<%BANNER%>

Influence of Product-Endorser Match-up on Consumer's Purchase Intentions of (Non-Sport) Endorsed Products


PAGE 1

INFLUENCE OF PRODUCT-EN DORSER MATCH-UP ON CONSUMER’S PURCHASE INTENTIONS OF (NON-SPORT) ENDORSED PRODUCTS By JESSICA ROBIN BRAUNSTEIN A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Jessica Robin Braunstein

PAGE 3

This document is dedicated to my family.

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I want to thank my committee, the sport management faculty, my advisor/chairs, my classmates/colleagues, and especially my friends. Most importantly, I wish to acknowledge my family. I want to thank thos e by my side today and those that are no longer with us. They have all taught me mo re than they will ever realize. Their unwavering support has allowed me to take ch ances and let my heart to guide me along this crazy journey. Without their love, suppor t, and encouragement this would not have been possible – or worth it! They are my rocks, my best friends, and my biggest cheerleaders. They have been my inspirati on and my tour guides. Without them I would not be where I am or, more importantly, w ho I am today. I could not have accomplished this without any of the people in my lif e, and for that I am forever grateful.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................viii ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Athlete Endorsers..........................................................................................................1 Influence on Purchase Intentions..................................................................................3 Theory Development....................................................................................................5 Purpose.......................................................................................................................1 1 Significance of the Study............................................................................................13 Delimitations...............................................................................................................15 Limitations..................................................................................................................15 Definition of Terms....................................................................................................16 Overview.....................................................................................................................17 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE.....................................................................................18 Introduction.................................................................................................................18 Attitude Theory...........................................................................................................24 Perceived Value...................................................................................................27 Endorser Effectiveness........................................................................................29 Match-Up Hypothesis.................................................................................................32 Match-Up: Characteristics...................................................................................33 Product characteristics..................................................................................33 Endorser characteristics................................................................................34 Endorser-Product Congruency/Match-Up...........................................................40 Identity Theory...........................................................................................................44 Identity Theory and Sport Consumption.............................................................46 Identity Theory and Points of Attachment..........................................................47 Hero Worship......................................................................................................48 Endorser-Consumer Congruency/Match-Up.......................................................49

PAGE 6

vi Summary.....................................................................................................................52 3 METHOD...................................................................................................................54 Participants.................................................................................................................54 Questionnaire Development.......................................................................................55 Points of Attachment Index.................................................................................56 Scale of Athletic Star Power – Consumer’s Perspective.....................................57 Perceived Value Scale.........................................................................................59 Validity Screening...............................................................................................60 Athlete and Product Selection.............................................................................61 Procedures...................................................................................................................62 Data Analyses.............................................................................................................63 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................65 Measurement Model Analysis....................................................................................65 Structural Model Analysis..........................................................................................72 5 DISCUSSION.............................................................................................................75 APPENDIX A ITEM CORRELATIONS FOR THE MEASUREMENT MODEL...........................89 B SPORT MARKETING SURVEY..............................................................................94 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................97 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................107

PAGE 7

vii LIST OF TABLES Table page 1. Definition of Terms.......................................................................................................1 6 2. Descriptive Statistics fo r the Demographic Variables..................................................55 3. Descriptive Statistics for the Measurement Model.......................................................66 4. Factor Loadings for the Measurement Model...............................................................68 5. Factor Correlations for the Measurement Model..........................................................71 6. Relationships in the Structural Model...........................................................................73

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1. Influence of Product-Endorser Match-Up on Consumer’s Purchase Intentions of (Non-Sport) Endorsed Products...............................................................................12 2. Product-Endorser Advertisement..................................................................................62 3. Structural Model........................................................................................................... 74 4. Recommended Model for Future Research..................................................................88

PAGE 9

ix Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy INFLUENCE OF PRODUCT-EN DORSER MATCH-UP ON CONSUMER’S PURCHASE INTENTIONS OF (NON-SPORT) ENDORSED PRODUCTS By Jessica Robin Braunstein August 2006 Chair: James J. Zhang Cochair: Galen T. Trail Major Department: Tourism, Recreation and Sport Management The practice of using athletes to e ndorse sport and non-sport products has increased drastically since Miller Lite’s high ly successful “Tastes Great, Less Filling” campaign in the 1970’s. As a result of media c overage and increased social visibility, star athletes have embraced their celebrity status and benefited financially from endorsing products. Numerous studies have indicated that a star athlete’s asso ciation with a brand may help to define and enhance the brand’s image; however, negative characteristics of an endorser could also have a deleterious e ffect (Horrow, 2002; Pitts & Stotlar, 2002). To a great extent, the success of an endorsement depends on product-endorser congruency. The purpose of this study was to develop a model to examine the relationships among identification with an athlete and his/ her sport (Robinson & Trail, 2005), productendorser congruency (Match-Up = Expertise, Trustworthiness, and Image; Aaker, 1997; Braunstein & Zhang, 2005a, 2005b; Tenser, 2004), perceived va lue of the product

PAGE 10

x (Emotion, Quality, Price, and Social; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001), and consumer purchase intentions. Participants ( N = 400) were college students, who responded to an online questionnaire that measured their pe rception of product-endorser congruency, identification with the athlete and/or her s port, perceived value of the product, and purchase intentions after viewing an adve rtisement with Maria Sharapova endorsing a Canon PowerShot digital camera. A confirmatory factor analysis revealed a lack of discriminant validity among the first-order latent variables for Match-Up; thus, an adjustment was made to allow all items to lo ad directly on the gene ral Match-Up factor. One Perceived Value subscale (Emotion) was el iminated from further analyses because of a lack of discriminant validity with the Quality subscale. The structural model showed adequate fit of the model, with the larg est amount of variance being explained by the relationships of Match-Up to Perceived Valu e (38%) and of Perceived Value to Purchase Intention (52%). Iden tification (both Athlete and Spor t) was found to have a small influence on Match-Up, with only 7% of the variance explained. The final model provides preliminary information on socio-ps ychological factors that influence the purchase intentions of endorsed products, and can be used as a reference by corporations when choosing athlete endorsers.

PAGE 11

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Athlete Endorsers As the sport market has grown, so have the various mediums that make it possible to be a sport spectator. Through various mag azines, newspapers, video games, television shows, and the Internet, it is easy for individu als in different regions of the country, or the world, to become familiar with a variety of different sports and, in turn, a wide array of athletes. As a result of the hi gh skill-level of professional at hletes and the media attention that sport receives, consumers are aware of many athletes’ abilities and achievements. However, when distinguishing one athlete fr om another, it is the athlete’s individual characteristics that set him or her apart fr om the others (Brooks & Harris, 1998; Chalip, 1996; Howard, 1979; Stevens, Lathrop, & Brad ish, 2003). Some athletes create a name for themselves based on athle tic talent alone, while others make an impact on the industry, both positive (Cornwell, Roy, & Steinard, 2001; Javalgi, Traylor, Gross, & Lampman, 1994; McDonald, 1991) and negative (Horrow, 2002), with their attitudes and actions on and off the playing field. Many athl etes receive public attention, but some bridge the gap between sport star and general celebrity. A celebrity, or an individual whose name has the ability to attract attenti on and interest, has the potential to influence consumers as a result of an individual’s re sponse to that celebr ity (Rein, Kotler, & Stoller, 1997). Athletes that ha ve an elevated level of celebrity may also have star power, made up of a star athlete’s overall characterist ics, both ability and personality (Braunstein & Zhang, 2005a).

PAGE 12

2 As a result of the metamorphosis of at hletes into celebriti es, the use of an identifiable and reliable at hlete or coach to endorse a product may encourage a bond to form between the product and consumers. Adver tisers take advantage of the loyalty that forms as a result of an individual’s alle giance to the product (Wansink & Ray, 2000) and the athlete (Braunstein & Zhang, 2005a). Ja mes (2002) discussed the importance of matching a product and an endorser. Typically, the effectiveness of an endorser increases by matching the qualities of the athlete to those of the product (Brooks & Harris, 1998; Chalip, 1996; Howard, 1979). These characteristic s would then be reinforced as traits of both the endorser and the product in the mind of the consumer. Choosing the right athlete for the product enforces this congruence. Well-known pairs include the groupings of Tiger Woods (golf) and Ni ke, Mia Hamm (soccer) and Gatorade, and Shaun White (skateboarding and snowboarding) with Mountai n Dew. The traits of these athletes are widely viewed as similar with the traits of th e products that they pr omote. This fit, or match-up, is the perceived congruency between the characteristics of the endorser and the product. Corporations are looking for a pair th at fits in the eyes of the consumer. The consumers that organizations generally target with these relationships are typically the youngest generation with purchasing power (H olton, 2000). Presently, Generation Y, or individuals approximately 13-27 years-old, is the market segm ent that is influenced the most by the use of athletic st ars in promotional campaigns (R ein et al., 1997; Stevens et al., 2003; Stotlar, Veltri, & Viswanthan, 1998). Since this is the ag e range within which people typically form lasting product prefer ences, corporations are trying to create endorser-product matches that so lidify their product(s) as th e product of choice(s) for the consumer in the future.

PAGE 13

3 Marketers create endors er-product matches with the in tention that consumers will understand this relationship when recalli ng their product(s). However, there are exceptions to this rule. There are instances in which an athlete acts in a manner that is not congruent with the product. This is an inherent risk when a corporation becomes involved with any celebrity as an endorser. Although th e product may not be involved, if an athlete makes controversial decisions in his or her pe rsonal life, the bad publicity that the athlete receives may transfer to negative exposure for the product that he or she endorses (Pitts & Stotlar, 2002; Stevens et al., 2003). Such in stances may affect the individual as well as any product(s) that he/she is associated wit h, becoming a liability to the product(s) (Till & Shimp, 1998). A controversial figure ma y create an initial impact on consumer purchase intentions; yet, some researchers belie ve that it is in the best interest of the marketer to align a product w ith an athlete that maintains the values of the company and, in turn, the product itself (Kahle & Homer, 1985; Kamins, 1989, 1990). It is important for marketers to be aware of the factors that influence a consumer’s purchase intentions, including the potential influe nce of athlete endorsers. Influence on Purchase Intentions Marketers often use celebrity endorsers in advertising campaigns as a tool to influence consumer’s purchase intentions (e.g., Kamins, 1990; Ohanian, 1991). Attitude, or an individual’s feelings for or against th e attributes of an obj ect (Fishbein & Ajzen; 1975), is developed through a process comprise d of three phases. The phases (cognition, affect, and conation; e.g., Lavidge & Steine r, 1961; Palda, 1966; Ray, 1973) follow an individual’s unique process as he or she thinks about the product (cognition), develops feelings for or against the product (affect), and the behavi or intentions that follow

PAGE 14

4 (conation). Studies have shown that attitudes may be altere d through the techniques used to market a product. Specifically, advert isements have been found to mediate a consumer’s perception of a brand (e. g., Lutz, 1975; MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989; MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986). In order to understand the influence of athlete endorsers, the consumer’s level of identifica tion toward both the athlete and the sport in which the athlete participates must be observed (Fink, Trail, & Anderson, 2002; Kwon, Trail, & Anderson, 2005; Robi nson & Trail, 2005; Robinson, Trail, & Kwon, 2004; Trail, Robinson, Dick, & Gillentine, 2003; Wann, 2002). Identification, stemming from identity theory, examines the “parts of a self composed of the meanings that persons attach to the multiple roles they typically play in hi ghly differentiated contemporary societies” (Stryker & Burke, 2000, p. 284). Therefore, iden tity theory examines the individual’s perception of his or her role in different social contexts, not the general social categorization that society places on specific ro les. While this has not been studied on an individual level, or in the context of examini ng the influence of an individual athlete on a consumer’s purchase intentions outside the real m of sport, it is an integral part of the relationship that may help to explain a cons umer’s purchasing rationale. Once the level of influence that these factors exert has been examined, how the individual will perceive the fit of the pair based on the characteristic s of both can be observed (e.g., Aaker, 1997; Austin et al., 2003; Azoulay & Kapfer er, 2003; Erdogan, Baker, & Tagg, 2001; Fink, Cunningham, & Kensicki, 2004; Goldsmith, Laff erty, & Newell, 2000; Hovland, Janis, & Kelley, 1953; Ohanian, 1991). This fit, or congr uency between the characteristics of the endorser and the product, has of ten been examined to evaluate the effectiveness of endorsers in advertising. Numer ous researchers have found that this fit, when appropriate,

PAGE 15

5 does influence a consumer’s purchase in tentions (e.g., Ohanian; Tripp, Jensen, & Carlson, 1994; Wansink & Ray; 2000). In addition to understanding the influence of an individual’s le vel of identification with the endorser/sport and perception of the endorser-pr oduct fit, the consumer’s perception of the product must be examined. Ultimately, an individual must believe that there is some level of value in owning the product in order to purch ase it. Perceived value has been defined as “consumers overall assessmen t of the utility of a product (or service) based on perceptions on what is received a nd what is given” (Zeithaml, 1988, p. 14). Examined in terms an individual’s emotional attachment, its price, its quality, and/or a feeling of social acceptance received fr om obtaining the item (Lee, Trail, Kwon, & Anderson, 2005; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001), pe rceived value involves a consumer’s overall perception of the product. If a cons umer does not believe that the product holds any value, the individual will not purchase th e product. Therefore, the perceived value of the product is an integral aspect of the relationship. Theory Development Through the course of studying the phenome non of using endorsers in advertising, four main ideas have been developed. They include the Source Credibility Model (Hovland et al., 1953; Hovland & Weiss, 1951; McGuire, 1968), the Source Attractiveness Model (McGui re, 1985), the Meaning Tran sfer Model (Langmeyer & Walker, 1991a; 1991b; McCracken, 1989), and th e Product Match-Up Hypothesis (Kahle & Homer, 1985; Kamins, 1989, 1990). When sy nthesized, these concepts define a specific set of factors that are deemed appropr iate for use in the selection of the most effective endorser of a product. The selection criterion lies with the thought process

PAGE 16

6 stemming from the first model, the Source Cr edibility Model (Hovla nd et al.; Hovland & Weiss; McGuire, 1968), which suggests that an individual’s percepti on of an endorser’s Expertise and Trustworthiness leads to an influential campaign. The Source Attractiveness Model (McGuire, 1985) e xpanded upon the Source Credibility Model (Hovland et al.; Hovland & Weiss; McGuir e, 1968), claiming that an individual’s acceptance of a message stems from his/her sim ilarity to, familiarity with, and liking of the endorser that is relaying the message. In an effort to consolidate the findings of these studies, Ohanian (1990) determined that pe rceived Expertise, Trustworthiness, and Attractiveness were the most a ppropriate factors to use in ex amining the effectiveness of an endorser. These factors extended to the Match-Up Hypothesis (Kahle & Homer; Kamins, 1989, 1990), with researchers stating th at the most effec tive campaign results from an appropriate fit betw een the endorser and the product. As an extension of the Match-Up Hypothesis (Kahle & Homer; Kamins, 1989, 1990), the Meaning Transfer Model (Langmeyer & Walker, 1991a; 1991b; McCracken) was developed in order to explain the process that is conducted when an endorser is used to promote a product. The model, focusing on Perceived Image, illustrates that the image of the endorser is first solidified in the mind of the consumer, the appr opriate endorser is then chosen to pass the image on from the endorser to the product, and, finally, the image is transferred from the product to the consumer. These concepts have been synthesized into four main factors referent to the selection of an appropria te endorser: perceptio n of the endorser’s Attractiveness (e.g., McGuir e, 1968; Ohanian), Expertise (e.g., McGuire, 1968; Ohanian), Trustworthiness (e.g., McGuire, 1985; Ohanian), and Likeability (e.g., McGuire, 1985).

PAGE 17

7 Braunstein and Zhang (2005a) conducted a study to examine the aforementioned characteristics, specifying the use of athl etes as endorsers, wh ich resulted in the formation of the Scale of Athletic Star Powe r (SASP). This scale in cluded five factors, characterizing athlete endorsers based on consumer perceptions: Professional Trustworthiness (e.g., genuineness and integrity ), Likeable Personality (e.g., behavior), Athletic Expertise (e.g., knowledge, experience, and ability), Social Attractiveness (e.g., image and attractiveness), and Characteristic Style (e.g., c ontroversial and flamboyant). Although Characteristic Style had not been dist inguished as a unique factor in previous celebrity endorser studies, th e attributes themselves had been identified throughout previous studies (e.g., Erdogan, 1999; Erdoga n et al., 2001; Stevens et al., 2003). Development of the scale was based on prev ious endorser effectiv eness research (e.g., Baker & Churchill, 1977; Boyd & Sha nk, 2004; Brooks & Harris, 1998; Erdogan; Hovland & Weiss, 1951; McGuire, 1968; Mc Guire, 1985; Miciak & Shanklin, 1994; Ohanian, 1991), and it expanded the literature to include characteristics that may be unique to athlete endorsers. As a follow-up to their initial study, Bra unstein and Zhang (2005b) reexamined the 5-factor SASP to look at the ch aracteristics that consumers deemed important in athlete endorsers. The reevaluation concluded in the cr eation of the Scale of Athletic Star Power – Consumer Perspective (SASP – CP). The SA SP – CP included many of the original factors, including the collapse of the Social Attractiveness and Characteristic Style into one factor: Public Image. An individual’s overall image is often overlooked in the sport literature as a result of the focus on attrac tiveness and expertise (B rooks & Harris, 1998; Chalip, 1996; Fink et al., 2004). This may be an important factor when considering its

PAGE 18

8 practical implications. For example, the in fluence of public image can be observed by looking at the endorsement contracts for athl etes on the Professional Golf Association (PGA) Tour. Athletes on the PGA Tour, such as Tiger Woods, can have extensive endorsement deals based on the athletic star pow er factors. However, if overall image of the athlete endorser is not taken into account a number of important factors could be deleted from the equation. An athlete, such as Vijay Singh, who is a highly-ranked golfer and performs on the same level as Woods, doe s not have the overall image necessary to create an athlete endorser who will influen ce a consumer’s intention to purchase a product. Therefore, although Singh is an expert in his sport, corporat ions do not believe he will have a major impact in driving sales, leaving him behind in the race for endorsement dollars (Seligman, 2005). As previously mentioned, studies on athlete endorsers tend to focus on the attractiveness and expertise of endorsers (B rooks & Harris, 1998; Chalip, 1996; Fink et al, 2004). These studies lack th e integration of the other fa ctors (e.g., Trustworthiness and Likeability) that previous researchers beli eved to be significant (Hovland et al., 1953; Hovland & Weiss, 1951; Kahle & Home r, 1985; Kamins, 1989, 1990; Langmeyer & Walker, 1991a; 1991b; McCracken, 1989; Mc Guire; 1968; 1985). Additionally, the characteristics deemed important to the fit ha ve not often included th e “personality traits” of the product itself (Aaker, 1997; Austin, Si guaw, & Mattila, 2003; Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003; Govers & Schoormans, 2005). These factors, including Trustworthiness, Expertise, and Image, of both the endorser and the produc t may provide a more complete overview of the influence of the fit between an at hlete and a product on a consumer’s purchase intentions.

PAGE 19

9 Several researchers have indicated the importance of understanding the needs and wants of consumers in the selection of an athlete endorser (Greenstein & Marcum, 1981; Hansen & Gauthier, 1989; Schofield, 1983; Zhang, Lam, & Connaughton, 2003; Zhang, Pease, Hui, & Michaud, 1995). By choosing a star athlete or coach who appeals to a specific market segment, the effectiveness of the sport endorsement is enhanced (Brooks & Harris, 1998; Chalip, 1996; Howard, 1979). The consumer is a key factor to consider when distinguishing among ideas regarding ma rketing a new, modified, or previously established product. A company must understa nd the consumer group that will most likely purchase its product. Although this in formation is often considered, many key characteristics that pertain to athletes, the product, and the consumers have often been overlooked in studies involv ing athlete endorsers. While previous studies have shed consid erable light on the ge neral perception of athlete endorsers and the reasons for their use, a number of limitations have been identified that are associated with the appl icability of the proposed theories to the selection process of athlete endorsers. First, an integr ated approach to studying the phenomenon of athlete endorsers has not been devised. Based on professional intuitions, many concepts (e.g., attractiveness, credib ility, and meaning tr ansfer) have been proposed and superficially investigated (H ovland et al., 1953; Hovland & Weiss, 1951; McCracken, 1989; McGuire, 1968, 1985). While Erdogan et al. (2001) stressed the importance of measuring the characteristics of endorsers, products, and consumers in order to reach a strategy, a theoretical framew ork that takes into consideration various proposed theoretical frameworks and systema tically measures the influence of athlete endorsers has not been identified. It has often been stated that match-up is an integral part

PAGE 20

10 of the process in determining the appropriate endorser of a product (e.g., Kahle & Homer, 1985; Kamins, 1989, 1990); however, while the c oncept itself is often assumed to be integral in influencing a consumer’s purch ase intentions, a framework has never been developed that fully examines the hypothesis. Second, most studies have been conducted in various business settings rather than in a sport context. According to Baumgartner, Jackson, Mahar, and Rowe (2003), Nunnally and Bernstein (1994), and Thomas and Nelson (2001), research fi ndings are population and cont ext specific. Therefore, generalizations may be problematic and it is uncertain if research findings derived from other business segments are ap plicable to sport endorseme nt. Third, the entire market environment, not merely the celebrity and th e endorsement, has been inadequately taken into consideration. The impact of media valu e and the characteristic s of the product and the consumers are integral to the relationship formed in the process of endorsement. The potential of endorsement is maximized th rough the understanding of specific elements that facilitate consumption. Th erefore, it is essential to enhance the match between the product and the endorser in order to maximize the potential of an endorsement. Expertise is generally deemed an important factor in the fit between endorsers and products (Boyd & Shank, 2004; Brooks & Harris, 1998; Cha lip, 1996; Erdogan, 1999; Fink et al., 2004; Goldsmith et al., 2000; Hovland et al., 1953; Hovland & Weiss, 1951; Langmeyer & Walker, 1991a; 1991b; McCracken, 1989; McGu ire, 1968; Miciak & Shanklin, 1994; Stevens et al., 2003). While these findings rema in fairly consistent and logical for the promotion of sport products, the practice of using athletes to endorse non-sport products must come into question. While an athlet e might fit into the appropriate endorser category for a sneaker or a sports drink, the level of acceptance of an athlete endorsing a

PAGE 21

11 car or a camera has not been extensively ex amined. Finally, those who have previously studied the role of celebrity endorsers in s port have focused their attention mainly on the opinions of advertising executives (e.g., Erdoga n et al.; Miciak & Shanklin, 1994). These studies opted to focus on the opinion of the producers, and often overlooked the importance of the perspectiv es of the consumers (Kahle & Homer; Kamins, 1989, 1990; McCracken; McGuire, 1968, 1985). Purpose A celebrity of sport or non-sport is used in one out of four print or broadcast commercials (Howard, 1979; Shimp, 1979). As a result, it is important to have a framework that explains the factors that ma y lead to the success of a product’s campaign. This study was designed to develop a model th at included the factors that have been derived from previous studies on product-endorser match-up (Expertise, Trustworthiness, and Attractiveness/Image; e.g., Braunste in & Zhang, 2005a, 2005b; Kahle & Homer, 1985; Kamins, 1989, 1990; McGuire, 1968, 1985; Ohanian, 1990), examining the influence of product-endorser match-up on a c onsumer’s purchase inte ntions as a result of an individual’s identifica tion with a sport or athlete (Fink et al., 2002; Kwon et al., 2005; Robinson & Trail, 2005; Robinson et al., 2004; Trai l et al., 2003; Wann, 2002) and perceived value of the endorsed product (Lee et al., 2005; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). To simultaneously test a variety of relati onships among variables, the first step was to test a model (Figure 1) that examined the relationships of these f actors together in the context of an athlete endorser promoting a non-sport product.

PAGE 22

12 Figure 1. Influence of Product-Endorser Match-Up on Consumer’s Purchase Inten tions of (Non-Sport) Endorsed Products 1.0 IDENTIFICATION WITH SPORT IDENTIFICATION WITH ATHLETE ATTITUDE TOWARD CONGRUENCY: ENDORSER-PRODUCT ATTITUDE TOWARD PRODUCT PURCHASE INTENTION 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 * * * * * *1.0 z4 1.0 1.0 z6 z7 * 1.0 1.0 1.0 z5 * z1 z3 z8 z9 *z2 EXPERTISE EXPERTISE IMAGE EMOTION Q UALITY PRICE SOCIALz10 *

PAGE 23

13 This study tested the follow ing research questions: 1. Did the model fit the data? 2. Which relationship explained the larges t amount of variance in the model? a. Direct Effects i. Identification with Athlete/Sport Purchase Intention b. Indirect Effects i. Identification with Athlete Congruency: Athlete/Product Attitude Toward Product Purchase Intention ii. Identification with Sport Congruency: Athlete/Product Attitude Toward Product Purchase Intention Significance of the Study Previous studies focusing on the character istics of endorsers have helped to determine the main qualities that marketers and consumers deem important for individuals that endorse products (e.g., Braunstein & Zhang, 2005a, 2005b; Erdogan, 1999; Erdogan et al., 2001; Hovland et al ., 1953; Hovland & Weiss, 1951; Langmeyer & Walker, 1991a; 1991b; McCracken, 1989; Mc Guire, 1985; Shimp, 1979; Smith, 1973; Stevens et al., 2003). However, these studi es have not fully analyzed the unique characteristics of athlete endorsers. The current study was intended to fill the void by reevaluating the factors deemed relevant in the match between an endorser and a product to determine if this match does influence a consumer’s purchase intentions. In this study, the inclusion of an indi vidual’s level of identification with the sport/athlete and perceived value of the pr oduct, allowed the mode l to examine match-up in a manner that resembled the reality of the marketing environment. In order to enhance the generalizability of the research fi ndings, the model examined each of these relationships simultaneously in an effort to si mulate and test the re ality of the exposure. With the addition of these factors, the model provided a better understanding of the influence of athlete endorsers as promotional tools. The model may provide a helpful tool to use when developing interventions, pr omotional strategies, and procedures.

PAGE 24

14 Additionally, the use of structural equa tion modeling allowed for the control of measurement and inferential errors, taking into account inaccuracy and compounding factors when testing in ter-factor relationships. As previously mentioned, match-up (e.g., Kahle & Homer, 1985; Kamins, 1989, 1990), or endorser-product fit, is often noted and deemed important in the selection and retention of endorsers in gene ral, but has not been appropr iately measured. Instead of testing congruency, researchers typically m easure a consumer’s level of identification with an athlete (e.g., Boyd & Shank, 2004; Fi nk et al., 2004). While organizations are investing a considerable amount of money on athletes to endorse their products (e.g., Tiger Woods’ endorsement contracts are worth $80 million per year and Michael Jordan’s are worth $33 million per year; Weil, 2005), a model has not been developed to examine this influence, or lack of influence, on an individual’s purchase intentions. Both practitioners (e.g., Tenser, 2004) and academic ians (e.g., Fink et al., 2004), who have examined the characteristics that they believe to be important in selecting an athlete endorser, often include expertis e in the mix. If expertise is a selection criterion, how does this translate to the fit between a tennis player and a digital camera? Therefore, while this practice is still rampant, it woul d be prudent to examine this model for future use with both non-sport and sport products. The current research provides a model that may answer a number of other research questions in the future. Does star power itself make the difference and to what extent (e.g., hi gh-profile athlete, average athlete, and nonathlete)? Do different types of advertisemen ts (e.g., humor and informational) make a difference on the level of influence? Is th ere a difference in the effectiveness of the medium used (e.g., television, print, and radi o)? Is match-up more effective when used

PAGE 25

15 for a sport product than a non-sport product? Thes e are questions that should be answered to better understand the infl uence of athlete endorsers. The model in the current study provides a foundation with which these quest ions can be explored in the future. Delimitations This study was confounded by a number of f actors. Because this investigation focused on the initial testing of a model, the findings are limited to the present sample as well as those individuals in the sample that are currently aware of (a) the particular endorser, (b) the sport with which the endorse r wais associated wit h, and (c) the product included in the study. Therefore, the findings of this single study will not provide generalizable results that pertain to al l situations involved in determining the effectiveness of a product-endorser match-up. Limitations There were a number of limitations associat ed with this study. This study was not exempt from limitations often found as a resu lt of the use of a convenience sample. The sample consisted of only students from one region of the country. There were also a number of limitations stemming from the purpose of the study. Because the purpose was to test the model, only one athlete, one spor t, and one (non-sport) product (therefore, one overall match) were included in the study. Theref ore, level of star power associated with the individual athlete was not examined, nor was the impact of different athletes from different sports or different products from different product ca tegories. As a result, path coefficients may be different in other st udies for other pairin gs, yielding different findings regarding the most in fluential relationship in the model. However, the findings

PAGE 26

16 may provide a model that can be used or ad apted for a number of combinations in the future. Definition of Terms While key terms are defined in the contex t of the model in Chapter Two, a number of basic terms that used throughout the text must first be defined (Table 1; MerriamWebster, 2004): Table 1. Definition of Terms Term Definition 1. Athlete A person who is trained or skilled in exercises, sports, or games requiring physical strength, agility, or stamina. 2. Attachment The state of being person ally attached, or to bind by personal ties (as of affection or sympathy). 3. Attitude A feeling or emotion toward a fact or state. 4. Belief A state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing. 5. Congruent Marked or enhanced by harmonious agreement among constituent elements. 6. Credible Offering reasonable grounds for being believed. 7. Endorse To approve ope nly or to express suppor t or approval of publicly and definitely. 8. Expert One with the special ski ll or knowledge representing mastery of a particular subject. 9. Identification A largely unconscious process whereby an individual models thoughts, feelings, and actions afte r those attributed to an object that has been incorporated as a mental image. 10. Match A pair suitably associated. 11. Perceived To regard as being such. ________________________________________________________________________

PAGE 27

17 Table 1 Continued Term Definition 12. Persuasion The act or process or an instance of persuading (to move by argument, entreaty, or expostulatio n to a belief, position, or course of action). 13. Star An outstandingly talented perf ormer or a person who is preeminent in a particular field. 14. Transfer To convey from one person, place, or situation to another. 15. Value Something (as a principle or quality) intrinsical ly valuable or desirable. ________________________________________________________________________ Overview In Chapter One, the purpose of the study a nd the model that was tested has been explained. The remaining chapters focus on th e theoretical framework of the model, how the study was conducted, and the findings of the research project. Therefore, Chapter Two will provide an overview of the pertin ent research regarding the theoretical framework that supports the model. Chapte r Three will explain the research methods involved in the creation of the questionnaire and the steps that were taken to complete the study. Chapter Four will then provide the re sults of the study and, in conclusion, Chapter Five will expand upon the results provided in Ch apter Four, presenting the discussion and conclusion of the study.

PAGE 28

18 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction According to the American Marketing A ssociation, consumer behavior is “the dynamic interaction of affect and cogniti on, behavior, and the environment by which human beings conduct the exchange aspects of their lives” (Marketingpower.com, 2006). Therefore, in order to understand what influe nces a consumer’s behavioral intentions and ultimate behavior, the decision-making pr ocess concerning the purchase must be examined based on the specific deci sion that the individual is making. In order for a consumer to ultimately make a purchase, the individual must first be aware of the product. After an individual is aw are of the product, a marketer must then take the steps necessary to lead the consumer from awareness, to interest, then desire, and finally, action. In order to examine th is phenomenon, Lavidge and Steiner (1961) developed the Hierarchy of Effects model to measure advertising effectiveness. This included six “steps” and three general processe s, to be performed in order: (a) cognition (i.e., awareness-knowledge), (b) affect (i.e., liking-preference), a nd (c) conation (i.e., conviction-purchase). While the model was initi ally designed as a st ep-by-step process, the time that each individual spends at each phase may depend on the specific product. Additionally, the level of investment requi red to consume the product may alter the process. If less of an investment is require d, steps may be skipped in the decision-making process. Palda (1966) questioned Lavidge and Steiner’s model, claiming that there was no empirical evidence to support its claims. Palda did not believe that the cognition-

PAGE 29

19 affect-conation hierarchy was the only way to define decision-making. Ray (1973) supported Palda’s assertion, suggesting that th ere was not one process, but three: the traditional hierarchy (cognition-affect-conation), the dissonance-attribution hierarchy (conation-affect-cognition), and the low i nvolvement hierarchy (conation-cognitionaffect). As a result of each individual’s unique internal motives, or motivators, it is important for marketers to understand what driv es an individual’s attitude and, in turn, attitude change (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). The “awareness” that Lavidge and Steine r (1961) discussed can be accomplished through various promotional tactics (e.g., print, radio, television, Internet). Reis and Trout (1981) believed that these methods are used to position a product or entity in the minds of both current and potential consumers. Positioning, a tool used to communicate with consumers in a crowded marketplace, has ofte n been used to set an organization apart from its competitors. One way of positio ning a product is through an organization’s promotional strategies (e.g., advertising campa igns). An organization can choose to use the type of advertisement that they believe w ill reach their target ma rket. In order to set oneself apart, an organization may use a number of different positioning tactics, including the use of a celebrity endorser in their a dvertising (e.g., Javalgi, Traylor, Gross, & Lampman, 1994; McCracken, 1989). In North America, the public maintains a st eady interest in those deemed to have celebrity status. Therefore, th e individuals that make up th is population of celebrities remain a staple in the marketing strategies of executives in a wide array of industries, ranging from automobile manufacturers to the makers of sports equipment. Due to the extensive use of endorsers (including celebrities) in advertising and promotions,

PAGE 30

20 numerous researchers have attempted to unders tand the impact that these tactics have on their markets (e.g., Friedman & Friedma n, 1979; Kahle & Homer, 1985; Kamins, 1990; Ohanian, 1990). The use of celebrity endorsers is believed to (a) generate a greater likelihood of a customer choosing the endor sed brand or product (e.g., Heath, McCarthy, & Mothersbaugh, 1994; Kamins; Ohanian, 1991), (b) enhance message recall (e.g., Friedman & Friedman), (c) aid in the rec ognition of brand names (e.g., Petty, Caciopo, & Schumann, 1983), and (d) create a distinct pers onality for the endorsed brand or product (e.g., Javalgi et al., 1994; McCracken, 1989). Individuals in sport (e.g., at hletes and coaches) are not exempt from the American public’s obsession with celebrity. As a result of prof essional sport’s evolution from newspaper to radio to television and the Inte rnet, it has long held a place in the public spotlight (Schaaf, 2004). Athletes and coaches, particularly those with unique personalities, levels of talent and/or longevity in the indus try, have become celebrities in their own right. This level of celebrity ha s provided an opportunity for both athlete and manufacturer to work with one another to promote a variety of products. As the number of high-profile athletes has grown, so has the number of multi-million dollar endorsement contracts (King, 2005). Stemming fr om Miller Lite’s “Lite AllStars” and “Tastes Great, Less Filling” campaigns in the 1970’s, both athletes and coaches have evolved into mainstream celebrities, endorsi ng everything from beer and sports equipment to beauty products. The use of athletes and coaches to endorse products gained credibility after the success of Miller Lite’s initial campaign using “masculine” male-athletes to promote lower calorie beer (Miller, 2002). Because cele brity endorsements have the ability to help build a brand’s image (Cornwell, Roy, & St einard, 2001; Javalgi et al., 1994; McDonald,

PAGE 31

21 1991), athletes such as John Madden and Bubba Smith were used in Miller’s campaigns to change the image of a non-masculine product (Miller). As this practice perpetuates, and athlet es and coaches continue to sign large endorsement contracts, unde rstanding the effectiveness of these tactics becomes extremely important. With contracts for curre nt athletes (e.g., Tiger Woods $80 million per year; Weil, 2005) and retired athletes (e.g., Michael Jordan $33 million per year; Weil) on the rise, the organizati ons that invest large amounts of money want to leave as little to chance as possible in terms of retu rn on investment (ROI). While recent studies have been conducted regarding the use of at hlete endorsers in terms of expertise and attractiveness (e.g., Boyd & Shank, 2004; Fink, Cunningham, & Kensicki, 2004), the majority of the previous research regarding endorsers does not focus on sport and athletes as endorsers. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a model that includes the unique attributes of sport. A model that examines these relationships may help marketers to make a more educated decision rega rding the selection of an endorser. The relationship between an endorser and a product has been termed congruency, fit, and match-up. No matter the terminology, a match between the ch aracteristics of the two entities is often deemed to be highly rele vant when attempting to emit an effectively endorsed message (e.g., Kahle & Homer, 1985; Kamins, 1989, 1990; Kanungo & Pang, 1973; Lynch & Schuler, 1994; Peterson & Kerin, 1977). Typically, fit has been examined in terms of the endorser’s Attractiveness (e.g., physical appearance; McGuire, 1968; Ohanian, 1990), Expertise (e.g., specialized knowledge; McGuire, 1968; Ohanian), Trustworthiness (e.g., believability; McGuire, 1985; Ohnaian) and Liking (e.g., personal feelings about that individual; McGuire, 1985).

PAGE 32

22 Although the congruency between endorsers and consumers has often been defined as an integral part of the match-up process, it has been measured in a variety of ways. Employing endorser-consumer match-up to de fine congruency, researchers have often used an individual’s liking of, or identification with, a particular endorser to measure this construct (e.g., Aronson & Worchel, 1966; Be rscheid, 1966; Kelman, 1961). While these findings do not provide a measurement model to fit the current study, they validate the characteristics used in th e endorser-product studies (e.g., Kahle & Homer, 1985; Kamins, 1989, 1990; McGuire, 1968; McGuire, 1985; Ohanian, 1990). An individual’s identificati on with an endorser and/or an endorser’s sport can be traced back to identity theory (e.g., Ja mes, 1890; Mead, 1934; Stryker & Burke, 2000). Based on the belief that each individual ha s multiple role identities, seven points of attachment have been proposed as motives for spectator attendance at sporting events (Kwon, Trail, & Anderson 2005; Robinson & Trail, 2005; Robinson, Trail, & Kwon, 2004; Trail, Robinson, Dick, & Gillentine, 2003 ). While these factors have yet to be examined in terms of the effectiveness of athlete endorsers, two of the seven points of attachment, or role identities (attachme nt to the sport and attachment to the player/athlete) may help to define the e ffectiveness of the match and, ultimately, the consumer’s intent to purch ase the endorsed product. Both scholars and practitioners claim that celebrities (inclu ding athletes and coaches) help in the branding of a pr oduct (Brooks & Harris, 1998; Chalip, 1996; Howard, 1979). A number of concepts and theo ries have been developed to examine the use of endorsers in advertising, and the char acteristics that work to create the most effective message (e.g., Kahle & Homer, 1985; Kamins, 1989, 1990; McGuire, 1968,

PAGE 33

23 1985; Ohanian, 1990). Once these char acteristics have been esta blished, the next step is to use a method that will synthesize the impor tant characteristics from each element of the consumption process (i.e., endorser, product, and consum er) and determine how they work together to increase an individual’s intent to purchase endorsed products. As marketing executives rely on endorsers as prom otional tools, it is important that they fully understand and appropriately use the info rmation that may lead to a consumer’s potential attitude change (Eagly & Chai ken, 1993). In order to have a greater understanding of the actual infl uence of athlete endorsers on purchase intentions, an individual’s level of identification with the athlete a nd the sport (e.g., Kwon et al., 2005; Robinson & Trail, 2002, 2005; Robi nson et al., 2004; Trail et al., 2003) as well as their perceived value of the product (e.g., Lee, Trail, Kwon, & Anderson, 2005; Sweeney & Stoutar, 2001) must be examined. Once these factors have been discussed, the models and hypotheses that support the use of endorsers as persuasive tools in advertising must be examined. In order to determine which re lationships have the gr eatest influence on a consumer’s ultimate purchase decision, both dire ct and indirect effects of these factors must be considered. Refer to Figure 1. There are a number of limitations with the existing literature that have led to this proposed model. No model has been proposed to examine the precedents and antecedents to congruency. According to the findings of this literature review, congruency theories do not typically measure f it. Instead they tend to examine th e level of identification that an individual has with another individual or product. Thus, a model that examines congruency, based on attitude and identification theories, wa s proposed and tested. This was accomplished by examining the influence of an individual’s level of identification

PAGE 34

24 with the athlete and the sport (e.g., Kwon et al., 2005; Robinson & Trail, 2002, 2005; Robinson et al., 2004; Trail et al., 2003) on an individual’s perception of endorserproduct congruency and purchase intentions. Wh en using endorsers, this relationship may include the influence of the congruency be tween the endorser and product (e.g., Kahle & Homer, 1985; Kamins, 1989, 1990; Kanungo & Pang, 1973; Lynch & Schuler, 1994; Peterson & Kerin, 1977), leading to an individual’s final pe rceived value of the product (e.g., Lee et al., 2005; Sweeney & Stoutar, 2001). Refer to Figure 1. Attitude Theory As previously mentioned, an individual’s attitude toward an object is developed through a process composed of three phase s (cognition, affect, and conation; e.g., Lavidge & Steiner, 1961; Palda, 1966; Ray, 1973) According to Fishbein (1963), attitude itself is an individual’s affect for or agains t an object. An indivi dual’s reaction, positive or negative, is the result of that individual’s belief about the object and the evaluative aspects of the belief. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) developed the E xpectancy-Value Model of attitudes based on a cognitive approach to attitude formation. The model stems from the belief that an individual takes an info rmation-processing approach to developing an attitude. The “thinking” is ba sed on that individual’s belief about the attributes of the object. The individual, already having pos itive or negative beliefs about different attributes, then creates an attitude toward the object (positive or negative). Therefore, it is not merely the object or the information that is provided at the decision-making stage that influences the overall attitude or attitude change leadi ng to a purchase decision. An individual’s belief about the at tributes of the object predispos es all response s (cognitive, affective, and conative) toward th e object (Krebs & Schmidt, 1993).

PAGE 35

25 Zimbardo and Ebbesen (1970) expanded upon Fi shbein’s (1963) theory, stating that an individual’s perceptio n of an attribute is learned, not innate, and therefore capable of change. Although attitudes are no t easily altered, practices that are known to influence beliefs about attributes may be applicable in eliciting an altered response. Researchers have suggested that advertising is a tool th at can be used to implement attitude change (e.g., Lutz, 1975; MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989; MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986). Lutz (1975) hypothesized that (a) alte ring an individual’s belief about a brand attribute leads to a change in that individual’s attitude towards using the br and in question and (b) altering an individual’s evaluation of a brand attribut e leads to a change in that individual’s attitude toward using a the brand in question. Examining these hypotheses with a previously nonexistent brand, the experimental manipulations worked towards attitude formation as well as attitude change. A lthough the experiment did not provide an indication of the response to a preexisti ng brand, the study’s fi ndings supported the hypotheses (based on multiple attribute theories ) that a cognitive stimulant can work to alter an individual’s initial attitude with a new brand. Lutz (1985) provided a model to observe the phenomenon, examining four sets of conditions: (a) pure affect transfer, (b) message-based persuasion, (c) contextual evaluation transfer and (d) dual mode persuasion. His findings suggested that an individual's attitude toward the advertisement in general was an important predictor of the individual’s attitude toward the brand. Lutz also concluded that long-term effectivene ss was enhanced when pertinent information about the brand was presented in an entert aining or distinctive fashion (dual mode persuasion). MacKenzie et al. expanded upon Lutz’s (1985) framework, using a lowimportance product (toothpaste) in a single-ad pretest expos ure setting to observe the

PAGE 36

26 influence of an advertisement as a causal antecedent of brand attitude. The findings supported Lutz’s (1975; 1985) earlier work, w ith attitude toward the advertisement strongly influencing attitude toward the brand and moderately influencing brand perceptions. MacKenzie and Lutz reevaluated Lutz’s (1985) framework in an empirical examination of the role that advertisements play in attitude change. The study strongly supported Mackenzie et al.’s fi ndings regarding the influence of the advertisement on the individual’s attitude toward the brand. However, that study did not align with the previous findings regarding the advertisem ent’s influence on an individual’s perception of the brand. For marketers, it is important to understa nd a consumer’s attitude regarding the product that is being promoted. A consumer’s perceived value of the product is extremely relevant in the formulation of a product’s mark eting mix. An individual ’s attitude toward an object is based on the indivi dual’s beliefs about the attri butes of the object (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Therefore, in orde r to alter a consumer’s aff ect regarding a product, an organization should understand dimensions that lead to an individua l’s initial perception of a product. Sheth, Newman, and Gross’s (1991) examination of consumption values led to a set of five constructs that influe nce consumer choice. The factors included: Functional Value (i.e., ability fo r functional, utilitarian, or p hysical performance), Social Value (i.e., association with one more spec ific social groups), Emotional Value (i.e., ability to arouse feelings or affective states), Epistemic Value (i.e., ability to arouse curiosity, provide novelty, and/or satisfy a desire for knowledge), and Conditional Value (i.e., result of a specific situation or set of circumstances facing the decision-maker).

PAGE 37

27 Perceived Value When analyzing an individual’s motivation to purchase a product, the value that the individual perceives to be attached to the product itself must be examined. Therefore, an integral step in the process is operationalizing perceived value as it relates to the potential purchase intentions of a consumer. According to Lee et al. (2005), the critical distinction between personal values (Richins, 1994) and perceived value (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001) is often not distinguished a ppropriately. Accordingly, person al values are the general beliefs that guide an individua l’s behavior (Richins), and perceived value is the worth of an object to an individual in a specific situation (i.e., domain specific; Sweeney & Soutar). The importance in the distincti on between the two con cepts is that an individual’s personal values are often a precursor to the perceived value of the object (Lee et al.). This distinction is necessary, and was not made by Sweeney and Soutar in the development of the Perceived Value (P ERVAL) scale. The scale, stemming from Sheth et al.’s (1991) values study, was crea ted to measure the perceived worth of consumer products to the purchaser. Sweeney a nd Soutar argued that previous research failed to capture all of the elements that a consumer values, focusing solely on the tradeoff between Quality and Price, or what is given and what is received (Cravens, Holland, Lamb & Moncrieff, 1988; Monroe, 1990; Ze ithaml, 1988). While the majority of perceived value research has focused on Quality and Price, researchers believe that focusing on these two factors does not provide a complete picture of the decision-making process (e.g., Porter, 1990). Sweeney and Sout ar agreed with these sentiments, believing that individuals consumed products based on the way the product makes them feel, and not simply the cost and quality of the produc t itself. As a result, they added Emotional

PAGE 38

28 and Social constructs to the previously studied dimensions of Quality and Price. Lee et al. argued that, while Price and Quality did fit Sw eeney and Soutar’s definition of perceived values, the factors of Emoti onal and Social should have been categorized as personal values. In a reassessment of Sweeney and Sout ar’s (2001) PERVAL scale, Lee et al. (2005) conducted a study to examine consum ers’ decision-making processes regarding the purchasing of licensed sport merchandise. They found that the model did not fit the data well. The Price and Quality subscales did not show good construct reliability or internal consistency. However, the Emotion and Social subscales did. While the model did not fit the data well, ther e were a number of items with in each factor that had high factor loadings. The model in Lee et al.’s study did not support the original constructs. As a result, the authors proposed revised dime nsions, suggesting that the revised factors should be reevaluated in terms of face and content validity before being used in future studies. Advertisers have also realized that usi ng endorsers who have similar characteristics as the promoted product (endorser-product c ongruency) might incr ease the likelihood of the purchase (e.g., Ohanian, 1991; Tripp, Je nsen, & Carlson, 1994; Wansink & Ray, 2000). Therefore, the theories and models used to examine endorser effectiveness provide a framework to determine which characteristic s that are deemed most relevant in the relationship (e.g., Kahle & Homer, 1985; Langmeyer & Walker, 1991a; 1991b; McCracken, 1989; McGuire, 1968; 1985).

