The influence of consumer innovativeness on purchase intention of team-licensed sports products
Karit Smidt
University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Student number: 10656529
Master track: MSc Business Administration - Entrepreneurship and Innovation Supervisor: A.C.C. Gruijters
Statement of originality
This document is written by Karit Smidt who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
Abstract
Sport manufactures have the aim to improve their products with the newest technologies to enhance the performance of athletes. However, these technology features do not always add value for the unprofessional consumer. What derives their decision to buy these innovative products? What role does a consumer’s self-stated innovativeness have in relation to the purchase intention of innovative products? The study is focused on team-licensed football jerseys. It is aimed to analyze how different personality traits have influence on purchase intention of an innovative team-sport licensed product.
Team identification has a positive impact on the purchase intention of innovative football products but more remarkable was the effect of consumer innovativeness. Consumer
innovativeness has a positive influence on innovative football jerseys, even a stronger impact than team identification. In contrast to lesser innovative jerseys where a negative influence was found. And unlike existing literature suggests, there was no relationship found between product involvement and the purchase intention.
In conclusion, consumer innovativeness has the greatest effect (positive and negative) on the purchase intention of sport-team licensed products. Sport manufactures should take this in consideration by developing a new product line, in order to target the right consumers.
ABSTRACT 3
1. INTRODUCTION 5
2. LITERATURE BACKGROUND 7
2.2 Perceived attributes in relation to purchase intention 10
2.2.1 Perceived quality 10
2.2.2 Consumer Innovativeness 11
2.3 Team identification 12
2.4 Product involvement 13
3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 15
3.1 Influences of consumer innovativeness on purchase intention 15
3.2 Influences of team identification on purchase intention 17
3.3 Influences of product involvement on purchase intention and its moderating role 18
3 METHODOLOGY 20 3.1 Data collection 20 3.2 Measurement 21 3.2.1 Purchase Intention 21 3.2.2 Consumer Innovativeness 22 3.2.3 Team identification 22 3.2.4 Product Involvement 22 3.2.5 Demographics 22 4. DATA 24 4.2 Factor Analysis 24
4.3 Descriptives, correlations and reliability testing 27
5. RESULTS 29
5.1 Main effect 29
5.2 Interaction effect 33
6. DISCUSSION 36
6.1 Conclusion & Discussion 36
6.2 Managerial Implications 39
6.3 Limitations and directions for future research 40
REFERENCES 42
APPENDIX I 49
APPENDIX II 63
1. Introduction
It is generally acknowledged that for many firms new product developments and innovations play a significant role in long-term success. Still many innovative products fail when they are introduced on the market (Cierpicki, Wright & Sharp, 2000)
Sport cloth manufacturers like Nike, Adidas and Puma innovate mainly to improve sport performance (Kwak and Kang, 2009). They use terrific new technology, but the product will fail if it lacks a valuable end-user application for the consumer (Sawheny, Wolcott and Arroniz al, 2006). Sport manufacturers have the difficulty to develop a product line that enhances the performance and creates value for the professional athlete but it needs to create value for the normal consumer as well. This is sometimes a challenge, given that professional athletes and the consumers have different needs and requirements (McCann, 2005). To overcome this challenge sport manufacturers develop often a broader product line.
Existing literature in the field of team-licensed products have explored different determinants that influence the purchase intention of the team-licensed sport products, but they did not explore the difference of purchase intention between innovative and less-innovative products. Researchers in other product categories have shown that the level of consumer innovativeness is an important determinant of the purchase intention of innovative products. This is related to the personality traits that affect the purchase intention of innovative
products. Consumer innovativeness is more related to personality traits that affect consumers behavior to buy new products. This behavior is triggered by the desire of new experiences derived from the perceived quality of the products (Venkatraman, 1991)
The perceived product quality is however a broad definition. Managers and consumers have different perspectives of quality. Perceived studies have shown that utilitarian and hedonic
values are the most important drivers for perceived quality (Zeithamal, 1988; Hassenzahl, 2001).
Little research has been conducted to examine which determinants have a positive influence on the purchase intention of innovative sport products. This could be important for kit manufactures because they would be able to focus on these elements in the future.
Furthermore it is interesting to know what kind of types are willing to buy the innovative sport products in order to make decisions about the product offering and the pricing strategy of these products.
Therefore the research question of this study will be:
What is the effect of consumer innovativeness on the consumer purchase intention of innovative football jerseys?
2. Literature background
The following section reviews the literature on the innovation adoption process and the factors that influenced this process. The effects of perceived quality on the adoption on purchase behavior and the effect of identification with a sport club on the willingness to pay of new products.
2.1 Innovation Adoption Process
A substantial amount of studies has emphasized on factors affecting the success of innovations, such as competitive pressure, R&D funding, organizational elements and the product lifecycle (Holak and Lehmann, 1990). However there is not much attention paid to the influence of consumer behaviour on the adoption of innovations (Im, Bayus and Mason, 2003; Holak and Lehmann, 1990).
In empirical work researchers have used various indicators to measure the degree a consumer adoption of innovations, including the relative time of adoption (Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971; Midgley and Dowling, 1978). Besides that the characteristics of individuals have been studied enormously (Goldsmith, Hauteville and Flynn, 1995; Steenkamp, Hofstede and Wedel, 1999). In the sports-marketing domain two variables are important for the acceptance of a technology; identification and perceived quality (Kwon, Trail and James, 2007; Kim and Trail 2011; Wann and Branscombe, 2006).
This study will focus on some elements of the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989). The Technology Acceptance model is one of the most important and applied models for describing the acceptance of technology by individuals (Bagozzi, 2007). The TAM model focused on two main variables, the influence of perceived ease of use and perceived
usefulness on the attitude towards using technology (van Heek et al., 2014). Perceived ease of use is defined as “ the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would
be free of effort” (Davis, 1989). And perceived usefulness is defined as ”the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance his or her job performance” (Davis, 1989)
Several researchers critically reviewed and described the shortcomings and gaps of the TAM model and added some additional variables or transformed the TAM model overtime (Park et al., 2009). Initially the TAM models were focused on information and communication
technologies, later on the theories were also used to analyze other forms of technology, e.g., medical-, food-, banking- and textile technology (van Heek et al., 2014). By expanding the industry of TAM applications, other variables as group, cultural and social aspect of Technology Acceptance became important (Bagozzi, 2007).
The original TAM model was based on explaining decision making by individuals. In contrast several researchers have emphasized on the importance of social influences (Venkatesh, Morris, Davis and Davis, 2003). Social influences have been highlighted as important aspects of decision-making and usage (Bagozzi, 2008). Social influences can be divided into three concepts; compliance, internalization and identification (Kelman, 1958). The social aspect of technology acceptance is a species of compliance and relies on the need for approval and acceptance of others in interpersonal sense. Internalization refers to
individuals’ acceptance of a set of norms and values established by groups. Internalization occurs through processes of socialization education, training and indoctrination in
organizations, institutions or collectivities (Bagozzi 2007).
