsors 0.94c 0.77c
findings. The objectives for such sponsorships often differ from sports this event.

sponsorship goals. Event –I feel that the event was too 0.92b 0.68b
Overall, this research contributes to a comprehensive appreciation of commercialization commercialized because of 0.87c 0.57c
brand image formation through sponsorship. Although several issues Scale anchored the sponsors.
remain, the findings provide an assessment of conditions that influence at strongly –Because of the sponsors the
disagree (1) sport was pushed to the
brand image in sponsorships. Companies can use such knowledge to
and strongly background.
design and execute sponsorships to benefit their brand image. This agree (7) –Sponsors should not use the
study also advances the quest for a sound understanding of sponsorship event for their commercial
effectiveness. purposes.
–Instead of spending money
on sponsorship, the companies
should improve the quality of
Appendix A. Image scalesa for sponsors of the Beach Volleyball their products.
World Tour –The sponsors were too much
in the focus of the event.

Sponsorship exposure –How many days have you – –

Scale anchored spent at the Beach Volleyball
at 1 to 5 days World Tour in Klagenfurt so far?
Sponsor Contrast Pole (1) Construct (7) MIMIC modelb

Seat Uncool Cool R2 = 0.43 Activity involvement –Beach volleyball is important 0.93b 0.73b
(car) Slow Fast Chi2 (6) = 15.50, Scale anchored for me. 0.97c 0.86c
Traditional Innovative p = 0.02 at strongly –I like to engage in beach
Unathletic Sportive GFIc = 0.98 disagree (1) volleyball.
c
Outdated Up-to-date SRMR = 0.018 and strongly –Beach volleyball means a lot
Mature Youthful CFIc = 0.99 agree (7) to me.
Nokia Passive Active R2 = 0.44 –I am very interested in beach
(mobile Colorless Colorful Chi2 (6) = 39.07, volleyball.
phone Uncool Cool p b 0.01 –For me, beach volleyball is
brand) Traditional Innovative GFI = 0.95 exciting.
Out Trendy SRMR = 0.028 a
CR—Composite reliability; AVE—Average variance extracted.
Mature Youthful CFI = 0.97 b
During event.
Passive Active R2 = 0.54 c
After event.
 R. Grohs, H. Reisinger / Journal of Business Research 67 (2014) 1018–1025
References
Aaker, D. A. (1992). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name.
New York: The Free Press.
Aaker, J. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(August),
347–356.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Armstrong, J. S., Brodie, R. J., & Parsons, A. G. (2001). Hypotheses in marketing science:
Literature review and publication audit. Marketing Letters, 12(2), 171–187.
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(2), 74–94.
Balasubramanian, S. K. (1994). Beyond advertising and publicity: Hybrid messages and
public policy issues. Journal of Advertising, 23(4), 29–46.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
Cauberghe, V., & De Pelsmacker, P. (2010). Advergames: The impact of brand prominence
and game repetition on brand responses. Journal of Advertising, 39(1), 5–18.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2002). Applied multiple regression/correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.)Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cornwell, T. B., Humphreys, M. S., Maguire, A.M., Weeks, C. S., & Tellegen, C. L. (2006).
Sponsorship-linked marketing: The role of articulation in memory. Journal of Consumer
Research, 33(December), 312–321.
Cornwell, T. B., Roy, D. P., & Steinard, E. A., II (2001). Exploring managers' perceptions of
the impact of sponsorship on brand equity. Journal of Advertising, 30(2), 41–51.
Cornwell, T. B., Weeks, C. S., & Roy, D. P. (2005). Sponsorship-linked marketing: Opening
the black box. Journal of Advertising, 34(2), 21–42.
Crimmins, J., & Horn, M. (1996). Sponsorship: From management ego trip to marketing
success. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(July/August), 11–21.
Crompton, J. L. (2004). Conceptualization and alternate operationalizations of the mea-
surement of sponsorship effectiveness in sport. Leisure Studies, 23(3), 267–281.
d'Astous, A., & Bitz, P. (1995). Consumer evaluations of sponsorship programmes. European
Journal of Marketing, 29(12), 6–22.
Dean, D. H. (2002). Associating the corporation with a charitable event through sponsorship:
Measuring the effects on corporate community relations. Journal of Advertising, 31(4),
77–87.
Dees, W., Bennett, G., & Villegas, J. (2008). Measuring the effectiveness of sponsorship of
an elite intercollegiate football program. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 17(2), 79–89.
Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Index construction with formative
indicators: An alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research,
38(May), 269–277.
Du, S., Bhattacharya, C. B., & Sen, S. (2007). Reaping relational rewards from corporate so-
cial responsibility: The role of competitive positioning. International Journal of Re-
search in Marketing, 24(3), 224–241.
Embacher, J., & Buttle, F. (1989). A repertory grid analysis of Austria's image as a summer
vacation destination. Journal of Travel Research, 27(Winter), 3–7.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(February), 39–50.
Greenwald, A. G. (1968). Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion, and atti-
tude change. In A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, & T. M. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological foun-
dations of attitudes. New York: Academic Press.
Grohs, R., Wagner, U., & Vsetecka, S. (2004). Assessing the effectiveness of sports sponsor-
ships—An empirical examination. Schmalenbach Business Review, 56(2), 119–138.
Gwinner, K. P. (1997). A model of image creation and image transfer in event sponsor-
ship. International Marketing Review, 14(3), 145–158.
Gwinner, K. P., & Eaton, J. P. (1999). Building brand image through event sponsorship: The
role of image transfer. Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 47–57.
Hansen, F., & Scotwin, L. (1995). An experimental enquiry into sponsoring: What effects