PAGE 39

29 Endorser Effectiveness McGuire’s Source Credibility Model (1968) was the first approach used in the attempt to understand the characteristics that create an effective advertising/marketing campaign. Source credibility is a term commonly used to imply a communicator’s positive characteristics that affect the r eceiver’s acceptance of a message. The Model depicted the influence of perceived leve l of Expertise and perceived level of Trustworthiness on the effectiveness of the message. McGuire operationalized the first factor, Expertise, as the perc eived level of knowledge, experien ce, or skills of an endorser and the second factor, Trustwor thiness, as the intended a udience’s belief in the honesty, integrity, and believability of the endorser. He suggested that these factors be used in a five-step process to change the attitude of a consum er: attention, comprehension, yielding, retention, and action. Building on the concepts from the Sour ce Credibility Model (McGuire, 1968), McGuire (1985) developed the S ource Attractiveness Model. Th e model depicted that an individual’s acceptance of a message relies on the Similarity (resemblance between source and receiver), Familiarity (knowledge of the source through previous exposure), and Liking (affection of the source as a result of the physical appearan ce or behavior) of an endorser. McGuire (1985) theorized that th e attractiveness of the source determined the overall acceptance of the message being conveyed. Ohanian (1990) combined the Source Cr edibility Model (McGuire, 1968) and the Source Attractiveness Model (McGuire, 1985) to create a single scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived Expertise, Trustworthiness and Attractiveness. Ohanian defined Expertise as the characteristics that de fine an individual w ho is trained, informed,

PAGE 40

30 educated, an authority, and competent. Sh e suggested that Trustworthiness was the potential consumer’s degree of confidence in, and level of acceptanc e of, the speaker and the message (i.e., a consumer’s trust in a speaker). Ohanian added the Attractiveness dimension based on research that suggested th at physical attractiven ess is an important cue in an individual’ s initial judgment of another person. The findings supported the creation of a 15-item differentia l scale to measure the above tr aits (attractiveness, AVE = .63 .65; trustworthiness, AVE = .63 .63; expertise, AVE = .61-.62). With the development of a three-dimensional scale and further validation of the factors and items, researchers now had a more valid and reli able approach to use in assessing each component of celebrity endorsers’ e ffectiveness and persuasiveness. Kahle and Homer (1985) altered the origin al concepts to examine the use of endorsers to develop the Pr oduct Match-Up Hypothesis. Th e hypothesis highlighted the importance of the match between celebrity endorsers and products. Kahle and Homer examined the influence of Physical A ttractiveness on the attitudes and purchase intentions of consumers by manipulating thr ee independent variable s: celebrity-source physical attractiveness, celebr ity-source likeability and particip ant-product attractiveness. Results showed that physical attractivene ss was more influential than likeability on a consumer’s attitude toward the brand and purchase intentions. McCracken (1989) suggested that the eff ectiveness of a celebrity endorser was derived from the cultural meanings associated with the individual rather than simply the endorser’s physical attractiveness and credib ility. Therefore, he designed the Meaning Transfer Model to further explain the endorse ment process. He suggested that celebrity endorsement involves a general process of mean ing transfer through th ree stages in which

PAGE 41

31 a celebrity passes on a message regarding a pr oduct. In the first stage, the consumer forms an image of the celebrit y. Second, to transfer the meani ng or image of the celebrity to the product, the organization selects a celebr ity that represents the intended image of the product. Finally, the meaning is then tr ansferred from the product to the consumer (Langmeyer & Walker, 1991a; 1991b). Although the Source Credibility Model (McGuire, 1968), Source Attractiveness Model (McGuire, 1968), Product Match-Up Hypothesis (Kahle & Homer, 1985), and Meaning Transfer Model (Langmeyer & Walker, 1991a; 1991b; McCracken, 1989) are all extremely relevant, the models are typically used to examine the perceptions of the producers rather than the consumers. Theref ore, executives need additional knowledge of the factors that influence consumers in or der to create a more successful marketing campaign. As the above models and hypotheses state, the selection of a celebrity endorser is often based on the profile of the endorser. Th e advertising and mark eting literature often define the selection of endorsers based on the consumer’s perception of an endorser’s Attractiveness (e.g., phy sical appearance; McGuire, 1968; Ohanian, 1990), Expertise (e.g., specialized knowledge; McGuire, 1968; Ohanian), Trustworthiness (e.g., believability; McGuire, 1985; Ohnaian) and Liking (e.g., personal f eelings about that individual; McGuire, 1985). As the public perceives athletes as celebrities, these characteristics translate to athlete endorsers as well. The need for an examination of these characteristics in the context of sport is necessary because athletes and coaches are currently endorsing both sport and non-sport products. Therefore, it is necessary, as numerous researchers have stated, to examine the importance of match-up between

PAGE 42

32 product and endorser (e.g., Baker & Churchil l, 1977; Kahle & Homer, 1985; Kamins, 1990; Lynch & Schuler, 1994; Till, 2000; Till & Shim p, 1998) and consumer and endorser (e.g., Aronson & Worchel, 1966; Berscheid, 1966; Boyd & Shank, 2004; Heider, 1958; Kelman, 1961; Mowen, Brow n, & Schulman, 1979). Based on the above information, the Match-Up Hypothesis was c hosen because it represents the most comprehensive approach to examining th e effectiveness of the endorsement. Match-Up Hypothesis Numerous studies have examined the infl uence of an apparent match-up between endorser and product to determin e if there is an influence on the consumer’s purchase intentions (e.g., Ohanian, 1991; Tripp et al., 1994; Wansink & Ray, 2000). Kanungo and Pang (1973) used traditionally gender-specifi c advertising (men with stereos and women with sofas) to propose that “fittingne ss,” or perceived congruence between characteristics, existed between the endorser in an advertisem ent and the type of product being advertised. Peterson and Kerin (1977) also suggested the n eed for product/endorser congruency within an advertisem ent, if the purpose of the advertisement was to enhance communication. Many researchers have determined that the greater the congruence between the image of the endorser and the image of the product being promoted, the more effective the message (e.g., Kahle & Homer, 1985; Kamins, 1989, 1990; Kanungo & Pang, 1973; Lynch & Schuler, 1994; Peterson & Kerin, 1977) However, one area that has been disputed is how to measure effectiveness. Researchers have no t agreed on a single approach, and a number of methods have been used, including purchase intentions (e.g., Ohanian, 1991; Tripp et al., 1994; Wansi nk & Ray, 2000), attitude toward the

PAGE 43

33 advertisement or brand (e.g., Goldsmith, Laffe rty, & Newell, 2000; Ti ll & Busler, 2000; Tripp et al.), and increase in stock margins as the result of a contract announcement (Agrawal & Kamakura, 1995). While match-up has been emphasized, the approach has not been extensively examined in the realm of sport or with athlete endorsers. Therefore, there is a need to examine (a ) the characteristics of those involved in the match and (b) the match itself, including the unique attributes of sport. Match-Up: Characteristics As the match-up hypothesis states, it is the fit between the char acteristics of the product and the endorser that is most rele vant in creating an effective campaign. Although numerous characteristics have been defi ned for celebrity endorsers in general, for athlete endorsers, researchers tend to focus on Attractiveness and Expertise (e.g., Boyd & Shank, 2004; Fink et al., 2004). If athletes continue to be used as endorsers, sport studies need to expand beyond the realm of Attractiveness and Expertise in order to determine if other characteristics are relevant. Product characteristics As a result of advertising campaigns, bra nds are often portrayed as having human characteristics. Although this concept had b een described, it had not been systematically studied until Aaker’s (1997) creation of the Brand Pers onality Scale (BPS). After examining 309 candidate traits based on previous literatur e (psychology, marketing, and original qualitative research), the author ultimately looked at 114 traits over 37 brands. The final BPS included 42 items/traits under 5 factors: Sincerity (e.g., honest, genuine), Excitement (e.g., daring, spirited), Co mpetence (e.g., reliable, responsible), Sophistication (e.g., glamorous, charming) and Ruggedness (e.g., tough, strong). Aaker

PAGE 44

34 believed, as a result of the rigor of th e study, that the scale and framework were generalizable across produc t categories. Govers and Schoormans (2005) confirmed Aaker’s findings by conducti ng a longitudinal study examin ing the influence of product personality on a consumer’s preference ove r time, finding that product-personality congruency ( = .48) had the greatest impact on consumer preference. Although Aaker (1997) claimed that the findi ngs were generalizab le as a result of the breadth of the study, Austin, Siguaw, a nd Mattila (2003) argued that the BPS was not generalizable to individual br ands, as a result of the met hod of the study. Agreeing that a measurement study was necessary to fully understand the yet unmeasured concept of brand personality, Austin et al (2003) reexamined Aaker’s BPS to determine the validity of those findings. The authors found that, while the constructs were internally reliable (Cronbach’s alpha), they did not have cons truct validity (Average Variance Extracted .50 or discriminant validity). Thus, the findings did not support Aaker’ s factor constructs. Azoulay and Kapferer (2003) also agreed that the purpose be hind Aaker’s study was relevant; however, it was conducted in an inap propriate manner. The authors believe that the study did not properly operationalize its co ncepts, measuring a number of different brand identity constructs and claiming that they are all brand personality measures. While the study was a review of current practices, and not an empirical investigation, Azoulay and Kapferer agreed with Austin et al. that the concept should be studied, but perhaps that the constructs should unde rgo a reexamination of both c ontent and construct validity. Endorser characteristics While the characteristics of the product, human or not, are integral to the marketing mix, the endorser’s traits are equally as re levant when deciding to use a celebrity

PAGE 45

35 endorser as a promotional technique. Ka mins (1990) conducted a study to further examine the Attractiveness aspe ct of the importance of congruency in an advertising campaign. Subjects were shown advertisements containing physica lly attractive (Tom Selleck) and physically unattractive (Telly Sa valas) endorsers. Results indicated that when the physically attractive cel ebrity was shown with an at tractiveness-related product, it enhanced measures of spokesp erson credibility a nd attitude toward a brand, relative to the use of the physically una ttractive celebrity. However, the use of the physically attractive celebrity had no effect on attract iveness-unrelated products. According to the Kamins, the advertisement was deemed a success if there was an appropriate match-up. Miciak and Shanklin (1994) explored the ways in which veteran celebrity evaluators select effective endorsers base d on certain criteria. Gathered from the 43 advertising agencies and companies that were surveyed, the most im portant criteria were that the endorsers were trustworthy, read ily recognizable by th e target audience, affordable, at little risk for negative publicity, and appropriately matched with the intended audience. Five universal categor ies were also evaluated and ranked by significance. These categories included Celebr ity Credibility, Celebrity-Audience Match, Celebrity-Product Match, Celebrity Attr activeness and Other Considerations. Expanding upon the endorser characteris tic research, Erdogan, Baker, and Tagg (2001) investigated the impor tance of certain celebrity characteristics based on the product type, from the point of view of the practitioner w ho is selecting the celebrity. Erdogan et al.’s study examined British advert ising agencies by fi rst using exploratory interviews and then progressing to mail su rveys. The findings confirmed the hypothesis that the importance of the measure used to choose an endorser for a product depended on

PAGE 46

36 the type of product. Practitioners considered a set of criteria when choosing a celebrity and that the importance of said criteria depended on the type of product being endorsed. The researchers found that the most important characteristics includ ed Trustworthiness, Expertise, Familiarity, Likeability, and Physi cal Attractiveness, aligning with Miciak and Shanklin’s findings as well as those of othe r previous researchers (e.g., Kahle & Homer, 1985; Kamins, 1989, 1990; McGuire, 1968, 1985; Ohanian, 1990). Javalgi et al. (1994) also examined th e relationship between sponsorship and corporate image. Their findings showed that sponsorship can improve the image of a corporation, but it is not an automatic response. It can have either a positive or negative impact, depending on the company’s image prio r to the sponsorship. If an organization began with a positive image, the positive aura can increase. However, if a company’s image was negative prior to a sponsorship, it s image may not benef it from the affiliation. Therefore, as previously mentioned, the im age of the product as well as the endorser plays an integral role in determining the effectiveness of the match and, in turn, the campaign. Effective endorser characteristics have been confirmed from a practical perspective as well. Advertising Age (Tenser, 2004) ex amined the importance of specific endorser characteristics from both the consumer a nd practitioner’s persp ective. They found a number of characteristics that consumers deemed important in an endorser. Participants did not believe that an en dorser had to mirror the age, gender, or background characteristics of a consumer. However, th e constructs that were characterized as pertinent in the selection of athlete endorsers relied heavily on the sport played and the character of the individual. Some of the char acteristics revealed as extremely important

PAGE 47

37 included: “is same gender as me,” “is good looking /stylish,” “is hottest new star in his/her sport,” “has been playing or played the sport for a long time ,” “plays/played for one of my favorite teams,” “plays/played sport I fo llow,” and “is someone I would like to be like.” While a number of the characteristics do overlap from those selected by consumers, there are a few that are unique These traits include: the ri ght sport (sport your target market likes), a winner (success on the field a nd post-sports career), clean living (not too clean if product needs an “edg e”), articulateness (endorser ca n speak in sentences and is coachable), likes your brand (must be beli evable), personality (winning attitude, outgoing, humility – likeable), good looks (att ractive), marketing savvy (understands marketing goals), right portfolio (does not si gn with competing brands), and right price (based on budget). While practitioners may not have placed these characteristics in categories, or factors, there is a distinct overlap between these findings and scholarly research in the same domain. Tripp et al. (1994) also conducted a study ex amining the effect that the number of products endorsed by a celebrity had on consum er’s attitudes and purchase intentions. Through two experiments it was determined th at as the number of products a celebrity endorses increases, celebrity likeability and advertisement likeabil ity both decrease. Tripp et al.’s findings were in accordance w ith Hovland, Janis, and Kelley’s (1953) study regarding source credibility. The authors found both Expertis e (the extent to which a communicator is perceived to be a source of valid assertions) and Trustworthiness (the degree of confidence in the communicator’s inte nt to communicate the assertions he or she considers most valid) to be highly benefi cial when choosing an endorser to influence a consumer’s attitude change.

PAGE 48

38 Although previous studies had been conduc ted regarding athlete endorsers, they typically focused on the attractiveness and e xpertise of the endorser (e.g., Boyd & Shank, 2004; Fink et al., 2004) or the heroism aspect of an athlete (e.g., Chalip, 1996; Stevens, Lathrop, & Bradish, 2003), limiting the potential breadth of the findings. In order to adapt the factors used in previous studies for us e in sport studies, Braunstein and Zhang (2005a) created the Scale of At hletic Star Power (SASP). Br aunstein and Zhang believed that it was crucial to understand the influence of additional characteristics that have been used in the evaluation of endorsers in other disciplines. The purpos e of the study was to determine the characteristics that athlete e ndorsers encompass. The development of the SASP was guided by celebrity endorser research findings that focused on Trustworthiness, Likeability, Expertise, and A ttractiveness. The first factor, Professional Trustworthiness was defined as the genuinene ss and integrity of th e endorser (Erdogan, 1999; Erdogan et al., 2001; Langmeyer & Walker, 1991a; 1991b; McCracken, 1989; McGuire, 1985; Shimp, 1979; Smith, 1973; Stevens et al., 2003). It has been noted that if an endorser is deemed untrustwo rthy, regardless of his or he r characteristics, consumers view the endorser’s message as questionable (Smith, 1973). Second, Likeable Personality, or the fondness for an endorser as a result of his or her be havior, pertains to a consumer’s perception of the endorser as a genuine individual (Er dogan; Erdogan et al.; McGuire, 1985; Stevens et al.). The third fact or, Athletic Expertise, the perception that the endorser is a credible source, refers to the perception that the individual chosen to endorse a product has a base of knowledge, expe rience, and ability in his or her chosen field (Boyd & Shank; Brooks & Harris, 1998; Ch alip; Erdogan; Fink et al.; Goldsmith et al., 2000; Hovland et al., 1953; Hovland & Weiss, 1951; Langmeyer & Walker, 1991a;

PAGE 49

39 1991b; McCracken; McGuire, 1968; Miciak & Sha nklin, 1994; Stevens et al.). The next factor, Social Attractiveness, or the perc eived image of an individual, does not necessarily pertain to the physic al attractiveness of an endorse r. Instead, it is comprised of personality, exposure, and an individua l’s public image (Baker & Churchill, 1977; Boyd & Shank; Brooks & Harris; Chalip; Erdog an et al.; Fink et al.; McCracken; McGuire, 1968, 1985; Ohanian, 1991). An additiona l factor, characteris tic style, is the distinctive characterist ics of an individual. Although So cial Attractiveness had not been introduced in previous celebrity endorser re search, it was included to further define the unique characteristics of athlete endorsers (Er dogan; Erdogan et al.; Stevens et al.). The SASP expanded the literature to include char acteristics that may be unique to athlete endorsers. The findings of the e xploratory study resulted in a scale that included 5 factors (Professional Trustworthiness, Likeable Pe rsonality, Athletic Expertise, Social Attractiveness, and Char acteristic Style) with a total of 40 items. The study showed that all five factors influenced direct consum ption of endorsed products, and when gender differences were taken into consideration, th e influence of athlete endorsers was greater with female participants in term s of attractiveness and expertise. In order to further validate the SASP, Braunstein and Zhang (2005b) reexamined the scale in order to examine the characteris tics of athlete endorsers that consumers deemed important rather than the characteristics that c onsumers believe that athlete endorsers possessed. The factor structure di ffered from the original SASP, combining Social Attractiveness and Characteristic Style, renamed as Perceived Image, to create the Scale of Athletic Star Power – Consumer Pe rspective (SASP – CP). When reassessing the initial factors, and the content of the final factors, it was apparent that Perceived Image

PAGE 50

40 examined the characteristics that pertained to both the athlete endorser’s attractive and unique characteristics. Although an endorser’s perceived image had been examined in other areas of academic literature, the sport literature primarily focused on expertise and attractiveness of athlete endorsers. When th is was studied, attractiveness was typically characterized as physical attributes (Boyd & Shank, 2004; Fink et al., 2004), not necessarily public image (Baker & Churchil l, 1977; Brooks & Harris, 1998; Chalip, 1996; Erdogan et al., 2001; McCracken, 1989; McGuire, 1968, 1985; Ohanian, 1991). The addition of a factor that examined the ove rall image of an athlete endorser could be beneficial to the sport literature in terms of its potential practical implications. Consequently, Braunstein and Zhang (2005b) re tained a total of 34 items representing four factors (Professional Trustw orthiness, Likeable Personal ity, Athletic Expertise, and Perceived Image). While previous studies ex amined the fit of endorser characteristics based on the practitioner’s perspective (e.g., Erdogan et al.), Braunstein and Zhang’s (2005b) study confirmed that consumers also be lieve that these tra its are relevant for athlete endorsers. Endorser-Product Congruency/Match-Up The congruency between the pr oduct and the endorser is an integral aspect of the match-up relationship. Baker and Churchill (197 7) were at the forefront of the match-up phenomenon. They stated that the intera ction between product and spokesperson characteristics was most important in creating the most influential relationship. Friedman and Friedman (1979) investigated the effects of matching endorser type and product type by examining the characteristics of endorsers of products based on the level of risk associated with the product being endorsed. Three types of endorsers (celebrity, expert,

PAGE 51

41 and consumer) as well as three products define d by risk (low financial, performance, and physical risk; high in financial, performance, and physical risk / low in psychological and social risk; no risk) were included in the study. While examining trustworthiness, awareness, attractiveness, a nd likeability, the researchers f ound that an effective match was not limited to the physical ch aracteristics of a spokesperson. Till and Busler (1990) conducted two studi es to examine the importance of two match-up factors: Attractiveness and Expertise. The first study examined the influence of attractiveness on brand attitude purchase intention, and key br and beliefs. In the second study, the authors examined the influence of expertise on the same dimensions by manipulating the product and the type of e ndorser. The study found that expertise was more important than attractiveness, as perceived expertise was found to have an interaction with the endorser (e.g., athletes a nd energy bars versus actors and energy bars or candy bars). Overall, results showed that expertise was a more important factor than physical attractiveness when it came to bra nd attitude, purchase in tent, and endorser-fit with the product. Lynch and Schuler (1994) used the schema theory to interpret the results of previous inquiries into the match-up hypothesi s and designed two experiments to provide additional insight into how schema might be changed by a spokesperson/product match. The first experiment addressed the eff ect of match-up between a spokesperson characteristic and a product attribute on spokesperson credib ility. The second considered the effect of a match-up between a spokesperso n characteristic and a product attribute on the schema of the product. Both studie s supported the match-up hypothesis between a

PAGE 52

42 spokesperson’s characteristics a nd a product’s attributes in that they could both initiate a change in the spokespers on and product schemas. It is often assumed that an endorser’s image often influences the image of the product he or she is helping to promote. Ti ll and Shimp (1998) used an associative network model of memory to examine the in fluence of negative information about a celebrity on the product that they endorsed. Three studies were conducted to examine the relationship. In the first two studies, fictitio us, but realistic, celebrity endorsers were used. In the third study, an actual celebrit y was used. Findings showed that negative information about a celebrity re sulted in a decline in attitude towards the endorsed brand only for the fictitious celebrity. Overall, Ti ll and Shimp’s results differed from Kamins’ (1990) study in that there was no match-up in teraction between endor ser attractiveness and products that enhance attractiveness. As a follow-up to Till and Shimp’s study, Till (2000) examined the effect of the product that an individual is e ndorsing on the overall image of the endorser him or herself. Till found that both athlete and non-athlete endorsers’ images were negatively affected when they represented unsuitable products. Furthermore, when an athlete endorsed a pr oduct that was viewed as unhealthy, the result was an even stronge r negative image. In sport, the event is ofte n the product that the individua l is endorsing. Fink et al. (2004) used two fictitious at hletes to examine the use of endorsers in promoting attendance at a sporting event on a univer sity campus. The model used in the study included the constructs of A ttractiveness and Expertise, c onverging into a second-order latent variable of overall f it. The relationship of fit with attitudes and intentions to purchase a ticket to the event was then expl ored. The researchers f ound that expertise was

PAGE 53

43 more important for athlete endorsers in pred icting an individual’s intention to attend a sporting event. Their findings supported th e concept that fit is key, stating that “attractiveness has little to do with the even t itself…level of expert ise has a significant impact on an event” (p. 363). Jones and Schum ann (2000) used these theories to examine trends, congruence, and type of promotional strategies used in advertising campaigns involving athlete endorsers. The au thors used a sport-oriented medium over the course of its entire publica tion (1955-1998). The overall findings showed that although the popularity of athlete endorsers was continually growing (more in sports-related medium), congruency was only found in approximately half of the advertisements, and most advertisements were “thinking” type ads. In sum, attitude theory and its extensi on to the congruency hypothesis has provided the framework for the proposed model. According to Lutz (1985), attitude toward the brand is mediated by attitude toward the a dvertisement, or in the present case, the perceived congruency between the endorser and the product. Additional support for the influence of endorser/product congruency on attitude toward the product comes from Baker and Churchill (1977), Caballero, Lum pkin, and Madden (1989), and Caballero and Solomon (1984). Furthermore, research has also shown that aspects that make up endorser/product congruency consistently have been linked to positive attitude changes as well as increased purchase intentions (e.g., Braunstein & Zhang, 2005a; Kahle & Homer, 1985; Ohanian, 1991; Simon, Berkowitz, & Moyer, 1970). As noted above, an individual typically de velops an attitude toward the product. This may translate into an individual’s init ial intention to purcha se or not purchase the product. However, advertisers ha ve realized that an adver tising campaign may modify an

PAGE 54

44 individual’s initial attitude toward the produc t, thus potentially increasing the likelihood of purchase (e.g., Heath, McCarthy, & Mo thersbaugh, 1994; Kamins, 1990; Ohanian, 1991). Moreover, when including an athlete endorser in an advertising campaign, a consumer’s identification with the spor t and the athlete become an additional consideration (Kwon et al., 2005; Robinson & Trail, 2005; Robinson et al., 2004). In order to further understand the influence th at these factors have on an individual’s decision-making process, identity theory mu st be examined (e.g., James, 1890; Mead, 1934; Stryker & Burke, 2000). Identity Theory According to James (1890), individuals have different identities for each of their networks of relationships. In each relationship, an individual plays a different role based on the mutually reinforcing and conflicti ng aspects of oneself (Mead, 1934). Both identity theory and social id entity theory have been used to examine this phenomenon. Identity theory, as a model, is made up of “four central componen ts: (a) the identity standard, or set of (culturally prescribed) m eanings held by the indi vidual which defined his or her role identity in a situation, (b) the person’s pe rceptions of meanings within the situation match to the dimensions of meaning in the identity standard, (c) the comparator or the mechanism that compares the perceived situational meanings with those held in the identity standard, and (d) the individual’s beha vior or identity which is a function of the difference between perceptions and sta ndards” (Stryker & Burke, 2000, p. 287). In contrast, social identity theory states that the social categories to which individuals are members of are all part of a structured society, existing only in relation to other contrasting categories (e.g., student versus faculty, Black/African-American versus

PAGE 55

45 Caucasian, male versus female). An individual is born into a society that has already been structured. Therefore, social categories ha ve been determined before the individual identifies this role as part of his or her lif e. Each individual, bel onging to a unique set of social categories, has his or her own set of social identities that work to create an individual’s unique self concept (Stets & Burk e, 2000). Both traditi ons (identity theory and social identity theory) recognize that individuals view themselves in terms of meanings imparted by a structured society. However, while both theories involve the roles that an individual plays in society, id entity theory is an individual’s own perception of the role that he or she plays in a specific situation while social identity theory is based on an individual’s role as determined by others. Stryker (1980) built on the original concep t of identity theory, using it to explain the influence that social structures have on an individual and how, in turn, social structures influence that i ndividual’s social behavior. While Stryker examined the external motivators of identity theory, Burke (1991) explored the in ternal motivators of identity theory. These two stra nds of identity theo ry research were brought together in order to create a greater unders tanding of how both intern al and external motivators influence an individual’s belief of the roles that self and soci al structure play in creating an individual’s identity (Stryker & Burke, 2000) In an examination of the past, present, and future of identity theory, Stryker and Burke conceptualized identity theory to encompass each of these critical components, claiming that an individual’s cognitive comparisons, which ultimately lead to the i ndividual’s final behavi or, are influenced by that person’s identity standard a nd perceived situational meanings.

PAGE 56

46 Identity Theory and Sport Consumption Trail, Anderson, and Fink (2005) used identity theory to explain that an individual’s identification with a sports team may lead to a change in behavior. They used the Team Identification Index (TII; Fink, Trail, & Anderson, 2002; Trail & James, 2001) to measure an individual’s identificati on with the team. Trail, Anderson and Fink (2000) defined identification as “an orientation of the self in regard to other objects including a person or group that results in feelings or sentim ents of close attachment” (p. 165-166). This concept, and specifically this index, has been used extensively. Several studies (e.g. Fink et al., 2002; Robinson et al., 2004; Trai l, Fink & Anderson, 2003; Trail et al., 2003) found that team identification was significantly related to motives for following teams (e.g., Drama, Aesthetics, and So cial Interaction) a nd Trail et al. (2003) showed that team identification was related to expectancies about game outcome. Trail et al. (2005) determined that it was related to basking in reflecte d glory (BIRGing) and cutting off reflected failure (CORFing) behavi or and also conative loyalty. However, the above authors have not been al one in showing that team identification has an influence on cognitive, affective, conative, and behavioral responses. While others who have examined this phenomenon (e.g., Mahony, Madrigal, & Howard, 2000; Milne, & McDonald, 1999; Wa nn, 2002) have not specifically used identity theory, they have used measures th at were representative of identity theory. For example, Wann, in a preliminary attempt to validate a measure for assessing an individual’s identification as a sport fan, examined a fan’s identification with his or her role as a sport fan. This involved an indivi dual’s awareness and per ception of themselves as a sport fan. The creation of that instrument provided sport marketers with the ability to

PAGE 57

47 assess the level of their fan’ s identification and, in turn, become more aware of their consumer’s wants and needs. Funk, Mahony, and Ridinger (2002) found that f actors that pertain specifically to the sport were the most influential regard ing spectator support le vel. In a separate application of the Sport Inte rest Inventory (SII), Funk, Ri dinger, and Moorman (2003) examined 18 factors regarding the aspects that lead to consumer support of the team. In their study, 10 of the 18 factors explained 48% of the variance in consumer support for the team, with Interest in the Team (team identification, = .31) as the most influential factor. In some of the earlier work that in cluded variables that we re similar to team identification, findings showed that highly id entified individuals differed from lowly identified individuals on several behavior and affective factor s (e.g., Branscombe & Wann, 1991; Lever, 1983; Madrigal, 1995; Wann & Branscombe, 1993). Identity Theory and Points of Attachment Although most of the previous resear ch has focused on an individual’s identification with the team (Fink et al., 2002; Funk et al., 2002; Funk et al., 2003; Robinson & Trail, 2005; Trail et al., 2005), a number of ot her studies have looked at other points of attachment, such as identifica tion with the athlete/player or identification with the sport. Trail et al. (2003) suggested th at an individual’s leve l of identification in sport may not lie solely with a team, and that there are seven potential points of attachment (Player, Team, Coach, Univers ity, Community, Sport, and Level), creating the Points of Attachment Index (PAI) from the original research with the TII (Fink et al., 2002). This builds on James (1890) and Mead’s (1934) assumptions that individuals have multiple role identities. The PAI has been re tested numerous times (Kwon et al., 2005;

PAGE 58

48 Robinson & Trail; Robinson et al., 2004) with the model show ing at least adequate fit each time. While the PAI has typically been tested on sport consumption, two of the subscales may prove beneficial in the a ssessment of the effectiveness of athlete endorsers: identification with the athlete/player and identification with the sport that the athlete plays. While the current study analyzed the re lationship between the endorser and the consumer in terms of identification and id entity theory (e.g., James, 1890; Mead, 1934; Stryker & Burke, 2000), others have examined this relationship in terms of congruency, match-up, or hero-worship. As athlete endorsers have become commonplace in advertising, understanding the athlete’s charac teristics that consumers deem important becomes extremely relevant. In order to understand the characteristics of athlete endorsers that consumers identify with, the uniq ue attributes of sport and athletes must be taken into consideration. Hero Worship There has always been the phenomenon of the sport hero. As sport moves into a new era, individual athletes are garnering the attention that te ams once boasted. Wann, Melnick, Russell, and Pease (2001) discussed th e pastime of placing at hletes on pedestals in the public spotlight. Through the creation of entities like Halls of Fame, where hero worship reins supreme, sport heroes can live on through the years. Generations can pass down the knowledge of their favorite athletes linking them with th e next, and keeping the hero worship mentality alive. As identifica tion with these heroes allows the athlete or coach to have an elevated level of power, it is in the best interest of the public to understand the means by which they attain their status.

PAGE 59

49 It may be more difficult to worship an athlete today than in the past. As demand for athlete salaries increase to outlandish le vels, labor disputes ar e constantly pending, franchises threaten to relocate, and many indi vidual athletes extracurricular activities do not fit those that put them in contention for hero worshi p (Stevens et al., 2003). If an organization is attempting to utilize an athl ete to endorse its new product, the executives should realize that fan identification s till runs strong (Miln e & McDonald, 1999). Through all of the ups-and-downs in sport, fans still identify with athletes and teams. Therefore, as endorsement deals grow and bra nds vie for the affection of elite athletes, it may be assumed that fans are identifying more with their heroes. Endorser-Consumer Congruency/Match-Up While, according to the Match-up Hypothe sis (Kahle & Homer, 1985), it is extremely important to recognize the congruenc y between the product and the endorser, it is also integral to the match to understa nd the match-up between the consumer and the endorser. If a particular endor ser does not influence an orga nization’s target market, the money spent on the endorsement may not be wort h the investment. Therefore, it is crucial to the match to be aware of the characteristic s that a specific market deems important in an endorser in order to maximize the match’s effect. While this area of match-up has not been as widely studied as the product-endorse r match-up, a number of studies have been conducted to examine this relationship. For exam ple, Mowen et al. (1979) used Heider’s (1958) balance theory to desc ribe the relationships that exist among target audience and endorser, product and endorser, and consumer and product. The authors found that when a strong affective relationship exists between each of the pairs, an endorser will be maximally effective. Mowen et al. concluded that the match itself is what led to a

PAGE 60

50 maximum effect. Boyd and Shank (2004) took th is concept one step further by exploring gender differences. The authors examined gend er and expertise match-up as the most effective use of athlete endorsers. When observing influence on male and female participants, the results showed that wome n were more sensitive to the match between endorser and product. In general, the findings state that a greater le vel of trust exists between men and male endorsers and wome n and female endorsers. Additionally, the authors found that the most effective campai gn targeted male viewers, included a male athlete, and involved a spor t-related product. A study conducted by Peetz, Parks, and Spencer (2004) also examined the role of gender in the meaning-transfer process. The findings of the study coincided with Boyd and Shank’s findings, stating that male endorsers led to a greater increase of purch ase intentions. More specifically, a greater increase of purchase intentions was seen fo r male participants in response to male endorsers. These findings support a number of similar studies that found that both similarity and likeability have been used as determinants of identification and interpersonal attraction between the sour ce and the message r ecipient (Aronson & Worchel, 1966; Berscheid, 1966; Kelman, 1961). As match-up between the consumer and endorser can be roughly defined thr ough identification and attraction (Kahle & Homer; Kamins, 1989, 1990; McGuire, 1968; McGuire, 1985; Ohanian, 1990), these findings are extremely relevant in the match-up process. In order for level of celebr ity and fan recognition to be effective in marketing, an individual’s perception of an athlete must be elevated above their view of others. This means that a consumer must believe that an i ndividual has a particular talent or trait that makes them unique (Braunstein & Zhang, 2005a). They must then wish to identify with

PAGE 61

51 that athlete. As a result of identification, a marketer believes that if the “identified” athlete endorses a certain product, the cons umer will react to th is association, and purchase that product over one that is not endorsed by an individual he or she feels connected to. People can typically relate well to others that they believe to have the same values and interests as themselves (i.e., other individua ls in their social structure). For example, as Generation Y (Gen Y; age 10-27) begins to form their views on the world, they will identify with those that they relate to, whic h will be an important concept for marketers (Rein, Kotler, & Stoller, 1997; Stevens et al ., 2003; Stotlar, Veltri, & Viswanthan, 1998). This is one of the reasons that action s ports have become mainstream for Gen-Y consumers. This generation is looking for extreme ways to live, in part because individuality is one of th eir defining qualities (Bennett, Henson, & Zhang, 2003). For these reasons, marketers are feeding on the indi vidual athlete that will have the ability to relate to Generation Y (Marlatt, 1999). This generation is not l ooking to football or baseball the way that previous generations have. As the sport marketer begins to understand this, star power moves from the team as one entity to th e individual athlete, whether extreme or mainstream. Application of the TII establ ished that an individual’s identification with the team might influence consumption behavior (Trail et al., 2005). Trail et al. (2003) also found that an individual’s level of identification may expand beyond identification with just the team, including the player/athlete and sport as well. This level of identification may influence the consumer’s belief regarding his or her role identity regarding both the athlete and the sport. Therefor e, an individual’s role in a social structure (e.g., Generation

PAGE 62

52 Y) may influence an individual’s belief re garding the congruency between an endorser and a product (e.g., Shaun White and Mountai n Dew). If congruency is found, this may influence the individual’s consumption be havior regarding th e endorsed product (e.g., Heider, 1958; Mowen et al., 1979; Peetz et al., 2004). No research has examined the relationship from identification with a specific athlete or sport to perceive d congruency between an endorser (the athlete) and the product. Therefore, when examining the affect of endorsers on a consumer’s purchase intentions, it is important to also examine that individual’s level of identification with certain factors, as they may influence beha vior (e.g., Burke, 1991; Stryker, 1980; Stryker & Burke, 2000). In the case of an athlete e ndorsing a product, it is vi tal that the level of identification with both the sport and the e ndorser are taken into account in the overall effect. Summary Previous researchers have examined the importance of fit when including a celebrity in an advertis ing campaign (e.g., Kahle & Homer, 1985; Kamins, 1989, 1990; Kanungo & Pang, 1973; Lynch & Schuler, 1994; Peterson & Kerin, 1977). According to the Product Match-Up Hypothesis (Kahle & Homer), it is the fit between the characteristics of the endorser and the product that is the most rele vant in creating an effective advertising campaign. Therefore, it is important to understa nd the characteristics of the endorser and product that must first be measured to examine the fit in order to create the most effective campaign. Although numerous characteristics have been defined for celebrity endorsers in ge neral, researchers tend to focus on the attractiveness and expertise of athlete endorsers (e.g., Boyd & Sh ank, 2004; Fink et al., 2004). Sport studies

PAGE 63

53 need to expand beyond these two factors in orde r to determine if othe r characteristics are relevant for athlete endorsers. In order to achieve a greate r understanding of the actual influence of the match, other factors that in fluence the relationship must be taken into consideration. While match-up studies have primarily focused on the influence of the match itself, they often lack the influence of other factors. Both identification (sport and athlete; e.g., Kwon et al., 2005; Robinson & Trail, 2005; Robinson et al., 2004; Trail et al., 2003) and perceived value (e.g., Craven s et al., 1988; Monroe 1990; Porter, 1990; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001; Zeitham l, 1988) influence an indivi dual’s purchase intentions. Additionally, the overall influen ce of these factors may affect a consumer’s perception of the endorser-product match-up (e.g., Baker & Churchill, 1977; Friedman & Friedman, 1979, Till & Busler, 1990; Till & Shimp, 1998). Therefore, in order to fully understand the influence of an athlete endorser, each of these factors (i.e., id entification with the endorser or the sport, perception of endorse r-product congruency, and perceived value of the product) must be examined to understand th e role that they play in a consumer’s decision-making process. See Figure 1.

PAGE 64

54 CHAPTER 3 METHOD Participants Based on the number of effective parameters in the model (N = 145), a total of 850 participants were recruited for this study (m inimum N = 132 to achieve power of .80 with df = 1130; MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara, 1996). The participants (N = 400) were a convenience sample of undergraduate and gra duate students at a large southeastern university. The majority of the participants were male (61%), 20-23 years old (75%), White/Non-Hispanic (64%), and upper-level university studen ts (junior/senior – 70%). Marketers use athlete endorsers in campaigns in order to target those that are most highly influenced by this practice (the younge st generation with purchasing power, or, presently, Generation Y; Holton, 2000). As the older segment of Generation Y, university students are an appropriate popula tion for this study. At this time in their lives, these individuals may not have a soli dified brand preference, but they may have a loyalty to a particular athlete that can be transferred to the brand that the athlete is endorsing (Holton). This, coupled with th e ability to purchase middle to high-end products, is what marketing and advertising executives hope to capitalize on with athlete endorsements. The sample fit the demographic characteristic s of the Generation Y population (Table 2).

PAGE 65

55 Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for the Demographic Variables Variable Category N % Gender Male 245 61.1 Female 156 38.9 Age 18-19 72 18.0 20-21 212 52.9 22-23 92 22.9 24 or Older 25 6.2 Ethnicity African-American/Black 42 10.5 Asian 23 5.7 Hispanic/Non-White 25 6.2 White/Hispanic 46 11.5 White/Non-Hispanic 258 64.3 Other 7 1.7 Current Student Status Freshman 25 6.2 Sophomore 78 19.5 Junior 163 40.6 Senior 122 30.4 Graduate Student 13 3.2 ________________________________________________________________________ Questionnaire Development For this study, the questionnaire was split into two segments (Observation #1 and Observation #2). On both segments of the quest ionnaire, all items we re measured using a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagr ee; 2 = disagree; 3 = s lightly disagree; 4 = neutral; 5 = slightly ag ree; 6 = agree; 7 = st rongly agree). The first segment used two dimensions of the Points of Attachment I ndex (PAI; Trail, Robins on, Dick, & Gillentine, 2003) to examine the participant’s level of identification with both the athlete endorser and the athlete’s sport. The second segment of the questionnaire included two additional scales. First, the par ticipants were asked questions to examine the congruency between the athlete and the endorser, including elemen ts of the Scale of Athletic Star Power – Consumer Perspective (SASP – CP; Braunste in & Zhang, 2005b). The second part of the

PAGE 66

56 second segment included the Perceived Valu e (PERVAL) scale (Sweeney & Stoutar, 2001) to examine the subject’s perceived valu e of the product once he/she has seen the advertisement. The survey included ques tions regarding the participant’s purchase intentions of the product that was used in th e study (I believe that this product…is one that I definitely will purchase, is one that I would consider buying, is one that there is a high probability that I would purchase, and is on e that I intend to purchase). Additionally, for the purpose of sample description, que stions on five sociodemographic variables (gender, age, ethnicity, current student status, and country of citizenship) were included in a multiple-choice format. Prior to the administration of th e questionnaire, the University’s Institutional Review Bo ard approved the research methods. Points of Attachment Index The PAI has been used in numerous studies to examine the influence a consumer’s level of identificati on on his or her consumption intent ions (Kwon, Trail, & Anderson, 2005; Robinson & Trail, 2005; Robinson, Trail, & Kwon, 2004; Trail, Robinson, Dick, & Gillentine, 2003). Originally developed to determine the factors that influence consumers to attend sporting events, the PAI has tested various dimensions (Player, Team, Coach, University, Community, Sport, a nd Level) in a variety of se ttings. While the PAI factors have remained consistent in previous studies, the scale has not been examined in terms of its influence on an individual’s consumption intentions regarding endorsed products or the belief of the congruency between an athlete endorser and a product. Although attachment to an athlete has ofte n been referred to as an influential factor in the selection of an endorser and ultimately the purchase in tentions of a consumer (e.g., Tenser, 2004), these factors have not often been controlled for in athlete endorser studies. Therefore, it would have been careless to further explor e this relationship without examining these

PAGE 67

57 factors to better understand thei r role in the attitude cha nge process (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Consequently, it was necessary to include them in the first stage of the model. As a result of the content of the current study, it was deemed that two dimensions (Sport and Player/Athlete) of the original seven (Player, Team, Coach, University, Community, Sport, and Level) PA I factors (Trail et al., 2003) were to be included in the model. After evaluating the items in terms of the context of the study, eight items were retained. The Sport sub-scale in cluded four items: “first and foremost, I consider myself a (sport) fan,” “being a fan of (sport) is very important to me,” “(sport) is my favorite sport,” and “I am a (sport) fan at all levels and tours.” The Player/Athlete sub-scale also included four items: “I identify with (athlete ),” “when (athlete) loses a match, it feels like a personal failure,” “I am a bi g fan of (athlete),” and “I follow (sport) because I am a big fan of (athlete).” Scale of Athletic Star Power – Consumer’s Perspective In Braunstein and Zhang’s (2005b) study to examine the Scale of Athletic Star Power (SASP) with a unique focus, the SASP – CP focused on consumer’s beliefs regarding the characteristics that they believed athlete e ndorsers should possess, instead of the characteristics that they did possess. The original scale was constructed to examine characteristics exhibited by athlete endorse rs that potentially influence consumer purchases of endorsed products and include d 40 items under five factors (Professional Trustworthiness, Likeable Personality, Athlet ic Expertise, Social Attractiveness, and Characteristic Style). As a reevaluation of the original scale, the SASP – CP was decreased to 34 items under four factors (P rofessional Trustwor thiness, Likeable Personality, Athletic Expertise, and Perceived Image).

PAGE 68

58 It was important that the factors, bot h the SASP and SASP – CP (Braunstein & Zhang, 2005a, 2005b), were reevaluated to examin e their relevance in terms of athlete endorsers and the use of these individuals in promoting non-sport products. For use in this study, items were evaluated and included or removed based on th ree criteria. Items were removed if they had low factor loadings in both of the previ ous studies (SASP and SASP – CP; Braunstein & Zhang, 2005a, 2005b), di d not load on the same factors for the two analyses, or if they did not have face validity with the newly established 4-factor model. Once these factors had been establ ished, items were modified based on newly acquired research regarding at hlete endorsers (e.g., Tenser, 2004) and brand personalities (e.g., Aaker, 1997). The scale then had 33 items under 4 factors. In order to further reduce the number of items, a test of c onstruct validity was conducted with 40 university students. The student s were provided with two lists: one list of the factors and one list of the items. They were then instructed to match the items with the factor that they believed worked best to define the overriding construct. As a result of these findings and the addition of the congr uency between athlete and endorser to the model, likeability was el iminated as a factor. After the initial construct validity check, the scale was decreased to three factors with 18 items. These factors included Trus tworthiness (sincerity, hard-working, quality, consistency, dependability, a nd reliability), Expertise (c ompetence, performance over time, accomplishments, ability to perform, superiority, and success), and Image (appearance, style, attractiveness, trendy, recognizability, and distinctiveness). As previous research has consiste ntly linked these three factors (Expertise, Trustworthiness, and Image/Attractiveness) to both positive attitude changes and increased purchase

PAGE 69

59 intentions (e.g., Kahle & Home r, 1985; Simon, Berkowitz, & M oyer, 1970), they fit the criteria used to test the model. The scale was preceded by the phrase “I believe that both the endorser and the product match up well in terms of…” in order to examine the congruency of the attribut es between the athlete e ndorser and the product. Perceived Value Scale The PERVAL was originally developed to expand the previous literature that examined consumer’s perceptions of the value of products (Sw eeney & Soutar, 2001). Originally, perceived value was operationalized as the trade-off between Quality and Price (Cravens, Holland, Lamb, & Moncrie ff, 1988; Monroe, 1990; Zeithaml, 1988). The introduction of the PERVAL scale was intende d to add the dimensions of Emotion and Social to the two original f actors (Sweeney & Stoutar). Lee, Trail, Kwon, and Anderson (2005) reexamined the PERVAL scale in terms of the convergent and divergent characteristics of the factors. While the resu lts did not reveal high factor loadings for many of the items or high average variance extracted (AVE) values for many of the factors, there were a number of items that did load well and were reevaluated for use in this study. Therefore, the PERVAL factors th at were used in the study included Emotion (is one that I would enjoy, is one that I would want to use, is exciting, is one that I would feel comfortable using, is one that would make me happy, would make me feel good, and would be fun), Quality (would perform consis tently well, is high-quality, is well-made, has an acceptable standard of quality, and would last a long time), Price (is reasonably priced, is a good product for the price, is fair ly priced, and is affordable), and Social (would give its owner social approval, would make a good impression on other people, would help me to feel accepted by others, a nd would improve the way I am perceived by others). All factors retained fr om Lee et al.’s study had factor loadings of .63 or higher, of

PAGE 70

60 which only one item was below .70 (Lee et al.). The items were preceded by the following statement: “Regarding (product) I believe that this product is…” Validity Screening Following its preliminary formulation, the questionnaire was submitted to a panel of experts (n = 16) for a test of content validity. The panel included eight university professors in sport management, tourism, a nd/or marketing and ei ght graduate students majoring in sport management. Based on 80% agreement among the panel members, the items were evaluated on whether the format and content were: (a) appropriate, (b) adequate/representative, a nd (c) accurate/clear (Lam, Zhang, & Jensen, 2005; Zhang, Pease, Hui, & Michaud, 1995). After the initial items were determined, a test of internal consistency was conducted on the SASP – CP, PERVAL, and purchase inte ntion subscales (N = 49). The test was not conducted on the PAI, as the subscales (ide ntification with sport and identification with player/athlete) have proven to have high alpha values in previ ous studies (Kwon et al., 2005; Robinson & Trail, 2005; Robinson et al., 2004; Trail et al., 2003). The items were retained based on Nunally and Bernstei n’s (1994) criterion th at alpha reliability coefficient’s should be equal to or greater th an .70. The alpha coefficients for the SASP – CP were .76 (Expertise), .83 (Trustwort hiness), and .44 (Image). If the item “controversy” was eliminated from the Imag e dimension, the alpha coefficient increased to .69. Therefore, the item was dropped and “ap pearance” was added to the Image factor. The final scale included three factors w ith six items representing each factor. For the PERVAL scale, the alpha coeffi cients were .56 (Emotion), .83 (Quality), .82 (Price), and .83 (Social). As a result of the low alpha coefficient for Emotion, the items were reexamined. In order to improve Emotion, “would make me want to use it,”

PAGE 71

61 the most problematic item, was dropped (after, = .61) and a number of additional items were added (“is exciting,” “i s one I would want to use,” “is one that would make me happy,” and “would be fun”). The final scale in cluded 4 factors with a total of 20 items. The purchase intention subscale had a sufficient alpha coeffici ent of .87, retain ing all four items. The final questionnaire included f our subscales (PAI, SASP – CP, PERVAL, and purchase intentions) with 50 total items. Athlete and Product Selection In order to identify the athletes for the study, the same students used to test the content validity of the scale were asked to list all of the athletes that they could think of in three minutes. The celebrities were later ranke d based on the number of times their names were mentioned. Two of the athletes that were mentioned most often were Dale Earnhardt Junior and Maria Sh arapova. As these two athletes currently promote middleto high-end products, they were chosen as pot ential endorsers to use to test the model. The final pairings of endorser s and products include Dale Ear nhardt Junior with Wrangler jeans and Maria Sharapova with Canon cameras. Once the final pairings were determined and advertisements were selected, the same set of students was asked if they would purchase either of these products. After an overwhelming response that they would purchase a Canon camera and they would not purchase Wrangler jeans, the Maria Sharapova/Canon advertisement was chosen for the study.