Internalization results also in the context of sport marketing. Internalization occurs when individual’s behavior is influenced through shared values between a team or players and the consumer (Bee and Kahle, 2006). This perspective assumes that sport values, beliefs and practices are modeled and reinforced by significant others within social situations and
eventually are internalized by the individual (Alanen, 1990, bandura, 1969, Giddens, 2000) When the values of a consumer match with the values of a sport team or athlete, the consumer is willing to buy more licensed products (Bee and Kahle, 2006).
Another level of social influence is compliance. This aspect focused on the influence of rewards on the decision making of individuals (Bagozzi, 2007). In a sport-marketing context, consumers buy licensed products to gain some form of social reward. The consumer reason to buy those products is to meet the goal of gaining social rewards or avoiding public
punishment This kind of decision making is superficial and impermanent (Bee and Kahle, 2006)
Another factor that the original TAM model does not take into account is identification. Identification is the extent to which a person feels a psychological connection with another person or group. This process is also called social identity (Bagozzi 2007). The self-image of a consumer can be determined by the success or defeat of their favorite team of athlete’s performance (Bee and Kahle, 2006). Sport consumers are likely to buy more licensed products when they identify themselves with the concerning team or athlete. Identification and internalization have the biggest influence on the decision making of sport consumers (Funk et al.c 2006, Bee and Kahle, 2006, Trail and James, 2001).
Furthermore studies from the Technology Acceptance literature suggest that the hedonic factors should be added to perceived usefulness (Bruner, 2003; Hassenzahl, Platz, Burmester, Lehner, 2000). Hedonic quality refers to non-task-oriented quality aspects such as
innovativeness, originality and product design (Bruner, 2003, Hassenzahl et al., 2000). They concluded that hedonic components like graphics and music are important factors for the acceptance of software (Brown and Venkatesh, 2005). Hedonic aspect is also called the fun
factor and can be applied to other product categories as well including food and luxury products (Zhang and Li, 2005). This aspect has even a bigger impact on the acceptance of new technologies compared to perceived usefulness. Therefore the hedonic factor explained the differences in consumer behaviour towards new technologies and should be included in the Technology Acceptance Model (Mundorf et al., 1993; Goldsmith et al., 1992; Rogers, 1976; Roehrich, 2004; and Park, 2012). So the purchase and adoption behavior of innovation is an interaction between the consumer and product characteristics.
2.2 Perceived attributes in relation to purchase intention
2.2.1 Perceived quality
There are many definitions for perceived quality purposed in researches. Most of them refer to the functionality of the product or product attributes (Kwak and Kang, 2009; Zeithamal, 1998; Dodds and Monroe1985 customer value is the perceived quality adjusted for the relative price of the product. So the perceived quality is the judgment of the customer about a product’s overall excellence or superiority. This could be subjective and could differ from objective or actual quality (Zeithamal, 1998; Dodds and Monroe, 1985). Objective quality is associated with the mechanistic and technical superiority or excellence of the product, instead of perceived quality, which is related to the subjective evaluation of the product form the consumer’s perspective (Kwak and Kang, 2009; Zeithamal, 1998; Dodds and Monroe,1985). But this definition is not clearly formulated.
Consumer’s perception of perceived quality does not only refer to the functionality of a product but also to the contribution of physical characteristics. (Zeithamal, 1988; Hassenzahl, 2001). Researchers have debated on the attributes and weights to measure objective quality (Zeithaml, 1988; Curry and Faulds 1986). Manager’s view of quality is different than the perspective of the consumers. Managers perceive different specifications as important for
performance and form as critical aspects for quality. Whereas consumers tuned in on different elements: appearance, clean ability and durability (Zeithaml, 1998; Curry 1986).
These elements can be referred to the hedonic value. Hedonic value is the perceived subjective utility acquired from the product (Bruner, 2003; Hassenzahl, 2000). Hedonic factors influence the consumer’s behavior by providing intrinsic value instead of task-related factors that affect the consumer’s behavior by providing utilitarian value (Magni, Taylor and Venkatesh, 2010; Brown and Venkatesh, 2005). Consumers gain intrinsic value from using technology for its own sake. These technology components enhance the consumer’s personal feelings such as enjoyment, fun and pleasure (Babin, Darden and Griffen, 1994). In contrast to extrinsic/utilitarian value that is related to the functional aspect of the product
(Venkatesh,and Brown 2001; Babin et al., 1994).
2.2.2 Consumer Innovativeness
Many researchers have emphasized on the importance of consumer innovativeness on the adoption of new products (Midgley et al., 1978, Rogers, 1976, Roehrich, 2004, Goldsmith et. Al, 1992 and Park, 2012). Most of the literature is based on Rogers (1976) and extended his work of the construct of innovativeness. Rogers defines innovation as the “degree to which a responding unit is relatively earlier in adopting an innovation than other units in the system”. This definition is more related to the adoption process than to the purchase behavior.
However other researchers followed upon the research of Rogers (1976) and extended the measurement of product-consumer interaction in consumer innovativeness. They broaden de concept of consumer innovativeness by incorporating diversity of underlying goals and motivations associated with innovation and buying (Vandecasteele and Geuens, 2010).
Consumer innovativeness is more related to personal traits that affect consumer’s behavior to buy new products. This behavior is triggered by the desire for new experience into new product purchase (Venkatraman, 1991). Consumer innovativeness can be divided into two dimensions; hedonic and functional innovativeness. Although various researchers in the field of innovativeness have shown that there are different dimensions that could be added, they all declare that the two main factors; hedonic and functional have the biggest effect on purchase intention (Roehrich, 2004; Goldsmith et al., 2007; Vandecasteele and Geuens, 2010;
Venkatarman, 1991). As mentioned before consumers like to experience emotions like joy and pleasure that is derived from using new technologies. This experience derives from the hedonic value that is created and fits unambiguous into the dimension of hedonic
innovativeness (Schuitema, Anable, Skippon and Kinnear, 2013; Vandecasteele and Geuens, 2010).
Functional innovativeness refers to the motivation to buy a product because the product creates functional value for the consumer. This value relates to the functionality or utility that arises from new technologies (Venkatarman, 1991; Vandecasteele and Geuens, 2010; Kwon and Trail, 2007).
2.3 Team identification
Other components besides consumer innovativeness should be considered as well. One of these aspects is the social aspect that affects the buying behaviour (Kwon et al., 2007; Brown and Venkatesh, 2005; Vandecasteele and Geuens, 2010). The social identity consists of three parts: an affective aspect that consists of feelings of attachment, a cognitive aspect that is compiled of self-awareness and a collective aspect that refers to group self-esteem. The level of influence of social identity on purchase intention depends on the product category;
The social identity is a very important aspect in the purchase intention of sport products, because of the relationship between attitude and purchase intention. The extent to which a consumer defines him/herself by the same characteristics that typify the sport team is called team identification (Kwon et al., 2007).