can be measured? Marketing and Research Today, 23(3), 173–181.
Homburg, C., & Fürst, A. (2005). How organizational complaint handling drives customer
loyalty: An analysis of the mechanistic and the organic approach. Journal of Marketing,
69(July), 95–114.
IEG (2003). Sponsorship spending to increase 8.7 percent in 2004. IEG Sponsorship
Report.
Johar, G. V., Pham, M. T., & Wakefield, K. L. (2006). How event sponsors are really identified:
A (baseball) field analysis. Journal of Advertising Research, 46(June), 183–198.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Goldberger, A. S. (1975). Estimation of a model with multiple indicators
and multiple causes of a single latent variable. Journal of the American Statistical Asso-
ciation, 70(351), 631–639.
Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand
equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(January), 1–22.
1025
Lardinoit, T., & Derbaix, C. (2001). Sponsorship and recall of sponsors. Psychology and
Marketing, 18(2), 167–190.
Lascu, D. N., Giese, T. D., Toolan, C., Guehring, B., & Mercer, J. (1995). Sport involvement: A
relevant individual difference factor in spectator sports. Sports Marketing Quarterly,
4(4), 41–46.
Laurent, G., & Kapferer, J. -N. (1985). Measuring consumer involvement profiles. Journal of
Marketing Research, 22(February), 41–53.
Lee, M. -S., Sandler, D.M., & Shani, D. (1997). Attitudinal construct toward sponsorship:
Scale development using three global sporting events. International Marketing Review,
14(3), 159–169.
Lynch, J., & Schuler, D. (1994). The matchup effect of spokesperson and product congruency:
A schema theory interpretation. Psychology and Marketing, 11(5), 417–445.
Malhotra, N. K. (1981). A scale to measure self-concepts, person concepts, and product
concepts. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(November), 456–464.
Marsden, D., & Littler, D. (2000). Exploring consumer product construct systems with the
repertory grid technique. Qualitative Market Research, 3(3), 127–144.
McCracken, G. (1989). Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the en-
dorsement process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(December), 310–321.
McDaniel, S. R. (1999). An investigation of match-up effects in sport sponsorship
advertising: The implications of consumer advertising schemas. Psychology
and Marketing, 16(2), 163–184.
McDaniel, S. R., & Mason, D. S. (1999). An exploratory study of influences on public opinion
towards alcohol and tobacco sponsorship of sporting events. Journal of Services Market-
ing, 13(6), 481–500.
McDonald, C. (1991). Sponsorship and the image of the sponsor. European Journal of Mar-
keting, 25(11), 31–38.
Meenaghan, T. (1998). Current developments and future directions in sponsorship. Inter-
national Journal of Advertising, 17(1), 3–28.
Meenaghan, T. (2001). Understanding sponsorship effects. Psychology and Marketing,
18(2), 95–122.
Murphy, D. (August 29). Lost in the crowd. Marketing, 36–37.
Ohanian, R. (1991). The impact of celebrity spokespersons' perceived image on consumers'
intention to purchase. Journal of Advertising Research, 31(February/March), 46–54.
Otker, T., & Hayes, P. (1987). Judging the efficiency of sponsorship: Experience from the
1986 soccer World Cup. European Research, 15(4), 3–8.
Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes: An investigation of the physiological activity of the
cerebral cortex (translated by G.V. Anrep). London: Oxford University Press.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion. Central and peripheral
routes to attitude change. New York: Springer Verlag.
Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Source attributions and persuasion—Perceived honesty
as a determinant of message scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(6),
637–654.
Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (2003). The influence of spokesperson trustworthiness on mes-
sage elaboration, attitude strength, and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 13(4), 408–421.
Quester, P. G., & Thompson, B. (2001). Advertising and promotion leverage on arts spon-
sorship effectiveness. Journal of Advertising Research, 41(January/February), 33–47.
Rifon, N. J., Choi, S. M., Trimble, C. S., & Li, H. (2004). Congruence effects in sponsorship:
The mediating role of sponsor credibility and consumer attributions of sponsor mo-
tive. Journal of Advertising, 33(1), 29–42.
Sandler, D.M., & Shani, D. (1989). Olympic sponsorship vs. “ambush” marketing: Who
gets the gold? Journal of Advertising Research, 29(ugust/September), 9–14.
Sawyer, A. G., & Peter, J. P. (1983). The significance of statistical significance tests in mar-
keting research. Journal of Marketing Research, 20(May), 122–133.
Schnittka, O. (2011). Drivers of sponsor image in sponsorships: What we know from prior
research. Marketing JRM, 6(2), 124–144.
Simmons, C. J., & Becker-Olsen, K. L. (2006). Achieving marketing objectives through so-
cial sponsorships. Journal of Marketing, 70(October), 154–169.
Speed, R., & Thompson, P. (2000). Determinants of sport sponsorship response. Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 226–238.
Stipp, H., & Schiavone, N.P. (1996). Modeling the impact of Olympic sponsorship on cor-
porate image. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(July/August), 22–27.
Till, B.D., & Busler, M. (2000). The match-up hypothesis: physical attractiveness, expertise,
and the role of fit on brand attitude, purchase intent, and brand beliefs. Journal of Ad-
vertising, 29(3), 1–13.
Tomczak, T., Mühlmeier, S., Brexendorf, T. O., & Jenewein, W. (2008). Relevanz und Wirkung
von Sponsoring—Ergebnisse einer empirischen Studie zum Sponsoring in der Schweiz.
Marketing Review St. Gallen, 25(5), 46–50.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Re-
search, 12(December), 341–352.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., Jr., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and
truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(August), 197–206.