PAGE 72

62 Figure 2. Product-Endorser Advertisement Procedures Subjects were asked to participate in th e study, designed to examine the affect of athlete endorsers on consumer’s purchase intentions for non-sport products. Online testing procedures were uniform for all research participants Data collection procedures included: (a) an e-mail to all potential part icipants, including an introduction of the researcher, the purpose of the study, and a li nk to the questionnaire (serving as the consent form); (b) an explanation that par ticipation is voluntar y, anonymous, and there would be no penalty for not participating or not completing the questionnaire; (c) a welcome statement; (d) two screening questions in order to be included as a research participant in this study (“I know who Maria Sharapova is by reading her name” and “I know what the Canon PowerShot digital camera is by reading the name of the product”); (e) the first part of the questionnaire; (f) the advertisement with the athlete and the product (Figure 2); and (g) the second part of the questionnaire. Once the questionnaire was finished, the data was submitted via the survey service and the final screen thanked

PAGE 73

63 the individual for his/her time and s upport for the study. The questionnaire was administered in an online format and t ook approximately 10 minutes to complete. Data Analyses Of the 850 e-mails distributed, 400 comple ted (555 total) submissions were made, constituting an overall res ponse rate of 47%. Descri ptive statistics for the sociodemographic variables were calcul ated using SPSS 13.0 (Norusis, 2004). The RAMONA (SYSTAT, 1997) program was used to test the overall model fit of the measurement model (a confirmatory factor analysis – CFA). In the CFA, the latent variables were allowed to correlate, while the error terms were not. Model fit was determined by examining the root-mean-s quare-error of approximation (RMSEA; Steiger, 1989), a confidence interval (CI) for the RMSEA, the ratio of the chi-square to its degrees of freedom, and the percent of residuals greater than .10 (Browne & Cudeck, 1992). Researchers often indicate the impor tance of additional goodness-of-fit indices (e.g., Root Mean Square Residual and the Non-Normed Fit Index; Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 2002); however, RAMONA does not provide additional indices. Browne and Cudeck believed that the RMSEA is the least influenced by the sample size and number of parameters included in the model. Therefore, additional indices were not deemed necessary and, as a result, not included in the RAMONA program. The RMSEA, bound by zero on the lower end and only equal to zero when there is pe rfect fit, was the first measure of model fit. According to Hu and Bentler (1999), the following criteria regarding RMSEA values should be used to de termine the fit of th e model: less than .060 indicates a close fitting model, .061 – .080 i ndicates reasonable fit, .081 – .100 indicates mediocre fit, and > .100 is unacceptable. While it has often been suggested that chisquare per degree of freedom values should range from 2.0 to 3.0, there is no consensus

PAGE 74

64 on this figure, with Bollen (1989) also stati ng that “acceptable values can reach as high as 5.0” (p. 278). According to Bagozzi and Yi ( 1988), when less than 10% of the residuals are greater than .10, this is another indicator of adequate model fit. Factor loadings equal to or greater th an .707 show that there is more common variance than unique variance (Hai r et al., 2002), thus indicating that the item represents the construct well. In addition, the factors were tested for in ternal consistency against the standard of > .70 (Nunally & Bernstein, 1994) and tested for construct reliability against the standard of AVE values > .50 (Hair et al.). Discriminant validity was assessed to determine if the factors were distinct from one another. This was accomplished by squaring the correlations of the two referent factors. According to Fornell and Larcker (1981), if the findings are greate r than the AVE score of either factor, then the factors are not distinct. After the fit of the measurement model had been examined, RAMONA was then used to examine the fit of the structural m odel. The same criteria were used to examine the structural model as were used with the measurement model. Path coefficients were used to determine the most influential direct or indirect relationsh ip on an individual’s intent to purchase the product.

PAGE 75

65 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Measurement Model Analysis After reviewing the skewness and kurtosis coefficients, one item (“When Maria Sharapova loses a match, it feels like a persona l failure”) did not meet the criteria of approximately + 2.00 (Stevens, 1996; Tabachnick & Fide ll, 1996). As a result, the item was eliminated from the remainder of the anal ysis. The balance of the items did meet the criterion, suggesting that the da ta did not deviate from normality for any given variable (Table 3). Therefore, it was appropriate to test the measurement model. The analysis indicated that the data fit the model adequately. The RMSEA was .078 (CI = .075 to .082) and the chi-square per degree of freed om value (2750/798) was 3.45. While the chisquare per degree of freedom value may be s lightly higher than the typically accepted value, as previously stated, Bollen (1989) s uggested that a value as high as 5.0 may be deemed acceptable. The number of residuals gr eater than .10 in the current analysis, 150 (12.76%), was an indicator that the model could be improved. The majority of the AVE coefficients were above the acceptance crite rion (.53 for Athlete, .69 for Sport, .45 for Expertise, .49 for Trustworthiness, .50 fo r Image, .54 for Emotion, .65 for Quality, .70 for Price, .57 for Social, and .68 for Purchase In tention). Alpha coefficients of internal consistency for the factors were all above the acceptance criterion of .70 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). AVE values, al pha coefficients, and factor loadings can be found in

PAGE 76

66 Table 3. Descriptive Statisti cs for the Measurement Model Variable M SD Skewness Kurtosis Identification Athlete (4items) 1 – I follow tennis because I am a big fan of Maria Sharapova. 2.39 1.37 0.95 0.03 2 – I identify with Maria Sharapova. 3.02 1.65 0.38 0.91 3 – When Maria Sharapova loses, it feels like a personal failure. 1.64 1.13 2.28 5.57 4 – I am a big fan of Maria Sharapova 3.34 1.76 0.18 -1.11 Sport (4items) 1 – First and foremost, I consider myself a tennis fan. 3.35 1.80 0.34 1.03 2 – Being a fan of tennis is very important to me. 2.65 1.54 0.83 -0.06 3 – Tennis is my favorite sport. 2.20 1.61 1.45 1.19 4 – I am a tennis fan at all le vels and tours. 2.78 1.65 0.61 -0.76 Attitude Toward Endorser-Product Congruency Expertise (6 items) 1 – Competence. 4.72 1.22 -0.74 0.38 2 – Performance over time. 4.98 1.16 -0.70 0.55 3 – Accomplishments. 4.68 1.31 -0.61 0.28 4 – Ability to perform. 5.38 1.11 -0.86 1.01 5 – Superiority. 4.71 1.28 -0.55 0.13 6 – Success. 5.36 1.12 -0.99 1.50 Trustworthiness (6 items) 1 – Sincerity. 4.41 1.17 -0.60 0.46 2 – Hard-working. 5.19 1.22 -0.88 0.63 3 – Quality. 5.28 1.07 -0.87 1.00 4 – Consistency. 4.91 1.09 -0.52 0.41 5 – Dependability. 4.77 1.17 -0.66 0.53 6 – Reliability. 4.93 1.16 -0.62 0.28 ________________________________________________________________________

PAGE 77

67 Table 3. Continued Variable M SD Skewness Kurtosis Image (6 items) 1 – Appearance. 5.49 1.06 -1.09 1.92 2 – Style. 5.54 1.04 -0.97 1.23 3 – Attractiveness. 5.76 1.07 -1.15 1.99 4 – Trendy. 5.59 1.07 -0.89 1.14 5 – Recognizability. 5.62 1.11 -1.20 2.21 6 – Distinctiveness. 5.22 1.13 -0.70 0.51 Attitude Toward the Product Emotion (7 items) 1– Is one that I would enjoy. 5.19 1.16 -1.03 1.88 2 – Is on that I would want to use. 5.01 1.25 -0.86 0.89 3 – Is exciting. 4.89 1.23 -0.60 0.53 4 – Is one that I would feel comfortable using. 5.28 1.04 -0.90 1.55 5 – Is one that would make me happy. 4.45 1.44 -0.62 0.14 6 – Would make me feel good. 4.11 1.42 -0.47 -0.22 7 – Would be fun. 5.20 1.17 -1.07 2.10 Quality (5 items) 1 – Would perform consistently well. 5.25 1.10 -1.04 1.87 2 – Is high-quality. 5.30 1.09 -0.73 1.03 3 – Is well-made. 5.18 1.04 -0.45 0.30 4 – Has an acceptable standard of quality. 5.10 1.12 -0.94 1.35 5 – Would last a long time. 4.82 1.15 -0.39 0.42 Price (4 items) 1 – Is reasonably priced. 4.29 1.13 -0.15 0.18 2 – Is a good product for the price. 4.45 1.07 -0.14 0.33 3 – Is fairly priced. 4.44 1.10 -0.35 0.41 4 – Is affordable. 4.30 1.07 -0.32 1.15 Social (4 items) 1 – Would give its owner soci al approval. 4.44 1.39 -0.46 -0.12 2 – Would make a good impression on other people. 4.60 1.29 -0.71 0.48 3 – Would help me to feel accepted by others. 3.14 1.59 0.07 -0.98 4 – Would improve the way I am perceived by others. 3.40 1.55 0.08 -0.90

PAGE 78

68 Table 3. Continued Variable M SD Skewness Kurtosis Purchase Intention 1 – Is one that I definitely will purchase. 3.60 1.50 0.05 -0.58 2 – Is one that I would consider buying. 4.74 1.35 -1.01 0.88 3 – Is one that there is a high probability that I would purchase. 3.99 1.49 -0.21 -0.73 4 – Is one that I intend to purchase. 3.58 1.46 0.04 -0.53 ______________________________________________________________________________________ Table 4. Factor Loadings for the Measurement Model Variable Pt. Est. CI (L) CI (H) SE t AVE Identification Athlete (3 items) .75 .53 1 – I follow tennis because I am a big fan Of Maria Sharapova. 0.719 0.666 0.773 0.033 22.13 2 – I identify with Maria Sharapova. 0.621 0.559 0.683 0.037 16.59 3 – I am a big fan of Maria Sharapova. 0.825 0.778 0.872 0.028 29.00 Sport (4 items) .90 .69 1 – First and foremost, I consider myself a tennis fan. 0.803 0.769 0.837 0.021 38.68 2 – Being a fan of tennis is very important to me. 0.906 0.883 0.928 0.014 66.05 3 – Tennis is my favorite sport. 0.746 0.706 0.787 0.025 30.05 4 – I am a tennis fan at all levels and tours. 0.861 0.834 0.888 0.017 51.94 Attitude Toward Endorser-Product Congruency Expertise (6 items) .84 .45 1 – Competence. 0.541 0.481 0.601 0.037 14.80 2 – Performance over time. 0.586 0.5 31 0.642 0.034 17.25 3 – Ability. 0.722 0.681 0.764 0.025 28.68 4 – Superiority. 0.781 0.747 0.816 0.021 37.45 5 – Success. 0.695 0.651 0.740 0.027 25.68 6 – Accomplishments. 0.774 0.739 0.809 0.021 36.18 Trustworthiness (6 items) .86 .49 1 – Sincerity. 0.540 0.479 0.601 0.037 14.51 2 – Hard-working. 0.625 0.572 0.678 0.032 19.36 3 – Quality. 0.758 0.720 0.796 0.023 32.60 4 – Consistency. 0.745 0.706 0.785 0.024 30.84 5 – Dependability. 0.796 0.762 0.829 0.020 39.03 6 – Reliability. 0.809 0.777 0.841 0.019 41.86 ______________________________________________________________________________________

PAGE 79

69 Table 4. Continued Variable Pt. Est. CI (L) CI (H) SE t AVE Image (6 items) .85 .50 1 – Style. 0.726 0.681 0.771 0.028 26.34 2 – Attractiveness. 0.728 0.683 0.773 0.027 26.52 3 – Trendy. 0.791 0.753 0.829 0.023 34.19 4 – Recognizability. 0.624 0.568 0.681 0.034 18.33 5 – Distinctiveness. 0.650 0.597 0.704 0.032 20.01 6 – Appearance. 0.637 0.582 0.692 0.033 19.11 Attitude Toward the Product Emotion (7 items) .89 .54 1 – Is one that I would enjoy. 0.804 0.772 0.837 0.020 40.92 2 – Is one that I would want to use. 0.795 0.761 0.828 0.020 38.97 3 – Is exciting. 0.751 0.712 0.790 0.024 31.64 4 – Is one that I would feel comfortable using. 0.692 0.646 0.738 0.028 24.84 5 – Is one that would make me happy. 0.691 0.645 0.737 0.028 24.69 6 – Is one that would make me feel good. 0.660 0.611 0.710 0.030 22.01 7 – Would be fun. 0.783 0.748 0.818 0.021 36.79 Quality (5 items) .90 .65 1 – Would perform consistently. 0.809 0.777 0.841 0.019 41.71 2 – Is high-quality. 0.824 0.794 0.854 0.018 45.23 3 – Is well-made. 0.782 0.747 0.817 0.021 36.46 4 – Has an acceptable standard of quality. 0.797 0.764 0.831 0.020 39.26 5 – Would last a long time. 0.792 0.758 0.826 0.021 38.20 Price (4 items) .90 .70 1 – Is reasonably priced. 0.772 0.734 0.809 0.023 33.72 2 – Is a good product for the price. 0.837 0.807 0.867 0.018 46.50 3 Is fairly priced. 0.894 0.871 0.917 0.014 64.26 4 – Is affordable. 0.851 0.824 0.879 0.017 50.31 Social (4 items) .83 .57 1 – Would give its owner social approval. 0.577 0.518 0.637 0.036 15.95 2 – Would make a good impression on other people. 0.596 0.539 0.654 0.035 16.99 3 – Would help me to feel accepted by others. 0.900 0.872 0.927 0.017 53.86 4 – Would improve the way I am perceived by others. 0.883 0.855 0.912 0.017 50.59

PAGE 80

70 Table 4. Continued Variable Pt. Est. CI (L) CI (H) SE t AVE Purchase Intention Purchase Intentions (4 items) .89 .68 1 – Is one that I definitely will purchase. 0.849 0.821 0.877 0.017 49.97 2 – Is one that I would consider buying. 0.681 0.633 0.729 0.029 23.32 3 – Is one that there is a high probability that I would purchase. 0.866 0.841 0.892 0.016 55.15 4 – Is one that I intent to purchase. 0.892 0.870 0.915 0.014 64.23 ________________________________________________________________________ The three Match-Up subscales (Expertise, Trustworthiness, and Image) did not evidence discriminant validity as per Forne ll and Larcker (1981). Thus, the first-order latent variables were eliminated and all items were forced to load directly on the latent variable “Match-Up” for the remainder of th e analysis. After collapsing the factors into one (Match-Up), the new AVE value was .49 and the new alpha coefficient was .93. While the balance of the factors showed ade quate discriminant va lidity, Quality was not distinct from Emotion. Based on theory, the factors were supposed to be unique constructs in the examination of Perceived Value (i.e., attitude to ward the product; e.g., Lee, Trail, Kwon, & Anderson, 2005; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). However, in this data set, Quality and Emotion were not distinct. It is suspected that a “Quality” product may result in positive emotions. Therefore, as it was not theoretically feasible to combine the factors, Emotion was dropped for the remainde r of the analysis. In addition, Emotion was a more recent addition to the PERVAL scale (Sweeney & Soutar) and had been problematic in previous studi es (Lee et al., 2005). The a ltered model contained eight factors: seven first-order la tent variables (Athlete, Spor t, Match-Up, Quality, Price, Social, and Purchase Intention) and one sec ond-order latent variab le (Perceived Value). Item correlations are found in Appendix A and factor correlations ar e found in Table 5.

PAGE 81

71 Table 5. Factor Correlations for the Measurement Model Variable Pt. Est. CI (L) CI (H) SE t Intent Social 0.599 0.534 0.657 0.038 15.96 Price 0.644 0.584 0.697 0.034 18.75 Quality 0.488 0.413 0.556 0.043 11.22 Emotion 0.622 0.560 0.678 0.036 17.28 Image 0.163 0.071 0.253 0.055 2.95 Trustworthiness 0.367 0.283 0.445 0.049 7.45 Expertise 0.355 0.270 0.435 0.050 7.05 Athlete 0.232 0.138 0.322 0.056 4.13 Sport 0.197 0.108 0.282 0.053 3.72 Social Price 0.434 0.355 0.506 0.046 9.44 Quality 0.359 0.275 0.437 0.049 7.28 Emotion 0.481 0.405 0.551 0.044 10.89 Image 0.182 0.090 0.271 0.055 3.28 Trustworthiness 0.343 0.258 0.423 0.050 6.80 Expertise 0.348 0.262 0.429 0.051 6.82 Athlete 0.185 0.089 0.278 0.058 3.22 Sport 0.099 0.008 0.188 0.055 1.81 Price Quality 0.594 0.528 0.652 0.038 15.73 Emotion 0.602 0.537 0.659 0.037 16.14 Image 0.257 0.168 0.343 0.053 4.82 Trustworthiness 0.449 0.371 0.521 0.046 9.79 Expertise 0.458 0.379 0.530 0.046 9.91 Athlete 0.184 0.089 0.276 0.057 3.22 Sport 0.178 0.089 0.264 0.053 3.34 Quality Emotion 0.930 0.904 0.949 0.014 68.59 Image 0.580 0.510 0.643 0.040 14.36 Trustworthiness 0.659 0.598 0.712 0.035 18.95 Expertise 0.678 0.618 0.731 0.034 19.77 Athlete 0.227 0.132 0.318 0.057 3.99 Sport 0.165 0.075 0.252 0.054 3.05 ________________________________________________________________________

PAGE 82

72 Table 5 Continued Variable Pt. Est. CI (L) CI (H) SE t Emotion Image 0.539 0.465 0.606 0.043 12.64 Trustworthiness 0.534 0.461 0.599 0.042 12.70 Expertise 0.602 0.533 0.662 0.039 15.38 Athlete 0.265 0.171 0.354 0.056 4.74 Sport 0.166 0.076 0.253 0.054 3.08 Image Trustworthiness 0.696 0.637 0.747 0.033 20.87 Expertise 0.812 0.763 0.851 0.027 30.60 Athlete 0.228 0.130 0.321 0.058 3.91 Sport 0.034 -0.059 0.126 0.057 0.59 Trustworthiness Expertise 1.000 0.017 Athlete 0.219 0.122 0.311 0.058 3.79 Sport 0.161 0.070 0.249 0.055 2.94 Expertise Athlete 0.279 0.182 0.369 0.057 4.89 Sport 0.186 0.094 0.274 0.055 3.39 Athlete Sport 0.639 0.570 0.699 0.039 16.23 ________________________________________________________________________ Structural Model Analysis Due to the elimination of the Emotion subscale and the highly kurtotic Athlete Identification item, the structural model consisted of 42 items. Although the original relationships among Athlete Id entification, Sport Identifi cation, Match-Up, Perceived Value, and Purchase Intention were not alte red, the structural model did vary from the measurement model in terms of the number of items analyzed and number of first-order latent variables. The structural model reveal ed adequate fit as well, with an RMSEA of .080 (CI = .077 to .083) and chi-square per de gree of freedom value of 3.55 (2873/810).

PAGE 83

73 However, not all criterion were met, with the number of residuals greater than 0.10 (234/861 = 27.18%) above the criteria of approximately 10%. In addition to model fit, sp ecific variance was examined to determine the amount of variance explained in the model. In order to determine the amount of variance that the model explained for a specific factor, specific variance (i.e., error) was subtracted from 1.0 (i.e., 1 – Z). The variance explained fo r each factor was: 7% (Match-Up), 39% (Perceived Value), and 54% (Purchase Intentio n). For path coeffici ents, see Table 6 and Figure 3. Table 6. Relationships in the Structural Model Variable Point Est. CI (Low) CI (High) SE t Athlete Sport 0.642 0.572 0.702 0.039 16.34 Match-Up 0.268 0.136 0.399 0.080 3.36 Purchase Intention 0.064 -0.012 0.141 0.047 1.39 Sport Match-Up -0.013 -0.139 0.113 0.077 0.17 Match-Up Perceived Value 0.622 0.558 0.687 0.039 15.87 Perceived Value Quality 0.769 0.716 0.822 0.032 23.82 Price 0.787 0.735 0.838 0.031 0.29 Social 0.587 0.517 0.657 0.042 13.84 Purchase Intention 0.723 0.665 0.782 0.036 20.36 ________________________________________________________________________

PAGE 84

74 Figure 3. Structural Model 1.0 IDENTIFICATION WITH SPORT IDENTIFICATION WITH ATHLETE ATTITUDE TOWARD CONGRUENCY: ENDORSER-PRODUCT ATTITUDE TOWARD PRODUCT PURCHASE INTENTION 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 .64 .27 -.01 .59 .79 .77 .72 .62 1.0 1.0 z2 z3 .41 .38 .66 z1 z4 z6 .46 .93 .06 Q UALITY SOCIAL 1.0 .61 z5 PRICE

PAGE 85

75 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Previous studies focusing on the use of e ndorsers in advertising have helped to determine the general factors (i.e., Attractiven ess, Expertise, and Tr ustworthiness) that academicians and practitioners believe play a key role in understanding the effectiveness of endorsers (e.g., Erdogan, 1999; Erdogan, Ba ker, & Tagg, 2001; Hovland, Janis, & Kelley, 1953; Hovland & Weiss, 1951; Langmeyer & Walker, 1991a; 1991b; McCracken, 1989; McGuire, 1985; Shimp, 1979; Smith, 1973; Stevens, Lathrop, & Bradish, 2003). However, there are other factor s that may influence consumer behavior in terms of the perceived congruency between an endorser and a product (i.e., effectiveness of endorsers). With the continued practice of using athlete endorsers to promote nonsport products, it was necessary to examine this phenomenon to determine its relevance and impact on consumer’s purchase intentions Previously, athlete endorser effectiveness was only examined in terms of the attractiveness and exper tise of the endorser (e.g., Boyd & Shank, 2004; Fink et al., 2004). This study was conducted to examine factors in addition to those included in traditional stud ies that may influence a consumer’s purchase intentions. Model development, guided by Attitude Theory (e.g., Fishbein, 1963; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Zimbardo & Ebbesen, 1970) and Id entity Theory (e.g., James, 1890; Mead, 1934; Stryker & Burke, 2000), was intended to include factors be yond those typically addressed in the endorser literature. First, attitude theory was used to examine a consumer’s perception of the match betw een an endorser and a product (Expertise,

PAGE 86

76 Trustworthiness, and Attr activeness/Image; e.g., Bra unstein & Zhang, 2005a, 2005b; Kahle & Homer, 1985; Kamins, 1989, 1990; McGuire, 1968, 1985; Ohanian, 1990) and the individual’s perception of the value of the product in general (Emotion, Quality, Price, and Social; Lee et al., 2005; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). As a result of the inclusion of athlete endorsers in the study, it was determined that an individual’s level of identification with both the athlete and the athl ete’s sport should be included in the model as well. Identity theory was used as the foundation for this phenomenon (Athlete Identification and Sport Identi fication; e.g., Fink, Trail, & Anderson, 2002; Kwon, Trail, & Anderson, 2005; Robinson & Trail, 2005; Robinson, Trail, & Kwon, 2004; Trail, Robinson, Dick, & Gillentine, 2003; Wann, 2002). Ultimately, a 5-factor (50 item) model was developed to examine the relationships between Athlete/Spor t Identification and Match-Up (Expertise, Trustworthiness, Im age), Athlete Identification and Purchase Intention, Match-Up and Perceived Value (Emotion, Quality, Price, Social), and Perceived Value and Purchase Intention. The proposed measurement model was tested and found to fit the data adequately. However, there was evidence of psychometric problems with some of the subscales. One item used to measure athlete identificati on (“When Maria Sharapova loses a match, it feels like a personal failure.”) was eliminated as a result of its high skewness and kurtosis coefficients. This may have been a result of th e syntax used to construct the item, as the remaining athlete identification items referred to being a fan, and this may have tried to measure something unique from the other statem ents that were much more general. After examining skewness and kurtosis coefficients, fa ctor loadings were re viewed. In general, the factor loadings were fa vorable. Discriminant validity between the dimensions was

PAGE 87

77 examined and it was determined that th ere was no discriminant validity among the Match-Up subscales (Expertise, Trustworthin ess, and Image). In addition, there was a lack of discriminant validity between two of the four Per ceived Value subscales (Emotion and Quality). The lack of discriminant validity among the Match-Up subscales contradicted previous findings (e.g. Baker & Churchill, 1977; Friedman & Friedman, 1979; Kamins, 1990; Lynch & Schuler, 1994; Till & Busler, 1990), which in dicated that these were distinct concepts and that each played a signifi cant role in the effectiveness of endorsers. Expertise and Trustworthiness may not have be en distinct because participants may have believed that endorsers that ha ve a certain level of exper tise in an area are therefore trustworthy, or vice versa. This may also stem from a number of f actors, including (a) the fact that the advertisement included an at hlete with a non-sport product or (b) a halo effect. Halo effect refers to a cognitive bi as, using an individual’s judgment of one quality to influence the assessment of other qualities (Asch, 1946). In other words, the participants may not have examined the a dvertisement closely enough to decide whether or not they believed there to be a congru ency between the endorser and the product. However, as a result of the screening questions it was clear that th ey did have previous knowledge of the athlete endorser as well as the product. Therefore, participants may have had preconceived notions regarding bot h elements of Match-Up, that is, the participants may have assumed that the a dvertisement was included in the study because there was a high level of congruency. This ma y have resulted in the slightly negatively skewed responses. This speculation cannot be validated without further analyses involving different types of endorser-product match-ups. Because of the lack of

PAGE 88

78 discriminant validity among the dimensions in Match-Up and the fact that the purpose of the study was to test the overall relationships in the model (i .e., the relation ships with the second-order latent variable Match-Up), th e items from the three first-order latent variables were allowed to load directly on Ma tch-Up as a first-order latent variable for the remainder of the analysis. Although the factor s were not distinct in the initial analysis, when the factor loadings on Match-Up as a first-order latent variable were examined there was some indication that there may be mo re than one factor, as previous researchers have stated (e.g. Baker & Churchill; Friedman & Friedman; Kamins, 1990; Lynch & Schuler; Till & Busler). Therefore, the lack of discriminant validity between the original factors may stem from a number of possibili ties, such as preconceived notions of the athlete and/or product, the wording of the ite ms, the sample, the advertisement, and the endorser. Therefore, this issu e needs further examination. Based on theory (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001), the dimensions of Quality and Emotion are not similar. However, the measur ement model showed a lack of discriminant validity between these two fact ors. After further examination, it was determined that there may be a distinct relationship between th e factors that was not previously detected. The factors may be related in that one is cognitive (Quality) and one is affective (Emotion). If, as previous researchers ha ve stated (e.g., Lavidge & Steiner, 1961), cognition precedes affect, this may account for the high correlation between the two factors. Therefore, instead of being a part of the dimensi ons that represent Perceived Value, the Emotion construct may be the aff ective component and the consequence of, or response to, the cognitive percep tion of the value of a product. Also, problems may have arisen from the way that the items were st ated. This may account for the problems that

PAGE 89

79 the PERVAL scale has had in the past (e.g., Lee et al., 2005). As previously mentioned, the two factors should be measuring differe nt constructs, and thus should not be correlated due to the content of the items. Therefore, if there is a hierarchical relationship, with Price/Quality/Social being cognitive di mensions and Emotion being an affective dimension, that might explain the high correla tion between the two factors and alleviate the problems associated with that scale. However, for the purposes of testing the proposed structural model, the Emotion subs cale was eliminated from the analysis. Social, the other factor along with Emoti on, that Sweeney and Soutar (2001) added to represent Perceived Value, had some pr oblems as well. Although the construct had an adequate AVE value and was distinct from the other factors, only two of the items loaded at the set criteria of .707 or higher (Hai r, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 2002). Upon review, this may be due to in consistent wording of the items. Some of the items asked the participant to take ownership (e.g., “would improve the way I am perceived by others”) while others did not (e.g., “would give its owner social approval”). Therefore, the wording of the questions should probably be modified for use in future studies. Another aspect of the instrument that ma y benefit from a reevaluation is Purchase Intention. Upon further examination of the fact or, the mean score of the four items was 3.91 on a 7-point Likert-type scale. Therefor e, the average response was just below neutral (towards slightly disagree). This may be due to the fact that the statements were worded very strongly. The item with the highest mean referred to a “consideration” of a purchase, whereas the rest of the items were stronger statements (i.e., “will purchase”). As a result, this may not be an adequa te measure for middle to high-end products. Marketers may intend to create an interest, not a definite purchase intention, as a

PAGE 90

80 consumer will most likely not make a purchase decision based on an advertisement, especially with only one exposure to the prom otion. Therefore, it may be beneficial to inquire into a consumer’s intention to examin e or search out middle to high-end products (e.g., digital cameras, automobile s, season tickets) as a re sult of an advertisement. Focusing on an individual’s “consideration of purchase” may provide marketers with a greater understanding of the ac tual impact of athlete endor sers on consumer’s purchase intentions, especially in a highly competitiv e market where consumers are looking for a way to differentiate among brands. The final structural model included 42 items within 5 factors: Athlete Identification, Sport Identifica tion, Match-Up, Perceived Valu e (Quality, Price, Social), and Purchase Intention. The model (Figure 3) fit adequately well, explained 54% of the variance in Purchase Intention, and examined four main relationships : Identification with both Sport and Athlete to Matc h-Up, Identification with Athl ete to Purchase Intention, Match-Up to Perceived Value, and Perceived Value to Purc hase Intention. Identification had relatively no influence on a ny aspect of the model. Prev ious investigations did not include this relationship, so it should be reexamined in fu ture studies. The relationship between Athlete Identification and Purchase Intention explai ned less than one percent of the variance in the model as well. However, th is is not reflective of previous findings regarding identificati on in sport. Previous studies ha ve found that identification does influence purchase intention (e.g., Kwon et al., 2005; Robinson & Trail, 2005; Robinson et al., 2004; Trail et al., 2003). The finding may be due to the specific athlete used in the study, the way the questions were phrased, an d/or there is no overall influence of identification with an athlete on an indi vidual’s purchase intentions regarding an

PAGE 91

81 endorsed product. Although examining identifica tion in this context is new to academia, practitioners have used a criterion simila r to identification when selecting athlete endorsers for use in campaigns (Tenser, 2004) Therefore, it woul d be beneficial to continue examining the importance of this factor in the future. The amount of variance that Sport Identification a nd Athlete Identification combined to explain in Match-Up was ex tremely low (7%). This was surprising, as previous research did find that a consumer te nds to react to his or her perception of the talents or traits of an athlet e endorser (Braunstein & Zhang, 2005a), which was part of the rationale behind this relationshi p. Athlete (Player) Id entification was one of the Points of Attachment examined by previous research ers (Fink et al., 2002; Kwon et al., 2005; Robinson & Trail, 2005; Robins on et al., 2004; Trail et al., 2003), who found that these factors did influence consumer purchase (atte ndance) intentions. Identification has not been involved in studies similar to the re search design of the current investigation. Findings of the current study i ndicated that identification w ith the sport in general may not influence a consumer’s perception of the congruency between the endorser and the product. The small amount of variance expl ained by the relationships may mean that identification is not an integral aspect of th e decision-making process, or it could be the result of a number of different factors. For example, the athlete endorser used in this study may not have elicited the same level of identification as other endorsers. It is important to use an endorser that a specific market relates to (Rein, Kotler, & Stoller, 1997; Stevens et al., 2003; Stotlar, Veltri & Viswanthan, 1998). Perhaps the endorser used in this advertisement was not appropr iate for the Generation Y market. The only

PAGE 92

82 way to determine the relevance of identifica tion in this relationshi p is through continued research. The model did explain 38% of the variance in the relationship between Match-Up and Perceived Value. While it has been said th at an individual’s att itude is not easily altered, marketing practices have been f ound to moderately influence a potential consumer’s perception of a product (MacK enzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986). Although the current findings of the current study supported this relationship, the amount of variance explained may be inflated due to similar item s being included in both scales. After further examination of the Trustworthiness subscale of the SASP – CP and the Quality subscale of the PERVAL scale, there are a number of items that may have caused the exaggeration of the importance of the relationship (e.g., Trustworthiness: quality, dependability, reliability; Quality: would perform consistently is high-quality, is well-made). Therefore, the items will need to be reexamined if the sc ales are to be used in conjunction with one another in future studies. The aforementione d alterations to the congruency and brand perception constructs may also strengthen these findings in the future. The largest amount of variance explained by the model was in the relationship between Perceived Value and Purchase Inte ntion (52%). That is the participant’s perception of the value of the product likely in fluenced his/her intentions of purchasing the product. The findings of th is relationship coincided with previous findings, as a consumer’s perception of the value of the product has been found to influence purchase intentions (e.g., Lee et al., 2005; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). The Emotion subscale, perceived as an important aspect of a c onsumer’s perception of a product (Lee et al., 2005; Sheth, Newman, & Gross, 1991; Sween ey & Soutar, 2001), was eliminated from

PAGE 93

83 the structural model. However, future studies may find that this factor plays a key role in mediating the relationship between Percei ved Value and Purchase Intention (e.g., Lavidge & Steiner, 1961; Palda, 1966; Ray, 1973). Very importantly, the model explained a large amount of variance in Pu rchase Intention (54%), which provides evidence that the factors included in the m odel were integral to the decision-making process. The model provided presented a potentia l foundation for marketers to use when evaluating the use of athlete endorsers in th e future. This initia l investigation, that included identification as a potentially influent ial factor, may provide practitioners with a basis for the selection of athlete endors ers. While academicians have not included identification (athlete and/or sport) in thei r examination of the e ffectiveness of athlete endorsers, practitioners have not ed that these factors play an important role in their selection of endorsers. Marketer s have used selection criteri on including: “is hottest new star in his/her sport,” “has been play ing or played the sport for a long time,” “plays/played for one of my favorite teams,” and “plays/played sport I follow” (Tenser, 2004). They have also examined factors such as the sport that the at hlete is involved in (sport that your target market likes) and th e individual’s level of success (success on the field and post-sports career) when making fina l selections (Tenser). While practitioners have begun to look into factors that lean toward identification, they have not truly examined it as a part of this process. Therefore, a model that further examines identification’s role in the overall decisionmaking process may help practitioners to determine if identification is integral in pos itively altering a consum er’s perception of the product, ultimately ending in a purchase intentio n. In this study, the participants were not

PAGE 94

84 highly identified with the at hlete or sport involved in the campaign, and the athlete’s appearance in the advertisement did not make an impact on the participant’s purchase intentions. If the sample was the company’s ta rget market, perhaps the athlete was not the appropriate endorser to select for their campa ign. However, if future studies show that identification does impact purchase intentions it may benefit an organization if their executives take this into consideration when designing a marketing campaign. For example, an expanded use of focus groups to determine levels of id entification (athlete and sport) and belief of product-endorser c ongruency may provide a better platform for an organization interested in selecting an e ndorser that has the best potential to reach a specific market. Because of the purpose of the study, the composition of the sample, the format of the questionnaire, the advert isement (i.e., only one athl ete and one non-sport product), and the exploratory nature of the study, the findings can only be viewed as part of the continuing development and validation process for the model. Although the model provided an adequate fit to the data, continuous improvement is necessary to obtain the fit indices that are desired. According to Baumgartner and Jackson (1999), in addition to examining the content and construct validity of an instrument, criterion and predictive validity should also be evaluated in future studies. Therefore, futu re studies with other samples representing different populations are necessary to further validate the model. When studying the influence of athlete endorsers in the future, it would be beneficial to reexamine the relationships proposed in this model. Although the sample size was adequate for the number of parameters in the model, it would be beneficial to examine the relationships using experi mental design with different types of advertisements (e.g.,

PAGE 95

85 informative, humorous), athlete endorsers (e.g., high-profile, lowprofile), and products (e.g., low cost, high cost / low-involvement, high-involvement / sport, non-sport). Using experimental design with a hypothetical product or a product that is new to the market will provide researchers with the opportunity to examine participant’s perception of the product before and after exposur e to the advertisement. It may also be beneficial to eliminate the screening questions in order to observe all individuals that may have exposure to the advertisement, and not just those that already know the endorser and/or the product. Additionally, a st udy that examines the consumer’s attitude toward the advertisement, product/brand, and at hlete in a very simple way (like/dislike) in order to observe the participant’s basic feelings regarding the effectiveness of athlete endorsers could prove useful in reevaluating the model. Pre-advertisement attitude toward the pr oduct influences both initial purchase intention and post-advertisement attitude to ward the product. However, the latter relationship could be mediat ed by congruency between th e endorser and the product. Both the initial purchase intention and the post-advertisement attitude toward the product would be related to post-advertisement purchas e intention. This was not examined in the current study. In future studies researchers should consider us ing experimental design to test attitude change as well as within a nd between group differences. Once the model has been reevaluated, a multigroup structural equa tion modeling technique could be used to examine the differences between male and fe male athlete endorsers and the differences between athlete endorsers as a result of their level of athl etic star power. This would allow for the use of a control group to determ ine if the relationship s are as influential with the advertisement as without it.

PAGE 96

86 It may also be beneficial to reexamine the model with attitude presented in a hierarchical structure (i.e., c ognition, affect, and conation; e .g., Lavidge & Steiner, 1961; Palda, 1966; Ray, 1973). As previously state d, some of the Perceived Value factors (Quality, Price, and Social) may examine cogn itive dimensions, while the fourth factor (Emotion) looks at an affective dimension. Re structuring the model in order to examine a potential hierarchical struct ure may provide a solution for the lack of discriminant validity between Emotion and Quality (see Figure 4) as well as the problems that the PERVAL scale has faced in th e past (e.g., Lee et al., 2005). In order to obtain a greater understandi ng of the impact of athlete endorsers on consumer’s intention to purchase endorsed prod ucts, future studies s hould also consider an alternative way to examine the MatchUp Hypothesis (e.g., Kahle & Homer, 1985; Kamins, 1989; Kamins, 1990). Even though the f actors were not distinct in this study, previous studies have found unique factors that they believe to be an integral aspect of the endorser concept. In addition to the reanalysis of product-endorser congruency, identification must be further explored as well. Even though the model did not explain a large amount of variance regarding the relatio nships between Identification (Athlete and Sport) and Match-Up, identification has b een proven to increase consumer purchase intentions in the past (e.g ., Kwon et al., 2005; Robinson & Trail, 2005; Robinson et al., 2004; Trail et al., 2003). While these studi es have focused on purchase intentions regarding event attendance, marketers are using a number of the same variables when selecting athlete endorsers (e.g., Tenser, 2004). With the purpose behind the use of athlete endorsers stemming from an interest in increasing brand recognition, consumer’s identification with the athlete or sport may prove to be an integral part of the relationship

PAGE 97

87 leading to purchase intentions. Although th is was not the case in this study, the importance of identification must be further examined to determine its relevance in the selection of endorsers. With the continued use of athlete endorsers in advertisements and promotional tools, additional research regard ing both Match-Up and Identification will be beneficial to practitioners in the selection of appropriate endorser s for their products. In summary, the model in this analysis pr ovided an initial examination into some of the factors that may influence the use of athlete endorsers. Alt hough alterations to the model are recommended, the findings do provide a framework (based on identity theory and attitude theory) for additional analyses Both practitioners and academicians may adapt and adopt the model to assess the infl uence of these factors on consumer purchase intentions regarding endorsed products. Mailed, telephone, in-person, or online quantitative and qualitative questionnaires may be used to further assess these relationships and their effec tiveness with various types of endorsers and products. This may provide further evidence for or against the use of athlete endorsers to influence consumer purchase intentions.

PAGE 98

88 Figure 4. Recommended Model for Future Research 1.0 IDENTIFICATION WITH SPORT IDENTIFICATION WITH ATHLETE COGNITION: ENDORSER-PRODUCT CONGRUENCY COGNITION: PRODUCT CONSIDERATION OF PURCHASE 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 * * * * 1.0 1.0 z2 z3 * *z1 z4 z7 * * Q UALITY SOCIAL 1.0 z6 z5 AFFECT: PRODUCT PRICE*

PAGE 99

APPENDIX A ITEM CORRELATIONS FOR THE MEASUREMENT MODEL

PAGE 100

90 A1 S1 A2 S2 S3 A4 S4 E1 T1 I1 E2 T2 I2 E3 T3 I 3 ATHLETE1 1.000 SPORT1 0.377 1.000 ATHLETE2 0.421 0.398 1.000 SPORT2 0.399 0.728 0.475 1.000 SPORT3 0.290 0.574 0.308 0.680 1.000 ATHLETE4 0.613 0.455 0.499 0.463 0.306 1.000 SPORT4 0.329 0.694 0.411 0.773 0.666 0.445 1.000 EXPERT1 0.184 0.152 0.126 0.192 0.147 0.258 0.161 1.000 TRUST1 0.239 0.077 0.105 0.142 0.087 0.199 0.108 0.521 1.0 00 IMAGE1 0.094 -0.011 -0.011 -0.012 -0.078 0.168 -0.048 0.402 0.362 1 .000 EXPERT2 0.048 0.034 0.024 0.119 0.055 0.106 0.038 0.310 0.334 0.416 1.000 TRUST2 0.117 0.093 0.140 0.171 0.061 0.149 0.064 0.347 0.421 0.419 0.609 1.000 IMAGE2 0.114 0.030 0.040 0.014 0.064 0.125 -0.047 0.284 0.233 0.655 0.375 0.420 1.000 EXPERT3 0.159 0.129 0.114 0.174 0.170 0.125 0.113 0.409 0.391 0.399 0.469 0.499 0.350 1.000 TRUST3 0.148 0.099 0.057 0.096 0.032 0.113 0.076 0.416 0.342 0. 452 0.446 0.455 0.471 0.671 1.000 IMAGE3 0.147 0.010 0.034 -0.016 -0.088 0.149 -0.017 0.269 0.234 0.621 0.361 0.414 0.593 0.446 0.572 1.000 EXPERT4 0.100 0.062 0.095 0.057 0.030 0.148 0.072 0.364 0.364 0. 455 0.416 0.483 0.429 0.552 0.660 0.572 TRUST4 0.085 0.014 0.018 0.102 0.064 0.050 0.044 0.369 0.405 0.328 0.467 0.491 0.302 0.548 0.553 0.330 IMAGE4 0.006 0.019 0.041 0.016 -0.043 0.065 0.015 0.279 0.173 0.385 0.230 0.251 0.403 0.288 0.355 0.541 EXPERT5 0.177 0.056 0.110 0.135 0.148 0.181 0.101 0.370 0.344 0.351 0.386 0.384 0.281 0.560 0.524 0.368 TRUST5 0.102 0.028 0.057 0.150 0.119 0.111 0.105 0.385 0.415 0.314 0.405 0.443 0.266 0.531 0.583 0.370 IMAGE5 0.135 0.109 0.139 0.141 0.032 0.242 0.056 0.316 0.189 0.377 0.251 0.269 0.442 0.341 0.393 0.461 EXPERT6 0.187 0.135 0.157 0.182 0.093 0.205 0.097 0.425 0.420 0.452 0.395 0.503 0.421 0.565 0.533 0.496 TRUST6 0.206 0.126 0.119 0.155 0.117 0.178 0.089 0.412 0.439 0.347 0.433 0.411 0.361 0.528 0.585 0.367 IMAGE6 0.183 0.172 0.098 0.171 0.120 0.166 0.116 0.332 0.286 0.351 0.269 0.326 0.446 0.392 0.426 0.429 EMOTION1 0.138 0.183 0.057 0.112 0.063 0.154 0.053 0.303 0.337 0.335 0.378 0.416 0.359 0.402 0.405 0.331 QUALITY1 0.092 0.126 0.109 0.091 0.044 0.143 0.019 0.329 0.365 0.339 0.451 0.499 0.395 0.398 0.460 0.349 PRICE1 0.102 0.058 0.130 0.063 0.066 0.084 -0.006 0.106 0. 229 0.170 0.318 0.312 0.224 0.355 0.279 0.180 SOCIAL1 0.067 -0.003 0.097 0.061 0.027 0.041 0.002 0.210 0.259 0.174 0.295 0.307 0.219 0.287 0.211 0.251 INTENT1 0.157 0.115 0.183 0.193 0.207 0.088 0.067 0.130 0.244 0.094 0.242 0.200 0.123 0.289 0.177 0.078 EMOTION2 0.155 0.169 0.086 -0.028 0.086 0.179 0.099 0.218 0.288 0.213 0.295 0.305 0.266 0.240 0.224 0.251 QUALITY2 0.123 0.146 0.120 -0.038 0.042 0.153 0.055 0.231 0.351 0.376 0.368 0.426 0.375 0.363 0.423 0.416 EMOTION3 0.171 0.099 0.140 -0.006 0.035 0.150 0.034 0.237 0.342 0.335 0.299 0.388 0.295 0.323 0.303 0.377 PRICE2 0.072 0.120 0.142 0.043 0.157 0.134 0.105 0.237 0. 248 0.139 0.277 0.289 0.196 0.387 0.327 0.182 SOCIAL2 0.127 0.079 0.135 0.048 0.068 0.142 0.042 0.275 0.315 0.220 0.222 0.278 0.208 0.281 0.211 0.231 INTENT2 0.142 0.156 0.143 0.007 0.116 0.180 0.099 0.205 0.247 0.120 0.209 0.296 0.199 0.313 0.303 0.198 EMOTION4 0.116 0.133 0.068 -0.085 0.044 0.202 0.031 0.269 0.218 0.257 0.221 0.284 0.285 0.259 0.358 0.245 QUALITY3 0.101 0.129 0.045 -0.043 0.048 0.152 0.052 0.247 0.282 0 .233 0.299 0.325 0.292 0.308 0.375 0.324 PRICE3 0.071 0.104 0.153 0.167 0.150 0.124 0.074 0.169 0.2 85 0.135 0.267 0.261 0.136 0.301 0.244 0.169 SOCIAL3 0.223 0.031 0.080 0.089 0.136 0.077 0.020 0.168 0.250 0.068 0.175 0.152 0.050 0.226 0.084 0.092 EMOTION5 0.181 0.131 0.085 0.146 0.087 0.138 0.061 0.218 0.287 0.166 0.262 0.264 0.193 0.295 0.211 0.226 KEY : A = Athlete; S = Sport; E = Expertise; T = Trustworthiness; I = Image; EM = Emotion; Q = Quality; P = Price; S = Social; PI = Purchase Intention

PAGE 101

91 A1 S1 A2 S2 S3 A4 S4 E1 T1 I1 E2 T2 I2 E3 T3 I3 INTENT3 0.147 0.144 0.208 0.203 0.189 0.172 0.151 0.092 0.252 0.075 0.183 0.197 0.096 0.251 0.174 0.092 EMOTION6 0.178 0.147 0.143 0.220 0.154 0.217 0.116 0.206 0.280 0.149 0.262 0.256 0.157 0.312 0.171 0.196 QUALITY4 0.137 0.142 0.131 0.177 0.100 0.207 0.137 0.261 0.331 0.258 0.298 0.339 0.249 0.309 0.376 0.350 PRICE4 0.078 0.111 0.181 0.216 0.197 0.152 0.132 0.197 0. 239 0.085 0.250 0.256 0.121 0.292 0.247 0.140 SOCIAL4 0.184 0.032 0.080 0.117 0.132 0.102 0.052 0.086 0.211 0.067 0.166 0.156 0.019 0.187 0.028 0.077 INTENT4 0.160 0.105 0.176 0.168 0.134 0.119 0.089 0.096 0.242 0.033 0.200 0.159 0.020 0.202 0.110 0.017 QUALITY5 0.111 0.153 0.124 0.189 0.100 0.161 0.145 0.280 0.368 0.262 0.366 0.408 0.235 0.391 0.388 0.324 EMOTION7 0.142 0.124 0.051 0.120 -0.009 0.189 0.059 0.238 0.283 0.291 0.374 0.346 0.265 0.295 0.315 0.371 KEY : A = Athlete; S = Sport; E = Expertise; T = Trustworthiness; I = Image; EM = Emotion; Q = Quality; P = Price; S = Social; PI = Purchase Intention