Consumers show their team loyalty by wearing sport team licensed products. These products contain markers of a sport team such as name and logo (Kwon and Armstrong, 2007). The consumers enhance their self-esteem by purchasing team licensed sport products. By purchasing a team-licensed product, they feel that they belong to a particular group and by doing this. The relationship between a successful sport team and themselves enhance their self-esteem. A person can see himself or herself as part of the team and experience vicarious achievement when the particular team performs well (Gau, James and Kim, 2009).
According to Levy (1959) consumers are not functionally oriented but their behavior is influenced by the symbol of products/brands. Other researchers extended the literature about social identity on the sport consumption of sporting goods based on Levy’s statement. They concluded that the concept of social identitiy should be integrated in the decision-making process model (Kwak and Kang, 2009).
2.4 Product involvement
Numerous of researchers have studied the concept of product involvement in consumer behavior. They provided useful explanations for the differences in purchasing and consuming behavior (Zaichkowsky, 1985, Kim, 2005, O’cass, 2000). As defined by Zaichkowsky (1985) “Enduring involvement with a product derives from the consumer perceived relevance of the product based on inherent needs, values and interests”.
The influence of product involvement on purchase intention of innovations depends on the type of consumer products. Product involvement is not really relevant in a context with
fast-moving consumer products such as grocery products and other household products at
relatively low prices. Product involvement does affect the purchase intention of durable goods (Blythe, 1999). High product involvement is positively related with knowledge about the functional attributes of a product and tent to utilize more product cues in their purchase
decision. In contrast to low-involved consumers who tent to rely more on other attributes such as price (O’Cass, 2000).
The influence of product involvement is really dependent on the environmental-context, therefore various researchers explored the influence of product involvement on purchase intention in different contexts (Blythe, 1999).
The literature about product involvement distinguishes between enduring and situational involvement. Situational involvement refers to something that temporarily increases relevance or interest toward the product induced by environmental factors. In contrast to enduring involvement that refers to the abiding interest in a product class which is independent of situational factors (Zaichkowsky, 1985; Bloch and Bruce, 1984). Enduring involvement at high levels arises from consumer’s leisure behavior. Enduring, hobby-like interest in a product results in high enthusiasm for that product class (Bloch and Bruce, 1984).
Football product involvement is a combination of enduring and situational sources of personal relevance. For instance, an individual can be involved in soccer in general or with a specific team in particular. This is called the enduring involvement, but situational factors such as the stakes (World Cup Final) can increase or decrease the perceived personal relevance. This perceived personal relevance affects the purchase decision of football products (Pham, 1992).
3. Theoretical Framework
In this chapter the hypothesis will be formulated and a conceptual framework will be provided based on the background literature
3.1 Influences of consumer innovativeness on purchase intention
As mentioned before the consumer innovativeness can be explored from two different perspectives technologies (Venkatarman, 1991; Vandecasteele, B. and Geuens, 2010; Kwon & Trail, 2007).
The utilitarian/functional perspective focuses on the functional value of a sport product. For instance a consumer can evaluate whether a football jersey would be breathable enough. This is a functional aspect of the product. Other functional features include fit, comfort, movement, durability and thermal regulation. Discomfort occurs when the body feels too hot or too cold, restricts movements and lacks the desired fit. These aspects contribute to the utilitarian value of a football kit (McCann, 2005).
Kit manufacturers offer two kinds of football jerseys to the consumer, the stadium jersey and the authentic jersey. The jerseys differ in the amount of functional attributes. The 2014 authentic Dutch football jersey features a tailored fit, for allowing full freedom of movement. Furthermore the authentic jersey held a great thermal regulation because of the Dri-Fit fabric, mesh panels at the back and the laser cut holes at the front. The authentic football jersey offers great comfort, due to the ventilated, sweat-wicking fabric. In contrast to the stadium jersey that does not contain all these functional attributes. In particular, the mesh panels at the back and the laser cut holes are missing. The stadium jersey features a looser fit, which could hinder full freedom of movement (Nike, 2015).
The authentic match football jersey is the exact same jersey as the team is wearing on pitch. The technological attributes, fit, fabric and the details are equal. In contrast to the stadium
jersey which has less technological attributes and a different fit. The stadium jersey does have the overall look of the authentic match jersey. The stadium jersey contains a replica design crest and the same graphic details (Nike, 2015). The authentic match jersey has a higher hedonic value, because the jersey represents the exact same jersey as the players on the pitch.
So the authentic jersey contains the most utilitarian and hedonic attributes. Innovative consumers prefer products with the highest utilitarian value, because they emphasize on the hedonic and functional attributes. Innovative consumers have greater intentions to purchase the products with the highest utilitarian quality if other aspects are not taken into account such as price (Zeithaml, 1988; Venkatesh 2001). The Hypothesis is defined as followed:
H1A: Consumer innovativeness has a positive impact on the purchase intention of an authentic jersey
Higher level of consumer innovativeness emphasizes on the utility and hedonic value, therefore higher levels of consumer innovativeness have a negative impact on the purchase intention of a stadium jersey through the lack of functional and hedonic attributes. The hypothesis is defined as followed:
H1B: Consumer innovativeness has a negative impact on the purchase intention of a stadium jersey
3.2 Influences of team identification on purchase intention
Consumers can judge the product on product aesthetics and the symbolic value of the product (Kwon et al., 2007; Venkatesch, 2001). The symbolic value of a product refers to the
connection with the team (Kwon et al., 2007) Sport consumers are likely to buy more licensed products when they want to identify themselves with the concerning team or athlete (Funk et al.c 2006, Bee and Kahle, 2006; Trail and James, 2001). The authentic as well as the stadium jersey contains the symbolic value of the product. Therefore the hypotheses are defined as followed:
H2A: Team identification has a positive impact on the purchase intention of an authentic jersey
H2B: Team identification has a positive impact on the purchase intention of a stadium jersey
Consumers that are highly involved in football products know more about the product attributes and the alternatives that are available. Highly involved consumers emphasize more on the utilitarian attributes of a product, because these features could improve their
performance (Sheth, 1991, Zeitahml, 1988). High product involvement is positively related with knowledge about the functional attributes of a product and tent to utilize more product cues in their purchase decision. Therefore the hypothesis is as followed:
3.3 Influences of product involvement on purchase intention and its moderating role
Higher-involved consumers think it is important to keep up with the latest technologies and buy the newest product, this in combination with higher level of innovativeness lead to greater purchase intentions of products with technological features (Venktarman, 1988). Because the stadium jersey does not possess all technological features the hypothesis is defined as followed:
H3B: Product involvement has a negative effect on purchase intention of a stadium jersey
According to (Venktarman, 1988) there exists a positive relationship between product involvement and consumer innovativeness. Since high product involvement consumers have more expertise and know the different features of a football product. Consumers with higher level of innovativeness and product involvement have high intentions to buy the products with the highest utilitarian and hedonic value (Venkatraman, 1988; Goldsmith, 1993) Therefore the hypotheses are formulated as followed:
H4A: Product involvement has a positive moderating effect on the relation between consumer innovativeness and purchase intention of an authentic jersey
H4B: Product involvement has a negative moderating effect on the relation between consumer innovativeness and purchase intention of a stadium jersey
There is a positive relationship between team identification and product involvement (Kwon, 2007) Consumers with high levels of team identification pay more intention to details such as the symbols and other details of identification with the sport team and these consumers have
higher purchase intentions for the products that possess the most attributes of identification (Kwon and Armstrong, 2002). Therefore the following hypotheses are formulated:
H5A: Product involvement has a positive moderating effect on the relation between team identification and purchase intention of an authentic jersey
H5B: Product involvement has a positive moderating effect on the relation between team identification and purchase intention of an authentic jersey
An overview of the relationships of the dependent and independent variables are presented in Figure 1 and 2
Figure 1: Conceptual framework part 1
3 Methodology
In this chapter, the research method and the data collection will be provided. First the data collection will be described. Then, the section will provide insight into the techniques that were applied in order to test the hypothesis.