PAGE 102

92 E4 T4 I4 E5 T5 I5 E6 T6 I6 EM1 Q1 P1 S1 PI1 EM2 Q2 E3 EXPERT4 1.000 TRUST4 0.655 1.000 IMAGE4 0.468 0.366 1.000 EXPERT5 0.518 0.468 0.305 1.000 TRUST5 0.580 0.600 0.270 0.684 1.000 IMAGE5 0.421 0.285 0.462 0.394 0.389 1.000 EXPERT6 0.625 0.494 0.366 0.577 0.585 0.582 1.000 TRUST6 0.616 0.642 0.313 0.571 0.729 0.444 0.647 1.000 IMAGE6 0.470 0.394 0.455 0.427 0.418 0.554 0.568 0.559 1.000 EMOTION1 0.376 0.264 0.257 0.284 0.289 0.370 0.437 0.383 0.330 1.000 QUALITY1 0.434 0.331 0.263 0.372 0. 396 0.405 0.484 0.469 0.360 0.800 1.000 PRICE1 0.257 0.260 0.106 0.225 0.259 0.184 0.288 0.342 0.149 0.467 0.461 1.000 SOCIAL1 0.277 0.270 0.311 0.320 0.309 0.206 0.335 0.328 0.273 0.395 0.412 0.344 1.000 INTENT1 0.172 0.221 0.036 0.234 0.267 0.164 0.269 0.317 0.179 0.356 0.311 0.512 0.381 1.000 EMOTION2 0.282 0.146 0.201 0.244 0.247 0.320 0.374 0.281 0.291 0.675 0.609 0.386 0.417 0.426 1.00 0 QUALITY2 0.429 0.319 0.288 0.397 0.404 0.364 0.474 0.435 0.363 0.639 0.690 0.307 0.445 0.349 0.649 1.000 EMOTION3 0.342 0.281 0.322 0.354 0.363 0.351 0.422 0.369 0.366 0.588 0.558 0.360 0.511 0.419 0.617 0.680 1.000 PRICE2 0.269 0.217 0.121 0.330 0.364 0.290 0.368 0.380 0.213 0.524 0.528 0.674 0.340 0.449 0.460 0.423 0.415 SOCIAL2 0.265 0.192 0.238 0.278 0.262 0.260 0.361 0.333 0.225 0.449 0.421 0.316 0.543 0.368 0.460 0.480 0.541 INTENT2 0.346 0.256 0.199 0.242 0.299 0.314 0.375 0.370 0.268 0.550 0.475 0.458 0.283 0.526 0.589 0.475 0.450 EMOTION4 0.334 0.246 0.246 0.240 0.248 0.368 0.395 0.371 0.356 0.624 0.556 0.335 0.300 0.291 0.545 0.567 0.426 QUALITY3 0.357 0.269 0.226 0.352 0.374 0.345 0.423 0.425 0. 369 0.575 0.602 0.314 0.358 0.230 0.53 2 0.660 0.489 PRICE3 0.236 0.241 0.072 0.282 0.304 0.179 0.332 0.297 0.160 0.430 0.384 0.689 0.243 0.470 0.361 0.321 0.328 SOCIAL3 0.159 0.233 0.126 0.299 0.238 0.094 0.217 0.310 0.170 0.184 0.180 0.313 0.505 0.441 0.230 0.210 0.347 EMOTION5 0.274 0.272 0.221 0.286 0.302 0.305 0.384 0.364 0.300 0.468 0.415 0.324 0.471 0.470 0.533 0.454 0.522 INTENT3 0.223 0.202 0.075 0.271 0.287 0.244 0.282 0.257 0.210 0.360 0.328 0.413 0.292 0.719 0.452 0.369 0.421 EMOTION6 0.297 0.272 0.195 0.315 0.285 0.245 0.369 0.343 0.272 0.410 0.373 0.304 0.440 0.479 0.511 0.445 0.482 QUALITY4 0.390 0.293 0. 262 0.340 0.381 0.407 0.471 0.419 0.370 0.595 0.605 0.282 0.343 0.256 0.542 0.640 0.519 PRICE4 0.211 0.237 0.058 0.235 0.309 0.205 0.291 0.287 0.168 0.384 0.345 0.633 0.221 0.447 0.356 0.283 0.290 SOCIAL4 0.119 0.204 0.090 0.240 0.230 0.046 0.202 0.254 0.142 0.130 0.164 0.278 0.460 0.469 0.252 0.224 0.355 INTENT4 0.124 0.218 -0.020 0.159 0.212 0.104 0.206 0.264 0.116 0.284 0.241 0.427 0.270 0.787 0.367 0.289 0.355 QUALITY5 0.416 0.390 0.250 0.351 0. 427 0.353 0.495 0.491 0.380 0.562 0.578 0.337 0.327 0.307 0.515 0.623 0.504 EMOTION7 0.310 0.214 0.305 0.262 0.286 0.359 0.425 0.329 0.287 0.682 0.604 0.264 0.330 0.259 0.647 0.600 0.632 KEY : A = Athlete; S = Sport; E = Expertise; T = Trustworthiness; I = Image; EM = Emotion; Q = Quality; P = Price; S = Social; PI = Purchase Intention

PAGE 103

93P2 S2 PI2 EM4 Q3 P3 S3 EM5 PI3 EM6 Q4 P4 S4 PI4 Q5 EM7 PRICE2 1.000 SOCIAL2 0.440 1.000 INTENT2 0.516 0.523 1.000 EMOTION4 0.419 0.368 0.575 1.000 QUALITY3 0.503 0.412 0.480 0.643 1.000 PRICE3 0.736 0.449 0.546 0.381 0.437 1.000 SOCIAL3 0.293 0.507 0.300 0.122 0.195 0.348 1.000 EMOTION5 0.418 0.527 0.524 0.430 0.423 0.405 0.537 1.000 INTENT3 0.458 0.381 0.621 0.347 0.332 0.487 0.404 0.525 1.000 EMOTION6 0.416 0.541 0.538 0.377 0.396 0.417 0.581 0.779 0.596 1.000 QUALITY4 0.450 0.484 0.520 0.611 0.664 0.429 0.222 0.470 0.415 0.472 1.000 PRICE4 0.696 0.393 0.523 0.366 0.376 0.783 0.261 0.342 0.496 0.390 0.467 1.000 SOCIAL4 0.270 0.478 0.312 0.078 0.191 0.322 0.815 0.501 0.466 0.584 0.210 0.300 1.000 INTENT4 0.387 0.385 0.559 0.276 0.222 0.466 0.445 0.504 0.781 0.545 0.310 0.494 0.542 1.000 QUALITY5 0.505 0.437 0.520 0. 536 0.673 0.451 0.209 0.466 0.410 0.483 0.692 0.476 0.259 0.362 1.000 EMOTION7 0.420 0.438 0.486 0.524 0.534 0.349 0.143 0.529 0.332 0.442 0.618 0.368 0.188 0.289 0.656 1.000 KEY : A = Athlete; S = Sport; E = Expertise; T = Trustworthiness; I = Image; EM = Emotion; Q = Quality; P = Price; S = Social; PI = Purchase Intention

PAGE 104

94 APPENDIX B. SPORT MARKETING SURVEY PURPOSE: This survey is for a student marketing r esearch project. The collected information will be solely used for research, and your name w ill not be identified. Please read all directions carefully and answer all items provided. There ar e no right or wrong answers. Your participation is voluntary, and your sincere and hon est response is greatly appreciated. Maria Sharapova/Canon PowerShot digital camera 1. I know who this individual is by reading her name. Yes No 2. I know what this product is by reading the product’s name. Yes No -If you answered NO to #1 or #2, you are finished with the survey. Thank you. --If you answered YES to both #1 and #2, please continue. -* The purpose of this section is to determine YOUR LEVEL OF IDENTIFICATION with tennis and Maria Sharapova. Please rate the manner in which you agree with the following statements using the scale provided: 1. I follow tennis because I am a big fan of M.S. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. 1st and foremost, I consider myself a tennis fan. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. I identify with Maria Sharapova. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. Being a fan of tennis is very important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. When M.S. loses, it feels like a personal failure. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Tennis is my favorite sport. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. I am a big fan of Maria Sharapova. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. I am a tennis fan at all levels and tours. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

PAGE 105

95 Now that you have seen the advertisement, the purpose of this section is to determine YOUR PERCEPTION OF THE MATCH-UP of th e characteristics between the Canon PowerShot digital camera and Maria Shara pova. Please rate the manner in which you agree with the following statements using the scale provided. When completing this section, please preface each of the following items with the statement: I believe that the endorser and the product match up well in terms of… 1. competence. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. sincerity. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. appearance. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4. performance over time. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5. hard-working. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. style. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7. accomplishments. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8. quality. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9. attractiveness. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. ability to perform. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11. consistency. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12. trendy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 13. superiority. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 14. dependability. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 15. recognizability. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. success. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 17. reliability. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 18. distinctiveness. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Please turn over to complete the questionnaire. Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

PAGE 106

96 After viewing this advertisement, please identify YOUR PERCEIVED VALUE of the Canon PowerShot digital camera by answering the following questions. Please rate the manner in which you agree with the following statements using the scale provided. When completing this section, please preface each of the following items with the statement: After viewing this advertisement, I believe that this product… 19. is one that I would enjoy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 20. would perform consistently well. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21. is reasonably priced. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 22. would give its owner social approval. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 23. is one that I definitely will purchase. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 24. is on that I would want to use. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 25. is high-quality. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 26. is exciting. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 27. is a good product for the price. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 28. would make a good impression on other people. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 29. is one that I would consider buying. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 30. is one that I would feel comf ortable using. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 31. is well-made. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 32. is fairly priced. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 33. would help me to feel accepted by others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 34. is one that would make me happy. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 35. is one that there is a high prob that I would purchase. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 36. would make me feel good. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 37. has an acceptable standard of quality. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 38. is affordable. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 39. would improve the way I am perceived by others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 40. is one that I intend to purchase. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 41. would last a long time. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 42. would be fun. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DEMOGRAPHICS: Please provide the following de mographic information by circling the answer that best describes you. 43. Gender: a. Male b. Female 44. Age: a. 18-19 b. 20-21 c. 22-23 d. 24 or older 45. Ethnicity: a. African-American/Black b. American Indian/Alaskan Native c. Asian d. Hawaiian/Pacific Islander e. Hispanic/Non-White f. White/Hispanic g. White/Non-Hispanic h. other 46. Current student status: a. Freshm an b. Sophomore c. Junior d. Senior e. Graduate Student Thank you for your help with this study! If you have any questions regarding this survey, please contact Jessica Braunstein, Department of Tourism, Recreatio n, and Sport Management, University of Florida: jbraunstein@hhp.ufl.edu Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree

PAGE 107

97 LIST OF REFERENCES Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimens ions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34 347-357. Agrawal, J., & Kamakura, W. A. (1995). Th e economic worth of celebrity endorsers: An event study analysis. Journal of Marketing, 59 (3), 56-62. Aronson, E. A., & Worchel, P. (1966). Simila rity versus liking as determinants of interpersonal attraction. Psychonomic Science, 5 (4), 157-158. Austin, J., Siguaw, J., & Mattila (2003). An assessment of the Aaker brand personality framework: Method, measurement and conceptual issues. Journal of Strategic Marketing. 11 (2), 77-92. Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 41 258-290. Azoulay, A., & Kapferer, J. N. (2003). Do bra nd personality scales really measure brand personality? Journal of Brand Management, 11 (2), 143-155. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the ev aluation of structur al equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16 74-94. Baker, M. J., & Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1977) The impact of physica lly attractive models on advertising evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 14 538-555. Baumgartner, T. A., Jackson, A. S., Mahar, M. T., & Rowe, D. A. (2003). Measurement and evaluation in physical education and exercise science (7th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Bennett, G., Henson, R., & Zhang, J. J. (2003) Generation y’s perceptions of the action sports industry segment. Journal of Sport Management, 17 95-115. Berseheid, E. (1966). Opinion change and communicator-communicat ee similarity and dissimilarity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 670-680. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables New York: Wiley. Boyd, T. C., & Shank, M. D. (2004). Athletes as product endorsers: The effect of gender and product relatedness. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 13 82-93.

PAGE 108

98 Braunstein, J. R., & Zhang, J. J. (2005a). Di mensions of athletic star power associated with generation y sport consumption. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 6 242-67. Braunstein, J. R., & Zhang, J. J. (2005b). Dimensions of athletic star power: The consumer perspective. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 14 A81. Brooks, C. M., & Harris, K. K. (1998). Cele brity athlete endorsement: An overview of the key theoretical issues. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 7 (2), 34-44. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alte rnative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods and Research, 21 230-258. Burke, P. J. (1991). Identity processes and social stress. American Sociological Review, 56 836-849. Caballero, M. J., Lumpkin, J. R., & Madden, C. S. (1989). Using physical attractiveness as an advertising tool: An empiri cal test of the attraction phenomenon. Journal of Advertising Research, 29 16-22. Caballero, M. J., & Solomon, P. J. (1984). Effects of model at tractiveness on sales response. Journal of Advertising, 13 (1), 17-23. Chalip, L. (1996). Celebrity or hero? Towa rd a conceptual framework for athlete promotion. Advancing management of Aust ralian and New Zealand sport: conference proceedings of the 2nd annual sport management association of Australia and New Zealand conference (pp. 22-23). Lismore, Australia: Southern Cross University. Cialdini, R. B., Borden, R. J., Thorne, A., Wa lker, R. M. R., Freeman, S. & Sloan, L. R. (1976). Basking in reflected glory: Three (football) field studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34 366-375. Cornwell, T. B., Roy, D. P., & Steinar d, E. A. II. (2001). Exploring managers’ perceptions of the impact of sponsorship on brand equity. Journal of Advertising, 30 (2), 41-51. Cravens, D. W., Holland, C. W., Lamb, C. W., Jr., & Moncrieff, W. C. III. (1988). Marketing's role in prod uct and service quality. Industrial Marketing Management, 17 285-304. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Erdogan, B. Z. (1999). Celebrity endorsement: A literature review. Journal of Marketing Management, 15 291-314.

PAGE 109

99 Erdogan, B. Z., Baker, M. J., & Tagg, S. (2001). Selecting celebrity endorsers: The practitioner’s perspective. Journal of Advertising Research, 41 (3), 39-48. Fink, J. S., Cunningham, G. B., & Kensicki, L. J. (2004). Utilizing athletes as endorsers to sell women’s sport: Attrac tiveness versus expertise. Journal of Sport Management, 18 350-367. Fink, J. S., Trail, G. T., & Anderson, D. F. (2002). An examination of team identification: Which motives are most salient to its existence? International Sports Journal, 6 195-207. Fishbein, M. (1963). An investig ation of the relationships betw een beliefs about an object and the attitude toward the object. Human Relations, 16 (3), 233-240. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Ev aluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 39-50. Friedman, H. H., & Friedman, L. (1979) Endorser effectiveness by product type. Journal of Advertising Research, 19 (5), 63-71. Funk, D. C., Mahony, D. F., & Ridinger, L. L. (2002) Characterizing consumer motivation as individual di fference factors: Augmenting the sport interest index (SII) to explain level of spectator support. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11 33-43. Funk, D. C., & Pastore, D. L. (2000). Equating attitudes and allegiance: The usefulness of selected attitudinal information in segmen ting loyalty to profe ssional sports teams. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 9 175-184. Funk, D. C., Ridinger, L. L., & Moorman, A. M. (2003). Understanding consumer support: Extending the sport interest i nventory (SII) to examine individual differences among women's prof essional sport consumers. Sport Management Review, 6 1-31. Goldsmith, R. E., Lafferty, B. A., & Newell, S. (2000). The relative impact of corporate credibility and celebrity credibility on consumer reaction to advertisements and brands. Journal of Advertising, 29 (3), 43-54. Govers, P. C. M., & Schoormans, J. P. L. (2005). Product personality and its influence on consumer preference. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22 (4), 189-197. Greenstein, T. N., & Marcum, J. P. (1981). F actors affecting attend ance of major league baseball: I. Team performance. Review of Sport & Leisure, 6 (2), 21-34.

PAGE 110

100 Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (2002). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hansen, H., & Gauthier, R. (1989). Factors affecting attendance at professional sport events. Journal of Sport Management, 3 15-32. Heath, T. B., McCarthy, M. S., & Mothersb augh, D. L. (1994). Spokesperson fame and vividness effects in the contex t of issue-relevant thinking: The moderating role of competitive setting. Journal of Consumer Research, 20 520-534. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of in terpersonal relations New York: John Wiley & Sons. Holton, L. (2000). The surfer in the family. American Demographics, 22 (4), 34-36. Horrow, R. (2002, July 17). Sneaking around: Iverson's troubles might affect celebrity endorsements. CBS SportsLine.Com Retrieved July 1, 2003, from http://images.sportsline.com/u/partners/a ol/index.html?http://cbs.sportsline.com/b/p age/pressbox/0,1328,5526645,00.html Hovland, C. I., Janis, L. I., & Kelley, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion New Haven, CT: Yale University. Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). Th e influence of sour ce credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15 635-650. Howard, A. (1979). More than just a passing fancy. Advertising Age, 60 S-2. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff crite ria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6 1-55. James, D. (2002). Athlete or competition? How to choose. Marketing News, 36 (15), 4. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology New York: Holt. Javalgi, R. G., Traylor, M. B., Gross, A. C., & Lampman, E. (1994). Awareness of sponsorship and corporate image. Journal of Advertising, 23 (4), 37-58. Jones, M. J., & Schumann, D. W. (2000). The strategic use of celebr ity athlete endorsers in Sports Illustrated: An historic perspective. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 9 65-76. Kahle, L. R., & Homer, P. M. (1985). Physi cal attractiveness of celebrity endorser: A social adaptation perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 11 954-961. Kamins, M. A. (1989). Celebrity and non-celebr ity advertising in a two-sided context. Journal of Advertising Research, 29 (3), 34-42.

PAGE 111

101 Kamins, M. A. (1990). An investigation into the match-up-hypothesis in celebrity advertising: When beauty be only skin deep. Journal of Advertising, 19 (1), 4-13. Kelman, H. C. (1961). Pro cesses of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25 57-78. King, B. (2005, June 6). Athletes as brands. Street and Smith’s SportsBusiness Journal, 8 (7) 19-22. Kanungo, R. N., & Pang, S. (1973). Effects of human models on perceived product quality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57 (2), 172-178. Krebs, D., & Schmidt, P. (Eds). (1993). New directions in attitude measurement Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter. Kwon, H. H., Trail, G. T., & Anderson, D. (in press). Points of attachment (identification) and licensed merchandi se consumption among American college students. International Journal of Sport Management Lam, E. T. C., Zhang, J. J., & Jensen, B. E. (2005). Service quality assessment scale (SQAS): An instrument for evaluating se rvice quality of health-fitness clubs. Measurement in Physical Educ ation and Exercise Science, 9 79-111. Langmeyer, L., & Walker, M. (1991a). A first step to identify the meaning in celebrity endorsers. In R. R. Holman, & M. R. Solomon (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (pp. 364-371). Provo, UT: Associat ion for Consumer Research. Langmeyer, L., & Walker, M. (1991b). Asse ssing the affects of celebrity endorsers: Preliminary findings. In Holman, R. R. (Ed.), American academy of advertising proceedings (pp.32-42). New York: D'Arcy Masius Benton and Bowles. Lavidge, R. C., & Steiner, G. A. (1961) A model for predictive measurements of advertising effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 25 (6), 59-62. Lee, D., Trail, G. T., Kwon, H. H., & Anderson, D. F. (2005). Licensed sport merchandise consumption: Psychometri c properties of the MVS, PRS, and PERVAL scales. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 14 A68. Lutz, R. J. (1975). Changing brand attitudes through modification of cognitive structure. Journal of Consumer Research, 1 49-59. Lutz, R. J. (1985). Affective and cognitive an tecedents of attitude toward the ad: A conceptual framework (pp. 45-63). In L. F. Alwitt and A. A. Mitchell (Eds.). Psychological processes and advertising effe cts: Theory, research and application Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Lynch, J., & Schuler, D. (1994). The matc hup effect of spokesperson and product congruency: A schema theory interpretation. Psychology and Marketing, 11 417445.

PAGE 112

102 MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Suga wara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size fo r covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1 130–149. Mahony, D. F., Madrigal, R., & Howard, D. (2000). Using the psychological commitment to teach (PCT) scale to se gment sport consumers based on loyalty. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 9 15-25. Marketingpower.com. (2006). Dictionary of marketing terms: Consumer behavior Retrieved February 20, 2006, from http://www.marketingpower.com/mgdictionary.php?SearchFor=consumer+behavior&Searched=1 Marlatt, A. (1999). Yen for e-tail. Internet World, 5 (26), 39-40. McCracken, G. (1989). Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundation of the endorsement process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16 310-321. McDonald, C. (1991). Sponsorship and the image of the sponsor. European Journal of Marketing, 25 (11), 31-38. McGuire, W. J. (1968). The nature of attitude s and attitude change. In G. Lindzey, & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., pp. 136-314). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and attit ude change. In G. Lindzey, & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 233-346). New York: Random House. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society Chicago: University of Chicago. Merriam-Webster. (2004). The Merriam-Webster dictionary Springfield, MA: MerriamWebster. Miciak, A. R., & Shanklin, W. L. (1994). Choosing celebrity endorsers. Marketing Management, 3 (3), 50-59. Miller, C. H. (2002). Beer and television: Perfectly tuned in Retrieved August 21, 2004 from http://www.allaboutbeer.com/features/226beerandtv.html Milne, G. R., & McDonald, M. A. (1999) Sport marketing: Managing the exchange process London: Jones and Bartlett. Monroe, K. B. (1990). Pricing: Making profitable decisions (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

PAGE 113

103 Mowen, J. C., Brown, S., & Schulman, M. (1979). Theoretical and empirical extensions of endorser effectiveness. Supplemental proceedings of the American marketing association marketing educators’ conference (pp. 258-262), Chicago: American Marketing Association. Norusis, M. J. (2002). SPSS 11.0 guide to data analysis Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Nunnally, J. C. & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Ohanian, R. (1990). Construction and valida tion of a scale to measure celebrity endorsers’ perceived expertise, trus tworthiness, and attractiveness. Journal of Advertising, 19 (3), 39-52. Ohanian, R. (1991). The impact of celebr ity spokesperson’s perceived image on consumer’s intention to purchase. Journal of Advertising Research, 31 (1), 46-52. Oliver, R. L. (1997). Satisfaction: A behavioral perspective on the consumer New York: McGraw-Hill. Palda, K. S. (1966). The hypothesis of a hi erarchy of effects: A partial evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 3 13–24. Peetz, T. B., Parks, J. B., & Spencer, N. E. (2004). Sport heroes as sport product endorser: The role of gender in the tr ansfer of meaning process for selected undergraduate students. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 13 141-150. Peterson, R. A., & Kerin, R. A. (1977). Th e female role in advertisements: Some experimental evidence. Journal of Marketing, 41 59-63. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peri pheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10 135-146. Pitts, B. G., & Stotlar, D. K. (2002). Fundamentals of sport marketing (2nd ed). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology. Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations New York: MacMillan. Ray, M. (1973). Marketing communication and the hierarchy of effects. In Clarke (Ed.) New models for communication research (pp. 146-175), Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Rein, I., Kotler, P., & Stoller, M. (1997). High visibility: The making and marketing of professionals into celebrities Chicago: NTC Business.

PAGE 114

104 Reiss, S. (2000). Who am I? The 16 basic desires that motivate our actions and define our personalities New York: Berkeley. Richins, M. L. (2004). The material va lues scale: Measurement properties and development of a short form. Journal of Consumer Research, 31 209-219. Robinson, M. J., & Trail, G. T. (2005). Mo tives and points of attachment: Differences between college football, men’s basketball, and wome n’s basketball spectators. Journal of Sport Management, 19 58-80. Robinson, M. J., Trail, G. T., & Kwon, H. H. (2004). Motives and points of attachment for golfers on three tours. Sport Management Review, 7 161-185. Schaaf, P. (2004). Sports, Inc.: 100 years of sports business Amherst, NY: Prometheus. Schofield, J. A. (1983). Performance and attendance at professional team sports. Journal of Sport Behavior, 6 196-206. Seligman, B. (2005). Do PGA tour pl ayer endorsements really sell? Street and Smith’s SportsBusiness Journal, 7 (45), 10. Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991). Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values. Journal of Business Research, 22 159-170. Shimp, T. A. (1979). Social-psychological (m is)representation in te levision advertising. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 13 28-40. Simons, H. W., Berkowitz, N. N., & Moyer, R.J. (1970). Similar ity, credibility, and attitude change: A re view and a theory. Psychological Bulletin, 73 1–15. Smith, R. C. (1973). Source cr edibility context effects. Speech Monographs, 40 303-309. Steiger, J. H. (1989). EZPATH: A supplementary modul e for SYSTAT and SYGRAPH Evanston, IL: SYSTAT. Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Stevens, J. A., Lathrop, A. H., & Bradish, C. L. (2003). Who is your hero? Implications for athlete endorsement strategies. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12 103-110. Stotlar, D. K., Veltri, F. R., & Viswanth an, R. (1998). Recognition of athlete-endorsed sport products. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 7 48-55. Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism: A social structural version Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin Cummings. Stryker, S., & Burke, P. J. (2000). The past present and future of identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63 284-297.

PAGE 115

105 Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Cons umer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77 203-220. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row. Tenser, J. (2004). Endorser quali ties count more than ever. Advertising Age, 75 (45), S2S4. Thomas, J. R., & Nelson, J. K. (2001). Research methods in physical activity (4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Till, B. D. (2000). Managing athlete endorse r image: The effect of endorsed product. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 10 35-42. Till, B. D., & Busler, M. (2000). The matc h-up hypothesis: Physical attractiveness, expertise, and the role of fit on brand attitude, purchase intent and brand beliefs. Journal of Advertising, 29 (3), 1-14. Till, B. D., & Shimp, T. (1998). Endorsers in advertising: the case of negative celebrity information. Journal of Advertising, 27 (1), 67-82. Trail, G. T., Anderson, D. F., & Fink, J. S. (2005). Consumer satisfaction and identity theory: A model of sport spectator conative loyalty. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 14 98-111. Trail, G. T., Robinson, M. J., Dick, R., & G illentine, A. (2003). Motives and points of attachment: Fans versus spectator s in intercollegiate athletics. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12 217-227. Tripp, C., Jensen, T. D., & Carlson, L. (1994). The effects of multiple product endorsements by celebrities on consum ers’ attitudes and intentions. Journal of Consumer Research, 20 535-547. Wann, D. L. (1997). Sport psychology Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Wann, D. L. (2002). Preliminary validation of a measure for assessi ng identification as a sport fan: The sport fandom questionnaire. International Journal of Sport Management, 3 103-115. Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1990). Di e-hard and fair-weather fans: Effects of identification on BIRGing and CORFing tendencies. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 14 103-117. Wann, D. L., Melnick, M. J., Russell, G. W., & Pease, D. G. (2001). Sports fans: The psychology and social impact of sp ectators. New York: Routledge.

PAGE 116

106 Wansink, B., & Ray, M. L. (2000). Estima ting an advertisement’s impact on one’s consumption of a brand. Journal of Advertising Research, 40 (6), 106-113. Weil, D. (2005). Retired athletes still have endorsement juice. FOXSports.com – NBA Retrieved September 19, 2005, from http://msn.foxsports.com/nba/story/4832994 Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality a nd value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 51 2-22. Zhang, J. J., Lam, E. T. C., & Connaught on, D. P. (2003). General market demand variables associated with pr ofessional sport consumption. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 5 (1), 33-55. Zhang, J. J., Pease, D.G., Hui, S. C., & Mi chaud, T. J. (1995). Variables affecting the spectator decision to attend NBA game. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 4 (4), 29-39. Zimbardo, P., & Ebbesen, E. (1970). Influencing attitudes and changing behavior Stanford: Addison-Wesley.

PAGE 117

107 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH After graduating from Manalapan High Sc hool (Manalapan, NJ) in June of 1996, I enrolled at the University of Florida. I obtained my Bachelor of Science (with honors), Master of Exercise and Sport Sciences, a nd Doctor of Philosophy from the College of Health and Human Performance. I earned my bachelor’s degree (leisure services management) in August of 2000 and entered my master’s program (sport management) upon graduation. After finishing th e master’s program in sport management, I entered the Ph.D. program in the fall of 2002. I earned my Ph.D. in health and human performance (sport management) with a minor in marketing in the summer of 2006.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110218_AAAAAE INGEST_TIME 2011-02-18T05:50:17Z PACKAGE UFE0014561_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 2017 DFID F20110218_AAABZL ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH braunstein_j_Page_044.txt GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
23978de82cfef9b70f013126faf915a4
SHA-1
f49e863f732e8f4392c53a45bca292e273535b15
35282 F20110218_AAABYX braunstein_j_Page_109.QC.jpg
8f5b1fc172f08f2ae467726e3d27bd8d
4f9328e005f46df2a1aa537640da94c0b09d484c
8423998 F20110218_AAACFG braunstein_j_Page_082.tif
27c9e887fa2afffc8f1d5ca2eb97c073
b939f1c52a8d5629b61f3259a665dbc45f97c0df
F20110218_AAACER braunstein_j_Page_065.tif
433b7b3cc7bdb67eabb7d1f8aa8c1e3c
1ea6891d6b38db55f2c2bcfc1fb202918a7726fa
51166 F20110218_AAABZM braunstein_j_Page_037.pro
43cd0c18c73596abb6dc05566e2bd196
b5415eef0001fc4ea3a847b1aae7fbd7c3f527c6
32605 F20110218_AAABYY braunstein_j_Page_057.QC.jpg
16536d30bc94ce8bb8b6bacb685b8978
d8b0069ee8d01e19497fd15d4911d2bbae9a8104
F20110218_AAACFH braunstein_j_Page_083.tif
98e78f1dd961e17d937f43b4e510d807
7e9c7e705c4055744680ac4d5be92bd65e93df0a
F20110218_AAACES braunstein_j_Page_066.tif
6f5dc478a997d798553cf52169707e63
56c29df402524722708535cb4046022755c30668
51468 F20110218_AAABZN braunstein_j_Page_012.pro
78c36701cbfcb31c36c00fcb67a87578
5a3b6e2a8cc7e51c8e7a4b474a10e23ba4a532c7
1217 F20110218_AAABYZ braunstein_j_Page_103.txt
57e6471e3aee95fcac5fdca8da7b7442
2b1d98e1f502baa190f49e52aa58a708c0b803f7
8425398 F20110218_AAACFI braunstein_j_Page_084.tif
9f4e8618aae3eec27cb13a1bbb5f95f7
a17896d9b1fcd4e2043720827840843334f2bccd
F20110218_AAACET braunstein_j_Page_067.tif
fdd0c7e2cce19632bd91d948ecebe935
93a8eb4e39f6f043efe30a623010cfd901330cac
34363 F20110218_AAABZO braunstein_j_Page_034.QC.jpg
d0c980457eebbee5676920af57360180
434a35718ea1f754d284270f3e5cb16d162d852c
F20110218_AAACFJ braunstein_j_Page_085.tif
0d7b1d31470ffcdd5bf0b660ba2888e4
46d5daa0e0232c963d62915b7cf550213b5a581a
F20110218_AAACEU braunstein_j_Page_068.tif
c447f8e6116c5312348371431b6cdfba
404293f6a9116d8fb43ab9ca6be9c26f1b981111
1925 F20110218_AAABZP braunstein_j_Page_062.txt
672e5c6704fe3ae1dc7bbaa66c87f1a6
e88e3b04311c7a453eec759536c0897e21a76da4
F20110218_AAACFK braunstein_j_Page_086.tif
85a9de2e0b9522af6df4bb3e6a52bf66
95f1a4de48cc5ff1f2bf8c33769052708aca476c
F20110218_AAACEV braunstein_j_Page_069.tif
b08d182348dcf8d2f5e4604129b77429
b3bc963f852d52caa6084828db1b6697e6570144
F20110218_AAABZQ braunstein_j_Page_117.tif
5291f10f5e3b358bad67856256fc1640
eab630850acd5df3c5da48b29d1283d46d213c65
F20110218_AAACFL braunstein_j_Page_087.tif
c8ccd2b14e7d96201fb45914c72a6761
47e8f4d671ef38e0de577bad6872c3cace91d98f
F20110218_AAACEW braunstein_j_Page_070.tif
cd6794c60a5420f38b0bf051422c5d3f
221914fc37869a447cc28d9b8205383eb1bcb601
2423 F20110218_AAABZR braunstein_j_Page_110.txt
c2f044bcc62026d03d980b29c11215b9
1f3e06f8fc3759fd4eb06c1a097280469a4a64b0
F20110218_AAACGA braunstein_j_Page_107.tif
8b06e6420787247c65c6fa87ebead00d
de6a376e1a6548e6c659e73f0dedf9aac71c6ca9
F20110218_AAACFM braunstein_j_Page_089.tif
82a936c39a73e8209523c650d7b21554
74f34ff016873d240dc4ed658a34528056bb425c
F20110218_AAACEX braunstein_j_Page_071.tif
d511c38bd28852c1ba955c613702b7cc
a60a11a8b667efe4a14a023c171791d6466a719a
1959 F20110218_AAABZS braunstein_j_Page_016.txt
18b8ce227f7df6aa58fc041a4b684253
cd32d4434f5b7afa9397ec0c2cb6d376b75633c6
F20110218_AAACGB braunstein_j_Page_108.tif
0fa8287d3a01b27e1c276f097469c906
88f29831feb2abf711b7379778c6aea62099d47b
F20110218_AAACFN braunstein_j_Page_090.tif
2ccc03519951173a2b24a1a2b9a99ad1
f53610aa4c1f7cfe935c25b9a601e4caa3657d14
F20110218_AAACEY braunstein_j_Page_072.tif
0ca9cfdfedd937f5535cd4362834bbab
f35bdae6fd95c2086eae7a3cd559ca3547640e7d
1051924 F20110218_AAABZT braunstein_j_Page_068.jp2
fde374ace7adc5114b07f43de0ab95df
614f29af0b421b8e35074e2a97a11259a68ecb18
F20110218_AAACGC braunstein_j_Page_109.tif
4b8f30eea58069baed087ece56b111ab
7c366fff208a9492f787569f6b82fa7ca93f19ea
F20110218_AAACFO braunstein_j_Page_091.tif
71df493f50fe8706b299dd2a5ef6b08b
2cf9b887652a18df85f28f7d59c6e6e0bbc83f54
F20110218_AAACEZ braunstein_j_Page_074.tif
d824b9f5019f28b287ca0a0984e949a2
07660ff51b8d0069efae708446b1375a27963953
79848 F20110218_AAABZU braunstein_j_Page_077.jpg
c0d57125d7e1bda40b0bf540487dee4b
a91462d91160eb541de9ed3ec0896bf7b47b82d6
F20110218_AAACGD braunstein_j_Page_110.tif
bbb61b943956dba34e9695d3d5153090
86442f5d305ce5f688d8d22273bcf3f7fabe6273
F20110218_AAACFP braunstein_j_Page_092.tif
4b8264601fe362c157d57d343370ba1b
6ae8fd96eb8c26716542aaf3a726688bf8ffabc1
F20110218_AAACGE braunstein_j_Page_111.tif
892e96abe995d74a4d02f9a64f5c280b
2be77d25caf910c9bc76e0cb88d9e6f61caa5055
F20110218_AAACFQ braunstein_j_Page_093.tif
156af626fd2a4e9f551204d3afe927bf
373098bc3de23e7bc0d82122586fdc6744d48167
30738 F20110218_AAABZV braunstein_j_Page_112.QC.jpg
7b727b74fb624f3c7f0059d0ed6b9cc3
a2d8315d8cd8a77d48cc9184302b6f9e2ae9aa4a
F20110218_AAACGF braunstein_j_Page_113.tif
400a8cf901447b20279b9e7ea82b2b29
1fbf5bcfa4e6c6d538169990dc4ed86740c0bcbf
106925 F20110218_AAABZW braunstein_j_Page_030.jpg
1f9e59dc10bd7e234d49df218b6f36c9
e29b68d40c666ba24def605939cd4f81c26fc642
F20110218_AAACGG braunstein_j_Page_114.tif
dc429c2a996afd8cfaddfc6d7a2b635e
a9fb5661540af90108757a3a833848fdc07d0dd2
F20110218_AAACFR braunstein_j_Page_094.tif
ed304426438c88180df40db166dd6ef6
661c796d8d473dcf8e834baa06dcfc7234cd42d8
F20110218_AAABZX braunstein_j_Page_035.tif
5f2d0818da08b25d9f2e8fd591fee6b5
e2c5aa9066fadd37b0c3b97533f83066818d5504
F20110218_AAACGH braunstein_j_Page_115.tif
9656130306d9be157dc74921d8718086
040b02423a8397f8fdb6d2f44bdffbc7e1c1c914
F20110218_AAACFS braunstein_j_Page_095.tif
872d7634c0c94bf19686ae27bbe302e5
ce61192239a0e99514da99eed17dd2cc43ad8a3b
1984 F20110218_AAABZY braunstein_j_Page_031.txt
64afdae1f74b2ffca15773751837cb33
88b37156d9a34d9f4f18b5649d306e1edd2e15f3
F20110218_AAACGI braunstein_j_Page_116.tif
2d3523ab3aa7d139ce10c9e481d35223
dc8d333a9e2d5b1254d4abe500701193bb0b7be3
F20110218_AAACFT braunstein_j_Page_098.tif
e7f1b84051c122984b24c5477a778bad
fede523d827fcc51a1730bb6f747ab089c1dfdf7
8447 F20110218_AAABZZ braunstein_j_Page_019thm.jpg
590b0c83f6e021c226e9d179f0c68b77
5dc125cd5df0653b1587510682ae19d8b8edc7ea
469 F20110218_AAACGJ braunstein_j_Page_001.txt
8d00fdf024bc1215c24cd25bda41594b
10cb53169c4124c228950c7a007f0fb0d08130c4
F20110218_AAACFU braunstein_j_Page_099.tif
03297ed97e94f53b105b50d9243c4144
8e40cae2e30ba4f85d3515cab4b9a2958f7fa70a
127 F20110218_AAACGK braunstein_j_Page_002.txt
248d64159dc2cb5970fd495df15ec1ce
f8bd8f9bdc6db6ed06fd9f58192db61e0d2fbc4e
F20110218_AAACFV braunstein_j_Page_101.tif
c0e1ec0ca6a0c2cb10546024d19f3252
7509e51dce32d8c6103959550870e26a8aa3acf3
105 F20110218_AAACGL braunstein_j_Page_003.txt
fa2642e2170652f65b804ffb93f46bdd
198ba3fd499d44d52219d8ddd1975b96510518d4
F20110218_AAACFW braunstein_j_Page_102.tif
be46011f910e4931189853a451f2856f
07b2901811129b6a041d7fadcd299447a12a85bd
2622 F20110218_AAACGM braunstein_j_Page_005.txt
3171d84f8acc7d8c91b6f1e6dbb232ce
c101d9d4b34971d432cde5cf752af9c186dc90f7
F20110218_AAACFX braunstein_j_Page_103.tif
2a4d437e0ef3df552475d396a97803e9
2d58bf0d10ff604fb40f7affed84715451e7bd99
258 F20110218_AAACHA braunstein_j_Page_022.txt
b3156227e3377749bb37d136207c9b0e
5ffae165a0b155bda8796a0ccb4e1e632b059c2e
1721 F20110218_AAACGN braunstein_j_Page_006.txt
b470a29c6cde251834990e7f78486236
0b0827abf4e5b55ef19b4d4e931ed87784784c90
F20110218_AAACFY braunstein_j_Page_104.tif
948479c3f7aa246230722760fc56d2cc
3f0949e4bd247f31ebe5eaaa419714031d203f82
2183 F20110218_AAACHB braunstein_j_Page_023.txt
1cdf8361c067b794e41b563f8d7328de
8e7d32727dae31bb23f185d618953d6e48eeb2a4
714 F20110218_AAACGO braunstein_j_Page_007.txt
17c0c761613e2a24540edaf62d08397d
78cd75f7f79c52b2b55d140d971c8d5c686e1165
F20110218_AAACFZ braunstein_j_Page_106.tif
6929b54cddb5181f2186cd9ffb7711d9
57c97d20d4c8e887a5fd19810534f18b3f10624a
2044 F20110218_AAACHC braunstein_j_Page_024.txt
6f5b9557a7a51dd7f62226582680922c
fb11ad492b51a193b1bebb0e3420102bd01e8b19
547 F20110218_AAACGP braunstein_j_Page_008.txt
f3967bc0ff9acaaef84688244db0f318
4920f022eb498e611e01f6a8a9acfb1f672c3de9
1883 F20110218_AAACHD braunstein_j_Page_025.txt
604fdf04e037a27267c4d0c80d0579de
65f7bc52384c65fab3c20bf693f5809a3a296ec6
1744 F20110218_AAACGQ braunstein_j_Page_009.txt
a8d7cdc4bbb8d142c59b8da8102f87c7
02e64138ac6bceaf7a61b985ae54c35355af3e59
1536 F20110218_AAACHE braunstein_j_Page_026.txt
9d6d79c2134d2dae84c5bd63867742d0
5ead1fc1c360e41c195f07b30bcf73dae96f9577
1451 F20110218_AAACGR braunstein_j_Page_010.txt
dc801053fd57c101c667ca8bde97fcba
6c2da96a8934029b509318c1f6a000d0c36c37ef
1305 F20110218_AAACHF braunstein_j_Page_027.txt
acc3d01175e1f400106824c7e4cd3389
d15e89a5ba25853f8c08a93b57be027d8232ac1c
1862 F20110218_AAACHG braunstein_j_Page_028.txt
76a18b18d6015258255ffe90446c733f
d52f869a9fbff791de706249439d2227b7c467ac
1998 F20110218_AAACHH braunstein_j_Page_029.txt
2899b41354fb0b0b99f0ec0f87bbf13c
8a8a191a19b0173e8c19485cb7daf89bfcaaa1a3
1844 F20110218_AAACGS braunstein_j_Page_011.txt
d98d0e9b5966e0af32868c6d962c007a
e40f5129344dae3a7703a1878f064f550810ae6f
2051 F20110218_AAACHI braunstein_j_Page_030.txt
b1be49b81a8bad9079db3d38795bda39
afdeef30773407b78e8dd2d080abc0473da01a85
2024 F20110218_AAACGT braunstein_j_Page_012.txt
54c37907fa29235a3e964101da78abeb
ed9ac247cfb2f321eaf601eeb447082630904d7d
1988 F20110218_AAACHJ braunstein_j_Page_032.txt
ce18cc21a27440dc5d441891a49d5121
4d63dac9101b70a0e6857820b22e1c6dd48ee86a
2055 F20110218_AAACGU braunstein_j_Page_013.txt
d84a705d0689936bc184d448333ec5a8
179c5d7c2d945b727853e0923cf174eb0cae5020
2040 F20110218_AAACHK braunstein_j_Page_033.txt
490b3a816cb8b1cc2623561930d48f7c
6ddb0d0963a2c04f12fe8feed88a986c35499adc
2084 F20110218_AAACGV braunstein_j_Page_014.txt
8c9c2feeda3c71cf50a6cd71c8c44d79
38973644bbb793731257910199c614cff5eb2c60
2037 F20110218_AAACHL braunstein_j_Page_034.txt
73090a3896e9c4e477e043aac342fcb7
9592747f4a163b56bec6c380704057ed1d2878f4
1922 F20110218_AAACGW braunstein_j_Page_015.txt
2586aca1a5642236bb842d67dfc8a555
e5651dc8dfc086563f36f59da631aacd181a9034
1896 F20110218_AAACIA braunstein_j_Page_051.txt
f8619ed0cd77f9258d768725ec8de332
81a96b6c7aa9a5153c269f47e01da4c7912e4185
2078 F20110218_AAACHM braunstein_j_Page_035.txt
226faf5e8138a78202660f4e77100ecc
2e005e3c0c6e1f9f386441918a00ede38d6cca11
2015 F20110218_AAACGX braunstein_j_Page_019.txt
4378cf72c8c9d669b31eb5822ff064ad
69aa1aaf797ee453f08dac76c2a9cc47250af3c0
2010 F20110218_AAACIB braunstein_j_Page_052.txt
120bf751ae97e70b7eeea2da7184111d
a7bd8ddac010ae5d8953e40d9c476ee7c8998987
1939 F20110218_AAACHN braunstein_j_Page_036.txt
dac30a605037c73ee92e52ee09133a18
b25ebaf2165d4c66afad159e7ccb226ca58882c2
2066 F20110218_AAACGY braunstein_j_Page_020.txt
2ab3ae60f11f4d77a066cd83f41e6bbe
c246c423c88959f320e1e1b8212febd4d674caf9
F20110218_AAACIC braunstein_j_Page_053.txt
845d9e9d9fa31651c4b3236810439d89
6b90d6573d5cc6f167cc083a4c4a176d109f8d07
2009 F20110218_AAACHO braunstein_j_Page_037.txt
1db0b1cd0ad6147f7231270a054405d8
6f96a303029cea98413a651094774883ad1f2e0f
1772 F20110218_AAACGZ braunstein_j_Page_021.txt
9a58aee04147fd3591319626637de95a
6013acd940a4ee4bc9dd279b180a9af8ee1bb42d
1983 F20110218_AAACID braunstein_j_Page_054.txt
e49211190e24aa991d9a4031ead94ad4
760460b9e37547d0e1baa9b336002b0da08301f5
1690 F20110218_AAACHP braunstein_j_Page_038.txt
768713e16edcfe36a290aeb8590f6b15
b34744f388c666174acfa9a9b0a2d405b56e05f9
1957 F20110218_AAACIE braunstein_j_Page_055.txt
fba13d4fabd6c500f18d99b2e39cda31
498d2fb87d37c14affd4243e7aff81d493b7106d
1910 F20110218_AAACHQ braunstein_j_Page_039.txt
afcfe9c7d18f286d036c240d73e8d9fc
32103b590916ef1710a3f77b4a852821b11d2af8
2011 F20110218_AAACIF braunstein_j_Page_056.txt
6cc7662ccb49d2d2cc42e08b2f693444
f63c3d9c4c0347824655dd8c5cc1ff239e3771eb
2023 F20110218_AAACHR braunstein_j_Page_040.txt
c8dcb6f7586ca1bd8003a0defb000304
4ea877eb1e9193d0d249bb5eca658c4386f3a09a
F20110218_AAACIG braunstein_j_Page_057.txt
75b97b6c4777be13b7d2f72d399d04f8
8e651405ab74b559ffbe54a5345b19744407e8be
1930 F20110218_AAACHS braunstein_j_Page_041.txt
4e3caee06f23ccf7059ccfe443079703
54e9f1371a8ed7e16f7357caca36159f0ef64f97
2033 F20110218_AAACIH braunstein_j_Page_059.txt
8657906d0407cc75dfbf7d03ba48be88
a3c9f12236a76b5afac4dee1ee553f6e47639de1
1979 F20110218_AAACII braunstein_j_Page_061.txt
3f48cb918dc2d7c593f2f5f0b7e6d813
48a126dd9490af5cc267bf8863082c704e2aea3a
1899 F20110218_AAACHT braunstein_j_Page_043.txt
9d6a38d1ddc069b63805a301df48abc8
598cb4f6fd5853fcb223e31b65876bd9adb0069e
1338 F20110218_AAACIJ braunstein_j_Page_063.txt
561b0913b55aead499789886f4d19460
3d886a5e7722e987a4e4bbb26a3a388b0894bd3e
2042 F20110218_AAACHU braunstein_j_Page_045.txt
ecd322b308812a625411b58ab4503728
9fce96acdc31bf9af5b592893d45a371baf1b8f9
1522 F20110218_AAACIK braunstein_j_Page_064.txt
d5f40c274b76df2df2346f199986531b
54bbd1d4accd15d842a2a3eef0a8d3ebd76b2eb5
1980 F20110218_AAACHV braunstein_j_Page_046.txt
827f072798e106e2fdc88fd461168cb4
2faa992080afac025d694a31c763b39663a2c602
1856 F20110218_AAACIL braunstein_j_Page_065.txt
7a661e0a385a6a311da22c40de545b3e
8ef14451e480a8e5aa53f72837c99afbd5e32198
F20110218_AAACHW braunstein_j_Page_047.txt
2569a359b0bafdcc580215bc1b67cf86
47485393c5409c0b392ec7205474b14de4af8ed5
2116 F20110218_AAACIM braunstein_j_Page_066.txt
67235c87e6fdd9af98e7a97b6ffbe882
df58a9b7c76979736f76d857d455bb85310c780c
2090 F20110218_AAACHX braunstein_j_Page_048.txt
a59d036116d63fb92ba542a3afba2347
773bdd870689c00f6ccc06b0d06a01a73bba99be
1323 F20110218_AAACJA braunstein_j_Page_081.txt
c9c31b22d1fbbad2ae3abd2df78ded74
5965fe9fb99beace0206b37ca02e169ab978fd4b
2030 F20110218_AAACIN braunstein_j_Page_068.txt
686adc7fab3c824f7e10449b82b5f96b
40357ac4e31e25580a35a09907f4681d7a249e45
2062 F20110218_AAACHY braunstein_j_Page_049.txt
a6f47849cc7b01782c679092542913d1
0450d05e48960d57f6d3a3cb96cde154ba7b8c55
1551 F20110218_AAACJB braunstein_j_Page_082.txt
4c9705a90db856a836da70461f41180f
602a01305afda4d6d75beb8ccdffbbe12a6596b4
F20110218_AAACIO braunstein_j_Page_069.txt
9cc95e34436674f81d87e6188130e7b5
f5db464a28a5b323f28980b47224ba04f228ee04
F20110218_AAACHZ braunstein_j_Page_050.txt
de9f5da82686c7dd120adb2c77286bd0
8a23fb1167702661b260c3412bc51c63d74daea4
1163 F20110218_AAACJC braunstein_j_Page_083.txt
4458276287e5c5357fd42f0777ebf834
ea4d465adc8b29f8409862b60162afcb17a31f72
F20110218_AAACIP braunstein_j_Page_070.txt
da34df3c0c744621d6725864733ce7ec
688fac66ab57665e473adeeb5461a5700500121f
109 F20110218_AAACJD braunstein_j_Page_084.txt
71903a95a57088f7495992882bef81a0
8d7110b801bc443ee378f79ee7d9365e7b141541
1588 F20110218_AAACIQ braunstein_j_Page_071.txt
777cb747b24c9b2a47175f58e55bdcd0
c53b2e9b60f1f04153d0953e6d047fba26fc77fc
1814 F20110218_AAACJE braunstein_j_Page_085.txt
3a5f728e7c2ffc1f5d0353e769b2dd51
67a5e417268a61dcf6c0bd86ac98df4ef146e8c1
1556 F20110218_AAACIR braunstein_j_Page_072.txt
ef44297c0cf87bc78475f326bf795ab8
e16e360bb093c7c245f1ab61d52a123ca85f4dab
2016 F20110218_AAACJF braunstein_j_Page_086.txt
9e9ec53dae9e65dc208ae0d6946c52b6
5650aa0caadd87cd6aee8708988dec717aeb6703
2060 F20110218_AAACIS braunstein_j_Page_073.txt
9369cab9871a485c149594ece452b027
f6b2f5c07f58196f6d90e0edf8dd4079f610dc8b
F20110218_AAACJG braunstein_j_Page_087.txt
f5ab62b7044c209d979757c9be2eccd8
0f829cb31f2c906e25f5ffcaa19144700a587d8c
1418 F20110218_AAACIT braunstein_j_Page_074.txt
422e58a3f03c98c6e028d4089430814b
af4e808e965c38c242f1f3c8a958765bcc58441d
2054 F20110218_AAACJH braunstein_j_Page_088.txt
37c965d97d4c17228e783108af702913
9b82c925d66813862420152140c0bf271d40298f
2067 F20110218_AAACJI braunstein_j_Page_089.txt
7dcbd3098dc5c26a07530e27bd1e0e18
737d5ba195953fea11a65a5c6d28a7fee62c9f88
1713 F20110218_AAACIU braunstein_j_Page_075.txt
ba7dfea92b4f22e5588f04d913d11530
7155e39860a1b305c2df11c2d08aab9e908caae0
2032 F20110218_AAACJJ braunstein_j_Page_090.txt
db8b35972c84e8b3bf48b8fd72d37541
789cf6202da0da7feeba31dd41b7542a6bcbfc6e
1501 F20110218_AAACIV braunstein_j_Page_076.txt
4ea4a376fda0f822698b5c9697bc8ebd
14ef4c1c590ca7cc68c073e9719c2f8853160bc9
1970 F20110218_AAACJK braunstein_j_Page_091.txt
35f6b0679883fdabad67b9af5b1c1bdd
1aece340c1f6b13469f9eab2f66fff5f92ab8449
1754 F20110218_AAACIW braunstein_j_Page_077.txt
ff06e4819de3cb315f30452af3042a7a
ab1170ddd26b7cb365efd23e48d4a0aa75d1cc89
F20110218_AAACJL braunstein_j_Page_092.txt
8c57ac4b356a62c42c043933c0b5df17
81231d6c5605a0a8baf84bdf21ab20d250b6e43f
F20110218_AAACIX braunstein_j_Page_078.txt
316049020db1f322721a4dd4fcbc324f
9725af89a5da3056cbfbde26af693de9b72de637
2094 F20110218_AAACKA braunstein_j_Page_112.txt
702192f812e4d99e7cae1215a802971b
df60fea578c378b0f042b18d48f8e944a9fb9876
2006 F20110218_AAACJM braunstein_j_Page_093.txt
efbf91b5428c9c7f6649c34f9230c6cc
b64562f1bb35af52132eed5613f842c93aa6dd22
2095 F20110218_AAACIY braunstein_j_Page_079.txt
dbf4284410abed8d727c5282b690ebd6
3b3f6cff0981bd9016fb3954614ef35e518e507d
2303 F20110218_AAACKB braunstein_j_Page_113.txt
61dceee5d0080b56d10fff8154c04967
8a7f541e3e46afad19d4453250ed090330ed49f8
2008 F20110218_AAACJN braunstein_j_Page_095.txt
00d0881eb264970d40962f40a5a5169e
e070f043d0bb3a04d47897ece22511224aea2255
F20110218_AAACIZ braunstein_j_Page_080.txt
ddcc176a9ec5a888890a0300e065abff
3ce6a971b65dc15dda2b31e4b9716aee1018da01
2458 F20110218_AAACKC braunstein_j_Page_114.txt
c33b96aa46b6375aed6857c88fb155ed
47d11250c7f93056f81d9f73f196f834d7773107
F20110218_AAACJO braunstein_j_Page_096.txt
0d06eefb38117abcd9d750681bc771b0
844eb332943a2a545a53bd5af24c2eae12fabc5a
1028 F20110218_AAACKD braunstein_j_Page_116.txt
902f9312ce73cd31d580571ba05445ba
66b4bfb1d05e1860c036154baf9727c153299814
126 F20110218_AAACJP braunstein_j_Page_098.txt
7cf10319dec7a01036686ff892da5d11
599a7ef100dadd9f42efa4a466685bf5d4af84f7
761 F20110218_AAACKE braunstein_j_Page_117.txt
cf970b648764dd94356aacbb52db26d4
004219f1312ae44c5f1f6d4036e5630b3abde24a
98 F20110218_AAACJQ braunstein_j_Page_099.txt
2405521409f3dcfe65b01808d717d557
fe6446e519bb39303dd95108f827388c9782132f
9208 F20110218_AAACKF braunstein_j_Page_001.pro
e518b6d31a22cae54bc44f878be26fab
1cbff5226046913dff68a023e2a93e1a22105117
4279 F20110218_AAACJR braunstein_j_Page_100.txt
9ba6db0f6f122a0a781c8bda977dcaa5
2386f48fa491ebbb1fb809002c04c5e11c4b11e1
1328 F20110218_AAACKG braunstein_j_Page_003.pro
38b0deb5883d80344f1680c54be6f844
a02fc3af75cbbab5c135871babf6ee478624df4e
1089 F20110218_AAACJS braunstein_j_Page_101.txt
f5c7926343f83f8ac3bd98860b21fbb5
5582f610c9d97ef03700e127e1bdc9f35d3ceb14
22305 F20110218_AAACKH braunstein_j_Page_004.pro
e51a5070c48e00c72dcaadb79ab4e56b
9d1bc807af3190dbced2b18bc0ee6b6bd5c6dadf
3428 F20110218_AAACJT braunstein_j_Page_102.txt
278a90bcc01ae2f213eb3ee560515bac
853d53e30b88ebc0a25de187be25556b30a96cab
41238 F20110218_AAACKI braunstein_j_Page_006.pro
08c455e7812934e806640625fdd703bf
d7dbc8cd30e7580c8b1be04a64cc05037da60406
1727 F20110218_AAACJU braunstein_j_Page_104.txt
ed5840d3d933dcd6f6d5d1c6b2f50be4
49a42354f51a20ee18494fd1b6ce5e9663b88ccd
15819 F20110218_AAACKJ braunstein_j_Page_007.pro
268288ec091ac044dd6465ba41930d33
83363410e4e60c392f7844d8dcc89a4d87dede7c
11909 F20110218_AAACKK braunstein_j_Page_008.pro
4d0e517d860edc133dd6d0abfe44f758
938dd391781adf963749c5608e5520320e0f3057
1176 F20110218_AAACJV braunstein_j_Page_105.txt
c31195efc9b025789a150c63a991f8e3
7d89028d3671ce796c766d9f2bb453fbad57c22d
38969 F20110218_AAACKL braunstein_j_Page_009.pro
7c7ddc9aac677fbda91bc9769b77b0ac
0dc0e01a35ac6911fa9087c3fed57f8301381dbe
F20110218_AAACJW braunstein_j_Page_107.txt
1d63e68da0f8b75ff44b06982328fb54
b6542ca36d22aacf6761496f15758f1997fa599e
50750 F20110218_AAACLA braunstein_j_Page_029.pro
2467c9c23a25ed3ecb2947baa27781c8
c576b36a1430dc42e74bbe5f5cc09392f6ab692b
44072 F20110218_AAACKM braunstein_j_Page_011.pro
2c60965706cc636474fc9b0d8b363268
3093982760e369f511959e3cbedfb5b3a70497a5
2353 F20110218_AAACJX braunstein_j_Page_108.txt
4fdfba00b69b3a05290e01a7a999ee21
ee933e3c9f4563bbf9e5c0fa0fa89b7fc0156ebd
52312 F20110218_AAACLB braunstein_j_Page_030.pro
3e4dee4c719073c6e2030cf635486abc
a848a528a9b43563bef8c67d41d3856415c48b16
51571 F20110218_AAACKN braunstein_j_Page_013.pro
8b5605064fe8a116a05d3716270fd95c
6cb22720476f0c7e369f8ddb6578598839ba2c33
2569 F20110218_AAACJY braunstein_j_Page_109.txt
8f4f0f8eac4eef778b49e2f74588576c
38d2e06686dc751fe19e5fee2dd793092c03887f
50259 F20110218_AAACLC braunstein_j_Page_031.pro
8ea1cd05793a17e12a7b3a93eb2da0e9
5f68d377bed83ff1e393fc1098098c776cd519f0
53243 F20110218_AAACKO braunstein_j_Page_014.pro
45aa63475761474797b154fc0bf0cb16
c1e3d628e382d37f0cbcfaf6d458b782bc29c8ef
2592 F20110218_AAACJZ braunstein_j_Page_111.txt
20a8794a69eccb9af63e0d54fcfd648f
8245789f17275597046b408247746bc4378fce56
50310 F20110218_AAACLD braunstein_j_Page_032.pro
060c72402d21fb931166a16e31cbc833
2f48a679651573fb57f185acc7ac8a5e317814de
49886 F20110218_AAACKP braunstein_j_Page_016.pro
5ac4f41df9bf9b1cdfc82ec51f96d57e
f2a20a845762fe47eec5803603880b4ed16e8c08
51942 F20110218_AAACLE braunstein_j_Page_033.pro
e021dec16003d0d7c883a1c6fa6dc500
e7cc844f72915467ae6573859dc42b5dbfe51dd4
50956 F20110218_AAACKQ braunstein_j_Page_017.pro
faf996c36a94f5e403f6376068cc7828
3a59d743878a3becb984ca980b95af0628636aa6
50982 F20110218_AAACLF braunstein_j_Page_034.pro
1a1e4d1dc4106d27fa06d5b9eee6c064
43ae3e7b0614e6b1de071bee29164e3557b73400
49225 F20110218_AAACKR braunstein_j_Page_018.pro
a784d71027f75e1313b1669b3d0a59f4
52c60645859b31dae2e5dd74459e261f131e526c
49236 F20110218_AAACLG braunstein_j_Page_036.pro
46b434f7ddf25e57dbca1430a3061853
f882131eff47eb341a70b9ae7b4b2edcf9111517
51226 F20110218_AAACKS braunstein_j_Page_019.pro
410323fbd4af14aa8d21a420269bef14
c19c022fda6cb9abacd7392de112776f6b22df1a
42359 F20110218_AAACLH braunstein_j_Page_038.pro
a7b1835adf523e19744cc17df6701b64
bd0ebebe574efa3e302569abcfee34f7bb0c7322
52843 F20110218_AAACKT braunstein_j_Page_020.pro
5b0e157c3b7b71e77f9ccfac9fa7301a
4ea96545c139050b65a2a1820118e2cace7bb733
48250 F20110218_AAACLI braunstein_j_Page_039.pro
0e1cca8c8b7c8c6b63beb3a7b8b49dbc
5fd5695fff1ac4d465a81893d1c29e626cd114bf
43602 F20110218_AAACKU braunstein_j_Page_021.pro
74d23d016bc58ff2358aec538aed7191
2997e642cf4358ea2f687d04f58bec9c9636bcd4
51410 F20110218_AAACLJ braunstein_j_Page_040.pro
144d291e80f25b5212fb0e1eb4762c7d
43db123354637766ad9903355b5f0c37eec59050
51478 F20110218_AAACKV braunstein_j_Page_023.pro
eef46abcdb2c708843ca5ed63b4df408
36c1613eb86ad84cda3edcd601b81c44669edf3f
48906 F20110218_AAACLK braunstein_j_Page_041.pro
ea0b9d26b9a0cb70989cec22ebc61e8d
4a7a1d65ad649a07431dfed485e46cce94a649e1
48073 F20110218_AAACLL braunstein_j_Page_043.pro
b5fd57c22ba79caa11ec97ca30c7e11a
7cfd58c4793e45f450a2dcfe08c90f5872841146
52061 F20110218_AAACKW braunstein_j_Page_024.pro
d7abdae3cb11b19863b0f08284c525be
4b7279526bc21ea6c21408dbf2af226e23319a84
51128 F20110218_AAACLM braunstein_j_Page_044.pro
6216114ff4b2d6d30e624b0110d809fe
49fbf62f000dd7ad33963edb70ed973038ea97bb
45715 F20110218_AAACKX braunstein_j_Page_025.pro
52d3a9a97c959e70ad41f143ed6f47cb
3b340aa9b2ae1178702303f77eec1784d931daf2
46451 F20110218_AAACMA braunstein_j_Page_058.pro
1c599ff840701c3c845231977a811ea0
e596c8784f3dddf3fd69634ef41e79382dd6f785
51911 F20110218_AAACLN braunstein_j_Page_045.pro
5e676c9da0cd569fe0f2708bd3415ac6
99dddfda8b2637312eac4a91b555ede3ae66d38f
36151 F20110218_AAACKY braunstein_j_Page_026.pro
1682564098dee06ec8e81d69fb674b7b
a39203e89194f03bea2e12bd02fe5a18b7b7c7c8
50839 F20110218_AAACMB braunstein_j_Page_060.pro
23f0799277392f1b8a5b541330d82b22
0aa36f5b9c74c6cbeb48914f8feb0b467789eb92
50282 F20110218_AAACLO braunstein_j_Page_046.pro
5cf81754ff45b44f099adb39ca6ef71e
2a487417893d7b2fe9d5c91a6a914b33ce78d39d
31161 F20110218_AAACKZ braunstein_j_Page_027.pro
9f5838bdc13211351cae359b4dbcbec5
3e2dcc0749cf5ec95964a1d1ab4c00c8c6cd3f72
47812 F20110218_AAACMC braunstein_j_Page_062.pro
be18129124c04b4f272c75f141d9a442
0eaf5ed225910ccea2355badc6b7543f11050df4
50548 F20110218_AAACLP braunstein_j_Page_047.pro
4ae4a8f26f83d37d8b3622f4b8d291a3
2bb00e1c1170ba35580286f62cf91af03f8cb7d9
33751 F20110218_AAACMD braunstein_j_Page_063.pro
8fe9d617390a7f8f0c818e65432ebf1a
c0562b26404363c37425609f1f3b310c9b636a4d
35132 F20110218_AAACME braunstein_j_Page_064.pro
44180a2600ca9140136558fc92544856
fd64e96d02f53e7fafa1979bf063a05520615c00
53310 F20110218_AAACLQ braunstein_j_Page_048.pro
fa4740714c8fdf9866479f730cd58128
09fcb221c8eff1219c1d2710fb1c6615b312b8fd
36929 F20110218_AAACMF braunstein_j_Page_065.pro
a3be243bff4a0f065bf9d3d7fbcf5981
7d53993ae8df4cf2e0360fc17c11bb3f84a66de1
52588 F20110218_AAACLR braunstein_j_Page_049.pro
24c24d7a561d67263f137abeecfb065a
f2a5b5b64058a0d6612ae6823d26f674691f169e
49637 F20110218_AAACMG braunstein_j_Page_067.pro
edbb562094ca11a7a869617f2223cc54
0928e8995fe951f2ea9576310de95a998bbd5dad
49803 F20110218_AAACLS braunstein_j_Page_050.pro
43ecfc0ce6e53febb577ecd519e5a2c5
c87e2bb4fa315aa1536d6a846e813b36ea78f36f
51429 F20110218_AAACMH braunstein_j_Page_068.pro
2729bd37f99ca7e2484409396b06aa34
fdf500110be8c654f4f0d767ea226daae5b327c6
47997 F20110218_AAACLT braunstein_j_Page_051.pro
025714e376bf343e32417ccb60a68c38
c9bfee9f48d6d6011eb8435d1a92868276f6ae1a
39791 F20110218_AAACMI braunstein_j_Page_071.pro
6f1d42337a6c07c445cdc8945379c3a7
17cde70c91ee3ffee4387c7fce5fd688cf824556
51029 F20110218_AAACLU braunstein_j_Page_052.pro
68f4148b0e80e6d3626caa19947c7b1b
40921570644559b2fbc0f5a3ec83bea5956c733a
35260 F20110218_AAACMJ braunstein_j_Page_072.pro
86aa2dc92bab0bfae1f28a17504cbb35
898adb257c35acfb59c0f8ef4b8c096262af73d3
50435 F20110218_AAACLV braunstein_j_Page_053.pro
c5ebea08d6e0caca4c4a1949ed090523
43eaa3586c077e658acb15c0e837aebb5b2d04be
51698 F20110218_AAACMK braunstein_j_Page_073.pro
27cc3e73b104e3d16ad3eeb57e0d739c
240e235d602b6d4f0ad86678ee88f446b4f6af96
49592 F20110218_AAACLW braunstein_j_Page_054.pro
7e638ca9be61dfe9ff126f2ae52c1d22
09f39eb60bd49573ce0223ef632bb2f6cb9e8972
35340 F20110218_AAACML braunstein_j_Page_074.pro
9fa69099ce029e52ab43d035449eaeb9
6772bd4a00665073b91c116372d954ed9f8b9f82
51797 F20110218_AAACNA braunstein_j_Page_090.pro
c3a1bb3ab15aafac57de72fd6683944f
9ad34b9770c1ed8d4211d1a7d5c92750858fd68e
40672 F20110218_AAACMM braunstein_j_Page_075.pro
3bbde359fbada26792e8f14282621cf5
c7fccfb3b663b333e6b92411092e1327d90b9bd5
49701 F20110218_AAACLX braunstein_j_Page_055.pro
95e55785dc7c12f2df33b4a5d9944f39
c49e4ea761c8ab7387aaa7cac431367846ea0197
50075 F20110218_AAACNB braunstein_j_Page_091.pro
e4b6ded4df6500343327b8fb016b0876
1f511c9e540c9a9c5242c6f9c217e2f97618658a
35221 F20110218_AAACMN braunstein_j_Page_076.pro
739b42d143b4c7b496c796378f8d6217
c4f2c69ba9137250d4284d57bc6d8efef6683e32
51071 F20110218_AAACLY braunstein_j_Page_056.pro
e7d6eb56de43100ab89b42125f021075
cf207f8677f3259bacc0aa05332e47e363bf9d1b
51091 F20110218_AAACNC braunstein_j_Page_093.pro
8576b218ad79257c6578bf894a8fa668
c3e0ff3e0849e192e07026757f8ddde1c3a592d6
41616 F20110218_AAACMO braunstein_j_Page_077.pro
af219e300bd48530e32ed6d82c3ffac7
eac4281e5bc8001ce878dc3c3926182945716f5f
49709 F20110218_AAACLZ braunstein_j_Page_057.pro
a8ab0c822cb10e020f5bab762620e655
0df22a2fd9d1e0c36cd7a65cd74d00f7e4c6ea54
51555 F20110218_AAACND braunstein_j_Page_094.pro
5b9aa7b86dddd11900969631829216ca
7ba4c6cefebb2e47c8b2bf4d05897e51eab84fdc
48764 F20110218_AAACMP braunstein_j_Page_078.pro
6f3a8dad2cd145edd5e3d9034ba01391
e47307965baaf8620116b0e943b1424c98dd6247
51031 F20110218_AAACNE braunstein_j_Page_095.pro
2a892bc4c87917ebd32329b79783104d
84dd664f8eebbc7eb417974f3994242783c6fe54
50448 F20110218_AAACMQ braunstein_j_Page_080.pro
a9375b9b722b19e4930b348e9f21ba67
7479f6adf5f44597770286ea391bdedcab33e39f
52154 F20110218_AAACNF braunstein_j_Page_096.pro
62aec6306b0bb9fd92b62861563e3dff
070258f74c2413944d8bb9223b56a26009d7d63b
33769 F20110218_AAACMR braunstein_j_Page_081.pro
1602f4d42487ca3229d68ad948fb0612
05caf6d5d643dba07b454b23b3c5d17fa2be6f4a
32633 F20110218_AAACNG braunstein_j_Page_097.pro
aa7c1d8f1238ed5341429f0308c7da1c
28a631fd131a78d8da1a46bde548fa3413453d44
36154 F20110218_AAACMS braunstein_j_Page_082.pro
2783ed9ac8763772202b45dc2037174a
73a820dc5e28f6852d4e784205e913686a77b055
2329 F20110218_AAACNH braunstein_j_Page_098.pro
85ae96724319234c54ff7cc9e77665d1
e386181a4417790006f19ce6eedc2673a1afecb0
28922 F20110218_AAACMT braunstein_j_Page_083.pro
a5809550b05a5fc5471071d7576bbd3d
e07880e9d0d812b1eba6b60baa142fabbbe01f27
1707 F20110218_AAACNI braunstein_j_Page_099.pro
98bf0013bcf04fd9380a8d1951989563
0bc9c76a6b613e420e888c6df7f9d8427e4f3310
1783 F20110218_AAACMU braunstein_j_Page_084.pro
627973cacdb0f45c16b55750b70c2f0c
15584cec07533ddc66cbf54a61f3d54cfa7fa9ba
26259 F20110218_AAACNJ braunstein_j_Page_101.pro
a93206ee77b9c86bc03a7a12dbb2bdb7
2dc2929266e3dc3978f34dfca725d791016dc6f0
44075 F20110218_AAACMV braunstein_j_Page_085.pro
b804a96c5750e7771140efe056635fda
32d869e04984db43e5ec458c8a564ea859093bad
82255 F20110218_AAACNK braunstein_j_Page_102.pro
ee96a8d90003462b0b3175b721421e57
bc970236013ce0521bed1652a8dd289455be4413
51386 F20110218_AAACMW braunstein_j_Page_086.pro
6e3eef180c4a45eff098589ef14f0c16
f30bdf9032dc45eda8bebccac57470cf2b71f54a
29293 F20110218_AAACNL braunstein_j_Page_103.pro
5a06b1001da713d1320dee2ba9462708
0eca2188897003acbf6dc8b2d455bea3cad4d35d
50507 F20110218_AAACMX braunstein_j_Page_087.pro
32c7a1f74b9e851b26508ef1beb5bdfb
6c650673896b005d6b961d6a2f53ab335029fdfa
38761 F20110218_AAACNM braunstein_j_Page_104.pro
d034212842dd8f4651d6e97e560c9a16
7b93472e57339be9d31db7540a0afe6b8b3533ba
74876 F20110218_AAACOA braunstein_j_Page_005.jpg
e2965787f1788a9eff58c3120b2c20e6
41921c8111a79480d8662a4fcd2f9a4ed6bfebde
27773 F20110218_AAACNN braunstein_j_Page_105.pro
2da4b05a3f35f7c8ebf94bda761f6545
8dd963d785b51d8abdb2e4a0a02cad6406755e47
52379 F20110218_AAACMY braunstein_j_Page_088.pro
5c3be95cde6f38ffd665ef96addc9d7b
8eac269112cc0bfcf7e77f561b29f3e3d6550f64
52077 F20110218_AAACOB braunstein_j_Page_006.jpg
53b2fa50c50cae17a887d9a325bf3127
2b8822112ec2c6456a3362adb9d1f5c5e440413b
50150 F20110218_AAACNO braunstein_j_Page_107.pro
5939653b42e93639e010fd13699e14ce
4261bf090c28645e0dc5cbb3de6a75a85b8f6cbf
52546 F20110218_AAACMZ braunstein_j_Page_089.pro
2de556716c968af4759f848f97cf7167
9053f7d81eee3b4d3009fa07260eb8ac707a5e7f
24362 F20110218_AAACOC braunstein_j_Page_007.jpg
3ae3926f4095f65b10eeb62af362afce
08cf6722632285eca1f015bf9a31f546802be5db
57506 F20110218_AAACNP braunstein_j_Page_108.pro
06ec6cac23ba14ed8b6160e184ab3214
ca5351eea16ad4c32c4e7d1df6a2c1e8b39fd5f0
21857 F20110218_AAACOD braunstein_j_Page_008.jpg
29d05e07b0bf0e044b794dd420dca5f7
2968e537ab7a92ca932deef5deccfbf5a3413c08
62985 F20110218_AAACNQ braunstein_j_Page_109.pro
cd8c88fc1824b76197af60e7ce0e069b
dd5bd3c7beaeabe77aae25979ae01a37a026bc25
75950 F20110218_AAACOE braunstein_j_Page_010.jpg
0dfb3906096cac8c2197e7993b26f763
036ec2cbb651d896822046b02d71725601bd47ce
59951 F20110218_AAACNR braunstein_j_Page_110.pro
479ac0e15e6644edb604f33a74e65d9c
7f6953d71d6959ac935340e5b04c44aed5ad56c0
88866 F20110218_AAACOF braunstein_j_Page_011.jpg
81edf726c0696b887bf6fc5d909c6f13
11c7e7ff90a0195702ee65caa3b83b9fd324eca7
64290 F20110218_AAACNS braunstein_j_Page_111.pro
bfe848b3e866732f33b16891dd6af763
789c6a4256989e623eb9441d5d961ad65d2e3d1c
107118 F20110218_AAACOG braunstein_j_Page_014.jpg
d12747ef5bbd40ba29694b31c555d2d7
d15884f1ce5e16b03594443d99f4941656969c3e
50390 F20110218_AAACNT braunstein_j_Page_112.pro
3fd60eef20bd1d184ce2fa564d2d18d3
2296ffbe66e23da39f69894c4e154dd091857a19
98534 F20110218_AAACOH braunstein_j_Page_015.jpg
5515a6750560b7f94c2cda86fba47032
b7f29e831665d575f1212e8a69f2451cea89de21
56367 F20110218_AAACNU braunstein_j_Page_113.pro
ea9554ce134d1618984b6ece2ae6be96
dbfab3ced46888b3126d484b35852c01d8570954
103626 F20110218_AAACOI braunstein_j_Page_016.jpg
ba1a9b4248abd5fc49669a2867dc4098
9b8825bf5d73f76eb2e8fce6b345d6b9b56ba538
55693 F20110218_AAACNV braunstein_j_Page_115.pro
2d9be1706adca1eec3eae0c1196946a9
bbad14cce1415b1556a172fad340b84a670b67f0
104252 F20110218_AAACOJ braunstein_j_Page_017.jpg
f73921a22fbb5e12b79b12ec951d9152
381782232dfff039487800c09ebdd3106ffc0e2f
17931 F20110218_AAACNW braunstein_j_Page_117.pro
7553be6186798e62c7cf4ffe00b19fd8
e7121cb5520ceedf74de03b91751ec8bdb23a5e8
100968 F20110218_AAACOK braunstein_j_Page_018.jpg
f6d65e5c6d7fd689e0e20de376ab68ae
70604cf1c69d7c002d906aff8e05c59e30036932
29219 F20110218_AAACNX braunstein_j_Page_001.jpg
a6e2b214eccf1b11bf96cc5d9b18dd18
b15142c19b15ec1b3d05a1d4d44246f54f8134d2
106549 F20110218_AAACOL braunstein_j_Page_020.jpg
c61470733b18daa1a7801a5f37711186
899df5ddf4b141f2dc43047962e8605487ec2d6e
4843 F20110218_AAACNY braunstein_j_Page_003.jpg
f8e369edd50bcf9476ca9f881d9207cd
dbd27d632004bb7e2eeb7a1b12528b8b69a19f29
104315 F20110218_AAACPA braunstein_j_Page_037.jpg
380ba7c0c13ca6560d9d1bfd51d3c4b4
a549aba55aebb64bb7f54f38a888a9fc0938ff26
89715 F20110218_AAACOM braunstein_j_Page_021.jpg
63c968e2cdfb7f705ef35649044e324d
384b54681e6bed587a8455a4a95a28cfc3599add
88037 F20110218_AAACPB braunstein_j_Page_038.jpg
de1c1e37d8fdd2fb6f003d6dfc5a2d95
b2928a7d535d0b5b864d64439654317e56b3fdf6
34173 F20110218_AAACON braunstein_j_Page_022.jpg
e3d2fb78d6140bd69057408f6e7465d2
63475445a4c5c9aabf46bd3f6d69cd4a3ba86b43
49007 F20110218_AAACNZ braunstein_j_Page_004.jpg
d84db580238fff5366d6fd5abee7d797
2efc6d7c95adc1f07d4d36b16a7b345706cf83d5
98515 F20110218_AAACPC braunstein_j_Page_039.jpg
923774eceb58df60b0a9e7890aa11d5a
cd0f5026ce3527894c3ea355deafd80c85300773
103403 F20110218_AAACOO braunstein_j_Page_023.jpg
f3c43113b930dd31f131a59d3b3b704c
1023b94b38214daa06bece9c6f1742495e8a00d8
103633 F20110218_AAACPD braunstein_j_Page_040.jpg
adb3136da458f91ceade3eaaec066049
e6d7cdd902d8054e48bad4f66c4ac0efb2df913f
103393 F20110218_AAACOP braunstein_j_Page_024.jpg
85ce1b3aa284289db4e1bb83f77bcdb2
8c4600be5a51ebb46a31784e7f83a4a4acde7e60
101077 F20110218_AAACPE braunstein_j_Page_041.jpg
5f213a39ca0b3ff81ced56fdf9026ff5
c61588502cd5d98cbcfd5bf9d9a030c64f43971b
91068 F20110218_AAACOQ braunstein_j_Page_025.jpg
8edaa76243fb3ff241fbb5f7357ef2e9
fb100a768055e2592b37b2838fbff2895f555c08
98259 F20110218_AAACPF braunstein_j_Page_042.jpg
48d6970271ccd209b8718cd9d54c9d07
aa05bdd1e66a22f2118db42093c9e4fc901cda81
76539 F20110218_AAACOR braunstein_j_Page_026.jpg
54b0fd3ef8fa64a0d1ed0dab8800bf13
cf2dec7fe4c68b51224bd7aeafd751b0bd4cd137
97622 F20110218_AAACPG braunstein_j_Page_043.jpg
d55c568c466f7119da9d3e231a90b00e
b490b5adc813fe3eea2c041db3902176dcea2f7c
68312 F20110218_AAACOS braunstein_j_Page_027.jpg
5bb739a31b00fe9a8b730672e103fd42
f21f6fb48b47110afcef626b8c0ba8023710f540
103952 F20110218_AAACPH braunstein_j_Page_044.jpg
966de29349d0ff85c463c87c0e474f74
4c069511aa6f3ef1cfe6041cd16f06b857b6c7b2
91687 F20110218_AAACOT braunstein_j_Page_028.jpg
2f8449887ae9ccb136ddc922316fecef
30f19f4da233e140db666d6e4f778c453755ff1d
105128 F20110218_AAACPI braunstein_j_Page_045.jpg
3b1ce4d2155437d54ce49008c4c79b7c
a0fcd20eba5d5ad26384f9b7e09aed184911c02c
100547 F20110218_AAACOU braunstein_j_Page_029.jpg
da2e091dbddd4d08a732e8baf37b7a50
9dde145fd7f89ba46b3f8bb1374b04bec0395316
100664 F20110218_AAACPJ braunstein_j_Page_046.jpg
b0e129b435ef7e84674468e9fc55c59d
ca55f0dbb789ddc4b2960d4263e564564a036f22
101951 F20110218_AAACOV braunstein_j_Page_031.jpg
15cf5f3ae0303746ffa5c6263914c401
e045cca57fc40e7b980c7af3a7895f016a5e0b3c
101116 F20110218_AAACPK braunstein_j_Page_047.jpg
93f629bd3ade33a336928e942f26f946
ed135a237ef6e4cacadf7aefbd88a891dac961fa
104250 F20110218_AAACOW braunstein_j_Page_033.jpg
2f042c4e41a250b7589044cc8372fc90
1a1e6f161c80c0c5e313f8e95f826a883ba4e5ec
108922 F20110218_AAACPL braunstein_j_Page_048.jpg
3af7ce3e3217e708ea1b7a52cd94e435
d0b6d1155aa2346da2fee4a1c44cec3d479f8ed5
103181 F20110218_AAACOX braunstein_j_Page_034.jpg
2cc3fd91f58cd8fc7431246f2bdf8187
1754b3e7afa85e68b5a031732a5869dae69c17a3
73792 F20110218_AAACQA braunstein_j_Page_064.jpg
8e2ced658a038185e5137dff4ca56602
86a175f0e9503e4e7036b8efcca2b4533b895589
106351 F20110218_AAACPM braunstein_j_Page_049.jpg
993e9d6c56774f8bb918726cd6530526
945f87d6980d9d257e05bdefdca5913af754552b
106985 F20110218_AAACOY braunstein_j_Page_035.jpg
2dd734fb3bb1d1ebbf0e0b4acd24daab
8086bc9a5a34e5ee98aea8e91c7b8c4da0e0585f
79258 F20110218_AAACQB braunstein_j_Page_065.jpg
45cb5abea5946987a4c7a7488a18da41
55075b2bd0508ed2892c1ca7b007d7f4fccb0f5b
100775 F20110218_AAACPN braunstein_j_Page_050.jpg
487d4000c5dad3d647ae98e07e8b01be
180f798a583b5164fcb3ac7ad0c13c02ca4c552d
99223 F20110218_AAACOZ braunstein_j_Page_036.jpg
bcb103980cafc605e0b86ad9b19b0b81
2472825b9e20a616877ac0520beaf3405120fd9d
109501 F20110218_AAACQC braunstein_j_Page_066.jpg
9f5ea4502f087847e484a9b2aa46bc3d
e877ecce8f10b5015082662f21b0b77ed38af8e9
97581 F20110218_AAACPO braunstein_j_Page_051.jpg
7000a1cbab81f6038bc3330a406cc3a5
9e28a3e914fe053dfdb1444d4ad73a6944be76ef
100541 F20110218_AAACQD braunstein_j_Page_067.jpg
132d1515691d7bd6157f75d52a06063d
a08fb1194ac00786d69e7b6b33192a6170749967
100531 F20110218_AAACPP braunstein_j_Page_052.jpg
7bb1692dcc91b0668623795623f75b01
3ab6b08e56c1d84831d8db04465da7d66e0cfcda
108783 F20110218_AAACQE braunstein_j_Page_069.jpg
a88fa942beac2567dfdf96a5e65008a7
4225d46eb23c513c58ecc122cbeaad91f4fc37ee
103129 F20110218_AAACPQ braunstein_j_Page_053.jpg
8c0ddf7bdb29af8970535e6887bde1b4
80ee5a2b519a04d1bd5aec039ce66528746e4e3c
82632 F20110218_AAACQF braunstein_j_Page_071.jpg
6ca3fcbcf562077d081474e69107cdbc
36a26cb4cdd21fab4d21dc2df5e92c4f125da9bb
100486 F20110218_AAACPR braunstein_j_Page_054.jpg
cb14ab2cc9bddc1981f7d6de6866d072
0ad1cdcca65fc25d571f5b02e76afb46582f63e5
88292 F20110218_AAACQG braunstein_j_Page_072.jpg
3005b027b72026ae2513c4be8fcdb44d
9e853d12f2b4a823b5f46db620bc164f9b2df457
99062 F20110218_AAACPS braunstein_j_Page_055.jpg
1ea97d5de11168afa3777b51096dcd1c
97538d96c660c27a5dd2891018267b1c2d875995
106951 F20110218_AAACQH braunstein_j_Page_073.jpg
67a54ea900bc75199a7c979ad7136e46
3e7ee520fc44424be7d8c05918cbc2c3da2c7b04
104256 F20110218_AAACPT braunstein_j_Page_056.jpg
b4900f74a7935e3066600f25df28f962
52765afbba4bd0f27bcabcf514202504903798cd
72468 F20110218_AAACQI braunstein_j_Page_074.jpg
7581bdea99905ffd8722964fe5272192
0261435fdef9f2e0ea59156270df532cd70bf0bb
101580 F20110218_AAACPU braunstein_j_Page_057.jpg
40da3a0cd48ce6e5927f9a2e16571657
97885f9c58209a3bca147a8bf76e21e4913c3907
84940 F20110218_AAACQJ braunstein_j_Page_075.jpg
610d2c338194bf4ae39717d097d45a24
0689f68295224581b741fc2a800f72a057c9b898
94814 F20110218_AAACPV braunstein_j_Page_058.jpg
a94a4f03621494563b265e7ba8242986
932d26962d8a92af4fcdb1dc5bba282c9bb2c7b3
70164 F20110218_AAACQK braunstein_j_Page_076.jpg
74e0d222a1c2c8a474ce3c8c24fc8ea3
d4f21abff6d35d5fc83c9cb56aae65e081a3ed17
104394 F20110218_AAACPW braunstein_j_Page_059.jpg
9fad5489516f3664ffb843c284131821
71daf603abc1be4b9013d616c18e870955478262
93013 F20110218_AAACQL braunstein_j_Page_078.jpg
57a16630c5e2016681daa22e130ae33d
f0b9edb129b766ef871cfa6a9db5667501de84ef
103407 F20110218_AAACPX braunstein_j_Page_060.jpg
39a409d86051ff808cf3649bc66b8667
b6fe7f8656d35218d5d89a3f7b903203308e7e4e
100934 F20110218_AAACQM braunstein_j_Page_079.jpg
e8767989bf4e6759adbeeba0cc7ffb90
34263f30fd14cdef5273598a47323b0991189389
98983 F20110218_AAACPY braunstein_j_Page_061.jpg
47350072508006e1758eb732850dd8cc
ca451cc75d176571a8d876110f99c310f4d51548
101510 F20110218_AAACRA braunstein_j_Page_095.jpg
01412f8b2f0095ddab8ffc40e393ebc6
fcc121b26fc112db94b1c1f69d5024f7fe9efc98
96670 F20110218_AAACPZ braunstein_j_Page_062.jpg
cfc400bcf4d45862bc86c8dae9f82c3c
44c7c724113896ddc718a1ef0ea169a8ead443e9
27257 F20110218_AAACRB braunstein_j_Page_098.jpg
2591df857650e8e9e52db678a59828aa
9711aab13d23db88cd44b833f982b0c2d9881859
103365 F20110218_AAACQN braunstein_j_Page_080.jpg
ef76a29dbd9f9db0857ad26ac073abac
efca94f0e6f0fc3047c145eb262c943f259f8401
7266 F20110218_AAACRC braunstein_j_Page_099.jpg
52ccdd7af735cf89d0014c0146148212
35e456cb81d259e7049fd79238a00dbae1a3701c
73601 F20110218_AAACQO braunstein_j_Page_081.jpg
c0ec8e4511a08688ae1c037bb3ad47f1
8352e2dc970282d55c2b79e80b13bf4124b7b4eb
65635 F20110218_AAACRD braunstein_j_Page_100.jpg
66d53377f9ae480f62f04aa3ee1bc310
86c631acf301570a215d07bfb932ca0ca90c124a
74468 F20110218_AAACQP braunstein_j_Page_082.jpg
a065e54a733367dbbf82bcabd36a650a
f4326edeb8130fe482a53f8ae8a9494a8a8b6be5
22328 F20110218_AAACRE braunstein_j_Page_101.jpg
a9d8b7a724ccf6ef329914993768fa3f
f8a33c81d353f09851e1656aadd3c673739497e3
63213 F20110218_AAACQQ braunstein_j_Page_083.jpg
20b96185308554cf7eb655508d51bc48
bfed91ff3d500428a75eef00fffda2f82a73eb64
56227 F20110218_AAACRF braunstein_j_Page_102.jpg
4c948f2b006715cd9b3755969c96ec11
3204590fc52419cf6d20b41771f863b8287c208d
24280 F20110218_AAACQR braunstein_j_Page_084.jpg
fe8ecfb93acdd6096b249070bdf65dc2
bea57bf2b154b6c76f07e14c151685953ed87739
24740 F20110218_AAACRG braunstein_j_Page_103.jpg
c815dca382692ee7e337c657bb5a5990
35f095040703a52e5bd6a2bdda9f5681efb3a721
92414 F20110218_AAACQS braunstein_j_Page_085.jpg
07c6d3fb36890549e0e5d9ca472a360f
e34229e397f9983733ec99e28764cad3e1092391
68919 F20110218_AAACRH braunstein_j_Page_104.jpg
978c4a0c5025e9b96e4f21cc5513f58e
9f0db3b92ef6d74015093f59ca9ecae3843367e6
105069 F20110218_AAACQT braunstein_j_Page_086.jpg
50936ec383afac8b83460d2b67f95b2d
d34db947be3310a2786eb709817e568824582c1d
104900 F20110218_AAACRI braunstein_j_Page_107.jpg
09741b4e22c71742d4d25142914bdc1a
ed3eda5802b45daee817886a181a5497da01e931
102175 F20110218_AAACQU braunstein_j_Page_087.jpg
efaef125d76fe02132b29b6b04a1f959
9c4ee755d182d8a9fdef511125cea8ae46c57981
112638 F20110218_AAACRJ braunstein_j_Page_108.jpg
c91049c2e8862e242f304e540230d811
1c92d68f3e62fcbcef9baaa8158020eb2844b632
104610 F20110218_AAACQV braunstein_j_Page_088.jpg
a6708320e870611fce2cb2fde3ce2a47
98693db1d883c4df4bc244edd108edf304394669
125693 F20110218_AAACRK braunstein_j_Page_109.jpg
0876cd93a3a9e493535c7bcf5f0730ee
b7397cec6a4508e1c30716ff0c8e3d2f54113fb5
105063 F20110218_AAACQW braunstein_j_Page_089.jpg
54b08a7f2a7471ea944bebadfef59ba9
bf9c7620b661bf418f9f0712f77c3ef4392f8923
115986 F20110218_AAACRL braunstein_j_Page_110.jpg
aff6eed7078e2718b594b4fe4620bc41
d10648db29720491bd3cd11252fb016a79dc91d2
103145 F20110218_AAACQX braunstein_j_Page_090.jpg
5d224c77f0f2ddb2a318dd6544aa3881
506db9266e11ab8c6376d41f14d7f55e17d68960
830430 F20110218_AAACSA braunstein_j_Page_010.jp2
0dfe1869eb59057c3c2c1cbcb69ed945
b8846eb08b3324c556b466f2e757e40e69ef5e4c
124924 F20110218_AAACRM braunstein_j_Page_111.jpg
db5b535dfb0fda2b34c317f344a370b8
ced4e9dae01a94ee607871fa975bf6e76eda9f89
100584 F20110218_AAACQY braunstein_j_Page_091.jpg
1204492a4b7a917dbc63fd7d7febc274
da22a1a23cbb2c21522c8f7098d09fa11e89fb9d
964186 F20110218_AAACSB braunstein_j_Page_011.jp2
1dff818ab44c9844d1a636eec34676a7
49d79218f3b7c86c683d0cfcbfca2196cf6a018f
105221 F20110218_AAACRN braunstein_j_Page_112.jpg
89398efa8bc8c6a0368a26d09b6d4537
52e0640bb430c204c191318351174fbc49ade417
101604 F20110218_AAACQZ braunstein_j_Page_092.jpg
f3a575cf155180687bc09b0db529d015
68c74e68b3ba3f019c0eb64184bb86fc67b36c44
1051957 F20110218_AAACSC braunstein_j_Page_012.jp2
dc2708dd41d31067bea36f3d6f751da9
22dbda1797841b3fa0599b457d0d770caca667f9
117831 F20110218_AAACRO braunstein_j_Page_113.jpg
9b9f155077e1bda894d0053113f30bfd
653efe455cb7e5bfefbd8c7e7dbde598fb233d48
1051982 F20110218_AAACSD braunstein_j_Page_013.jp2
0006c1b5d854f6510516dda598097b03
bc9d9e3937abd711c62f302adc0547e44831c06b
119549 F20110218_AAACRP braunstein_j_Page_114.jpg
2315f3eb390d500ef0c0406ec76e4360
7734381021430a3fba919f806a4cf737ec157832
1051943 F20110218_AAACSE braunstein_j_Page_014.jp2
7d4b81a2d0d3a945b2690fe2ddc9ab72
a8f4386b6a7235496bd02950e082d4f2f087aebd
105358 F20110218_AAACRQ braunstein_j_Page_115.jpg
674e8b8d03bfde3364d90e3101b86415
d05f5769a6f7342d40f2de9520a69b497646000f
1051980 F20110218_AAACSF braunstein_j_Page_015.jp2
be30a2e94fba051680f1cb195a0826cf
a8b72309539204a0bd8891d54f8d2e4e87a7cada
273210 F20110218_AAACRR braunstein_j_Page_001.jp2
586904d03f3fe772e87e6ad9bb7e9555
5bc877b3a2db49a62b1133980a4abd04a74f74c0
1051979 F20110218_AAACSG braunstein_j_Page_016.jp2
74c570b3fb56fcdaf52fb6a2c52c1e40
3f5928f64d1aecb4a69c6e637a044d670be551e8
32838 F20110218_AAACRS braunstein_j_Page_002.jp2
1e77d3fa994b665763143841361583cd
f0006ad3489895f0a272adff9beef2df3bcf9c5f
1051896 F20110218_AAACSH braunstein_j_Page_017.jp2
fe3a102851cf05bcb25f302a84bb9aff
30a5c0fb70e79c1eef3678827022336e82d51cf9
28849 F20110218_AAACRT braunstein_j_Page_003.jp2
d97b2a1607d0e875b0d12dbb1fb24bc6
f08f94b805867bb16a9b9aa565fe67b6efed9852
1051981 F20110218_AAACSI braunstein_j_Page_018.jp2
d2bd6ce3fabf300d0edf0c96ebea0b42
88da713ec3d7f7d81e9d391f262665762047063d
509000 F20110218_AAACRU braunstein_j_Page_004.jp2
1981ee3ad94f49838283f3c73d4d77d2
8d45a87945ba8ad961107e9e1fbfca990b2e9aa9
1051985 F20110218_AAACSJ braunstein_j_Page_019.jp2
5c656757cd3e0ba9fb3eb2ad390bf2f3
d0e70d5ad71c1fa0b29b9be5d1c1f51b1139dd05
755413 F20110218_AAACRV braunstein_j_Page_005.jp2
103a4a1cd364698e158ebd0ecd3f5acb
00f56b8e3381dbaf5d68309a4368955948376c43
1051949 F20110218_AAACSK braunstein_j_Page_020.jp2
8168266cfc14fa6cfef7dedf16a1b258
d823456acd39b882a9dcd73276aeff809512eca5
522336 F20110218_AAACRW braunstein_j_Page_006.jp2
b7ba847b6f0b6453bc3f15164065f23a
78c05c435f847797f4c4f5f3858857aff4f4e691
979090 F20110218_AAACSL braunstein_j_Page_021.jp2
de51d5de0b29044aa009f4f6b38d2d52
3ad6e4bd58ab2f2a4ee56f243fc5be1806c29e40
238369 F20110218_AAACRX braunstein_j_Page_007.jp2
740f28b08b5b30276dd5e9640e36f383
f04694e3945a44348aaa0511d650ed74ee5ee05e
483354 F20110218_AAACSM braunstein_j_Page_022.jp2
a9db2899e7e8638e43c62da7304d8791
7653d35053ecaf5450cd82b4eb25d5c78efd26cf
196466 F20110218_AAACRY braunstein_j_Page_008.jp2
ebf49c90b6ce3ff53fb17b4d3f0256e8
7fb800284638db94562d9313ad017abc1154f512
953876 F20110218_AAACTA braunstein_j_Page_038.jp2
cc28d11088c3c25b543daf4bdecb851e
359d97568c646b4d53b170376117b0e30b7877fd
1051936 F20110218_AAACSN braunstein_j_Page_023.jp2
e099873ca4666280ad68bb4c46774719
b0891749f892d4e24f75e07c143f2d96997bdc6c
895945 F20110218_AAACRZ braunstein_j_Page_009.jp2
34b93b4491f1461f3e294fba762cb24f
606a272c121809ca2d042cc73a797f9475d0d841
F20110218_AAACTB braunstein_j_Page_039.jp2
0b66ae441000b0615274ccb4ec44ca29
b5d408cb2d288ef43e8c6172bcc10d0310a8928b
1051928 F20110218_AAACSO braunstein_j_Page_024.jp2
18fb4983d3a8407ced1b096780944d15
5f52287004ab00740f794477a949fdccfdbab173
1051984 F20110218_AAACTC braunstein_j_Page_040.jp2
5552dc65d921d3d17e662345134583e9
4cd7d2eab0a0a442499a8c38d07a9de9a4af1b38
1000007 F20110218_AAACSP braunstein_j_Page_025.jp2
9fe415468bdd4dcc60139e8d5f56b883
5a5a9105c26e193b0ee9f02c9561797cc3388c2f
F20110218_AAACTD braunstein_j_Page_041.jp2
d0beeef030402c19fe74d77f224a7d3a
59055be081336086e86a7639ac8a5f675ae87e59
799649 F20110218_AAACSQ braunstein_j_Page_026.jp2
173414596c31f9731a214c214398cff1
6d29844bd062827a2998e898ee46bd55b350e609
1051971 F20110218_AAACTE braunstein_j_Page_042.jp2
76adad698c2be3139f36ee3ad08dc7c2
de69f50892a8ff1db42a08e5751ff63e73209ca7
696646 F20110218_AAACSR braunstein_j_Page_027.jp2
2426ee0609c296a72729c0f9e245f529
19335fc7a3cd907f4e49879ebb606ce8a34a06e2
1051962 F20110218_AAACTF braunstein_j_Page_043.jp2
fb1eabc7ca02b5ec9f7ca2fd4df2f7f1
1e9175bfc124564f6f5d952e2077a686d90aae56
991797 F20110218_AAACSS braunstein_j_Page_028.jp2
f382e969f30141dc6af8ccc337b7f5c4
a58c635997a567f87f354652bf0c23c6eeb4ce2a
1051974 F20110218_AAACTG braunstein_j_Page_045.jp2
cc7f6531a5893e8a9f6d17cfb30964df
6adc1a2efa62b0a772c38e4646f2d0560fc0f534
1051973 F20110218_AAACST braunstein_j_Page_029.jp2
6d10da18c2ac19143d6b49a267bfc39d
f536e628659da2b80a32947230eefc18ca74f029
1051970 F20110218_AAACTH braunstein_j_Page_046.jp2
5d588981763984a91556f1ea72645969
d077578469280113be02ed1d727ab0c31dad5783
F20110218_AAACSU braunstein_j_Page_030.jp2
ba4d05a823122ddac4f0744f6f797095
3d29bc8c45ba391681bf337d482755c62b3004e5
1051961 F20110218_AAACTI braunstein_j_Page_047.jp2
1c8df2d5ebc8ebccd0dae1b436d937d4
6f0dd833fb35db604cfed91111594374c931832c
1051960 F20110218_AAACSV braunstein_j_Page_031.jp2
0646df11ac0cf8cc869633a8ba80a2b8
e2c3831c725eea0b6c7921dad4131eb1b2536da5
1051969 F20110218_AAACTJ braunstein_j_Page_048.jp2
83608f0d38358f13ea303d5dcdc727d8
6d221715a12103ea8da50bffcbc43f3e249901ed
1051945 F20110218_AAACSW braunstein_j_Page_033.jp2
4e92c14d0a50836f5b886971e047c1ec
54cf8a5fafb82b8c38e72833c14df09b27e3d4b5
1051886 F20110218_AAACTK braunstein_j_Page_049.jp2
6fce8cee8aa5fa5d669464cbf0e5ffe4
ddfd72ab7faa25610ffbd16fbb62d87f14bf9fe3
1051885 F20110218_AAACSX braunstein_j_Page_034.jp2
160002903bc378a78f31529709397feb
f77ea9746eecf2c69bae0a5fd64476bcbf6f6935
F20110218_AAACTL braunstein_j_Page_050.jp2
2647d3b6f33784717513e5096d983560
ee6ae3bfd4ff16cc2ba51407c0abc7dc9c0ae81d
F20110218_AAACSY braunstein_j_Page_036.jp2
a2e5958d91d8bf2167a53bb8b7453fc9
46de6ce10a17c7dbfdb862813b46224e94484d0c
1051946 F20110218_AAACUA braunstein_j_Page_067.jp2
bf56ba20ed1d49cf6196e9e61c778274
a505dd47334486fd1c5700f0e77c5b132c3e0be5
1051976 F20110218_AAACTM braunstein_j_Page_051.jp2
b02d18b98eacdf5f515cc9bf04dc6501
51e42b63685ddef6a52b2769e876f5a278d0bb59
1051939 F20110218_AAACSZ braunstein_j_Page_037.jp2
5a3391488bcdb516a274a34e65f2b9b4
6c19fa6393ed745c3c3d5330b4f9dc70afaeac99
1051959 F20110218_AAACUB braunstein_j_Page_069.jp2
3aa11d2679ebaa24de907d145ff3cae1
bc12b810657894fb3063f38eec9be377f73119c0
F20110218_AAACTN braunstein_j_Page_052.jp2
c3371341bb2a754a4e29c07d0bd55c75
ae6f6729d88d2ad67ef9eff7eb8f10fdd4e030a9
890287 F20110218_AAACUC braunstein_j_Page_071.jp2
fff26802bc3c53cd6d70584c1c0b606b
3aa939f5b92b68c730bb203457597c7360fadd6c
1051940 F20110218_AAACTO braunstein_j_Page_054.jp2
09e2829524450150bf20e79f2209ba47
927f5b84df5b2af225ea05fd47e2bb21850d1b3b
776701 F20110218_AAACUD braunstein_j_Page_074.jp2
4b5e0f0e0a1a4ab12a4747206752b804
5c61cfff57be605949782c89520b288b63f044e6
1051965 F20110218_AAACTP braunstein_j_Page_055.jp2
46551e1670295a4fed0cf3466c0c0739
0247fc5b80eb92ffd9c41e2c403f6641636ee720
904042 F20110218_AAACUE braunstein_j_Page_075.jp2
5ed5bf563519ae66f65049d39a7d5cbc
011bd07e8c64fb29a6dc2e772203214e31e3e218
1051948 F20110218_AAACTQ braunstein_j_Page_056.jp2
bda6def5f74677d2d7e546bac3bc4ab8
568bd38edbf4856db399367e550365fe7234f8c6
709466 F20110218_AAACUF braunstein_j_Page_076.jp2
e6e0f1cb1595f13a4477038814def0ef
835e11390a727168ff02ee906b3827f1e1669f36