3.1 Data collection
This study will use the deductive approach. A quantitative research design is characterized by the explanation of variables. The advantage of using quantitative data is the ability to predict relationships between variables and the strength of these relationships (Saunders and Lewis, 2011). This research topic is not completely new and has enough foundation in the existing literature about the predicted relationships. To determine the effects of team identification and consumer innovativeness on the purchase intention, a quantitative method has been selected.
For the empirical part of this study, a sample of amateur football respondents at the age of 16 to 50 years will be selected. Because of the focus on buying intentions it is important to include consumers who are willing to acquire a football jersey. The qualtrics website is used to create the online questionnaire and with this link the survey is distributed on social media. A non-probability sampling is used, because this allows a greater respondent rate. This type of sampling does not represent the entire population and therefore an error or bias is more likely than if a random sampling method is used (Saunders and Lewis, 2011). Because of lack of time and financial resources this sampling method was the best suitable.
The survey was published in Dutch, since a focus will be given only on one specific Dutch product. In this way the study will avoid a bias, which could occur from cultural differences. There were no restrictions made on age, gender and income. Participants were contacted
trough social media and emails about participating in a study also football clubs and online communities were approached. This survey method was chosen because the online survey consists only of standardized questions and in this way a greater response rate could be achieved (Saunders and Lewis, 2011). Besides that the obtained data could easily be imported into SPSS statistics. This is a software program that is used for the statistical analysis of this research. Furthermore the survey responses are anonymous and the data are treated strongly confidential.
3.2 Measurement
The questionnaire consists of 30 questions and is based on the conceptual framework described in chapter two. The questionnaire is divided in different parts and each part
represents a different subject. First a short introduction was provided, explaining participants the purpose of the research and instruction was given.
The questionnaire is presented in Appendix I.
3.2.1 Purchase Intention
Purchase intention is the dependent variable of the underlying model. To test the purchase intention the respondents are exposed to two different pictures of a Dutch national football jersey. Thereby were the accompanying features of these two jerseys pointed out. The two jerseys differ in technologies, fit, materials, details, pride element. The stadium jersey possesses less hedonic and functional attributes. In contrast to the authentic jersey that integrates the latest technologies and the newest features (Nike, 2014). In this way the respondents are informed about the available products and the attributes that they possess.
The Nike logo that was originally visible on both pictures was removed, so that the
the respondents purchase intention. The purpose of this questions is to find out how likely the respondents are to buy these products.
Purchase intention is measured based on three questions for each product, so six questions in total. The questions are measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1=very low, 5=very high) adopted from Park and Noh (2012)
3.2.2 Consumer Innovativeness
Consumer innovativeness is measured to explore how quickly respondents buy innovations in a product category. In this study the product category is licensed sport products. Consumer innovativeness is measured based on 9 items. These items are measured on a 5 point-Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree) adopted from (Vandecasteele and Geuens, 2010).
3.2.3 Team identification
Team identification is measured to identify how committed and emotional involved the respondent is with the Dutch National Team. Team Identification with the Dutch national football team is measured on a 5-point Likert scale. The items are adapted from the James and Ross (2002) Psychological Connection to Team scale.
3.2.4 Product Involvement
To examine how involved the respondents are with the product domain- based on their needs, values and interests and how this effects the purchase intention, respondents were asked how involved they are with the product category. Product involvement is measured on a 5-point Likert scale and the 7 items are adopted from O’Cass (2000).
3.2.5 Demographics
mainly used to control if they have no influence on the obtained results. A summary of the construct of the questionnaire can be found in table 1.
Table 1: Structure questionnaire
Questions Type Subtype
1-3 Purchase Intention Authentic Jersey
4-6 Purchase Intention Stadium Jersey
7-11 Consumer Innovativeness Functional Innovativeness 12-15 Consumer Innovativeness Hedonic Innovativeness 16-22 Product Involvement Product Involvement
23-26 Identification Team Identification
27 Socio-Demographic Nationality
28 Socio-Demographic Gender
29 Socio-Demographic Age
4. Data
4.1 Sample Profile
The questionnaire was filled in by 176 respondents, 132 of these respondents were male and accounted for 75% of all respondents. Furthermore 56 percent of the respondents were 35 years old or younger, this could be explained because a convenience sample was used and therefore it is assumed most respondents were young adults. All were living in the
Netherlands. The sample profile is shown in figure 3.
Figure 3: Sample profile
4.2 Factor Analysis
Factor analysis is used to identify the multidimensionality between components, and reduce and summarizes these components into a smaller amount of factors that all have the common core (Churchill, 1979). Hence, the statements that are used can be explored if they measure the variable in the right way. A Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test has been conducted to examine if the data is suitable for factor analysis.
The outcome of the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) testis 0.923, this is above 0.5. Besides that the result of the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity is significant 0.000 (sig <0.05). Therefore the sampling is suitable for factor analysis (Williams, 2010) .
According to Velicer and Jackson (1990) Principal component analysis is the most widely employed and suitable analysis to determine the greatest amount of variance explained by the retained factors.
The extraction method of the principal component analysis shows that three components have an value above 1 and these three components account for 88% of the total variance. It
depends on the discipline of research which percentages are suggested for explaining the greatest amount of variance. In the humanities is a minimum of 60% of total variance as satisfactory (Williams, 2010).