1027348 F20110218_AAACTR braunstein_j_Page_058.jp2
52c486c02d19ad38ad3abb86e0539c6a
32bd013fff904dca7c1a54e88d61db5cbada2ddf
15714 F20110218_AAADAA braunstein_j_Page_116.QC.jpg
70ff99db36e2f881ff3f3ef21d49ca1a
0694bda46d67e9787b6f85aa8c335c0484c491c6
807594 F20110218_AAACUG braunstein_j_Page_077.jp2
f3fd26014d727944c9a569dd455d678c
3d076e93c013fa2cd70a73319eebe97d32c59cb7
F20110218_AAACTS braunstein_j_Page_059.jp2
511cb061aafa2b1e7ca742391bab3534
ea391d20877433f354121b61ec61a13ab7483af2
8171 F20110218_AAADAB braunstein_j_Page_113thm.jpg
881276ab086572b7791702f3dc330320
cbd1dbe542ffbaa080b3ee3d33bcb70feeb680e2
1027728 F20110218_AAACUH braunstein_j_Page_079.jp2
15768a4a8ea29f802d55315f5efeaa4d
5da40535bf8c7ee8991a72560457d031eadec41c
1051923 F20110218_AAACTT braunstein_j_Page_060.jp2
ac6903c0bab08327a7ce91c03f4c134a
3ef4241d484c1af0e57822f8202d5f83a3c672ae
31404 F20110218_AAADAC braunstein_j_Page_043.QC.jpg
b4894eb3649d53fe849ee5e7524c38d0
d13d6058b8dcd7be4ad39af321b85033e40618a7
1051972 F20110218_AAACUI braunstein_j_Page_080.jp2
36b436e441e6d9f50ec4d35690d19c90
6a897546cbe2de36ceb3db41400ca80fa36756c0
F20110218_AAACTU braunstein_j_Page_061.jp2
9d8d2491392dd57baa72d62c3c4d67ba
892c7edea1466a0031e31a3ba7e7ff40145a7b1a
6446 F20110218_AAADAD braunstein_j_Page_009thm.jpg
640bd1cb408b4d5ceb0035c7214c7c9f
91b4ffc6fda143134d83e51cc36375e811eceb12
783554 F20110218_AAACUJ braunstein_j_Page_081.jp2
46ae2fad8339e2fae9996640eb0c4602
c29d8a04db148ebfde0c8152a22ef6fb743a8291
1051933 F20110218_AAACTV braunstein_j_Page_062.jp2
93f0e65e71a08748c7830b1cec43e8ae
c7104a93c9fa444fee6c7dc42cf713d528ddcfc3
32832 F20110218_AAADAE braunstein_j_Page_108.QC.jpg
83d6fe9b012e1e22ca7e26036a639370
970cc523ea110a183b42fe6c7fbd7dcb8afdab95
796279 F20110218_AAACUK braunstein_j_Page_082.jp2
7ec38c2d4dc44f493a051b29e90d0993
03b2ecd88ffd0524c7c4431e0e21f76929605e0e
745052 F20110218_AAACTW braunstein_j_Page_063.jp2
1b8a908f648421089c82ea667b8b035d
a33e80f00faa78ec7de444fc8482cdb37648d128
8449 F20110218_AAADAF braunstein_j_Page_087thm.jpg
2f1d5c20c497aa7703d56f814b2213e9
68f4888803ef238d58adc39cbb0bdfd8af95f10c
387823 F20110218_AAACVA braunstein_j_Page_101.jp2
282c2d34e98094cd9d95a44aca2aad9b
e22a4086b7a1065dcf91473803e5461bd64f58c2
672007 F20110218_AAACUL braunstein_j_Page_083.jp2
22ac3c5a65055c8c7f2c6397485020cf
936a80304f657c1af42255c6f40f14efa6ac2319
790266 F20110218_AAACTX braunstein_j_Page_064.jp2
88f90bef095c6f020d489969ab5d2942
ac5a67bf0229bedc6b1309115efa1059c6676a9d
8560 F20110218_AAADAG braunstein_j_Page_088thm.jpg
0208511d3af898b39b78845b54475cdd
25ab91a194e6366f77921367863dece523829f5d
344653 F20110218_AAACUM braunstein_j_Page_084.jp2
5e66aaee34d4b07181aa810c306ba3de
5d5408d26a9491bb46ec33fd41d4d298d1ccf224
826136 F20110218_AAACTY braunstein_j_Page_065.jp2
cdd66f6353727892a00e64016ab7137f
3e4277211626ba2004f6d706650274e5c2034e5b
8061 F20110218_AAADAH braunstein_j_Page_055thm.jpg
802fc8c9e40095fce1e95c2201596c7e
b7eb81d707a04b50dd038657992eb36b445ad4b4
1051950 F20110218_AAACVB braunstein_j_Page_102.jp2
2928ee3abe26bec41e6c589821d3b071
3c7fdc747200993ea1d1ad52611813ebbfcf584e
1051907 F20110218_AAACUN braunstein_j_Page_087.jp2
2661f5fb32397872003be8a27b67fa4b
eded71f20fbe491d9f1891b2437373ad32e6b276
1051908 F20110218_AAACTZ braunstein_j_Page_066.jp2
39f7fe7ad4a1b4714d0ff6307d2a2118
fca9ff1a1bcc7c218cd44c47fb1264e367582c2b
35892 F20110218_AAADAI braunstein_j_Page_114.QC.jpg
b7b686b51b10abc726c5ba27691f3573
8e328425a9394f5fb9b5820a54d164c0892dd982
449084 F20110218_AAACVC braunstein_j_Page_103.jp2
f2dc83eb61f32c28510227b943263a2d
611fd21f9a541a8cf0afe1b798b26c7543bbb367
F20110218_AAACUO braunstein_j_Page_088.jp2
977385e89b78e5c881b9d054510975d1
4549cc64664e90de8969b928b7f9092f322f5762
8221 F20110218_AAADAJ braunstein_j_Page_050thm.jpg
845141650d97e491cf93d89d5b89cd4c
c662254b819ac997fb6d90724d4ba72ccdeaa7d2
715446 F20110218_AAACVD braunstein_j_Page_104.jp2
ed0fcd73d77d03dfb40fce303b48612c
b1a337df57657faa9a56ffccf06dd402a681ab92
F20110218_AAACUP braunstein_j_Page_089.jp2
122b87c452583f94a3965da4c6fc2075
c919c4cfb3a0013db8153d1bdd8e256c4899035c
8504 F20110218_AAADAK braunstein_j_Page_033thm.jpg
ce0a1bc6a14f5adea4d888da3bbe42c3
a6df1fdd848c79bf8ebc9f1f25298b0a90fe1f20
620568 F20110218_AAACVE braunstein_j_Page_105.jp2
9a8015f9093791a4afd7866cd23bd19b
1e763e3b890e7a8300be1db0838542883004fc88
F20110218_AAACUQ braunstein_j_Page_090.jp2
3746cf8ca65df6d01a2c1273b3b18583
389d6d323d1101a936b136abd4d8b018bf5763ae
F20110218_AAACVF braunstein_j_Page_107.jp2
2e28c251765959858cc607e6683e2b38
f4daca3f98e076ea3dcf0a61d02a9323dc1b696c
F20110218_AAACUR braunstein_j_Page_092.jp2
f44840b688e07a3e1f66cddea21a6e13
20d492fd136f16148e16b0e6adaa1bdeef39f5e8
8383 F20110218_AAADBA braunstein_j_Page_040thm.jpg
14ed85a8144bb3cfcf2cacd7dfd7d1b5
3a29ce36e0e44c1d2ee8ab2097272ab57d62eae8
30710 F20110218_AAADAL braunstein_j_Page_025.QC.jpg
542f6396dd35a46e806fcf9d021dfc00
8fc652f7491a2bf67798a5f3cc3b0bd2bc020e36
F20110218_AAACVG braunstein_j_Page_108.jp2
990130430de0f0cd45c52217e955f317
51b52590a48a63731b86dfae36e0ef85e88d2d29
1051968 F20110218_AAACUS braunstein_j_Page_093.jp2
025ea0a370cc32b9dc912cf9711bcd5e
315ed8429806cb165ec56fbedc26d78e68a6c5a5
33187 F20110218_AAADBB braunstein_j_Page_017.QC.jpg
bd5b323628a11061dd2eae27480a6892
a624fe75f46230c9173ade2751fb5f7da768b9e3
27223 F20110218_AAADAM braunstein_j_Page_071.QC.jpg
b561011d65e5781b137a8bb983858863
36ab69fa7d86c95f8973fa0bf53fae975c6b16e0
1051913 F20110218_AAACVH braunstein_j_Page_109.jp2
26d3878c4a0e109efe638dd3cabad652
49f755cb5df99be081f22cc79b24d6e23811cb29
F20110218_AAACUT braunstein_j_Page_094.jp2
d96f4b49cee682765956d7ed70cf3a06
1eb2a6278742d8cee68c11a277aeb239bfe4bb97
3305 F20110218_AAADBC braunstein_j_Page_006thm.jpg
abbf834c434e92242560a2d507c17109
41a5bc4ae17b779630b7400042eae305385124d2
8026 F20110218_AAADAN braunstein_j_Page_043thm.jpg
1c63fcd3401cbd39fcd3e42e0cdaeedf
65f513b0f3d1ffdf3b67601c1810dba80f1e1c9e
F20110218_AAACVI braunstein_j_Page_110.jp2
c210e58df9838940512d72e85d654e5f
5ee5b0c5a2dbfe4e990dd99b271faf354e642575
1051983 F20110218_AAACUU braunstein_j_Page_095.jp2
b9e709a5e84394524bb24834a2ff09b4
7de5205f005c94dc131adaf1218948dbc44639f4
29646 F20110218_AAADBD braunstein_j_Page_085.QC.jpg
a97eb2ac23ae86ec99be1bf59fbe66f0
657dc21057c44ee5ddfe0b5146706edde1ac1a5e
7254 F20110218_AAADAO braunstein_j_Page_085thm.jpg
ca6d5331dd702ad20321cab6ac61f8b3
77d80824290983a11d99299218d0cfc5d1159fb9
F20110218_AAACVJ braunstein_j_Page_111.jp2
c738f01ec4e53df141fd1becb2495b02
c8ed0edd40da9f7c1973448c6817cc141b184e84
F20110218_AAACUV braunstein_j_Page_096.jp2
cc573eb12d8f931ff5c70989b422a9f8
2cf0247d4d13fd9182d0b08f8112c82ad878cccb
7770 F20110218_AAADBE braunstein_j_Page_039thm.jpg
a61ddc31f4bddbb1a23cacfc4686aad0
9dffdcb71b89c7c4fe709159f7e8beb827a93469
3164 F20110218_AAADAP braunstein_j_Page_022thm.jpg
fd88aa8a6e9643e7e700c81cdfc844ea
9f5fed92d0e0305a98ba0384a53570cc9363cfc5
729689 F20110218_AAACUW braunstein_j_Page_097.jp2
139d5551795923ffc772823c75e89771
7d2d79370226337453872eb3640c92cf331be190
6569 F20110218_AAADBF braunstein_j_Page_071thm.jpg
fd06eb77b3e6ae615d2bbcc775fcf2ae
0ad2ba44bc5f4562aeb6f780b729c76e307437cb
7119 F20110218_AAADAQ braunstein_j_Page_011thm.jpg
5213b16420e38b0e1c3b4eb85d05731a
8c464bd979046ee4d8a7831b17eb2c9fa3480826
1051926 F20110218_AAACVK braunstein_j_Page_113.jp2
39f1bbe9ed40eacbd638d6fda6286703
ae71e5f8da6a79db9230ff2c6e5f432532c0c85f
390156 F20110218_AAACUX braunstein_j_Page_098.jp2
ee44f247557e214d7805ebd4fcc24975
9a54d57df6cdddd0ff11bb7dc3b042d1c093d3de
35192 F20110218_AAADBG braunstein_j_Page_073.QC.jpg
e8e225fe6e26c035f462e4cdcb6cd9aa
7a6b127ec3e30ae77d285bfe16c4535db1db8a77
8299 F20110218_AAACWA braunstein_j_Page_095thm.jpg
e735c35e844898aec2c136c2ce01bf8f
bdb598a7c815f19bfaef011cfe502a100efdb349
6311 F20110218_AAADAR braunstein_j_Page_010thm.jpg
fc1a970bf52bdfbbc86029e5c6d63243
50b59b2c11a6ebc21f5733e3c0b66ccfa11787e0
F20110218_AAACVL braunstein_j_Page_114.jp2
b6b3562cee9dd263f17b7390edc12e61
eecb18d8d9ee5956ead5d17751dfbf4bd08ec118
54145 F20110218_AAACUY braunstein_j_Page_099.jp2
c7470d8c1fc4aa659d3feace77447cbe
164fb132bbb33c585ae4cce23a546eb9d50e51cd
32648 F20110218_AAADBH braunstein_j_Page_029.QC.jpg
ee7e8e91e492762f40ce75b9b827718c
ee81dfef3624270e22c4e25ad0f93e75988da93c
8423 F20110218_AAACWB braunstein_j_Page_032thm.jpg
e896e599720f2a225f1d6ff5ad3d03b9
9af32588caa134494ededd971081f91adf25e601
7687 F20110218_AAADAS braunstein_j_Page_072thm.jpg
caa0e28769319c559b313d13a4bdd677
6047abe3e33be3da99df1fa6d8eb37e579760027
579970 F20110218_AAACVM braunstein_j_Page_116.jp2
c5d46aa5b465d9a0cdaa2f2e41fe8517
411c7f13b138f3a0738076428c0273e323e98262
F20110218_AAACUZ braunstein_j_Page_100.jp2
b015152e593b4528a79ac0fff33936a5
2a4162cd29b79643a9dbdc9c742cdff7ae4034dc
8382 F20110218_AAADBI braunstein_j_Page_092thm.jpg
5067ef324e5b687047823c1c273de533
00913d4b336bf0eec1523408f7efa8d33801fd6e
29285 F20110218_AAADAT braunstein_j_Page_038.QC.jpg
fc730f7f1b81809a10588095a25a3e08
64d9ca6398e50a1faf092b6f6ebaa041bff5a1f8
423888 F20110218_AAACVN braunstein_j_Page_117.jp2
4592ec8361444acfe062f40118107dd8
c37585cba4a8f60597cc5669fc25cce0897fc2e3
8429 F20110218_AAADBJ braunstein_j_Page_012thm.jpg
42163fa777fb741256fd69ad14c9046b
259666e83a4ca49f7a389ba2081dfc7b88df9b0c
34092 F20110218_AAACWC braunstein_j_Page_086.QC.jpg
032b0934ff123ad8d99cba910494b1b1
1c4d9d945b19a08b688e8a27d6b22cb05e9fa84e
35774 F20110218_AAADAU braunstein_j_Page_066.QC.jpg
2de754eada75060ded1771a7ddacd410
28e675e1f9dbef322153116519b6990a512dc3c1
431186 F20110218_AAACVO braunstein_j.pdf
066dda13b73b967273f3f578d577cee4
cb8faff14c57432b94229213f4352928253a2a2b
8079 F20110218_AAADBK braunstein_j_Page_067thm.jpg
eca2cd2e5008c2fcc1fab43e9bb2bed9
d996cf73725f71126e2b46a79a430c3609d8e4db
8409 F20110218_AAACWD braunstein_j_Page_013thm.jpg
2263a392886156eea8864a6c27ec3017
5eecdefbd103cb9dcbb4fd9ea9793db685887e25
8126 F20110218_AAADAV braunstein_j_Page_093thm.jpg
6c8725116e0fe6d7516e02b64bb927ae
cfce3667a56ab9c2e8f99d74c9d17a96f56d1550
6378 F20110218_AAACVP braunstein_j_Page_101.QC.jpg
c47ff27a69db98532f96b57722919825
1e8f0b6d8a152a53281847b1645ffc98de0bc6e3
25597 F20110218_AAADBL braunstein_j_Page_065.QC.jpg
2bdec251935ab5d22806bfb8d0936821
690996de9d70ae94a631ca607f5a0ca0bb7e2373
7540 F20110218_AAACWE braunstein_j_Page_103.QC.jpg
85773b50abf7b69903b1d482ad908726
bd5d7993faeb7b67fcdbbc6e33456fe637b624e2
28783 F20110218_AAADAW braunstein_j_Page_011.QC.jpg
ec42086b51c8d3152c49d4bf7dba08f6
ba3d02886421c9d02327932eaacb011b2d7a93fb
8137 F20110218_AAACVQ braunstein_j_Page_091thm.jpg
0ec62f0038578cb694c47ce501e5bf53
29743ba06548ace78ccda704b2520143280df2cb
33841 F20110218_AAADCA braunstein_j_Page_032.QC.jpg
06bec6224ab42a1235b061d72d5d5b07
4d5d1865dc40f9b0b8f31d02f95473d8ba96fcd7
21324 F20110218_AAACWF braunstein_j_Page_083.QC.jpg
43ff3d8d6a7445b42903fe761eb04143
22a6951037561e6461e3c425e65146ad6e4dfe3a
8158 F20110218_AAADAX braunstein_j_Page_108thm.jpg
3689dea5dd926d9486ebde404e180670
0244e05864002e070558bbacbe828c7ad8d46402
8792 F20110218_AAACVR braunstein_j_Page_048thm.jpg
92b090701a0b82e4f89437817ac9e827
3094682dff4db8b94ca35ca81ab07c71c9953b08
18359 F20110218_AAADCB braunstein_j_Page_100.QC.jpg
f081365f876f042fc01d06edeb718e3f
3c257e4ed9258abffd3311f06128382e5850825f
8615 F20110218_AAADBM braunstein_j_Page_066thm.jpg
4b6834797f0e683018f8a7ab18f0b793
22f03456db468a49b62dd10816bcbea510798b74
7959 F20110218_AAACWG braunstein_j_Page_062thm.jpg
2af3753bdb2c41e217b42e147377bf48
dd029ba6b32e1a552859f4e2e0d863c7aea748da
32986 F20110218_AAADAY braunstein_j_Page_050.QC.jpg
785e4b3109c82179c6e103d1edddf090
cdccb1e2dd39140cfbdef45a5d36a025d6441e3c
33471 F20110218_AAACVS braunstein_j_Page_068.QC.jpg
7eaa6b34de8341f5edd800be7c36c580
18059b1931fcf27a671382b58d1a7ec3b6f96760
3870 F20110218_AAADCC braunstein_j_Page_005thm.jpg
bf4975ec60839836a909cec994d2283a
5d0ee66f609bca42bc94bc71ede12d08eeebf00a
8116 F20110218_AAADBN braunstein_j_Page_057thm.jpg
5dff857c6bde0a716b3568c8cae6ac3f
fb71386b5e1b7fedd683b827914251d37c712ede
8396 F20110218_AAACWH braunstein_j_Page_034thm.jpg
43b1bef670ebdd22b8d6491762d2b810
68e619e256ebccf05f3f52ff9b874838bd4777bf
8317 F20110218_AAADAZ braunstein_j_Page_031thm.jpg
cc9371bf44bfaae8bc965fe80a512c68
7147987347385fa977018ffadac8f1c83affecc9
33209 F20110218_AAACVT braunstein_j_Page_094.QC.jpg
d7d920e6021c47d7a5aba7bb07bf6c28
62569803ded5e1049d2fba0271fa4c7aa272216d
9100 F20110218_AAADCD braunstein_j_Page_098.QC.jpg
5aa58b3f85a2908c90b1026b6dc4e469
fbcdedc7362684e343c216a1a4c152788b2e542a
3541 F20110218_AAADBO braunstein_j_Page_100thm.jpg
fcee739e8ecefa600abecfc615977422
e849a1787c016410aefb7a77c23ccb9966f0ec90
35926 F20110218_AAACWI braunstein_j_Page_069.QC.jpg
de76bebd91a14e8854000366853d5a86
7fdcfbd04497448965220258f2b983d7265ffb2d
33577 F20110218_AAACVU braunstein_j_Page_019.QC.jpg
3110b35a22bfa4b0138df5010ab6d85b
dd96cefcd1af1d2d4e201db6d9e555a85425ea99
8554 F20110218_AAADCE braunstein_j_Page_086thm.jpg
3a338531ca63194761deaafe61d00780
74d82a4470f4f91647c976c7d07d671a87945050
7694 F20110218_AAADBP braunstein_j_Page_025thm.jpg
6323c9a483b1a311a292fa65a4ed6808
cb4455109c715835f0b83d258e2b35f97cd25aa7
1299 F20110218_AAACWJ braunstein_j_Page_003.QC.jpg
30bfccab8cc135918025f87435e62f7e
709b5481d34031bb80f81c2401b9592d55302597
7725 F20110218_AAACVV braunstein_j_Page_058thm.jpg
4e39377c3ba74bcbdf1fd6a1105c4859
eeb78845a0a9d0171fb6ed85d1a0df1120e3393a
F20110218_AAADCF braunstein_j_Page_028thm.jpg
11bf9ab9297301c757673c993742b28e
54f3919ed90a315a34c3c6a57d72fd6f564996d9
33112 F20110218_AAADBQ braunstein_j_Page_054.QC.jpg
0c370c84e505216a32e0f8a6db743284
0d84a86dafe47990203f9fb90a9b89f30fcc0336
32487 F20110218_AAACWK braunstein_j_Page_041.QC.jpg
b6beb6729f1415d539deeed1ca58c360
d46ead20acc938eabc892c0f77f41bee72e37129
8599 F20110218_AAACVW braunstein_j_Page_020thm.jpg
9c01501c67b5e3004492dfc6b7f6fa4a
8d18f1e87839091aa49aadebd64df9662d75c470
1768 F20110218_AAADCG braunstein_j_Page_008thm.jpg
b405f5bf9ddd90d17732dacde518e0af
be19c642592ede7cc2bb1fae2484cea4a42690b0
8459 F20110218_AAACXA braunstein_j_Page_094thm.jpg
b2274f80b18aecfbe40f45ee4afe695b
1fe2df29c492a6867e98b6d8b517767dba0d9adc
6885 F20110218_AAADBR braunstein_j_Page_065thm.jpg
02e7618258b467c4b53cecdeef38c7e4
33b3801b58c921f424cb1b5dd1ff37c312c19677
8960 F20110218_AAACWL braunstein_j_Page_114thm.jpg
f8bf3aa6248f8f01a6abc17ddef3f25b
7fc102315bab534cbdd9e817a57b147c03a5b3cf
7730 F20110218_AAACVX braunstein_j_Page_112thm.jpg
fd4ee49d00926b6397bb3d8e115fd79b
5249319ea7735f2855bcc179cfd602a27a507d0d
34278 F20110218_AAADCH braunstein_j_Page_070.QC.jpg
3918bf146fedec22d148c9c06604b6b1
615ea434f55e58bb2139660a2d9da310a30b7bb2
2613 F20110218_AAACXB braunstein_j_Page_099.QC.jpg
7d46c5a33df70fdac114de34c48332ab
c381f66686f0a36a38d19d1ebf494df78a26b825
29348 F20110218_AAADBS braunstein_j_Page_028.QC.jpg
ba296c6bce271301639cb1e25eeff754
a640709d03116249925f9da5a6383848e0084518
33976 F20110218_AAACWM braunstein_j_Page_088.QC.jpg
f75e4ea443edf1c131de894e1b1b7bc4
db766fd7f4d76dd9bdf61ee3c503520c31081434
25493 F20110218_AAACVY braunstein_j_Page_010.QC.jpg
41f94b5b271a37bf10c779901b4451b5
ad1a3ee8ba99b36e402f90a59ba4687fd1639f6b
5682 F20110218_AAACXC braunstein_j_Page_063thm.jpg
2e1139c8cd3df4acfe54316913a82daa
843fb00e4476fce492806953989980c5588e62b5
7618 F20110218_AAADBT braunstein_j_Page_079thm.jpg
0976495d168fb2383c27bca24806acc7
af6c0cd2a8685ad904e90f643163f9a3a6b94452
32559 F20110218_AAACWN braunstein_j_Page_095.QC.jpg
236e35dadd796196802e73229e66ac19
d2f65f3023889b505ded0e0fac4468a99af960ce
635 F20110218_AAACVZ braunstein_j_Page_002thm.jpg
6617e325a9fc72ede9e7f68eeb3338d8
e8fe8fea5172c4a2b9e24ddd1c4e2bc6c11f1111
32745 F20110218_AAADCI braunstein_j_Page_013.QC.jpg
62731c11268342a73ad584c0bfb983f2
b976554363d2aab742fb5603a95783f405b17664
8250 F20110218_AAADCJ braunstein_j_Page_041thm.jpg
f03d0608fea8f76b207039af0c952cc1
e4daa29bdefc8760d40b2f51b36bf2a5ab02e025
8380 F20110218_AAADBU braunstein_j_Page_052thm.jpg
49777e1e1b8e6c52a505165591b5cfb2
89e448178a603d508790d1f38a44161c8587d97a
24161 F20110218_AAACWO braunstein_j_Page_082.QC.jpg
e26ec85b30a2f3392b984d5dc2ccb5ec
64cb6cd385bc4559b0baccf5f92d44fd1a8c4d34
32240 F20110218_AAADCK braunstein_j_Page_091.QC.jpg
88281ea3ace8d6323c91cf2c6096fbe0
807d234cd80ac5439dfa93c149a2429efce02697
3506 F20110218_AAACXD braunstein_j_Page_117thm.jpg
1c13454dc7111d6d89749291adf0f82f
673dae0e6f117dca5292d910e0227edbc9101539
8724 F20110218_AAADBV braunstein_j_Page_111thm.jpg
61905594ab4222d5507491ea33da1e8e
259aa6fdf6908f6f91a45180b021839b143df1f2
21782 F20110218_AAACWP braunstein_j_Page_097.QC.jpg
f95df237e909ef14acb5f50425d797f0
61ec2b1a49303c33ec0d09b6ab6eb70c88f859e1
8501 F20110218_AAADCL braunstein_j_Page_061thm.jpg
fe11024f4d8965fda2269479592c1caa
a52b40324699bbf8bdf63a891b4d9a75bc520c85
8399 F20110218_AAACXE braunstein_j_Page_053thm.jpg
4a9d67979b4b1c837b47cc3084821fa1
a1179f5ac52189465ec617e83599bf1998720527
8414 F20110218_AAADBW braunstein_j_Page_056thm.jpg
21baca61fcc02822bdfaff3eaf4e65b5
3046ec759cfbedc8435b9a9bcd5e6c3cfa172837
7972 F20110218_AAACWQ braunstein_j_Page_023thm.jpg
5e73fbfb42329fbaf51535574eb63f85
6573e09eb288264afd964c75f5e244b681c26bfd
33353 F20110218_AAADDA braunstein_j_Page_059.QC.jpg
65d68dba63ca99e04daab25527aecbae
6d5cc6f65a9f4c6b4094c8f05973c6ae78b015aa
3168 F20110218_AAADCM braunstein_j_Page_102thm.jpg
af7a9942e95f1a58fb0ea4c27b611f3e
fc63c53abc21c27ffd68589af14050c6abf09237
8853 F20110218_AAACXF braunstein_j_Page_001.QC.jpg
75e8818610a40ccc873eb4f8dc4cfa04
3e2c890d4b9198e1bb2307f3683badd692e08166
34988 F20110218_AAADBX braunstein_j_Page_014.QC.jpg
a7bbbbbc25a5e6789f82d8e242af39e0
e650be8ac4946c2cc6b2295e8ed2d4f76447736a
8638 F20110218_AAACWR braunstein_j_Page_049thm.jpg
4de11a94c466b9c6c0af30c27c63d3d1
75e70a85e828b6ede784bbfa7ef618b11da2e019
33498 F20110218_AAADDB braunstein_j_Page_060.QC.jpg
5ec97419219dd1e5a029e58673b8d1bc
d77a4f201c6bae4299efe375d73a93fdc97772b9
8487 F20110218_AAACXG braunstein_j_Page_035thm.jpg
8c2f3dcd88f1672290885209b835f531
ae41e5007548d8832ae1827fb376b5b066b1ecb5
8403 F20110218_AAADBY braunstein_j_Page_045thm.jpg
7cb39ae530a5e804ac46d57c8b120adb
cc357c2dcfb009d0c0f9fe782f5e30248070c52e
8120 F20110218_AAACWS braunstein_j_Page_015thm.jpg
fe40a8f33c2c6b8578e04dedf75995de
cc733e22e8659d4966bb07a0be5d8200349d5704
32565 F20110218_AAADDC braunstein_j_Page_062.QC.jpg
57e59e5fa34ff0a56528e9121b55950b
c81a1b619a77414df756b958b1f754d70b249fa9
5793 F20110218_AAADCN braunstein_j_Page_083thm.jpg
f93df792a4c4454e848960d38c258b42
94e048f27863a4fcb74ad0ca10c82c50f9536048
4236 F20110218_AAACXH braunstein_j_Page_004thm.jpg
f61655d28581e7070aa7b3528b93993f
316995d12ed99c527879470234d1902e1c194997
34052 F20110218_AAADBZ braunstein_j_Page_090.QC.jpg
dc16b3432cc4e3108769ffe4677a7607
5a9c93dd4d4ace717757839711998a5ee536dafc
5867 F20110218_AAACWT braunstein_j_Page_008.QC.jpg
d6f7a0a555dc14a09ff041eb9adff5e8
42faf42b08ab041b9d728af36f3b974119b89f76
F20110218_AAACAA braunstein_j_Page_073.jp2
bb925d399627087d732aeabaeb1433b6
d982d73d2ca4829df0cbc00460efffbe3be2b05c
32980 F20110218_AAADDD braunstein_j_Page_067.QC.jpg
e2186bccfe412a0ee3071256ea52ade3
42cf28d55ca24892477e1013ea3817dcad97e300
25428 F20110218_AAADCO braunstein_j_Page_009.QC.jpg
e7d3844eb3c561edbc9c5c7783ab9db2
8416e313d2832582a0e7985f07e0dd80027ce1c1
8261 F20110218_AAACXI braunstein_j_Page_016thm.jpg
9cd67b746e4abcae5a50c3ee212547c8
ee1e38df4b42db81eecfb969b086248bc781444b
22108 F20110218_AAACWU braunstein_j_Page_076.QC.jpg
12d0f6e8f820db6156b6de603635741a
c1d2ab216b396b53f0ce1b3c25a8f630053e139c
5229 F20110218_AAACAB braunstein_j_Page_002.jpg
090708a6466c7c03f04b99aa8f809a42
934253a5bef689fe14ebadb69adbd24721e1dc15
29260 F20110218_AAADDE braunstein_j_Page_072.QC.jpg
fd0efb12b095e64920ee1091c46983ca
d9e5d4f1c16bbdb24f094c6e0df4a81f0d30f153
15629 F20110218_AAADCP braunstein_j_Page_102.QC.jpg
a414576e82c5cd08994b6a2fade5c8a1
6d763bf395d7212db2d9bc52155dd8860874b4bc
679 F20110218_AAACXJ braunstein_j_Page_099thm.jpg
749c33c243af8ff4c7f7522b020e1299
246518d86e33fcad66843dbb283652f8b0ccf71e
8276 F20110218_AAACWV braunstein_j_Page_037thm.jpg
b4377ed006a5075418cb861f590ce0df
267ed9f035f6de56e97d057d160f92f338a1d70e
F20110218_AAACAC braunstein_j_Page_112.tif
192a7cbab108d833b12a1053c636af87
0eafb570eaed017fceaf87c4436ad23dd56d9ada
28376 F20110218_AAADDF braunstein_j_Page_078.QC.jpg
82bce6ae8d962af7e19d773ce0882a1f
c374883f85fa09e8e4f8239e06a3a0d3ad823910
192727 F20110218_AAADCQ UFE0014561_00001.xml FULL
c3c3e6c718dc4793639602aa16d81dcb
b6da7107d0f53a5c390ee444e7473ea5b8420c22
7700 F20110218_AAACXK braunstein_j_Page_106thm.jpg
f92f60dc31a6e3e3996359c448427aba
adfd2cb1b82dd26e8576f1a669c9844441c9e842
8567 F20110218_AAACWW braunstein_j_Page_070thm.jpg
089a8702bae38746f0319d165f5b5661
d2ca88767110356a9ed769fd61ce54ec8d2ee80f
1303 F20110218_AAACAD braunstein_j_Page_097.txt
e5ca826beadcb04395c3687e6d954be3
fa83e2df12c21f46402fba9df80967af93b24d8b
7785 F20110218_AAADDG braunstein_j_Page_084.QC.jpg
ddf4b02dc43b80fd6e58dc50bf91b74d
da52ceeb5b5c9bf1cf6fbc042019b7b1b9c46acd
32410 F20110218_AAADCR braunstein_j_Page_018.QC.jpg
5e2703571165862efa6d07571f84bf27
42c1381d783947a46e18e90cff7a024fcd647bd7
33942 F20110218_AAACXL braunstein_j_Page_044.QC.jpg
e830a9e03c1689c3f3fb501f7d3218c6
189aaa1c3953c6d192434e7133fdddbad493c10c
34265 F20110218_AAACWX braunstein_j_Page_049.QC.jpg
95e2355892966bd6d8cbfb3aa9683f5d
da68396fd9b80779cddddb95c7baa2831887f871
2750 F20110218_AAACAE braunstein_j_Page_106.txt
ba04d0739ba420cab79827e8016886ef
efe54906ee3d9516132bb5ab6f30859a0814b08b
8436 F20110218_AAACYA braunstein_j_Page_109thm.jpg
95d5c089541b517da47e52d0a484de97
a391e9bc170c98a7365ac6c36f40c1152dcbec71
32391 F20110218_AAADDH braunstein_j_Page_093.QC.jpg
c64b4161666931d3feec6a24c7faada7
ae5bcfe49bc34c9ce79007d866ccdbb44e7d4b9a
29429 F20110218_AAADCS braunstein_j_Page_021.QC.jpg
8fa7eba8782919ea4420ecb7e8fdbb26
b7dedd2f1108efe4d148140189d91aa15a08743b
33681 F20110218_AAACXM braunstein_j_Page_024.QC.jpg
2fceb73cf844224ac667838526ccc8fa
fca9eb8da295566a03a28a6bc687a135dea60525
23490 F20110218_AAACWY braunstein_j_Page_081.QC.jpg
8b760276879aa6eb7168527d882e9f1c
7d0085bb200d82bad392ff0868953903829325d6
2262 F20110218_AAACAF braunstein_j_Page_115.txt
e4938831de0e74cb4db644253892c8f5
a1cd9a6597baaa03f5e6ba2e41bd478587467643
8430 F20110218_AAACYB braunstein_j_Page_090thm.jpg
97f2c023ccfa52f582ab6ab5e5c78351
4215446d96af5748415e881b23333fd6d10c9f56
20588 F20110218_AAADDI braunstein_j_Page_105.QC.jpg
0a515e3e2218e11960f97062201c9b6d
89c76e968169ea8054cab0a4130050067a573dce
24035 F20110218_AAADCT braunstein_j_Page_026.QC.jpg
9bb6293ced475a1d88591575232b0875
0bd5eb235471ef50537369eef8c57f58d82f5e65
5660 F20110218_AAACXN braunstein_j_Page_105thm.jpg
819dc8422d642d8c3eee6e0c24ac77a6
d663a63a1e1c9a7bd2305f4c5e962c9a1ee04068
33758 F20110218_AAACWZ braunstein_j_Page_012.QC.jpg
614d776a6ea70359a3fc779e60441828
fd432d10a28608679abd55f452067b4ce722c96b
103477 F20110218_AAACAG braunstein_j_Page_068.jpg
203ba71765ff93a73b34049be7af1d91
01c0c523f756eca8c75a5eb00600fe591a660e56
8437 F20110218_AAACYC braunstein_j_Page_024thm.jpg
cd9dee34ce43988819c76c5085096288
a890e961458a499758d95dc709072744137a0893
29922 F20110218_AAADDJ braunstein_j_Page_107.QC.jpg
afe20ef3b0e86efdda3c3dfde234ab79
1529a4ec446b63a93f8e4041a6946a1fbf4155d9
34300 F20110218_AAADCU braunstein_j_Page_035.QC.jpg
00a908175ed809fbdc0d036a19a176a4
f146bb4e984fa53ebf9290e744f6433e68f20102
7291 F20110218_AAACXO braunstein_j_Page_038thm.jpg
71ce122690c4155c151654c84e988289
0a8d12f3740d1590abd14f9d82369ff9d351f929
2005 F20110218_AAACAH braunstein_j_Page_017.txt
155f269208f7dd443d2b2d6de6028067
d038af4f316456a49457e857d091403bb3330a21
8154 F20110218_AAACYD braunstein_j_Page_036thm.jpg
997ace18f3abdb40839e700c8e5752cf
9c36880549812dd26730e8e4c66ad76f0980f7d0
34670 F20110218_AAADDK braunstein_j_Page_110.QC.jpg
7a8be28666bd29a14fc12e4914d7d92a
27c0ae47a8d483b6f56af089e75f9801e70a01ef
34214 F20110218_AAADCV braunstein_j_Page_045.QC.jpg
8a9fb247a658549ff56c19185e4a93e6
9233dd3da28366cc63bc928f6577c37b4840d936
13049 F20110218_AAACXP braunstein_j_Page_117.QC.jpg
bdd340e87085fa4bd8dfeb9dc132ee51
f66cba9ea3f5422fb7209224de1d65cc59b6cf56
F20110218_AAACAI braunstein_j_Page_077.tif
b5045c532d101d4a5c698fecdba6bd59
1ae704c2366a715316f5c770708b9c70e0484a44
533 F20110218_AAADDL braunstein_j_Page_003thm.jpg
03d935be501f58b88fea18c95a666ae5
8f49905684bfefc6696febcafd49eba56d1d3145
32065 F20110218_AAADCW braunstein_j_Page_046.QC.jpg
23b07217e719cfd6d1a91eeddb738b7e
c6df7ff90a26657e943793b2ca67f3514f950618
32644 F20110218_AAACXQ braunstein_j_Page_053.QC.jpg
30914d2a14737d85c65a174399f362aa
8f7ace575f1cd4c1c3903121f6f549a5fa16e503
12131 F20110218_AAACAJ braunstein_j_Page_006.QC.jpg
9467be4626c6bfed97a24e21e6a7cff5
db97f2df989a12b173fef68aaac163c72b5831d7
32853 F20110218_AAACYE braunstein_j_Page_113.QC.jpg
899e6c99ab74be32492ebb834af25751
97a8c8967b40761c051e034eb5d7bc56c6c72da6
F20110218_AAADDM braunstein_j_Page_017thm.jpg
8e5dd89425f8439e56be4b5fb6acfa7a
62d3ef705ce33dbe06459612181c19abb0bbea06
32841 F20110218_AAADCX braunstein_j_Page_047.QC.jpg
c4e7ea13cf7f902e92d2a17f1b36d67d
0c121d4df552100739370ac8d537868f697b8d06
33507 F20110218_AAACXR braunstein_j_Page_033.QC.jpg
1902a8fcfcb566bbe34a3f025b525a2a
53e01cc54b9a90ecd65e3414d17677c539f88444
31823 F20110218_AAACAK braunstein_j_Page_055.QC.jpg
0bac44c08abc5d883814cccf63b48424
1d403003663ff6e125d32156c27e2b869f5db8db
8498 F20110218_AAACYF braunstein_j_Page_068thm.jpg
d61ad7e73c0e829c32ec2ebf0d11e741
f7b1be20e1dd8f42ec406a19f209cd3237509510
6784 F20110218_AAADDN braunstein_j_Page_026thm.jpg
e33f76a5ca2faef1df5540cf68cd7cba
ea6d512542e742e2f1e4d19a790f9f9a5e295f21
32867 F20110218_AAADCY braunstein_j_Page_052.QC.jpg
a98c661ae1a8ea039624aa33834bb181
24a653f354ff4ca3cc0e070aa2aadac93c57eb68
7601 F20110218_AAACXS braunstein_j_Page_107thm.jpg
2a63ddc649c16ce596d0ecdec318a1ec
94e978e43e8353a66381baf7d2f4c0e8e1c34536
F20110218_AAACAL braunstein_j_Page_034.tif
f7f0d795fe1f67de5ebc507fe3264821
4c53240109ef4c57f5bdd2f77161bef5c4d9080e
8669 F20110218_AAACYG braunstein_j_Page_089thm.jpg
cc7ca5c61d1029daccf4afffa304c62b
c708eb278cd671f774637ca33518b05cfbcd49ba
33646 F20110218_AAADCZ braunstein_j_Page_056.QC.jpg
07dc115286972d5fc8b2c3698eaeecce
ac7c32c8e32a710c378a65b8ef11999b58c5b2f4
7938 F20110218_AAACXT braunstein_j_Page_051thm.jpg
e9453459e894411ee978d5dcd798696f
33768c39b99173104ad8a396309fd20c3eb4a317
105127 F20110218_AAACBA braunstein_j_Page_096.jpg
edfad23e9d96a3cf28a9c3e98e4c0cd7
d728370b560c8c22c398dd4d46b632bd02fe4d0c
8581 F20110218_AAACYH braunstein_j_Page_030thm.jpg
989f93ca8e3d02527efdc1c6d0af4778
4c5b1b0349915064b619b14bdf745abedc489ad6
5848 F20110218_AAADDO braunstein_j_Page_027thm.jpg
893bea9d67c6193ddf0c06cdd53822c3
3ac3653dc8e7c958e95cbf57acb9fbe95e4be8a0
8759 F20110218_AAACXU braunstein_j_Page_014thm.jpg
c8210bd401f3f14fbfc341037dafd89d
f74b82e06d514ebe2b5dccad62f827106e032a6e
102144 F20110218_AAACBB braunstein_j_Page_106.jpg
794e1fd4c5cece92bb62894b07da589d
1fe2b9855c44039691a0a132d250be1b8861ed46
67108 F20110218_AAACAM braunstein_j_Page_097.jpg
5dd745370d0e8fc2a3a73ae7ee1f4c4f
22034adca944ce5650b4e40969aaf767478b66f1
8096 F20110218_AAACYI braunstein_j_Page_047thm.jpg
49899f5f5dc3fbfb98dd0ae5e9743cec
2181925fc8b1a1cf64711b58f9b0923847cff350
8153 F20110218_AAADDP braunstein_j_Page_029thm.jpg
6dc49f2670b678c782690a57dd72a105
7791bca1cf2454aba1fd27222bfa5bcb25378e01
25238 F20110218_AAACXV braunstein_j_Page_077.QC.jpg
1acabc1f9aa2cf064bae8111ea6afe6c
dbf55a53f03f683aaf3b6938f5d23a70e68d613b
1836 F20110218_AAACBC braunstein_j_Page_058.txt
6da58d36c529d253b8fe80da15c817a5
f7e9c6c9e50e54fa40a0dfd5c7c8b29e320dd58c
1879 F20110218_AAACAN braunstein_j_Page_042.txt
e9af7d55b3201ee08e1217a40be34124
cf495086dc0288d1f30da6c6031f6a5e53766fcb
1747 F20110218_AAACYJ braunstein_j_Page_002.QC.jpg
6dad0bf726e98a8f76e01facbafd1430
a21fe0da3040d3cfe96f3d65bf8e128de610507a
8149 F20110218_AAADDQ braunstein_j_Page_046thm.jpg
552aa2f5645b15134443f870dd22d4c3
3f1ba7f0cbe54ecaa5254d67e2ae028c066a616a
8240 F20110218_AAACXW braunstein_j_Page_042thm.jpg
ab6bd7a44d323bc4de894863ff3cef60
dfdc810212be6880ccabcfdf923ee8a63a20458a
102268 F20110218_AAACBD braunstein_j_Page_013.jpg
afec173c9939f77c7f6d1c0eec28bf86
7fe69f45684dace41849c2f141c26362de5294a9
973528 F20110218_AAACAO braunstein_j_Page_072.jp2
0f99c6b2f86950fc64cfef5e8efb8787
0fbc242668c33722faf79a22971b722edc3ec114
35033 F20110218_AAACYK braunstein_j_Page_111.QC.jpg
e97f7f8af0bb7a730a841694262ef43d
ad91850ab875bdf4aad47003825ea35de6c76f36
8282 F20110218_AAADDR braunstein_j_Page_060thm.jpg
f9765d6bf46e6bc6033be224400bf3af
a8bef20fc07562d0e129aece0999e0ecd4b8fcbd
31765 F20110218_AAACXX braunstein_j_Page_115.QC.jpg
d0d22bcfee67055a9168e13b86cdbb12
167b46102c729ea5217fb73537452d33c3794501
2025 F20110218_AAACBE braunstein_j_Page_094.txt
352c36d45de611c3f365539a9d83b172
0290d1b2c2dba9fdce7abc2aa0d3837d704c5105
103418 F20110218_AAACAP braunstein_j_Page_094.jpg
d16a836589198a652871bdff400e9d4f
f0a7baeca7ab243c47272e34e718d28a3d363c26
7343 F20110218_AAACZA braunstein_j_Page_078thm.jpg
43926a2d959c2a7a315ec69d2824a29a
f9125d36c4cfc3cc2494007e1b29f0215a67d1ae
35280 F20110218_AAACYL braunstein_j_Page_048.QC.jpg
e6ecc057da0d36fee8ecab451747c791
36858ca486cf8250bc99073f2db12978711975d8
6099 F20110218_AAADDS braunstein_j_Page_074thm.jpg
d669c1987cdc020ba61c82163ef3f2ca
db3a34d9c556a56526d36236159c970a3465ab5a
1684 F20110218_AAACXY braunstein_j_Page_101thm.jpg
1bad38ffe39d20d49becc6f051b06c19
92a1868c88c2eb4e092f339d2a9da0413b9a7742
5107 F20110218_AAACBF braunstein_j_Page_104thm.jpg
1cc7b7c9da1f21bc4fdbf198125b5527
b6fe18df617d8b382cf4dfe03ab0984e33ba3e96
F20110218_AAACAQ braunstein_j_Page_043.tif
1c628434ec26f080432c0f43282ddf1b
2589c4ee00e0b1d1edb2705e49bad93d01990793
7591 F20110218_AAACZB braunstein_j_Page_007.QC.jpg
8583feea909c6efe9c8bdd6e734e9370
baef03d7b1e2e41732f393413195f0e449f2fc13
2651 F20110218_AAACYM braunstein_j_Page_098thm.jpg
ea8edc350a5bbc185e675ae812c4e715
7872e56b0e82745a51301b40a6ca9a0db0e49795
6522 F20110218_AAADDT braunstein_j_Page_077thm.jpg
9a98375da0cece87ce9479ec788f7f14
363f6cee28014699026d9d6eaa153f526482e150
8438 F20110218_AAACXZ braunstein_j_Page_096thm.jpg
de0c7ebabf7d6f17c44e274af828f6a0
6f46ffd93ac11027013d8f55c49434a3a196f584
54017 F20110218_AAACBG braunstein_j_Page_066.pro
740fe97f4377c951b20542ba5a3623cd
2576e5ecc20a94b08fa14c98ef3804e4817a0c16
52280 F20110218_AAACAR braunstein_j_Page_116.jpg
aaade7a7bedd22de275d568168afbc6e
a792b5fd9f6a7dc9d32fda13222aa484a63c1c9f
34662 F20110218_AAACZC braunstein_j_Page_020.QC.jpg
88a14c7da76afcbe02f9bf45295f3bb2
52b1b76e1f3542233d3cd54f162170cef78eea42
33574 F20110218_AAACYN braunstein_j_Page_037.QC.jpg
f7bc8b8a2e8cb39ad36bff9bb04554bd
ddce208d68955be8577fa9b1e2bb09e65147a16c
6511 F20110218_AAADDU braunstein_j_Page_081thm.jpg
f2edfd326e0b2b3846a0dd04926a3db2
6884106e486e99da104f46a5bc8a8835e1546601
27875 F20110218_AAACBH braunstein_j_Page_075.QC.jpg
0c9d4e4ce69b734a3078e931446325a5
46e76f0ad11282e630ce7eb64ea0b42107bc5489
5418 F20110218_AAACAS braunstein_j_Page_022.pro
1874e8cc6ed640a26457a953c3869927
a27f2b287444035bdf2c218ce4a0d5681382b8f4
5434 F20110218_AAACZD braunstein_j_Page_097thm.jpg
676de8490f7f73c2ff2e47f9514600ca
e092112baa19459e9a0855f185c26960c3f229b0
23349 F20110218_AAACYO braunstein_j_Page_064.QC.jpg
238716f71c38b122c4e7ce436d2a50e5
54dfc8bdab104fe02eadd4f64a66a1ff99ddb65c
1040650 F20110218_AAACBI braunstein_j_Page_106.jp2
4f2cc2e077cb202f5a16499a9a0cd3c1
8180061d5e498796a90f513a1a6b650914f8cabd
50025 F20110218_AAACAT braunstein_j_Page_079.pro
33dce8ed6504c1b8eda84f149312bf48
e0848a0ebbab3979827455397d917e4a4040e3a6
20519 F20110218_AAACZE braunstein_j_Page_104.QC.jpg
6494211e15515062667eb9371750cc45
3663bbdb0879bc1dfecdf53911cd3378ceeba1fc
33558 F20110218_AAACYP braunstein_j_Page_087.QC.jpg
2d3e41f07f1162fe7af4a1e1cfb0291f
c6308ada983d19d5bae000623925b34bbdcaa34d
937 F20110218_AAACBJ braunstein_j_Page_004.txt
4c321646b05bad1bdeea6e19c056a1a9
a656088734b91b3210fb9c5f5f2c95d255372e2a
51032 F20110218_AAACAU braunstein_j_Page_070.pro
8574449e1a7a7d574b503382935c92ff
7042bd7f58107b541d989bd919724acb321bef82
32477 F20110218_AAACYQ braunstein_j_Page_042.QC.jpg
4f7a9e31bbdf7ff615bad32e65a9e349
c57b53de57fce5f72cf697ea471556c46e8aa50b
F20110218_AAACBK braunstein_j_Page_088.tif
7965485244ff2fe299cf5cbb79de4068
7b2189880c8e3970441c118658cefdb0ee8ac514
8547 F20110218_AAACAV braunstein_j_Page_110thm.jpg
fc5cb2dafbbf9571d722f0a2e5b19992
96ff5ff78b4652bb86b39cdc31fb40625f58708a
2365 F20110218_AAACZF braunstein_j_Page_084thm.jpg
e28335806d78678c0f2ada0977196d3e
decf0e93680d141d12ef283f950c38a229fd8cbe
1833 F20110218_AAACYR braunstein_j_Page_103thm.jpg
77c387761ef3fa494f52e4ed9dc54be1
2812b142494c39e6a0b5b219964797dc03cb9072
47917 F20110218_AAACBL braunstein_j_Page_015.pro
5415015ea3c61eb53a35cad2849bc944
56a2d3c4aabcb0a272e4f3a8195b16d779148472
101797 F20110218_AAACAW braunstein_j_Page_093.jpg
ed354449e75b3074c339de9988e0091f
6f828f8af434e83bf874b1212b85ab9fcf4c9e77
32720 F20110218_AAACZG braunstein_j_Page_080.QC.jpg
5e38dbaba9e75801eb2ab6fb7b08db61
6e4e22869a985483ef16726ec603a28eb5ec95cd
8222 F20110218_AAACYS braunstein_j_Page_054thm.jpg
b62228cea58f13f15483c78580259de1
802cc53bdae7e9a451ed42c05af9a269167a597c
5990 F20110218_AAACBM braunstein_j_Page_064thm.jpg
d1b595dbf2523ea9094e85e035325aa5
0988dc8faa9471f1520e094814b624b8dc3aeded
102005 F20110218_AAACAX braunstein_j_Page_100.pro
da13666a921917479b23bdcd596665cd
dab912f5482fe3d7eeb5ad7f189ee5c21bb5b229
8497 F20110218_AAACZH braunstein_j_Page_059thm.jpg
7d9ee0a8080a1996c5ac48c18d85397a
de2cc37e35af170225dbb379c74190ce07351f05
8441 F20110218_AAACYT braunstein_j_Page_044thm.jpg
162d7c3c376698f8122a77a9981339fe
c4fb9b0dde9833a9529f3f6472b7d3a8630ee663
1051843 F20110218_AAACCA braunstein_j_Page_112.jp2
b9c4a8e61907f8dc51b342befba735b8
81682df1a83d2ccc46960347761db7924760401c
104060 F20110218_AAACAY braunstein_j_Page_019.jpg
ae042bcdebd0b8241a56625f1fa306e4
84d10c99481d31a4e27cd0e1ad4eedd0302a021f
32583 F20110218_AAACZI braunstein_j_Page_092.QC.jpg
446c95f131dac11dd529ecb0549bbeba
92179e97acb35ecc9a59a97d575d70309547a38e
8165 F20110218_AAACYU braunstein_j_Page_115thm.jpg
b41ee9ecce5e263f9d96ab0dfda596a1
477cb8323f0bf974f611a4595c2a42412d3c5dd0
60218 F20110218_AAACCB braunstein_j_Page_114.pro
8333874928acd2de878fba4c9a7fe996
bdc0e0531a07056a0836d5aa5a4947c4f4eb06f4
102648 F20110218_AAACBN braunstein_j_Page_032.jpg
b2ccc0a575876870a8bb920a1f4aa75c
f72cfe19703c973467589e27ef934011282df5bf
40438 F20110218_AAACAZ braunstein_j_Page_117.jpg
cb820c2d6054ef50bb2cd0013905dfb7
88f8b269322d86dc722fd62f338530adebc2283e
30130 F20110218_AAACZJ braunstein_j_Page_106.QC.jpg
cc7811d171d1f53c0a08cfa8e5a52608
85726f2aa284163e7174debbbafbba129703e730
30906 F20110218_AAACYV braunstein_j_Page_051.QC.jpg
0d7c40e0396aba72b9d6d98f6e9db8f5
2e6d6b4cab2d2ee562ba4efbbc19117876474ee6
50433 F20110218_AAACCC braunstein_j_Page_092.pro
c355447c1ce17afb51167b49878ae3de
2cfdb7e9bb344d32bae74bbccbadb400043d50c5
22317 F20110218_AAACBO braunstein_j_Page_027.QC.jpg
b207f04efc6202f952264377d6efe5bd
3eb33457d38b1a91d8d28be4ca6255fb603166ea
29971 F20110218_AAACZK braunstein_j_Page_079.QC.jpg
87b1181c15daa36051d385e00e193b06
dd6ddf1092225c4766e9c5ea96a8b557d2004bd8
24326 F20110218_AAACYW braunstein_j_Page_074.QC.jpg
8af4b986cb2f622de7a5cfe7f6be009b
d0ebd2a40900c2758507ed54e5a945e823293d5d
104577 F20110218_AAACCD braunstein_j_Page_012.jpg
29815ee33f832559ec6491af178e757e
091ece54e45373bfde1223adc25d55e51378c0f7
1960 F20110218_AAACBP braunstein_j_Page_067.txt
fba2ed3d6ebcc5594cd03ac00c3b70fa
7fea6f87d6df941d637d5476bfac43e0ad0edb1b
32822 F20110218_AAACZL braunstein_j_Page_023.QC.jpg
4eca2e04ef3dad8ec83a48fd7ab30413
0420ab1703bd812cc0623a369a6e3bd3102be46d
33686 F20110218_AAACYX braunstein_j_Page_016.QC.jpg
fc0bbf1b050ea40c163804622f4e6190
23bab0678b39822e8bf145a8c7db1db573937738
1051986 F20110218_AAACCE braunstein_j_Page_086.jp2
0733de0291d573686307f68331c50989
4ddf79ec6f0ac5b9be64a84e6a4b826bc22f5130
1995 F20110218_AAACBQ braunstein_j_Page_060.txt
b33d1995e0e4f956cf344838dd952a2f
cd3927d5cb1eb436141556878b8859bfcd689fdd
30568 F20110218_AAACZM braunstein_j_Page_058.QC.jpg
364fca1503ff98b2587e691dd8262b4f
6843e7f609b97bce9cc380595311b50a8536c107
F20110218_AAACYY braunstein_j_Page_007thm.jpg
e30112918e25aaf8b6b25abdf04b8b3d
69ecc31b092342bf0e984128022293324aa1e50f
46831 F20110218_AAACCF braunstein_j_Page_042.pro
38ba566d5e67295d1c2b3f09973f675a
fe078f4e6b0e342d17cfff8f4ff297a8cc1f084c
F20110218_AAACBR braunstein_j_Page_105.tif
3c2723a426218c322f2cbd67836cfb44
ddb59156ce18fc1442d8bec33543cb16548bc7a7
16568 F20110218_AAACZN braunstein_j_Page_004.QC.jpg
4333e812cc72641a5018f5f598a21e7c
1a4822d36136f5e44b90f52dddd34152db60ddfc
31947 F20110218_AAACYZ braunstein_j_Page_036.QC.jpg
a003d5f4387136253ada34b5f64c2ebc
a03475fbec733612a6d01c04db99232e514eaae4
53260 F20110218_AAACCG braunstein_j_Page_069.pro
e4ea8c919ddf3796d7b1f69d0589f707
4cb0fa95e9460e0bbf96bc8439327470c1099e2f
3791 F20110218_AAACBS braunstein_j_Page_116thm.jpg
ee43afb3f230f91dc45e181f55dbd16d
8d9f58da70f50e894fc69150c70b3763807a1d8e
11086 F20110218_AAACZO braunstein_j_Page_022.QC.jpg
b4d403538884c7169e5f9e45a694d3c0
a9ac1c78259442654ac91c0e8c1eb1e319750ac7
60990 F20110218_AAACCH braunstein_j_Page_106.pro
2fe7b022a69d49aeae44026fb7239013
906eb28d6b8bebbbc126d862595ad5e737eddd37
44612 F20110218_AAACBT braunstein_j_Page_028.pro
c7aa29e82a614d5d7343ba6a7c8e4337
7fb89f4aa5e8c684e68c4d998b26aa2895eb7d80
22821 F20110218_AAACZP braunstein_j_Page_063.QC.jpg
6b33649c1c0b4f96c2db11378fd8855f
a8a23ce1fe8efb9f8a695b741772fdcdc83cf5a0
140927 F20110218_AAACCI UFE0014561_00001.mets
2eb7e0cf00ef1c1f2335c0c75a8f651e
71f64c0eb234770dfa9072646cf53a41c2a0df82
32884 F20110218_AAACBU braunstein_j_Page_061.QC.jpg
63e48a6cca135e1a9edea0666578d4c6
00f7a516a8fa72d8ee665a02ad3f91d219a7ab9e
8259 F20110218_AAACZQ braunstein_j_Page_018thm.jpg
f7075efc9a0bb8f8e2a6e97fd7bc09a4
a0c2b2eacef0b0e67e0611ce3f7474927ef7714b
34775 F20110218_AAACZR braunstein_j_Page_030.QC.jpg
3723c92dbb8271ffd303297f09e9b846
d902f1dbd77ea7d46e59a873a38da1ac6605644d
F20110218_AAACBV braunstein_j_Page_031.tif
f6da9e7b4caf09eb8c9d39e3c6880dc1
8c9731503fbbbce6a26cf0926ab115e40bb6ae70
6834 F20110218_AAACZS braunstein_j_Page_082thm.jpg
18b3abc759a5778004d67df3c64272cd
394431cd72774e1051e46d74c0362b9028b69aa2
F20110218_AAACCL braunstein_j_Page_001.tif
36cb8fd084af9408406e015915707e56
35c316e348d1a82594e0d720a544e8ca3c2b2f8c
965689 F20110218_AAACBW braunstein_j_Page_078.jp2
0ec78d5aa12c4c821064f0d060fe1624
82f170d37b71e46cfac30ad840a727b0ec2d0638
33858 F20110218_AAACZT braunstein_j_Page_089.QC.jpg
5d3091ddbcdce376cde1076747bb40e8
eded9d2077d3c31fd1892b56a9069ecdcdb236d7
F20110218_AAACDA braunstein_j_Page_016.tif
14f7abd17e9bd9ef2ce1bce154a4753f
6d9f90db63a40a120a4c4838b254fb6ac31be8a2
F20110218_AAACCM braunstein_j_Page_002.tif
2ae07ff2463541bd0d70d66e2c8c57df
c7bb5d282285bf691cd9b889ae41b5e4709bb192
69322 F20110218_AAACBX braunstein_j_Page_063.jpg
78b7de5acd748c860e18072b9fc756cc
183a7f21b41c1c4783a6944d764281442f4b28d3
6857 F20110218_AAACZU braunstein_j_Page_075thm.jpg
2f4ab9a8ab7acef927b457a295c67bde
12af3ffd94c79bd6532d1a95ab567f0a94dfa531
F20110218_AAACDB braunstein_j_Page_017.tif
8d341813b8a18b514ebd729c921daa0e
374401b19b72fe9e53c43ef8a2ae3ab351f35567
F20110218_AAACCN braunstein_j_Page_003.tif
b5052f7191b9e488a45993228ad71921
5ce100011f5a127933fb1d2afcc8144bb1ebcad2
F20110218_AAACBY braunstein_j_Page_057.jp2
6d0d71e37ec35eecd7a84e1ed909fa84
aada90b6beede6deffc0de0214413ae70ea45809
16305 F20110218_AAACZV braunstein_j_Page_005.QC.jpg
e10dd38078c2134d0447b613d70830a6
666a4bf698008d19ff68a3ac6be5f9a3c9db8e34
F20110218_AAACDC braunstein_j_Page_018.tif
f0fbcfeae2aa99077a81d1c6e318a596
d9062ec2d880ad5942118e6359b80d0a7dfd1cca
991014 F20110218_AAACBZ braunstein_j_Page_085.jp2
90676489a16be66a19262eb4052c7951
22943b994487713f7ca7838ca5d8a04814510d45
2227 F20110218_AAACZW braunstein_j_Page_001thm.jpg
c9706a53f290e3abf1138b5e2b7e0d9b
ea9471e59906b6aabbc41c6465929b76dc6ec01b
F20110218_AAACDD braunstein_j_Page_019.tif
e4f9566769205759add3b694476c087e
8b83de41e77542cb0cf60bd546da13823be78242
F20110218_AAACCO braunstein_j_Page_004.tif
e49b9ec5e9fbfb4d558f86fa13f0f122
b44fdaf5b08355c64e216966af5b9ccaf1e72806
6112 F20110218_AAACZX braunstein_j_Page_076thm.jpg
95a4a56a3bf38fca0f8e6f14c6e8345c
31066086f877dc5c34f15c79d778c37e4ec4077b
F20110218_AAACDE braunstein_j_Page_020.tif
6cac7fa75b6d35d5d6fc371dc76720fa
e4a96f2e712fbd2c4c1b1ae996a23641b53a0ca3
F20110218_AAACCP braunstein_j_Page_005.tif
277285de7cd383c688d5eb04778866c3
1ce419fc6d3f2bc8661cc88c283dce1d0d69c475
34069 F20110218_AAACZY braunstein_j_Page_096.QC.jpg
1314f7c9853e07c4d2dd937deb4ecf60
dd3c5ff0fb669cdde1fbc6dcefa66634177e804f
F20110218_AAACDF braunstein_j_Page_021.tif
50e4a64becf104a83f21afaf8d6dcca6
0f062de492b723a3a80ec550cd629126b0c46d4b
F20110218_AAACCQ braunstein_j_Page_006.tif
95580d930c09a9312cd60ddb95a75986
4998ccf857a0cc2d02257de0dd9c44c85c9b556d
8362 F20110218_AAACZZ braunstein_j_Page_080thm.jpg
c24454c3ef893d4da19758dd24e6ca15
57e0d4ea22ec86f6230aa5c1ed7eae7659d828a0
F20110218_AAACDG braunstein_j_Page_022.tif
cfd013da6db3af9d3b1d0855a7333ae3
d2c1910dc20e476df427a118a75c1fc0a3c4cbb2
F20110218_AAACCR braunstein_j_Page_007.tif
a4542d9a997bf4d8b9438a43c74138ed
6908e0e96e6b483d13a7b4aee0188d3ccf123679
F20110218_AAACDH braunstein_j_Page_023.tif
fba175bb1a3d83d654feaf0f267676bc
8717f8a0dbadb4c70e11686e770637fcb7bf32fc
F20110218_AAACCS braunstein_j_Page_008.tif
b4464655f917827dbd5b126a1fc2327f
c4221da008d3d09026970db26c41d74582a88b48
F20110218_AAACDI braunstein_j_Page_024.tif
4499895bcbed71024b9c4093c208fac1
a43bebe45671dc5e3e9ef999983b00573a0ef01b
F20110218_AAACCT braunstein_j_Page_009.tif
5654504a03668eddddb48304b1a11ed0
3db803c36ba481872d120eee445735d13819bd9b
F20110218_AAACDJ braunstein_j_Page_025.tif
46124f4f52794c2a5a3f78b2f8b26661
efe532ab035f7dc4f3fa9d1bec55e08d9a6c8d29
50227 F20110218_AAABYD braunstein_j_Page_061.pro
ba753e474da81f923d3e52149b07aa00
0764e45bf84e21687d7c2d0700178aa3009beeda
F20110218_AAACCU braunstein_j_Page_010.tif
231f57546a4ae62fa4a63be45e0e5f3a
ed265fe3ef7eb91e1e8ce0eb0d1b6cda36c5a174
F20110218_AAACDK braunstein_j_Page_026.tif
9b39e3a24e95630f35ecaefef7512596
a82433baac5f1cec4ce4dc6ba90501cdc72e3504
8546 F20110218_AAABYE braunstein_j_Page_073thm.jpg
be90883211e22ce2d8683d03390bc334
affc85c8089ecc5ddaa3f9a7139e6456d10ef496
F20110218_AAACCV braunstein_j_Page_011.tif
a7bed65db520cf862b861af709787326
5d31e3acedd7a1ca776f82c3ad82185d714619b4
F20110218_AAACDL braunstein_j_Page_027.tif
5922ed33e1a3fe76d6aea7d956d1b1d7
9a8ad22e36ce9fdb4548e21f9c2998331afa5143
F20110218_AAACCW braunstein_j_Page_012.tif
cc4563697a319faa4bcced25a296c363
d7c4891c2ba5d2a6a9c418b3ac0bbbcd6fa6054d
F20110218_AAACDM braunstein_j_Page_028.tif
50b087c842292585db0e4cb5063e307f
1d2846ed385095a161aeae5239051d407ba45e3f
33284 F20110218_AAABYF braunstein_j_Page_031.QC.jpg
6d98606980e9ba3bd4190823450b729d
8efbec56c76da3b36e792f494fcc1da8a24f9f2e
F20110218_AAACCX braunstein_j_Page_013.tif
53451201860ec349861c654b8d69634e
79f00338fd6a94047cc3e381bd306cbe9a1186dc
F20110218_AAACEA braunstein_j_Page_047.tif
a16ee2944c8897f196e8528d12433b42
c5af599a221d879aba7cd0b39d2e4ebfbd0f3e68
F20110218_AAACDN braunstein_j_Page_029.tif
e692419d9f19a25713952dca67a08ed2
586bd3c98948d3c4d85297bf2061ba8e80fe4418
F20110218_AAABYG braunstein_j_Page_100.tif
8fbf5f2643afd1b92c35e5b019dd5a0f
3ef44714d26364ffdbf86113ff8741fc1ac468af
F20110218_AAACCY braunstein_j_Page_014.tif
5dc5d40314f3c7a134fd4fa2fc7440b9
4172772279eb7f3b05dc27283cf26aa795ec489f
F20110218_AAACEB braunstein_j_Page_048.tif
7edea09965f7393e11f279e8a1f77fe4
4cab3e8265ac6223332bd02b8a28598260a8f6f6
F20110218_AAACDO braunstein_j_Page_030.tif
4c5a26186c2ee12e0081c9d324120a0d
1195e90a6dfd2066330114d1c14e07d8e755aa41
103777 F20110218_AAABYH braunstein_j_Page_070.jpg
c86f3334c9e441068d06337bc6db32a9
6d044c813b13ea2725efd2c9a7ce3f66bf9b0edf
F20110218_AAACCZ braunstein_j_Page_015.tif
34906fca272170726a82bd526e32a726
cb29de89478ba30f8fd0c25493590902f3312fdf
F20110218_AAACEC braunstein_j_Page_049.tif
defff6f1a8391e6419ea21a5ca1912e0
fad2c5d1121341145934fdee4a204ce5468c6968
F20110218_AAABYI braunstein_j_Page_040.QC.jpg
2ae086c818b38fcb2487709cec636ba1
5acea1d00ecb006c1d62bdc66f997c5c71e487be
F20110218_AAACED braunstein_j_Page_050.tif
8bb3f84011d853e2b3bf95335be40742
3b15fd368e74be24eea7d84e48cd20605afebf93
F20110218_AAACDP braunstein_j_Page_032.tif
5125f16acadb971dbf4e603beb206e23
d608414ecc2f865d248fcd8c25b3d4743887c146
F20110218_AAABYJ braunstein_j_Page_045.tif
eebc82f0d3d781fe8be312782a78e20f
2a4f2464043fd7614a9e53c131c7b61d9ae9bc72
F20110218_AAACEE braunstein_j_Page_051.tif
c1406e3ec4b06a794813acfafaacb420
c1a9f95b6f2d8ac8590f9dfe4cfb842b7567ac32
F20110218_AAACDQ braunstein_j_Page_033.tif
7ea75d29c48ddbf237911e59a9de56a8
b9757cacd4ee4873b055fb933a40b0fcfdc827bf
F20110218_AAABYK braunstein_j_Page_096.tif
824cd37cc08cce55e0ab73b68e7cc266
cd74a4c883584bd770d015fc44ae043f983486b2
F20110218_AAACEF braunstein_j_Page_053.tif
5a63fbac6b2a4584823315a250d74b07
c906a815d3e6e8016bb6f39b729284448c6e3c79
25194 F20110218_AAABZA braunstein_j_Page_116.pro
e8edd8e89b7070fe80d698fe28aca853
1bc22975d75edc6ea8f5aeaccc23d82deb0699fc
F20110218_AAACDR braunstein_j_Page_036.tif
7a38ea6b97576d8811860b61e5ef606c
a7834e687cd01d7ecc89db3b33f926bb847351b5
F20110218_AAABYL braunstein_j_Page_032.jp2
803f801616a5bc27d4f67eda535bad14
af5fc32e9b7454693cdf8312efd494a551ed94f7
F20110218_AAACEG braunstein_j_Page_054.tif
3e84738ffde40d3a4e4f39d206738bda
b8c5bbcc31b2cf6202aca8c5af17280fe270c603
8662 F20110218_AAABZB braunstein_j_Page_069thm.jpg
968680e3418df40890f8b74605163bf7
fb7355b459bbd8108844f0a57438f5512e08e8eb
F20110218_AAACDS braunstein_j_Page_037.tif
a17540525eeeb59f1397e5478bc79bff
f827aba482167bf82940076871b6c93b64bc68de
1941 F20110218_AAABYM braunstein_j_Page_018.txt
7cd303baf92c6b62914fb6f84896d848
811967fc0662e01c3c80ea2c40536a2c63b20c8b
F20110218_AAACEH braunstein_j_Page_055.tif
1332f29a18da917565c3d72e3465c161
639912c4bb17919a67b23399ef0682058c44c316
67822 F20110218_AAABZC braunstein_j_Page_105.jpg
ec2ac1cc15c100756ea14444a34b39ed
6c75ec4c8e88d0657dd96046e715bdde81824c40
F20110218_AAACDT braunstein_j_Page_038.tif
9d73d67139f11a1ff9bfaf657df601a1
98d191a04c188f55cbc8f53fa007a06e460cda0f
51581 F20110218_AAABYN braunstein_j_Page_059.pro
3718d82c216690ee0f709cb8854ba33d
165876915b213cbb251f6052336a9713088e8c86
F20110218_AAACEI braunstein_j_Page_056.tif
71fe08a3307906daea8b14a6be2d9d5a
b7e781f7d6b6cd89d919f287c37f42905079b281
52971 F20110218_AAABZD braunstein_j_Page_035.pro
02a992565fce998f08c42f5edaec1d7e
03ef7dc599d3bc8adb6a91c579ead8c6b33cd284
F20110218_AAACDU braunstein_j_Page_039.tif
e3dc865c43594a20fece7e74d1dc0190
d9799027a252c66a1a4c0d9b7d0ca40257daf972
31829 F20110218_AAABYO braunstein_j_Page_039.QC.jpg
781db95b2da7832c4695113b7817dbfc
28bba1e857913c6b98850a7b295882d224f88f1e
F20110218_AAACEJ braunstein_j_Page_057.tif
cf929fbd3d81f5f8ead7974b60e83eca
e80145980a8f8c03f4c664d80130c8dd36e6f051
F20110218_AAABZE braunstein_j_Page_115.jp2
509cb1d8858dfc89f32f3405961c2995
4f10d32cd12d9c705dcef16db78bcc6b6c45fdbe
F20110218_AAACDV braunstein_j_Page_040.tif
58ebe3d78768cd2ae230b2be11f608f0
c9cc03180c0bdaf58a4d825dfe55cdd2c5f84e10
F20110218_AAABYP braunstein_j_Page_097.tif
5238bf6567266a86fd77f231c0cfa813
17b5ec608ccfeed0de349d2cd2ab4c017a991cba
F20110218_AAACEK braunstein_j_Page_058.tif
8a6c0a385ca1343b0b42448d7aa31e7e
1c150af84d6d16d6f43325927794a8efcfd6c4a2
F20110218_AAABZF braunstein_j_Page_070.jp2
ea4e4fa59d21d5b1fc1465ce2029851f
af082eef8bb4842766dce4bf06aa388289fa63df
F20110218_AAACDW braunstein_j_Page_041.tif
7ba1f0704893e193788a3f83ef761a7b
789c2a325083203c9e3a6affb70507ff0c1e3df9
1051967 F20110218_AAABYQ braunstein_j_Page_053.jp2
90033dd53f3e11822a8431a11bce77b2
a21b17837ca468d8c5a1479760c2b919aae8345c
F20110218_AAACEL braunstein_j_Page_059.tif
e56f9f63854e62e9d19069ebcf63482d
edc25e0193a3f629ee362548d6f9d6754dc601d6
F20110218_AAACDX braunstein_j_Page_042.tif
c5a2e1f066324d62767236572654a667
c1fa6762881c11c5535f14cf580ad085264a2e5a
1410 F20110218_AAABYR braunstein_j_Page_002.pro
245db813167c197c094b257d72853647
2b6c45bab74e2075c8b61a439f5087b3790e855d
F20110218_AAACFA braunstein_j_Page_075.tif
7ae0b4145c87dfb4ab6028ab68be1fc0
e7c54679fb80574f6167a04c07a04f8c2e19c8c2
F20110218_AAACEM braunstein_j_Page_060.tif
96ad0b4a700497f3ebcf1363be3dc5d9
e746c7a8b57eb04286e13f1a5da7c7b6e260d51d
F20110218_AAABZG braunstein_j_Page_044.jp2
389391c61b4de9ad61394e5c582a8bf6
91b49f28d1b9d9d1c7c10e70fe60b1609b58a92f
F20110218_AAACDY braunstein_j_Page_044.tif
94af7cc80133ee616aa3b1342f5d2a3c
780f38e1c14c24911beaa9674dd7740a0c5440dd
7290 F20110218_AAABYS braunstein_j_Page_021thm.jpg
4bfc1e85d687d0f363957b24b112eb64
802e587987b8d42d6b3636898e2440dc36d79758
F20110218_AAACFB braunstein_j_Page_076.tif
292a355a2a4fc6ecade0cf5cf7676224
bc644e6afaea9f04bcc4dd14aba852d6671edb5d
F20110218_AAACEN braunstein_j_Page_061.tif
2185cae6ce485b9cf8458044a490f207
ccade81ada15910ba501e4d0ffdd45a1ef7c1545
84289 F20110218_AAABZH braunstein_j_Page_009.jpg
ac8d13c8ca35ef8de02b0c1952525b78
a71ce93f191a6c3afd720eababd0f8d361c335cf
F20110218_AAACDZ braunstein_j_Page_046.tif
ff2c9ce2e1d20632be45254acfd82f7b
99ddfe1f287c1dcd904766b29b3308184e3ff7a6
59135 F20110218_AAABYT braunstein_j_Page_005.pro
b8dd031f0c998beaefa6d0553a5504df
c4fa37df85cfcf35e5390cc0287edc62a5bf2f0c
F20110218_AAACFC braunstein_j_Page_078.tif
0de7d9f5e3379a207811a027f939261e
9d086c2b423197acfbd343f6e9d098c4cea84d39
F20110218_AAACEO braunstein_j_Page_062.tif
b8b10a2bd9687d961c1f11451ce39b0a
543a46f2dba599e611ab2fb69ab29cef317a748c
1051918 F20110218_AAABZI braunstein_j_Page_035.jp2
ff6e8889587534dbe58a9aa6d6ee34c9
9838de637987e57d60e2248507c2917498bde969
31710 F20110218_AAABYU braunstein_j_Page_015.QC.jpg
7aca900c79008ce2184581ddd2453d70
2b3dfa8fcf8943627bae9293f31cc9b0423b12e0
F20110218_AAACFD braunstein_j_Page_079.tif
253a5192252b5d281d78a10dcb8b45cf
d87bf0cda410c0de01db3f701261688d11133446
F20110218_AAACEP braunstein_j_Page_063.tif
45ad1fb1c7f0b9f3a35bf1662ef17177
a6864e7e9aca2fa769deb2a43b6ad7f3aa484f43
F20110218_AAABZJ braunstein_j_Page_091.jp2
10e72e299310f62f77d214b99038e656
ec521e728b0e5055537300c267502aaae3e38821
F20110218_AAABYV braunstein_j_Page_052.tif
af1b9a88cf31e1765c7d24908e6e17cf
742c378c3aa5cd59c4c3ce6e564af63426cbbc8d
F20110218_AAACFE braunstein_j_Page_080.tif
c25398da399e547b9594a12bb0ea7523
a4c14f022072ed83363f2987b6c3234ab62d6994
F20110218_AAABZK braunstein_j_Page_073.tif
cb4a03139b014dfe2a5682d2a2cbba98
3020891985cf5ce8da84cbc35abfdd93e8b63890
36510 F20110218_AAABYW braunstein_j_Page_010.pro
0d4c976ef3379ed349a8284eb57726c8
0869f97ae0c62fbad0da29b78f1e33539d74104e
F20110218_AAACFF braunstein_j_Page_081.tif
d06bfdbaeeadce9ca948f06f7636f41c
0e4f8862a04cf384d0640b3fb264a0bb855f3c38
F20110218_AAACEQ braunstein_j_Page_064.tif
609f82f39f9ce71fb1d7efe465740904
6e3bef38ae045bd7fc3a060f7f896a2526141e7e