Besides the extraction method a ‘Scree plot’ is performed to explore how many factors are important. The ‘Scree Plot ’ shows that there are three components, because at the fourth component the curve breaks and begins to straighten out. The break is not included, so therefore three components are retained. After analyzing these tests three factors are obtained and make the most conceptual sense.
Thereupon the varimax rotation is used to decide which items belong to which factor. According to Williams (2010) the varimax rotation is the most popular and applied matrix. Thereby, the varimax rotation conducts the most reliable outcomes compared to other rotation matrices such as Equimax or Quartimax because of the factor separation and stability.
Therefore this matrix is used to identify the main components. The factor loadings that are above 0.7 can be allocated to the construct. Factor loading between 0.3 and 0.7 appeals in the table, but does not belong to a particular construct.
Figure 4: Rotation Matrix
In figure 4, the rotation matrix presented. There are three main components and the accompanying statements are highlighted in blue. This is consistent with the scree plot
1 2 3
If a new football product is launched that can improve my performance, I will
buy it right away .851
If a new football product gives me more comfort than my current product, I
would not hesitate to buy it .902
If an innovative football product is more functional, then I usually buy it .906 .320 If I discover a new football product in a more convenient size, I am very
inclined to buy this .901 .301
If a new football product makes my performance easier, then this new product
is a “must” for me .846 .349
Using novel football products gives me a sense of personal enjoyment .878 .333 It gives me a good feeling to acquire new football products .887
Innovations in football products make my life exciting and stimulating .864 .307 Acquiring an innovative football product makes me happier .877 .306
Football means a lot to me .372 .855
Football is a significant part of my life .438 .833
I think about football a lot .432 .828
For me personally football clothing is an important product .485 .638 .429
I am interested in football .879
I am very much involved in football .389 .840
I find football clothing a very relevant product in my life .465 .726
The Dutch National team is my team .876
I consider myself a loyal fan of the Dutch National Team .872 Support the Dutch National team is very important to me .897 I want others to know that the Dutch National Team is my team .313 .834
Rotated Component Matrixa
Component
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 5 iterations.
4.3 Descriptives, correlations and reliability testing
After obtaining the factors it is important to know if the same set of items would arouse similar results, in case identical statements were presented to the same respondents (Santos, 1999). After the factor analysis three factors were extracted. The factor analysis resulted in three different constructs, defined as “consumer innovativeness”, “product involvement” and “team identification”. Cronbach’s alpha tests if the different items measure the same
construct. The Cronbahc’s alpha coefficient lies between 0 and 1. Values above 0.7 are an acceptable reliability coefficient. How higher the number, the more reliable the scale is. The results of alpha analysis for the constructs have all a value above 0.8. Values above 0.8 are indicated as good internal consistency. Besides that the components exist out of three items or more, so therefore the construct is reliable. These outcomes are presented in table 1. The components gender, age and income and nationality are not included in the Cronbach’s alpha analysis because these components contain only one item (Santos, 1999).
Table 1: Correlation matrix and descriptives
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Nationality 1.11 .491 Gender 1.75 .436 -.133 Age 2.94 .986 -.175* .203** Income 6.43 2.286 -.224** .322** .551**
Purchase Intention Authentic Jersey 3.7926 1.21463 -.157* .322** .016 .119
Consumer Innovativeness 3.6378 1.31605 .035 .213** -.190* .037 .594**
Product Involvement 4.0751 .98209 .038 .546** .013 .217** .569** .590**
Team Identification 4.5781 .70453 -.037 .424** .018 .123 .471** .336** .560**
Purchase Intention Stadium Jersey 2.6563 .83650 -.078 .059 .103 .075 .204** -.208** -.099 .076
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
The factors descriptives are presented in table 1 . The average consumer innovativeness score is 3.63 on a 5-point Likert scale. This score is relatively high and indicates that the
respondents are above average motivated to buy innovative products. The average score on product involvement is 4.08 this indicates that the respondents have a strong interest in football products. Furthermore the respondents give a high ranking to team identification, so they have a high level of attachment to the Dutch national team.
Respondents that have a strong abiding interest in a product are more inclined to acquire an authentic jersey than a stadium jersey, because the average ranking for the purchase intention of an authentic jersey is (3.79) compared to the stadium jersey (2.66).
5. Results
This chapter includes the results after analyzing data. After the factor analysis and the reliability analysis, all SPSS outputs can be found in Appendix II and III
5.1 Main effect
Multiple Regression Analysis is performed to test the hypothesis of the underlying model. This test has been selected because it measures the influence of two or more predictors on the purchase intention. In the multiple regression analysis the relations between a dependent variable (Y) and three predictors (X1, X2 and X3) can be described by the following multiple regression model equation: Y = β0 + β1 * x1 + β2 * x2 + β3 * x3 + εi
Whereas
Y = Dependent variable Xi = independent variable bi = coefficient
ε = error term
In this analysis the dependent variable will be purchase intention and the independent variables will be consumer innovativeness, product involvement and team identification and the formula for this research is expressed as follows: Purchase intention authentic jerseyi = β0
+ β1Consumer Innovativenessi + β2Product Involvementi +β3Team identificationi + εi
The first model is statically significant F (45.347) p <0.05 and the dependent variables explain 43,20 % of variance in purchase intention of an authentic jersey. Two out the three-predictor variables are statistically significant, team identification and consumer
innovativeness. Consumer innovativeness has a higher Beta value (β = 0.41, p <0.01) than team identification (β=0.26, p<0.01). Further research is needed to validate this result. Table 2
shows the standardized and unstandardized coefficients and the corresponding significance value.
Table 2: Model 1 including standardized and unstandardized coefficients
Next the control variables nationality, income, gender and age are included to check if these variables influence the purchase intention. Hence, the regression equation is defined in the following way: Purchase intention authentic jerseyi = β0 + β1Consumer Innovativenessi +
β2Product Involvementi +β3Team identificationi + β4Nationalityi + β5Agei + β6Genderi +
β7Incomei + εi
Table 3: Model 2 Authentic jersey, including standardized and unstandardized coefficents
This model is statically significant F(21.358) p <0.05 and the dependent variables explain 45.30% of the variance in the purchase intention of an authentic jersey. Nationality does have a significant impact on the purchase intention. The unstandardized regression coefficient indicates the change in purchase intention when nationality changes. The unstandardized coefficient (B=- 0.165, p<0.01) indicates that the purchase intention decreases when the
Standardized coefficients
B std. Error Beta t sig
(Constant) -0.294 0.457 -0.644 0.521
Consumer Innovativeness 0.482 0.075 0.414 5.086 0.000
Product Involvement 0.162 0.114 0.131 1.416 0.159
Team Identification 0.445 0.119 0.258 3.733 0.000
Unstandardized Coefficients Model 1 Authentic Jersey
Standardized coefficients
B std. Error Beta t sig
(Constant) 0.054 0.577 0.094 0.925 Nationality -0.408 0.145 -0.165 -2.806 0.006 Gender 0.151 0.208 0.054 0.727 0.468 Age 0.164 0.111 0.132 1.481 0.140 Income -0.060 0.049 -0.113 -1.230 0.220 Consumer Innovativeness 0.431 0.081 0.465 5.310 0.000 Product Involvement 0.159 0.137 0.129 1.160 0.248 Team Identification 0.353 0.131 0.195 2.702 0.008
nationality is not Dutch. The adjusted R square has been increased with 2,1%. This result indicates that the model is improved by 2.1%.
Since consumer innovativeness has statically significant effect and the direction of this effect is positive in both models (B=0.482 en B=0.431 with p<0.01). Therefore hypothesis 1A is fully supported “Consumer innovativeness has a positive impact on the purchase intention of an authentic jersey” More specifically the level of consumer innovativeness has the strongest effect on purchase (β=0.414 and β=0.431 with p<0,01).
Besides consumer innovativeness team identification has a positive influence on purchase as well. Team identification has a positive significant B value in both models (B=0.445 and B=0.353 with p<0.01). So hypothesis 2A is fully supported “Team identification has a positive impact on the purchase intention of an authentic jersey”
Furthermore product involvement has no direct effect on the purchase intention. In both models is the unstandardized B coefficient not significant (B=0.162 and B=0.159 with p>0.05) and therefore hypothesis 3A is not confirmed.
The main effects on the purchase intention of a stadium jersey
Multiple Regression analysis is conducted to test the hypothesis for the stadium jersey as well. The equation for the regression analysis can be described as follows: Purchase intention stadium jerseyi = β0 + β1Consumer Innovativenessi + β2Product Involvementi +β3Team
identificationi + εi
This model is statically significant F(4.157) p<0.05 and the r square of 0.068 is very low. Only 6.80% of the variance is explained by the dependent variables. However there is a
negative effect of consumer innovativeness on purchase intention of a stadium jersey and this effect is significant p<0.01. Table 3 shows the unstandardized and standardized coefficients and the corresponding significant values.
A second regression model is conducted whereby the control variables; nationality, income, gender and age are included to check if these variables influence the purchase intention. The equation is expressed as follows: Purchase intention authentic jerseyi = β0 + β1Consumer
Innovativeness + β2Product Involvementi +β3Team identificationi + β4Nationalityi + β5Agei +
β6Genderi + β7Incomei + εi
This model is not significant F(1.594) p>0.05. After analyzing these two models a conclusion can be drawn. Model 1 is statically significant and there exists a significant effect between cosumer innovativeness and purchase intention. This effect is negative because the
unstandardized B coefficient is negative (B=-0.164 with p<0.01). Hence, if the consumer innovativeness of a respondent increases, the purchase intention of a stadium jersey decreases. Therefore hypothesis 1B “Consumer innovativeness has a negative impact on the purchase intention of a stadium jersey” is supported
Because the effect of team identification on purchase intention of a stadium jersey is not significant, hypothesis 2B “Team identification has a positive impact on the purchase intention of a stadium jersey” has been rejected. Besides that there is neither a significant impact of product involvement on the purchase intention, so that’s why hypothesis 3B “Product involvement has a positive impact on purchase intention of a stadium jersey” is
rejected. The unstandardized and standardized coefficients and the accompanying significance levels are shown in table 4
5.2 Interaction effect
A moderation analysis is performed to test the interaction effect between consumer innovativeness and product involvement on the purchase intention. A new regression equation is expressed as follows: Purchase intention authentic jerseyi = β0 + β1Consumer
Innovativenessi + β2Product Involvementi +β3Team identificationi + β4Consumer
innovativenessi x product involvement + εi
This model is statistically significant F(33.89) p<0.05 and explains 44,22% of variance in the purchase intention of an authentic jersey. The adjusted R square has been increased by 1.02% towards model 1. But the interaction effect between consumer innovativeness and product involvement is not significant p>0.05. Therefore hypothesis 4A “ Product involvement has a positive moderating effect on the relation between consumer innovativeness and purchase intention of an authentic jersey” has been rejected.
The interaction effect between product involvement and consumer innovativeness has been performed for the purchase intention of the stadium jersey as well. This model is significant F(3.3429) p<0.05 and explains 7,25% of the variance in the purchase intention. But for this model the interaction effect between consumer innovativeness and product involvement is neither significant. Therefore hypothesis 4B” Product involvement has a positive moderating effect on the relation between consumer innovativeness and purchase intention of a stadium jersey” has been rejected
Furthermore the interaction effect between product involvement and team identification has been analyzed. Therefore a new regression equation is defined as follows: Purchase intention authentic jerseyi = β0 + β1Consumer Innovativenessi + β2Product Involvementi +β3Team
For the stadium jersey is the same moderation analysis performed.
This model is statistically significant F(35.46) p <0.05 and explains 45,34% of variance in the purchase intention of an authentic jersey, so the adjusted R square has been increased by 2.14% compared to the first model. But the interaction effect between consumer
innovativeness and product is not significant p>0.05. This means that product involvement has no influence on the relationship between team identification and purchase intention of an authentic jersey. Therefore hypothesis 5A can be rejected “Product involvement has a positive moderating effect on the relation between team identification and purchase intention of an authentic jersey”.
The complete results of the four moderation analysis can be found in Appendix III. The model is statistically significant F(3.1099) p<0.05 and explains 6,78% of variance in purchase intention of a stadium jersey. However the interaction effect between product involvement and team identification is not significant p>0.05. Therefore is hypothesis 5B ” Product involvement has a positive moderating effect on the relation between team
identification and purchase intention of an authentic jersey” rejected
These coefficients are both positive and these outcomes indicate that there is a positive effect between consumer innovativeness and the purchase intention of an authentic jersey. There is also a positive effect between team identification and the purchase intention of authentic jersey. Therefore hypothesis 1 and 2 are supported. Next the multiple regression analysis is repeated for the stadium jersey. The outcomes are presented in table 5 This model is
statistically significant F(4.420) p<0.05 and explain 7,20% of variance in purchase intention of a stadium jersey. Team identification has a significant positive effect on purchase intention. In contrast to consumer innovativeness that has a significant negative impact on the purchase
intention.
Product involvement does not have a significant effect on purchase intention of a stadium. Therefore hypothesis 1B is supported, but hypothesis 2B and Hypothesis 3B are not confirmed.