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0014561/00001

Material Information

Title: Influence of Product-Endorser Match-up on Consumer's Purchase Intentions of (Non-Sport) Endorsed Products
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0014561:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0014561/00001

Material Information

Title: Influence of Product-Endorser Match-up on Consumer's Purchase Intentions of (Non-Sport) Endorsed Products
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0014561:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











INFLUENCE OF PRODUCT-ENDORSER MATCH-UP ON
CONSUMER' S PURCHASE INTENTIONS OF
(NON-SPORT) ENDORSED PRODUCTS














By

JESSICA ROBIN BRAUNSTEIN


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2006

































Copyright 2006

by

Jessica Robin Braunstein

































This document is dedicated to my family.
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I want to thank my committee, the sport management faculty, my advisor/chairs,

my classmates/colleagues, and especially my friends. Most importantly, I wish to

acknowledge my family. I want to thank those by my side today and those that are no

longer with us. They have all taught me more than they will ever realize. Their

unwavering support has allowed me to take chances and let my heart to guide me along

this crazy journey. Without their love, support, and encouragement this would not have

been possible or worth it! They are my rocks, my best friends, and my biggest

cheerleaders. They have been my inspiration and my tour guides. Without them I would

not be where I am or, more importantly, who I am today. I could not have accomplished

this without any of the people in my life, and for that I am forever grateful.





















TABLE OF CONTENTS


page


ACKNOWLEDGMENT S .............. .................... iv


LI ST OF T ABLE S ............. ..... ._ .............. vii...


LIST OF FIGURES ............. ......___ ..............viii...


AB STRAC T ................ .............. ix


CHAPTER


1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............1.......... ......


Athlete Endorsers............... .. ...............
Influence on Purchase Intentions ................. ...............3................

Theory Development .............. ...............5.....
Purpose .................. .......... .... ...............11.......
Significance of the Study ................. ...............13.......... .....
Delimitations ................. ...............15...............
Limitations ................. ...............15.................
Definition of Terms .............. .....................16
Overview ................. ...............17.................


2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................. ......... ...............18. ....


Introducti on ................. ...............18.................
Attitude Theory............... ...............24.
Perceived Value ................. ...............27.................
End orser Effectiveness .............. ...............29....

Match-Up Hypothesis............... ...............3
Match-Up: Characteristics............... ............3
Product characteristics............... ............3
Endorser characteristics................... ..........3

Endorser-Product Congruency/Match-Up ................. .............................40
Identity Theory ................ .........................4
Identity Theory and Sport Consumption ................ ......___ ........._ ....46
Identity Theory and Points of Attachment ............. ......__. ............. ...47
Hero W orship .............. .............................4
Endorser-Consumer Congruency/Match-Up ................ .......... ................49












Sum m ary ................. ...............52.......... ......


3 M ETHOD .............. ...............54....


Participants .............. .. ...............54.
Questionnaire Development .............. ...............55....
Points of Attachment Index ............... .. .. ......... .. ...............56....
Scale of Athletic Star Power Consumer' s Perspective ................. ................. 57
Perceived Value Scale ................ ...............59........... ....
Validity Screening ................. ...............60.................
Athlete and Product Selection .............. ...............61....
Proc edure s ................ ...............62........... ....

Data Analyses ................. ...............63.......... .....


4 RE SULT S .............. ...............65....


Measurement Model Analysis .............. ...............65....
Structural Model Analysis .............. ...............72....


5 DI SCUS SSION ........._.__....... .__. ...............75...


APPENDIX


A ITEM CORRELATIONS FOR THE MEASUREMENT MODEL.............._._. ........89


B SPORT MARKETING SURVEY ................. ...............94......__._....


LIST OF REFERENCES ................. ...............97..............


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................. ...............107....... ......


















LIST OF TABLES

Table pg

1. Definition of Terms. ........... ........... ...............16....

2. Descriptive Statistics for the Demographic Variables ........._._. .........._._............55

3. Descriptive Statistics for the Measurement Model ...._._._._ ... .....____ ........._.....66

4. Factor Loadings for the Measurement Model............... ...............68.

5. Factor Correlations for the Measurement Model ....._.._................. ............_... .71

6. Relationships in the Structural Model............... ...............73.



















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure pg

1. Influence of Product-Endorser Match-Up on Consumer' s Purchase Intentions of
(Non-Sport) Endorsed Products .............. ...............12....

2. Product-Endorser Advertisement ................. ...............62........... ...

3. Structural M odel .............. ...............74....

4. Recommended Model for Future Research .............. ...............88....
















Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

INFLUENCE OF PRODUCT-ENDORSER MATCH-UP ON
CONSUMER' S PURCHASE INTENTIONS OF
(NON-SPORT) ENDORSED PRODUCTS

By

Jessica Robin Braunstein

August 2006

Chair: James J. Zhang
Cochair: Galen T. Trail
Major Department: Tourism, Recreation and Sport Management

The practice of using athletes to endorse sport and non-sport products has

increased drastically since Miller Lite' s highly successful "Tastes Great, Less Filling"

campaign in the 1970's. As a result of media coverage and increased social visibility, star

athletes have embraced their celebrity status and benefited financially from endorsing

products. Numerous studies have indicated that a star athlete's association with a brand

may help to define and enhance the brand's image; however, negative characteristics of

an endorser could also have a deleterious effect (Horrow, 2002; Pitts & Stotlar, 2002). To

a great extent, the success of an endorsement depends on product-endorser congruency.

The purpose of this study was to develop a model to examine the relationships among

identification with an athlete and his/her sport (Robinson & Trail, 2005), product-

endorser congruency (Match-Up = Expertise, Trustworthiness, and Image; Aaker, 1997;

Braunstein & Zhang, 2005a, 2005b; Tenser, 2004), perceived value of the product










(Emotion, Quality, Price, and Social; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001), and consumer purchase

intentions. Participants (N= 400) were college students, who responded to an online

questionnaire that measured their perception of product-endorser congruency,

identification with the athlete and/or her sport, perceived value of the product, and

purchase intentions after viewing an advertisement with Maria Sharapova endorsing a

Canon Power Shot digital camera. A confirmatory factor analysis revealed a lack of

discriminant validity among the first-order latent variables for Match-Up; thus, an

adjustment was made to allow all items to load directly on the general Match-Up factor.

One Perceived Value subscale (Emotion) was eliminated from further analyses because

of a lack of discriminant validity with the Quality subscale. The structural model showed

adequate fit of the model, with the largest amount of variance being explained by the

relationships of Match-Up to Perceived Value (3 8%) and of Perceived Value to Purchase

Intention (52%). Identification (both Athlete and Sport) was found to have a small

influence on Match-Up, with only 7% of the variance explained. The Einal model

provides preliminary information on socio-psychological factors that influence the

purchase intentions of endorsed products, and can be used as a reference by corporations

when choosing athlete endorsers.















CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

Athlete Endorsers

As the sport market has grown, so have the various mediums that make it possible

to be a sport spectator. Through various magazines, newspapers, video games, television

shows, and the Internet, it is easy for individuals in different regions of the country, or the

world, to become familiar with a variety of different sports and, in turn, a wide array of

athletes. As a result of the high skill-level of professional athletes and the media attention

that sport receives, consumers are aware of many athletes' abilities and achievements.

However, when distinguishing one athlete from another, it is the athlete's individual

characteristics that set him or her apart from the others (Brooks & Harris, 1998; Chalip,

1996; Howard, 1979; Stevens, Lathrop, & Bradish, 2003). Some athletes create a name

for themselves based on athletic talent alone, while others make an impact on the

industry, both positive (Cornwell, Roy, & Steinard, 2001; Javalgi, Traylor, Gross, &

Lampman, 1994; McDonald, 1991) and negative (Horrow, 2002), with their attitudes and

actions on and off the playing field. Many athletes receive public attention, but some

bridge the gap between sport star and general celebrity. A celebrity, or an individual

whose name has the ability to attract attention and interest, has the potential to influence

consumers as a result of an individual's response to that celebrity (Rein, Kotler, &

Stoller, 1997). Athletes that have an elevated level of celebrity may also have star power,

made up of a star athlete's overall characteristics, both ability and personality (Braunstein

& Zhang, 2005a).









As a result of the metamorphosis of athletes into celebrities, the use of an

identifiable and reliable athlete or coach to endorse a product may encourage a bond to

form between the product and consumers. Advertisers take advantage of the loyalty that

forms as a result of an individual's allegiance to the product (Wansink & Ray, 2000) and

the athlete (Braunstein & Zhang, 2005a). James (2002) discussed the importance of

matching a product and an endorser. Typically, the effectiveness of an endorser increases

by matching the qualities of the athlete to those of the product (Brooks & Harris, 1998;

Chalip, 1996; Howard, 1979). These characteristics would then be reinforced as traits of

both the endorser and the product in the mind of the consumer. Choosing the right athlete

for the product enforces this congruence. Well-known pairs include the groupings of

Tiger Woods (golf) and Nike, Mia Hamm (soccer) and Gatorade, and Shaun White

(skateboarding and snowboarding) with Mountain Dew. The traits of these athletes are

widely viewed as similar with the traits of the products that they promote. This fit, or

match-up, is the perceived congruency between the characteristics of the endorser and the

product. Corporations are looking for a pair that fits in the eyes of the consumer. The

consumers that organizations generally target with these relationships are typically the

youngest generation with purchasing power (Holton, 2000). Presently, Generation Y, or

individuals approximately 13-27 years-old, is the market segment that is influenced the

most by the use of athletic stars in promotional campaigns (Rein et al., 1997; Stevens et

al., 2003; Stotlar, Veltri, & Viswanthan, 1998). Since this is the age range within which

people typically form lasting product preferences, corporations are trying to create

endorser-product matches that solidify their products) as the product of choices) for the

consumer in the future.









Marketers create endorser-product matches with the intention that consumers will

understand this relationship when recalling their productss. However, there are

exceptions to this rule. There are instances in which an athlete acts in a manner that is not

congruent with the product. This is an inherent risk when a corporation becomes involved

with any celebrity as an endorser. Although the product may not be involved, if an athlete

makes controversial decisions in his or her personal life, the bad publicity that the athlete

receives may transfer to negative exposure for the product that he or she endorses (Pitts

& Stotlar, 2002; Stevens et al., 2003). Such instances may affect the individual as well as

any products) that he/she is associated with, becoming a liability to the products) (Till

& Shimp, 1998). A controversial figure may create an initial impact on consumer

purchase intentions; yet, some researchers believe that it is in the best interest of the

marketer to align a product with an athlete that maintains the values of the company and,

in turn, the product itself (Kahle & Homer, 1985; Kamins, 1989, 1990). It is important for

marketers to be aware of the factors that influence a consumer' s purchase intentions,

including the potential influence of athlete endorsers.

Influence on Purchase Intentions

Marketers often use celebrity endorsers in advertising campaigns as a tool to

influence consumer's purchase intentions (e.g., Kamins, 1990; Ohanian, 1991). Attitude,

or an individual's feelings for or against the attributes of an obj ect (Fishbein & Ajzten;

1975), is developed through a process comprised of three phases. The phases (cognition,

affect, and conation; e.g., Lavidge & Steiner, 1961; Palda, 1966; Ray, 1973) follow an

individual's unique process as he or she thinks about the product (cognition), develops

feelings for or against the product (affect), and the behavior intentions that follow










(conation). Studies have shown that attitudes may be altered through the techniques used

to market a product. Specifically, advertisements have been found to mediate a

consumer' s perception of a brand (e.g., Lutz, 1975; MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989;

MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986). In order to understand the influence of athlete

endorsers, the consumer' s level of identification toward both the athlete and the sport in

which the athlete participates must be observed (Fink, Trail, & Anderson, 2002; Kwon,

Trail, & Anderson, 2005; Robinson & Trail, 2005; Robinson, Trail, & Kwon, 2004; Trail,

Robinson, Dick, & Gillentine, 2003; Wann, 2002). Identification, stemming from identity

theory, examines the "parts of a self composed of the meanings that persons attach to the

multiple roles they typically play in highly differentiated contemporary societies"

(Stryker & Burke, 2000, p. 284). Therefore, identity theory examines the individual's

perception of his or her role in different social contexts, not the general social

categorization that society places on specific roles. While this has not been studied on an

individual level, or in the context of examining the influence of an individual athlete on a

consumer' s purchase intentions outside the realm of sport, it is an integral part of the

relationship that may help to explain a consumer' s purchasing rationale. Once the level of

influence that these factors exert has been examined, how the individual will perceive the

fit of the pair based on the characteristics of both can be observed (e.g., Aaker, 1997;

Austin et al., 2003; Azoulay & Kapferer, 2003; Erdogan, Baker, & Tagg, 2001; Fink,

Cunningham, & Kensicki, 2004; Goldsmith, Lafferty, & Newell, 2000; Hovland, Janis, &

Kelley, 1953; Ohanian, 1991). This fit, or congruency between the characteristics of the

endorser and the product, has often been examined to evaluate the effectiveness of

endorsers in advertising. Numerous researchers have found that this fit, when appropriate,









does influence a consumer's purchase intentions (e.g., Ohanian; Tripp, Jensen, &

Carlson, 1994; Wansink & Ray; 2000).