Tested Variabele Type
Tested with authentic jersey
Tested with stadium jersey
Hypothesis 1 Consumer innovativeness main effect positive effect negative effect
Hypothesis 2 Team Identification main effect positive effect positive effect
Hypothesis 3 Product involvement main effect not supported not supported
Hypothesis 4
Product involvement x
Consumer innovativeness interaction not supported not supported
Hypothesis 5
Product involvement x Team
identification interaction not supported not supported
6. Discussion
6.1 Conclusion & Discussion
The goal of this study was to investigate how the purchase intention sport team licensed products is influenced by the innovativeness of consumers, levels of involvement and identification. This study builds upon previous research of licensed-sport products and the adoption and purchase intention of innovations. However, previous studies have focused on various factors that influence the purchase intention, but not much is known about the relationship between consumer innovativeness and purchase intention of innovative licensed-sport products.
Existing literature explored the effect of consumer innovativeness on purchase intention of innovative goods focused on other domains except the sport industry. This aspect is important in predicting innovative purchase intentions in other technology domains. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the relationship between consumer innovativeness and purchase intention in the field of licensed sport products.
First it was expected that consumer innovation would positively effect the consumers purchase intention of an innovative team licensed football jersey. More specifically
consumers with higher levels of innovativeness were expected to have lesser intentions to buy a football-licensed product that possesses less functional attributes. Secondly it was expected that the team identification still has a great influence on the purchase intention of team licensed football jerseys. Thirdly the influence of product involvement has been predicted to have a positive influence on the purchase intention of innovative licensed football jerseys. Finally, it was expected that the higher levels of product involvement would influence the relationship between consumer innovativeness and purchase intention of innovative football jersey. Thereby, product involvement shows to be an important determinant in the
that have higher levels of involvement and innovativeness are predicted to have greater intentions to buy an innovative sport licensed product.
Consistent with extant research, this study predicted and showed that team identification significantly and positively affects the purchase intention of team-licensed sport products. This means the more respondents identify his/herself with the sport team, the higher the purchase intention will be (Kwon and Trail, 2007; Kwak, 2015). More importantly, this study found a positive influence of consumer innovativeness on purchase intention of innovative football jerseys. On the other hand, consumer innovativeness had a significant negative impact on the purchase intention of a lesser innovative team licensed product. Thus, higher levels of innovativeness are more likely to buy an authentic jersey than a stadium jersey. This is consistent with previous findings in the domain of electronic vehicles. According to (Schuitema et al., 2012) innovative consumers are more likely to buy products with the most functional and hedonic attributes. Because this type of consumers pay attention to these attributes, when innovative consumers have a negative perception of the attributes they are less likely to purchase the product. The influence of consumer innovativeness on the intention of purchase was even stronger than team identification.
Unexpectedly, the results show no significant effect of product involvement on purchase intention. Based on the literature a positive effect of product involvement on purchase
intention was expected (O’Cass, 2009; Bloch,1984; Blythe, 1999, Zaichkowsky, 1985; Pham, 1992). The purchase intention of the products used as stimuli in the present study is dependent of some sport events (Pham, 1992) .The present study focused more on the levels of enduring involvement of respondents. Situational involvement is a temporary interest that fluctuates. According to Park (2007) situational involvement is likely to be an important determinant in explaining variance in the consumer’s purchase intention, even more than enduring
involvement and the other independent variables; team identification and consumer innovativeness. This is in contradiction with the existing literature; previous studies have shown that product involvement positively interacts with consumer innovativeness because high levels of product involvement reduce the perceived risk. Perceived risk is related to the novel attributes that a product possesses. It is a function of the unexpected outcome of a purchase decision. Some researchers argue that this effect could negatively influence the purchase intention (Michell et al., 1999; Hirunyawipada and Paswan, 2006). Others argue that the effect of perceived risk depends on the product domain (Aldas-Manzano et al, 2009; Im et al., 2003; Goldsmith and Flynn, 1998). Therefore further research is needed to explore if risk is an important determinant for explaining purchase intention of innovative sport licensed products.
Thereby, situational involvement affects the relationship between team identification and product involvement as well. According to (Fisher, 1998) consumer involvement is only significantly important in relation to team identification when the particular team is
unsuccessful, because of the need to maintain a favorable self-definition. In further research should the determinants situational involvement as well as enduring involvement be included.
Overall, the present findings can be viewed as supportive for the notion that there is a positive effect of consumer innovativeness on purchase intention of innovative sport licensed products and is supportive of previous research (Goldsmith and Flynn, 1998; Aldas-Manzano et al, 2009; Hirunyawipada and Paswan, 2006, Schuitema et aol, 2013, Venkatraman, 1991). Although the studies examined this effect in different domains, they all show that consumer innovativeness is an important determinant in explaining variance of purchase intentions of innovative products.
6.2 Managerial Implications
This master thesis provides some important new insides in explaining factors that affect the purchase intention of sport-licensed products. The results show, that team identification can indeed positively impact the purchase intention of team-licensed products. Therefore sport manufactures should utilize team symbols, name and other elements that are associated with the team. Besides that these companies should develop communication strategies to meet the identity of the consumer with the identity of the team.
Furthermore this study implicates that team identification is not the only important factor that influence the purchase intention. The consumer innovativeness has even a stronger impact on purchase intention of innovative sport licensed products. Therefore sport manufactures should take this type of consumer in consideration when they develop a new product line.
In contrast to the positive effect between consumer innovativeness and purchase intention, the results show that higher levels of consumer innovativeness lead to lower intentions of
purchasing sport licensed products that possesses less functional and hedonic attributes. Therefore sport manufactures should consider a broader product line. In this way one of the products will match with the preferences of a consumer more closely.
Finally the interaction between the product and consumer is very important. The development department is responsible for right product line, but the products and their accompanying features should be communicated on the right way to the consumer. That is why companies should innate cross-functional teams.
6.3 Limitations and directions for future research
Although this study generates some interesting findings, there are always parts that could be improved or investigated further in future research. This part will discuss the limitations and opportunities for further research. Firstly, the number of responses was extensive; a greater sample size would generate additional insights for the study and might change the results. In addition, an online questionnaire was conducted under Dutch respondents, the sample consisted of mostly younger people, 76% of the respondents are at the age of 18-35 years It would be interesting to examine the level of innovativeness of older people in relation to purchase intention.
Dutch respondents are approached for this research and nationality could influence the level of innovativeness; therefore the results are not generalizable in a global context. For future research it is interesting to investigate if the effect of consumer innovativeness on purchase intention differ among countries. Especially because most sport manufactures are globally oriented. Furthermore an online survey was used and this questionnaire was distributed on social media, a field study might give another outcome.
Another limitation is the lack of validity of the parameters for purchase intention. The products that are used for the purchase intention are the stadium and authentic jerseys of the Dutch National Team of World Cup 14. The hedonic and functional attributes are based on the perception of the brand Nike. Another limitation is the measurement of product
involvement, this study did include situational factors.. This determinant could have a influences on purchase intention because the football sport is a leisure activity that is influenced by situational factors such as the world cup. This study has tried to examine the most important factors In conclusion, this study shows some interesting results but more research is needed to get the results more representative.
References
Babin, B. J., Darden, W.R., and Griffen, M. (1994). Work and/or fun: measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol.20, No. 4, pp. 644–656.
Bagozzi, R.P. (2007). The Legacy of the Technology Acceptance Model and a Proposal for a Paradigm Shift. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp.244-254.
Bee, C.C., & Kahle, L.R. (2006). Relationship marketing in sports: A functional approach. Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 102–110.
Bloch, P.H., and Bruce, G.D. (1984). Product involvement as leisure behavior. Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 197–202.
Blythe, J. (1999). Innovativeness and Newness in High-Tech Consumer Durables. Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 415-429.
Brown, S.A.,and Venkatesh, V., (2005). Model of adoption of technology in the household: a baseline model test and extension incorporating household life cycle. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 3, pp. 399–426.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13, No.3, pp. 319-339.
Field, A. (2005). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. London England, SAGE Publications Ltd, 2nd edition.
Fowler, D (1999). The Atrributes Sought in Sports Apparel: A ranking. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 81-88.
Fowler, D. (1999). The attributes sought in sports apparel: A ranking. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 7, pp. 81–88.
Funk, D.C., and James, J. (2006). Consumer loyalty: The meaning of attachment in the development ofsport team allegiance. Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 189-217.
Gau, L.S., James, J.D., and Kim, J.C. (2009). Effects of Team Identification on Motives, Behavior Outcomes, and Perceived Service Quality. Asian Journal of Management and Humanity Sciences, Vol. 4, No. 2-3, pp. 76-90
Goldsmith, R.E. and Flynn, L.R. (1992). Identifying innovators in consumer product markets, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 12, pp. 42-55.
Goldsmith, R.E. and Hofacker, C.F. (1991). Measuring consumer innovativeness, Journal of Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 209-21.
Goldsmith, R.E., Flynn, L.R. and Goldsmith, E.B. (2003). Innovative consumers and market mavens, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 54-65.
Goldsmith, R.E., Freiden, J.B. and Eastman, J.K. (1995). The generality/specificity issue in consumer innovativeness research. Technovation, Vol. 15 No. 10, pp. 601-612
Goldsmith, R.E., Hauteville, F. and Flynn, L.R. (1998). Theory and measurement of consumer innovativeness. European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 340-53.
Hassenzahl, M. (2001). The Effect of Perceived Hedonic Quality on Product Appealingness. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 481-499
Hassenzahl, M., Platz, A., Burmester, M., Lehner, K., 2000. Hedonic and ergonomic quality aspects determine a software’s appeal. In: Proceed- ings of ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press, New York, NY, pp. 201–208.
Hirunyawipada, I. and Paswan, A.K. (2006). Consumer innovativeness and perceived risk: implications for high technology product adoption. Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp.182 - 198
Holak, S.L. and Lehmann, D.R. (1990). Purchase Intentions and the Dimensions of
Innovation: An Exploratory Model. Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol 7, No: 1, pp. 59–73.
Im S., Bayus B.L., and Mason C.H. (2003). An empirical study of innate, consumer
innovativeness, personal characteristics, and new-product adoption behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Vol. 31, No. 1, pp. 61–73.
James, J.D., and Ross, S.D. (2002). The motives of sport consumers: A comparison of major and minor league baseball. International Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 3, No.3, pp. 180– 198.
Kang, J.H. (2002). A structural model of image-based and utilitarian decision-making processes for participant sport consumption. Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 16, NO. 1, pp. 173-89.
Kelman, H. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: three processes of attitude change. Conflict Resolution, Vol. 2,No. 1, pp. 51–60.
Kim, Y.K., and Trail, G.T. (2011). A conceptual framework for understanding relationships between sport consumers and sport organizations: A relationship quality approach. Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 57-69
Kwak, D.H. and Kang J.H. (2009). Symbolic purchase in sport: the roles of self-image congruence and perceived quality. Management Decision, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 85 – 99. Kwon, H.H. and Armstrong, K.L. (2002). Factors influencing impulse buying of sport team licensed merchandise. Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 11, pp. 151-63.
Kwon, H.H., Trail, G.K., and James, J.D. (2007). The mediating role of perceived value: Team identification and purchase intention of team-licensed apparel. Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 540–554.
Lassar, W.M., Manolis, C. and Lassar, S.S. (2005). The relationship between consumer innovativeness, personal characteristics, and online banking adoption. International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 176-99.
Levy, S.J. (1959). Symbols for sale. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 37, pp. 117-24.
Magni M., Taylor M.S., and Venkatesh V. (2010). To play or not to play: a cross-temporal investigation using hedonic and instrumental perspectives to explain user intentions to explore a technology. International Journal Human-Computer Studies. Vol. 68, No, 9, pp. 572–588.
McCann, J. (2005). Material requirements for the design of performance sportswear. in R Shishoo, Textile in sport, Woodhead Publishing in Textiles, New York, pp. 44-69.
Midgley, D.F., and Dowling, G.F. (1978). Innovativeness:The Concept and Its Measurement. Journalof Consumer Research, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 229-42.
Mitchell, V.W. and Harris, G. (2005). The importance of consumers’ perceived risk in retail strategy. European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 39 No. 7/8, pp. 821-37.
O’Cass, A. (2000). An assessment of consumers product, purchase decision, advertising and consumption involvement in fashion clothing. Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 21. No. 5, pp. 545–576.
Park H.H., and Noh M. J. (2012). The influence of innovativeness and price sensitivity on purchase intention of smart wear. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles Vol. 36, No. 2, pp. 218 - 230.
Pham, M.T. (1992). Effects of Involvement, Arousal, and Pleasure on the Recognition of Sponsorship Stimuli. Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 85-93.
Roehrich, G. (2004). Consumer innovativeness: concepts and measurements. Journal of Business Research. Vol. 57 No. 6, pp. 671-677.
Rogers, E.M. (1976). New Product Adoption and Diffusion. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 2, No.4, pp. 290-301.
Rogers, E.M. (1983/2003). Diffusion of Innovations, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Rogers, E.M., and Shoemaker, F.F. (1971) Communication of Innovations: A Cross-Cultural Approach, FreePress, NewYork.
Santos, J. R. (1999). Cronbach's Alpha: A tool for assessing the reliability of scales. Journal
of Extension, Vol. 37, No. 2.
Saunders, M.N.K., and Lewis, P. (2011). Doing research in business and management. Harlow: Pearson.
Sawhney, M., Wolcott, R.C., and Arroniz, I. (2006). The 12 different ways for companies to innovate. MIT Sloan Management (Winter) pp. 28-34.