In addition to understanding the influence of an individual's level of identification

with the endorser/sport and perception of the endorser-product fit, the consumer' s

perception of the product must be examined. Ultimately, an individual must believe that

there is some level of value in owning the product in order to purchase it. Perceived value

has been defined as "consumers overall assessment of the utility of a product (or service)

based on perceptions on what is received and what is given" (Zeithaml, 1988, p. 14).

Examined in terms an individual's emotional attachment, its price, its quality, and/or a

feeling of social acceptance received from obtaining the item (Lee, Trail, Kwon, &

Anderson, 2005; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001), perceived value involves a consumer's

overall perception of the product. If a consumer does not believe that the product holds

any value, the individual will not purchase the product. Therefore, the perceived value of

the product is an integral aspect of the relationship.

Theory Development

Through the course of studying the phenomenon of using endorsers in advertising,

four main ideas have been developed. They include the Source Credibility Model

(Hovland et al., 1953; Hovland & Weiss, 1951; McGuire, 1968), the Source

Attractiveness Model (McGuire, 1985), the Meaning Transfer Model (Langmeyer &

Walker, 1991a; 1991b; McCracken, 1989), and the Product Match-Up Hypothesis (Kahle

& Homer, 1985; Kamins, 1989, 1990). When synthesized, these concepts define a

specific set of factors that are deemed appropriate for use in the selection of the most

effective endorser of a product. The selection criterion lies with the thought process









stemming from the first model, the Source Credibility Model (Hovland et al.; Hovland &

Weiss; McGuire, 1968), which suggests that an individual's perception of an endorser' s

Expertise and Trustworthiness leads to an influential campaign. The Source

Attractiveness Model (McGuire, 1985) expanded upon the Source Credibility Model

(Hovland et al.; Hovland & Weiss; McGuire, 1968), claiming that an individual's

acceptance of a message stems from his/her similarity to, familiarity with, and liking of

the endorser that is relaying the message. In an effort to consolidate the findings of these

studies, Ohanian (1990) determined that perceived Expertise, Trustworthiness, and

Attractiveness were the most appropriate factors to use in examining the effectiveness of

an endorser. These factors extended to the Match-Up Hypothesis (Kahle & Homer;

Kamins, 1989, 1990), with researchers stating that the most effective campaign results

from an appropriate fit between the endorser and the product. As an extension of the

Match-Up Hypothesis (Kahle & Homer; Kamins, 1989, 1990), the Meaning Transfer

Model (Langmeyer & Walker, 1991a; 1991b; McCracken) was developed in order to

explain the process that is conducted when an endorser is used to promote a product. The

model, focusing on Perceived Image, illustrates that the image of the endorser is first

solidified in the mind of the consumer, the appropriate endorser is then chosen to pass the

image on from the endorser to the product, and, finally, the image is transferred from the

product to the consumer. These concepts have been synthesized into four main factors

referent to the selection of an appropriate endorser: perception of the endorser' s

Attractiveness (e.g., McGuire, 1968; Ohanian), Expertise (e.g., McGuire, 1968;

Ohanian), Trustworthiness (e.g., McGuire, 1985; Ohanian), and Likeability (e.g.,

McGuire, 1985).









Braunstein and Zhang (2005a) conducted a study to examine the aforementioned

characteristics, specifying the use of athletes as endorsers, which resulted in the

formation of the Scale of Athletic Star Power (SASP). This scale included five factors,

characterizing athlete endorsers based on consumer perceptions: Professional

Trustworthiness (e.g., genuineness and integrity), Likeable Personality (e.g., behavior),

Athletic Expertise (e.g., knowledge, experience, and ability), Social Attractiveness (e.g.,

image and attractiveness), and Characteristic Style (e.g., controversial and flamboyant).

Although Characteristic Style had not been distinguished as a unique factor in previous

celebrity endorser studies, the attributes themselves had been identified throughout

previous studies (e.g., Erdogan, 1999; Erdogan et al., 2001; Stevens et al., 2003).

Development of the scale was based on previous endorser effectiveness research (e.g.,

Baker & Churchill, 1977; Boyd & Shank, 2004; Brooks & Harris, 1998; Erdogan;

Hovland & Weiss, 1951; McGuire, 1968; McGuire, 1985; Miciak & Shanklin, 1994;

Ohanian, 1991), and it expanded the literature to include characteristics that may be

unique to athlete endorsers.

As a follow-up to their initial study, Braunstein and Zhang (2005b) reexamined the

5-factor SASP to look at the characteristics that consumers deemed important in athlete

endorsers. The reevaluation concluded in the creation of the Scale of Athletic Star Power

- Consumer Perspective (SASP CP). The SASP CP included many of the original

factors, including the collapse of the Social Attractiveness and Characteristic Style into

one factor: Public Image. An individual's overall image is often overlooked in the sport

literature as a result of the focus on attractiveness and expertise (Brooks & Harris, 1998;

Chalip, 1996; Fink et al., 2004). This may be an important factor when considering its










practical implications. For example, the influence of public image can be observed by

looking at the endorsement contracts for athletes on the Professional Golf Association

(PGA) Tour. Athletes on the PGA Tour, such as Tiger Woods, can have extensive

endorsement deals based on the athletic star power factors. However, if overall image of

the athlete endorser is not taken into account, a number of important factors could be

deleted from the equation. An athlete, such as Vijay Singh, who is a highly-ranked golfer

and performs on the same level as Woods, does not have the overall image necessary to

create an athlete endorser who will influence a consumer' s intention to purchase a

product. Therefore, although Singh is an expert in his sport, corporations do not believe

he will have a maj or impact in driving sales, leaving him behind in the race for

endorsement dollars (Seligman, 2005).

As previously mentioned, studies on athlete endorsers tend to focus on the

attractiveness and expertise of endorsers (Brooks & Harris, 1998; Chalip, 1996; Fink et

al, 2004). These studies lack the integration of the other factors (e.g., Trustworthiness and

Likeability) that previous researchers believed to be significant (Hovland et al., 1953;

Hovland & Weiss, 1951; Kahle & Homer, 1985; Kamins, 1989, 1990; Langmeyer &

Walker, 1991a; 1991b; McCracken, 1989; McGuire; 1968; 1985). Additionally, the

characteristics deemed important to the fit have not often included the "personality traits"

of the product itself (Aaker, 1997; Austin, Siguaw, & Mattila, 2003; Azoulay & Kapferer,

2003; Govers & Schoormans, 2005). These factors, including Trustworthiness, Expertise,

and Image, of both the endorser and the product may provide a more complete overview

of the influence of the fit between an athlete and a product on a consumer' s purchase

intentions.









Several researchers have indicated the importance of understanding the needs and

wants of consumers in the selection of an athlete endorser (Greenstein & Marcum, 1981;

Hansen & Gauthier, 1989; Schofield, 1983; Zhang, Lam, & Connaughton, 2003; Zhang,

Pease, Hui, & Michaud, 1995). By choosing a star athlete or coach who appeals to a

specific market segment, the effectiveness of the sport endorsement is enhanced (Brooks

& Harris, 1998; Chalip, 1996; Howard, 1979). The consumer is a key factor to consider

when distinguishing among ideas regarding marketing a new, modified, or previously

established product. A company must understand the consumer group that will most

likely purchase its product. Although this information is often considered, many key

characteristics that pertain to athletes, the product, and the consumers have often been

overlooked in studies involving athlete endorsers.

While previous studies have shed considerable light on the general perception of

athlete endorsers and the reasons for their use, a number of limitations have been

identified that are associated with the applicability of the proposed theories to the

selection process of athlete endorsers. First, an integrated approach to studying the

phenomenon of athlete endorsers has not been devised. Based on professional intuitions,

many concepts (e.g., attractiveness, credibility, and meaning transfer) have been

proposed and superficially investigated (Hovland et al., 1953; Hovland & Weiss, 1951;

McCracken, 1989; McGuire, 1968, 1985). While Erdogan et al. (2001) stressed the

importance of measuring the characteristics of endorsers, products, and consumers in

order to reach a strategy, a theoretical framework that takes into consideration various

proposed theoretical frameworks and systematically measures the influence of athlete

endorsers has not been identified. It has often been stated that match-up is an integral part









of the process in determining the appropriate endorser of a product (e.g., Kahle & Homer,

1985; Kamins, 1989, 1990); however, while the concept itself is often assumed to be

integral in influencing a consumer' s purchase intentions, a framework has never been

developed that fully examines the hypothesis. Second, most studies have been conducted

in various business settings rather than in a sport context. According to Baumgartner,

Jackson, Mahar, and Rowe (2003), Nunnally and Bernstein (1994), and Thomas and

Nelson (2001), research Eindings are population and context specific. Therefore,

generalizations may be problematic and it is uncertain if research Eindings derived from

other business segments are applicable to sport endorsement. Third, the entire market

environment, not merely the celebrity and the endorsement, has been inadequately taken

into consideration. The impact of media value and the characteristics of the product and

the consumers are integral to the relationship formed in the process of endorsement. The

potential of endorsement is maximized through the understanding of specific elements

that facilitate consumption. Therefore, it is essential to enhance the match between the

product and the endorser in order to maximize the potential of an endorsement. Expertise

is generally deemed an important factor in the fit between endorsers and products (Boyd

& Shank, 2004; Brooks & Harris, 1998; Chalip, 1996; Erdogan, 1999; Fink et al., 2004;

Goldsmith et al., 2000; Hovland et al., 1953; Hovland & Weiss, 1951; Langmeyer &

Walker, 1991a; 1991b; McCracken, 1989; McGuire, 1968; Miciak & Shanklin, 1994;

Stevens et al., 2003). While these Eindings remain fairly consistent and logical for the

promotion of sport products, the practice of using athletes to endorse non-sport products

must come into question. While an athlete might fit into the appropriate endorser

category for a sneaker or a sports drink, the level of acceptance of an athlete endorsing a









car or a camera has not been extensively examined. Finally, those who have previously

studied the role of celebrity endorsers in sport have focused their attention mainly on the

opinions of advertising executives (e.g., Erdogan et al.; Miciak & Shanklin, 1994). These

studies opted to focus on the opinion of the producers, and often overlooked the

importance of the perspectives of the consumers (Kahle & Homer; Kamins, 1989, 1990;

McCracken; McGuire, 1968, 1985).

Purpose

A celebrity of sport or non-sport is used in one out of four print or broadcast

commercials (Howard, 1979; Shimp, 1979). As a result, it is important to have a

framework that explains the factors that may lead to the success of a product' s campaign.

This study was designed to develop a model that included the factors that have been

derived from previous studies on product-endorser match-up (Expertise, Trustworthiness,

and Attractiveness/Image; e.g., Braunstein & Zhang, 2005a, 2005b; Kahle & Homer,

1985; Kamins, 1989, 1990; McGuire, 1968, 1985; Ohanian, 1990), examining the

influence of product-endorser match-up on a consumer' s purchase intentions as a result

of an individual's identification with a sport or athlete (Fink et al., 2002; Kwon et al.,

2005; Robinson & Trail, 2005; Robinson et al., 2004; Trail et al., 2003; Wann, 2002) and

perceived value of the endorsed product (Lee et al., 2005; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001).

To simultaneously test a variety of relationships among variables, the first step was

to test a model (Figure 1) that examined the relationships of these factors together in the

context of an athlete endorser promoting a non-sport product.




























ATTITUDE TOWARD
CONGRUENCY:
ENDORSER-PRODUCT


IDENTIFICATION
WITH ATHLETE


Figure 1. Influence of Product-Endorser Match-Up on Consumer's Purchase Intentions of (Non-Sport) Endorsed Products










This study tested the following research questions:

1. Did the model fit the data?
2. Which relationship explained the largest amount of variance in the model?
a. Direct Effects
i. Identification with Athlete/Sport Purchase Intention
b. Indirect Effects
i. Identification with Athlete -Congruency: Athlete/Product -
Attitude Toward Product Purchase Intention
ii. Identification with Sport -, Congruency: Athlete/Product -
Attitude Toward Product Purchase Intention

Significance of the Study

Previous studies focusing on the characteristics of endorsers have helped to

determine the main qualities that marketers and consumers deem important for

individuals that endorse products (e.g., Braunstein & Zhang, 2005a, 2005b; Erdogan,

1999; Erdogan et al., 2001; Hovland et al., 1953; Hovland & Weiss, 1951; Langmeyer &

Walker, 1991a; 1991b; McCracken, 1989; McGuire, 1985; Shimp, 1979; Smith, 1973;

Stevens et al., 2003). However, these studies have not fully analyzed the unique

characteristics of athlete endorsers. The current study was intended to fill the void by

reevaluating the factors deemed relevant in the match between an endorser and a product

to determine if this match does influence a consumer' s purchase intentions.

In this study, the inclusion of an individual's level of identification with the

sport/athlete and perceived value of the product, allowed the model to examine match-up

in a manner that resembled the reality of the marketing environment. In order to enhance

the generalizability of the research findings, the model examined each of these

relationships simultaneously in an effort to simulate and test the reality of the exposure.

With the addition of these factors, the model provided a better understanding of the

influence of athlete endorsers as promotional tools. The model may provide a helpful tool

to use when developing interventions, promotional strategies, and procedures.










Additionally, the use of structural equation modeling allowed for the control of

measurement and inferential errors, taking into account inaccuracy and compounding

factors when testing inter-factor relationships.

As previously mentioned, match-up (e.g., Kahle & Homer, 1985; Kamins, 1989,

1990), or endorser-product fit, is often noted and deemed important in the selection and

retention of endorsers in general, but has not been appropriately measured. Instead of

testing congruency, researchers typically measure a consumer' s level of identification

with an athlete (e.g., Boyd & Shank, 2004; Fink et al., 2004). While organizations are

investing a considerable amount of money on athletes to endorse their products (e.g.,

Tiger Woods' endorsement contracts are worth $80 million per year and Michael

Jordan's are worth $33 million per year; Weil, 2005), a model has not been developed to

examine this influence, or lack of influence, on an individual's purchase intentions. Both

practitioners (e.g., Tenser, 2004) and academicians (e.g., Fink et al., 2004), who have

examined the characteristics that they believe to be important in selecting an athlete

endorser, often include expertise in the mix. If expertise is a selection criterion, how does

this translate to the fit between a tennis player and a digital camera? Therefore, while this

practice is still rampant, it would be prudent to examine this model for future use with

both non-sport and sport products. The current research provides a model that may

answer a number of other research questions in the future. Does star power itself make

the difference and to what extent (e.g., high-profile athlete, average athlete, and non-

athlete)? Do different types of advertisements (e.g., humor and informational) make a

difference on the level of influence? Is there a difference in the effectiveness of the

medium used (e.g., television, print, and radio)? Is match-up more effective when used









for a sport product than a non-sport product? These are questions that should be answered

to better understand the influence of athlete endorsers. The model in the current study

provides a foundation with which these questions can be explored in the future.

Delimitations

This study was confounded by a number of factors. Because this investigation

focused on the initial testing of a model, the findings are limited to the present sample as

well as those individuals in the sample that are currently aware of (a) the particular

endorser, (b) the sport with which the endorser wais associated with, and (c) the product

included in the study. Therefore, the findings of this single study will not provide

generalizable results that pertain to all situations involved in determining the

effectiveness of a product-endorser match-up.

Limitations

There were a number of limitations associated with this study. This study was not

exempt from limitations often found as a result of the use of a convenience sample. The

sample consisted of only students from one region of the country. There were also a

number of limitations stemming from the purpose of the study. Because the purpose was

to test the model, only one athlete, one sport, and one (non-sport) product (therefore, one

overall match) were included in the study. Therefore, level of star power associated with

the individual athlete was not examined, nor was the impact of different athletes from

different sports or different products from different product categories. As a result, path

coefficients may be different in other studies for other pairings, yielding different

findings regarding the most influential relationship in the model. However, the findings










may provide a model that can be used or adapted for a number of combinations in the

future .

Definition of Terms

While key terms are defined in the context of the model in Chapter Two, a number

of basic terms that used throughout the text must first be defined (Table 1; Merriam-

Webster, 2004):

Table 1. Definition of Terms


Term

1. Athlete


2. Attachment


3. Attitude

4. Belief


5. Congruent


6. Credible

7. Endorse


8. Expert


9. Identification




10. Match

11. Perceived


Definition

A person who is trained or skilled in exercises, sports, or games
requiring physical strength, agility, or stamina.

The state of being personally attached, or to bind by personal ties
(as of affection or sympathy).

A feeling or emotion toward a fact or state.

A state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in
some person or thing.

Marked or enhanced by harmonious agreement among constituent
elements .

Offering reasonable grounds for being believed.

To approve openly or to express support or approval of publicly
and definitely.

One with the special skill or knowledge representing mastery of a
particular subj ect.

A largely unconscious process whereby an individual models
thoughts, feelings, and actions after those attributed to an obj ect
that has been incorporated as a mental image.

A pair suitably associated.

To regard as being such.










Table 1 Continued
Term

12. Persuasion




13. Star


14. Transfer

15. Value


Definition

The act or process or an instance of persuading (to move by
argument, entreaty, or expostulation to a belief, position, or course
of action).

An outstandingly talented performer or a person who is preeminent
in a particular field.

To convey from one person, place, or situation to another.

Something (as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or
desirable.


Overview

In Chapter One, the purpose of the study and the model that was tested has been

explained. The remaining chapters focus on the theoretical framework of the model, how

the study was conducted, and the findings of the research project. Therefore, Chapter

Two will provide an overview of the pertinent research regarding the theoretical

framework that supports the model. Chapter Three will explain the research methods

involved in the creation of the questionnaire and the steps that were taken to complete the

study. Chapter Four will then provide the results of the study and, in conclusion, Chapter

Five will expand upon the results provided in Chapter Four, presenting the discussion and

conclusion of the study.















CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

According to the American Marketing Association, consumer behavior is "the

dynamic interaction of affect and cognition, behavior, and the environment by which

human beings conduct the exchange aspects of their lives" (Marketingpower. com, 2006).

Therefore, in order to understand what influences a consumer' s behavioral intentions and

ultimate behavior, the decision-making process concerning the purchase must be

examined based on the specific decision that the individual is making.

In order for a consumer to ultimately make a purchase, the individual must first be

aware of the product. After an individual is aware of the product, a marketer must then

take the steps necessary to lead the consumer from awareness, to interest, then desire, and

finally, action. In order to examine this phenomenon, Lavidge and Steiner (1961)

developed the Hierarchy of Effects model to measure advertising effectiveness. This

included six "steps" and three general processes, to be performed in order: (a) cognition

(i.e., awareness-knowledge), (b) affect (i.e., liking-preference), and (c) conation (i.e.,

conviction-purchase). While the model was initially designed as a step-by-step process,

the time that each individual spends at each phase may depend on the specific product.

Additionally, the level of investment required to consume the product may alter the

process. If less of an investment is required, steps may be skipped in the decision-making

process. Palda (1966) questioned Lavidge and Steiner' s model, claiming that there was

no empirical evidence to support its claims. Palda did not believe that the cognition-









affect-conation hierarchy was the only way to define decision-making. Ray (1973)

supported Palda's assertion, suggesting that there was not one process, but three: the

traditi onal hi erarchy (cogniti on-affect-conati on), the di ssonance-attributi on hi erarchy

(conati on-affect-cogniti on), and the low involvement hi erarchy (conati on-cogniti on-

affect). As a result of each individual's unique internal motives, or motivators, it is

important for marketers to understand what drives an individual's attitude and, in turn,

attitude change (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993).

The "awareness" that Lavidge and Steiner (1961) discussed can be accomplished

through various promotional tactics (e.g., print, radio, television, Internet). Reis and Trout

(1981) believed that these methods are used to position a product or entity in the minds of

both current and potential consumers. Positioning, a tool used to communicate with

consumers in a crowded marketplace, has often been used to set an organization apart

from its competitors. One way of positioning a product is through an organization's

promotional strategies (e.g., advertising campaigns). An organization can choose to use

the type of advertisement that they believe will reach their target market. In order to set

oneself apart, an organization may use a number of different positioning tactics, including

the use of a celebrity endorser in their advertising (e.g., Javalgi, Traylor, Gross, &

Lampman, 1994; McCracken, 1989).

In North America, the public maintains a steady interest in those deemed to have

celebrity status. Therefore, the individuals that make up this population of celebrities

remain a staple in the marketing strategies of executives in a wide array of industries,

ranging from automobile manufacturers to the makers of sports equipment. Due to the

extensive use of endorsers (including celebrities) in advertising and promotions,









numerous researchers have attempted to understand the impact that these tactics have on

their markets (e.g., Friedman & Friedman, 1979; Kahle & Homer, 1985; Kamins, 1990;

Ohanian, 1990). The use of celebrity endorsers is believed to (a) generate a greater

likelihood of a customer choosing the endorsed brand or product (e.g., Heath, McCarthy,

& Mothersbaugh, 1994; Kamins; Ohanian, 1991), (b) enhance message recall (e.g.,

Friedman & Friedman), (c) aid in the recognition of brand names (e.g., Petty, Caciopo, &

Schumann, 1983), and (d) create a distinct personality for the endorsed brand or product

(e.g., Javalgi et al., 1994; McCracken, 1989).

Individuals in sport (e.g., athletes and coaches) are not exempt from the American

public' s obsession with celebrity. As a result of professional sport' s evolution from

newspaper to radio to television and the Internet, it has long held a place in the public

spotlight (Schaaf, 2004). Athletes and coaches, particularly those with unique

personalities, levels of talent, and/or longevity in the industry, have become celebrities in

their own right. This level of celebrity has provided an opportunity for both athlete and

manufacturer to work with one another to promote a variety of products. As the number

of high-profile athletes has grown, so has the number of multi-million dollar endorsement

contracts (King, 2005). Stemming from Miller Lite' s "Lite All-Stars" and "Tastes Great,

Less Filling" campaigns in the 1970's, both athletes and coaches have evolved into

mainstream celebrities, endorsing everything from beer and sports equipment to beauty

products. The use of athletes and coaches to endorse products gained credibility after the

success of Miller Lite' s initial campaign using "masculine" male-athletes to promote

lower calorie beer (Miller, 2002). Because celebrity endorsements have the ability to help

build a brand's image (Cornwell, Roy, & Steinard, 2001; Javalgi et al., 1994; McDonald,










1991), athletes such as John Madden and Bubba Smith were used in Miller' s campaigns

to change the image of a non-masculine product (Miller).

As this practice perpetuates, and athletes and coaches continue to sign large

endorsement contracts, understanding the effectiveness of these tactics becomes

extremely important. With contracts for current athletes (e.g., Tiger Woods $80 million

per year; Weil, 2005) and retired athletes (e.g., Michael Jordan $33 million per year;

Weil) on the rise, the organizations that invest large amounts of money want to leave as

little to chance as possible in terms of return on investment (ROI). While recent studies

have been conducted regarding the use of athlete endorsers in terms of expertise and

attractiveness (e.g., Boyd & Shank, 2004; Fink, Cunningham, & Kensicki, 2004), the

maj ority of the previous research regarding endorsers does not focus on sport and athletes

as endorsers. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a model that includes the unique

attributes of sport. A model that examines these relationships may help marketers to

make a more educated decision regarding the selection of an endorser.

The relationship between an endorser and a product has been termed congruency,

fit, and match-up. No matter the terminology, a match between the characteristics of the

two entities is often deemed to be highly relevant when attempting to emit an effectively

endorsed message (e.g., Kahle & Homer, 1985; Kamins, 1989, 1990; Kanungo & Pang,

1973; Lynch & Schuler, 1994; Peterson & Kerin, 1977). Typically, fit has been examined

in terms of the endorser' s Attractiveness (e.g., physical appearance; McGuire, 1968;

Ohanian, 1990), Expertise (e.g., specialized knowledge; McGuire, 1968; Ohanian),

Trustworthiness (e.g., believability; McGuire, 1985; Ohnaian) and Liking (e.g., personal

feelings about that individual; McGuire, 1985).









Although the congruency between endorsers and consumers has often been defined

as an integral part of the match-up process, it has been measured in a variety of ways.

Employing endorser-consumer match-up to define congruency, researchers have often

used an individual's liking of, or identification with, a particular endorser to measure this

construct (e.g., Aronson & Worchel, 1966; Berscheid, 1966; Kelman, 1961). While these

findings do not provide a measurement model to fit the current study, they validate the

characteristics used in the endorser-product studies (e.g., Kahle & Homer, 1985; Kamins,

1989, 1990; McGuire, 1968; McGuire, 1985; Ohanian, 1990).

An individual's identification with an endorser and/or an endorser' s sport can be

traced back to identity theory (e.g., James, 1890; Mead, 1934; Stryker & Burke, 2000).

Based on the belief that each individual has multiple role identities, seven points of

attachment have been proposed as motives for spectator attendance at sporting events

(Kwon, Trail, & Anderson 2005; Robinson & Trail, 2005; Robinson, Trail, & Kwon,

2004; Trail, Robinson, Dick, & Gillentine, 2003). While these factors have yet to be

examined in terms of the effectiveness of athlete endorsers, two of the seven points of

attachment, or role identities (attachment to the sport and attachment to the

player/athlete) may help to define the effectiveness of the match and, ultimately, the

consumer' s intent to purchase the endorsed product.

Both scholars and practitioners claim that celebrities (including athletes and

coaches) help in the branding of a product (Brooks & Harris, 1998; Chalip, 1996;

Howard, 1979). A number of concepts and theories have been developed to examine the

use of endorsers in advertising, and the characteristics that work to create the most

effective message (e.g., Kahle & Homer, 1985; Kamins, 1989, 1990; McGuire, 1968,










1985; Ohanian, 1990). Once these characteristics have been established, the next step is

to use a method that will synthesize the important characteristics from each element of

the consumption process (i.e., endorser, product, and consumer) and determine how they

work together to increase an individual's intent to purchase endorsed products. As

marketing executives rely on endorsers as promotional tools, it is important that they

fully understand and appropriately use the information that may lead to a consumer' s

potential attitude change (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). In order to have a greater

understanding of the actual influence of athlete endorsers on purchase intentions, an

individual's level of identification with the athlete and the sport (e.g., Kwon et al., 2005;

Robinson & Trail, 2002, 2005; Robinson et al., 2004; Trail et al., 2003) as well as their

perceived value of the product (e.g., Lee, Trail, Kwon, & Anderson, 2005; Sweeney &

Stoutar, 2001) must be examined. Once these factors have been discussed, the models

and hypotheses that support the use of endorsers as persuasive tools in advertising must

be examined. In order to determine which relationships have the greatest influence on a

consumer' s ultimate purchase decision, both direct and indirect effects of these factors

must be considered. Refer to Figure 1.

There are a number of limitations with the existing literature that have led to this

proposed model. No model has been proposed to examine the precedents and antecedents

to congruency. According to the Eindings of this literature review, congruency theories do

not typically measure fit. Instead they tend to examine the level of identification that an

individual has with another individual or product. Thus, a model that examines

congruency, based on attitude and identification theories, was proposed and tested. This

was accomplished by examining the influence of an individual's level of identification









with the athlete and the sport (e.g., Kwon et al., 2005; Robinson & Trail, 2002, 2005;

Robinson et al., 2004; Trail et al., 2003) on an individual's perception of endorser-

product congruency and purchase intentions. When using endorsers, this relationship may

include the influence of the congruency between the endorser and product (e.g., Kahle &

Homer, 1985; Kamins, 1989, 1990; Kanungo & Pang, 1973; Lynch & Schuler, 1994;

Peterson & Kerin, 1977), leading to an individual's final perceived value of the product

(e.g., Lee et al., 2005; Sweeney & Stoutar, 2001). Refer to Figure 1.

Attitude Theory

As previously mentioned, an individual's attitude toward an object is developed

through a process composed of three phases (cognition, affect, and conation; e.g.,

Lavidge & Steiner, 1961; Palda, 1966; Ray, 1973). According to Fishbein (1963), attitude

itself is an individual's affect for or against an obj ect. An individual's reaction, positive

or negative, is the result of that individual's belief about the obj ect and the evaluative

aspects of the belief. Fishbein and Ajzen (1975) developed the Expectancy-Value Model

of attitudes based on a cognitive approach to attitude formation. The model stems from

the belief that an individual takes an information-processing approach to developing an

attitude. The "thinking" is based on that individual's belief about the attributes of the

obj ect. The individual, already having positive or negative beliefs about different

attributes, then creates an attitude toward the obj ect (positive or negative). Therefore, it is

not merely the obj ect or the information that is provided at the decision-making stage that

influences the overall attitude or attitude change leading to a purchase decision. An

individual's belief about the attributes of the obj ect predisposes all responses (cognitive,

affective, and conative) toward the object (Krebs & Schmidt, 1993).









Zimbardo and Ebbesen (1970) expanded upon Fishbein' s (1963) theory, stating that

an individual's perception of an attribute is learned, not innate, and therefore capable of

change. Although attitudes are not easily altered, practices that are known to influence

beliefs about attributes may be applicable in eliciting an altered response. Researchers

have suggested that advertising is a tool that can be used to implement attitude change

(e.g., Lutz, 1975; MacKenzie & Lutz, 1989; MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986). Lutz

(1975) hypothesized that (a) altering an individual's belief about a brand attribute leads to

a change in that individual's attitude towards using the brand in question and (b) altering

an individual's evaluation of a brand attribute leads to a change in that individual's

attitude toward using a the brand in question. Examining these hypotheses with a

previously nonexistent brand, the experimental manipulations worked towards attitude

formation as well as attitude change. Although the experiment did not provide an

indication of the response to a preexisting brand, the study's findings supported the

hypotheses (based on multiple attribute theories) that a cognitive stimulant can work to

alter an individual's initial attitude with a new brand. Lutz (1985) provided a model to

observe the phenomenon, examining four sets of conditions: (a) pure affect transfer, (b)

message-based persuasion, (c) contextual evaluation transfer, and (d) dual mode

persuasion. His findings suggested that an individual's attitude toward the advertisement

in general was an important predictor of the individual's attitude toward the brand. Lutz

also concluded that long-term effectiveness was enhanced when pertinent information

about the brand was presented in an entertaining or distinctive fashion (dual mode

persuasion). MacKenzie et al. expanded upon Lutz's (1985) framework, using a low-

importance product (toothpaste) in a single-ad pretest exposure setting to observe the










influence of an advertisement as a causal antecedent of brand attitude. The Eindings

supported Lutz's (1975; 1985) earlier work, with attitude toward the advertisement

strongly influencing attitude toward the brand and moderately influencing brand

perceptions. MacKenzie and Lutz reevaluated Lutz's (1985) framework in an empirical

examination of the role that advertisements play in attitude change. The study strongly

supported Mackenzie et al.'s findings regarding the influence of the advertisement on the

individual's attitude toward the brand. However, that study did not align with the

previous findings regarding the advertisement' s influence on an individual's perception

of the brand.

For marketers, it is important to understand a consumer' s attitude regarding the

product that is being promoted. A consumer' s perceived value of the product is extremely

relevant in the formulation of a product' s marketing mix. An individual's attitude toward

an obj ect is based on the individual's beliefs about the attributes of the obj ect (Fishbein &

Ajzen, 1975). Therefore, in order to alter a consumer' s affect regarding a product, an

organization should understand dimensions that lead to an individual's initial perception

of a product. Sheth, Newman, and Gross's (1991) examination of consumption values led

to a set of Hyve constructs that influence consumer choice. The factors included:

Functional Value (i.e., ability for functional, utilitarian, or physical performance), Social

Value (i.e., association with one more specific social groups), Emotional Value (i.e.,

ability to arouse feelings or affective states), Epistemic Value (i.e., ability to arouse

curiosity, provide novelty, and/or satisfy a desire for knowledge), and Conditional Value

(i.e., result of a specific situation or set of circumstances facing the decision-maker).









Perceived Value

When analyzing an individual's motivation to purchase a product, the value that the

individual perceives to be attached to the product itself must be examined. Therefore, an

integral step in the process is operationalizing perceived value as it relates to the potential

purchase intentions of a consumer. According to Lee et al. (2005), the critical distinction

between personal values (Richins, 1994) and perceived value (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001)

is often not distinguished appropriately. Accordingly, personal values are the general

beliefs that guide an individual's behavior (Richins), and perceived value is the worth of

an object to an individual in a specific situation (i.e., domain specific; Sweeney &

Soutar). The importance in the distinction between the two concepts is that an

individual's personal values are often a precursor to the perceived value of the obj ect

(Lee et al.). This distinction is necessary, and was not made by Sweeney and Soutar in

the development of the Perceived Value (PERVAL) scale. The scale, stemming from

Sheth et al.'s (1991) values study, was created to measure the perceived worth of

consumer products to the purchaser. Sweeney and Soutar argued that previous research

failed to capture all of the elements that a consumer values, focusing solely on the trade-

off between Quality and Price, or what is given and what is received (Cravens, Holland,

Lamb & Moncrieff, 1988; Monroe, 1990; Zeithaml, 1988). While the majority of

perceived value research has focused on Quality and Price, researchers believe that

focusing on these two factors does not provide a complete picture of the decision-making

process (e.g., Porter, 1990). Sweeney and Soutar agreed with these sentiments, believing

that individuals consumed products based on the way the product makes them feel, and

not simply the cost and quality of the product itself. As a result, they added Emotional










and Social constructs to the previously studied dimensions of Quality and Price. Lee et al.

argued that, while Price and Quality did fit Sweeney and Soutar' s definition of perceived

values, the factors of Emotional and Social should have been categorized as personal

values.

In a reassessment of Sweeney and Soutar' s (2001) PERVAL scale, Lee et al.

(2005) conducted a study to examine consumers' decision-making processes regarding

the purchasing of licensed sport merchandise. They found that the model did not fit the

data well. The Price and Quality subscales did not show good construct reliability or

internal consistency. However, the Emotion and Social subscales did. While the model

did not fit the data well, there were a number of items within each factor that had high

factor loadings. The model in Lee et al.'s study did not support the original constructs. As

a result, the authors proposed revised dimensions, suggesting that the revised factors

should be reevaluated in terms of face and content validity before being used in future

studies.

Advertisers have also realized that using endorsers who have similar characteristics

as the promoted product (endorser-product congruency) might increase the likelihood of

the purchase (e.g., Ohanian, 1991; Tripp, Jensen, & Carlson, 1994; Wansink & Ray,

2000). Therefore, the theories and models used to examine endorser effectiveness provide

a framework to determine which characteristics that are deemed most relevant in the

relationship (e.g., Kahle & Homer, 1985; Langmeyer & Walker, 1991a; 1991b;

McCracken, 1989; McGuire, 1968; 1985).









Endorser Effectiveness

McGuire's Source Credibility Model (1968) was the first approach used in the

attempt to understand the characteristics that create an effective advertising/marketing

campaign. Source credibility is a term commonly used to imply a communicator' s

positive characteristics that affect the receiver' s acceptance of a message. The Model

depicted the influence of perceived level of Expertise and perceived level of

Trustworthiness on the effectiveness of the message. McGuire operationalized the first

factor, Expertise, as the perceived level of knowledge, experience, or skills of an endorser

and the second factor, Trustworthiness, as the intended audience's belief in the honesty,

integrity, and believability of the endorser. He suggested that these factors be used in a

Hyve-step process to change the attitude of a consumer: attention, comprehension,

yielding, retention, and action.

Building on the concepts from the Source Credibility Model (McGuire, 1968),

McGuire (1985) developed the Source Attractiveness Model. The model depicted that an

individual's acceptance of a message relies on the Similarity (resemblance between

source and receiver), Familiarity (knowledge of the source through previous exposure),

and Liking (affection of the source as a result of the physical appearance or behavior) of

an endorser. McGuire (1985) theorized that the attractiveness of the source determined

the overall acceptance of the message being conveyed.

Ohanian (1990) combined the Source Credibility Model (McGuire, 1968) and the

Source Attractiveness Model (McGuire, 1985) to create a single scale to measure

celebrity endorsers' perceived Expertise, Trustworthiness and Attractiveness. Ohanian

defined Expertise as the characteristics that define an individual who is trained, informed,









educated, an authority, and competent. She suggested that Trustworthiness was the

potential consumer' s degree of confidence in, and level of acceptance of, the speaker and

the message (i.e., a consumer' s trustt in a speaker). Ohanian added the Attractiveness

dimension based on research that suggested that physical attractiveness is an important

cue in an individual's initial judgment of another person. The findings supported the

creation of a 15-item differential scale to measure the above traits (attractiveness, AVE =

.63 .65; trustworthiness, AVE = .63 .63; expertise, AVE = .61-.62). With the

development of a three-dimensional scale and further validation of the factors and items,

researchers now had a more valid and reliable approach to use in assessing each

component of celebrity endorsers' effectiveness and persuasiveness.

Kahle and Homer (1985) altered the original concepts to examine the use of

endorsers to develop the Product Match-Up Hypothesis. The hypothesis highlighted the

importance of the match between celebrity endorsers and products. Kahle and Homer

examined the influence of Physical Attractiveness on the attitudes and purchase

intentions of consumers by manipulating three independent variables: celebrity-source

physical attractiveness, celebrity-source likeability and participant-product attractiveness.

Results showed that physical attractiveness was more influential than likeability on a

consumer' s attitude toward the brand and purchase intentions.

McCracken (1989) suggested that the effectiveness of a celebrity endorser was

derived from the cultural meanings associated with the individual rather than simply the

endorser' s physical attractiveness and credibility. Therefore, he designed the Meaning

Transfer Model to further explain the endorsement process. He suggested that celebrity

endorsement involves a general process of meaning transfer through three stages in which










a celebrity passes on a message regarding a product. In the first stage, the consumer

forms an image of the celebrity. Second, to transfer the meaning or image of the celebrity

to the product, the organization selects a celebrity that represents the intended image of

the product. Finally, the meaning is then transferred from the product to the consumer

(Langmeyer & Walker, 1991a; 1991b).

Although the Source Credibility Model (McGuire, 1968), Source Attractiveness

Model (McGuire, 1968), Product Match-Up Hypothesis (Kahle & Homer, 1985), and

Meaning Transfer Model (Langmeyer & Walker, 1991a; 1991b; McCracken, 1989) are

all extremely relevant, the models are typically used to examine the perceptions of the

producers rather than the consumers. Therefore, executives need additional knowledge of

the factors that influence consumers in order to create a more successful marketing

campaign.

As the above models and hypotheses state, the selection of a celebrity endorser is

often based on the profile of the endorser. The advertising and marketing literature often

define the selection of endorsers based on the consumer' s perception of an endorser' s

Attractiveness (e.g., physical appearance; McGuire, 1968; Ohanian, 1990), Expertise

(e.g., specialized knowledge; McGuire, 1968; Ohanian), Trustworthiness (e.g.,

believability; McGuire, 1985; Ohnaian) and Liking (e.g., personal feelings about that

individual; McGuire, 1985). As the public perceives athletes as celebrities, these

characteristics translate to athlete endorsers as well. The need for an examination of these

characteristics in the context of sport is necessary because athletes and coaches are

currently endorsing both sport and non-sport products. Therefore, it is necessary, as

numerous researchers have stated, to examine the importance of match-up between










product and endorser (e.g., Baker & Churchill, 1977; Kahle & Homer, 1985; Kamins,

1990; Lynch & Schuler, 1994; Till, 2000; Till & Shimp, 1998) and consumer and

endorser (e.g., Aronson & Worchel, 1966; Berscheid, 1966; Boyd & Shank, 2004;

Heider, 1958; Kelman, 1961; Mowen, Brown, & Schulman, 1979). Based on the above

information, the Match-Up Hypothesis was chosen because it represents the most

comprehensive approach to examining the effectiveness of the endorsement.

Match-Up Hypothesis

Numerous studies have examined the influence of an apparent match-up between

endorser and product to determine if there is an influence on the consumer' s purchase

intentions (e.g., Ohanian, 1991; Tripp et al., 1994; Wansink & Ray, 2000). Kanungo and

Pang (1973) used traditionally gender-specific advertising (men with stereos and women

with sofas) to propose that fittingnesss," or perceived congruence between

characteristics, existed between the endorser in an advertisement and the type of product

being advertised. Peterson and Kerin (1977) also suggested the need for product/endorser

congruency within an advertisement, if the purpose of the advertisement was to enhance

communication.

Many researchers have determined that the greater the congruence between the

image of the endorser and the image of the product being promoted, the more effective

the message (e.g., Kahle & Homer, 1985; Kamins, 1989, 1990; Kanungo & Pang, 1973;

Lynch & Schuler, 1994; Peterson & Kerin, 1977). However, one area that has been

disputed is how to measure effectiveness. Researchers have not agreed on a single

approach, and a number of methods have been used, including purchase intentions (e.g.,

Ohanian, 1991; Tripp et al., 1994; Wansink & Ray, 2000), attitude toward the










advertisement or brand (e.g., Goldsmith, Lafferty, & Newell, 2000; Till & Busler, 2000;

Tripp et al.), and increase in stock margins as the result of a contract announcement

(Agrawal & Kamakura, 1995). While match-up has been emphasized, the approach has

not been extensively examined in the realm of sport or with athlete endorsers. Therefore,

there is a need to examine (a) the characteristics of those involved in the match and (b)

the match itself, including the unique attributes of sport.

Match-Up: Characteristics

As the match-up hypothesis states, it is the fit between the characteristics of the

product and the endorser that is most relevant in creating an effective campaign.

Although numerous characteristics have been defined for celebrity endorsers in general,

for athlete endorsers, researchers tend to focus on Attractiveness and Expertise (e.g.,

Boyd & Shank, 2004; Fink et al., 2004). If athletes continue to be used as endorsers, sport

studies need to expand beyond the realm of Attractiveness and Expertise in order to

determine if other characteristics are relevant.

Product characteristics

As a result of advertising campaigns, brands are often portrayed as having human

characteristics. Although this concept had been described, it had not been systematically

studied until Aaker' s (1997) creation of the Brand Personality Scale (BPS). After

examining 309 candidate traits based on previous literature (psychology, marketing, and

original qualitative research), the author ultimately looked at 114 traits over 37 brands.

The final BPS included 42 items/traits under 5 factors: Sincerity (e.g., honest, genuine),

Excitement (e.g., daring, spirited), Competence (e.g., reliable, responsible),

Sophistication (e.g., glamorous, charming), and Ruggedness (e.g., tough, strong). Aaker









believed, as a result of the rigor of the study, that the scale and framework were

generalizable across product categories. Govers and Schoormans (2005) confirmed

Aaker' s findings by conducting a longitudinal study examining the influence of product

personality on a consumer' s preference over time, finding that product-personality

congruency (P = .48) had the greatest impact on consumer preference.

Although Aaker (1997) claimed that the findings were generalizable as a result of

the breadth of the study, Austin, Siguaw, and Mattila (2003) argued that the BPS was not

generalizable to individual brands, as a result of the method of the study. Agreeing that a

measurement study was necessary to fully understand the yet unmeasured concept of

brand personality, Austin et al. (2003) reexamined Aaker' s BPS to determine the validity

of those findings. The authors found that, while the constructs were internally reliable

(Cronbach's alpha), they did not have construct validity (Average Variance Extracted >

.50 or discriminant validity). Thus, the findings did not support Aaker' s factor constructs.

Azoulay and Kapferer (2003) also agreed that the purpose behind Aaker' s study was

relevant; however, it was conducted in an inappropriate manner. The authors believe that

the study did not properly operationalize its concepts, measuring a number of different

brand identity constructs and claiming that they are all brand personality measures. While

the study was a review of current practices, and not an empirical investigation, Azoulay

and Kapferer agreed with Austin et al. that the concept should be studied, but perhaps

that the constructs should undergo a reexamination of both content and construct validity.

Endorser characteristics

While the characteristics of the product, human or not, are integral to the marketing

mix, the endorser' s traits are equally as relevant when deciding to use a celebrity









endorser as a promotional technique. Kamins (1990) conducted a study to further

examine the Attractiveness aspect of the importance of congruency in an advertising

campaign. Subjects were shown advertisements containing physically attractive (Tom

Selleck) and physically unattractive (Telly Savalas) endorsers. Results indicated that

when the physically attractive celebrity was shown with an attractiveness-related product,

it enhanced measures of spokesperson credibility and attitude toward a brand, relative to

the use of the physically unattractive celebrity. However, the use of the physically

attractive celebrity had no effect on attractiveness-unrelated products. According to the

Kamins, the advertisement was deemed a success if there was an appropriate match-up.

Miciak and Shanklin (1994) explored the ways in which veteran celebrity

evaluators select effective endorsers based on certain criteria. Gathered from the 43

advertising agencies and companies that were surveyed, the most important criteria were

that the endorsers were trustworthy, readily recognizable by the target audience,

affordable, at little risk for negative publicity, and appropriately matched with the

intended audience. Five universal categories were also evaluated and ranked by

significance. These categories included Celebrity Credibility, Celebrity-Audience Match,

Celebrity-Product Match, Celebrity Attractiveness and Other Considerations.

Expanding upon the endorser characteristic research, Erdogan, Baker, and Tagg

(2001) investigated the importance of certain celebrity characteristics based on the

product type, from the point of view of the practitioner who is selecting the celebrity.

Erdogan et al.'s study examined British advertising agencies by first using exploratory

interviews and then progressing to mail surveys. The findings confirmed the hypothesis

that the importance of the measure used to choose an endorser for a product depended on









the type of product. Practitioners considered a set of criteria when choosing a celebrity

and that the importance of said criteria depended on the type of product being endorsed.

The researchers found that the most important characteristics included Trustworthiness,

Expertise, Familiarity, Likeability, and Physical Attractiveness, aligning with Miciak and

Shanklin's findings as well as those of other previous researchers (e.g., Kahle & Homer,

1985; Kamins, 1989, 1990; McGuire, 1968, 1985; Ohanian, 1990).

Javalgi et al. (1994) also examined the relationship between sponsorship and

corporate image. Their findings showed that sponsorship can improve the image of a

corporation, but it is not an automatic response. It can have either a positive or negative

impact, depending on the company's image prior to the sponsorship. If an organization

began with a positive image, the positive aura can increase. However, if a company's

image was negative prior to a sponsorship, its image may not benefit from the affiliation.

Therefore, as previously mentioned, the image of the product as well as the endorser

plays an integral role in determining the effectiveness of the match and, in turn, the

campaign.

Effective endorser characteristics have been confirmed from a practical perspective

as well. Advertising Age (Tenser, 2004) examined the importance of specific endorser

characteristics from both the consumer and practitioner's perspective. They found a

number of characteristics that consumers deemed important in an endorser. Participants

did not believe that an endorser had to mirror the age, gender, or background

characteristics of a consumer. However, the constructs that were characterized as

pertinent in the selection of athlete endorsers relied heavily on the sport played and the

character of the individual. Some of the characteristics revealed as extremely important









included: "is same gender as me," "is good looking/stylish," "is hottest new star in his/her

sport," "has been playing or played the sport for a long time," "plays/played for one of

my favorite teams," "plays/played sport I follow," and "is someone I would like to be

like." While a number of the characteristics do overlap from those selected by consumers,

there are a few that are unique. These traits include: the right sport (sport your target

market likes), a winner (success on the field and post-sports career), clean living (not too

clean if product needs an "edge"), articulateness (endorser can speak in sentences and is

coachable), likes your brand (must be believable), personality (winning attitude,

outgoing, humility likeable), good looks (attractive), marketing savvy (understands

marketing goals), right portfolio (does not sign with competing brands), and right price

(based on budget). While practitioners may not have placed these characteristics in

categories, or factors, there is a distinct overlap between these Eindings and scholarly

research in the same domain.

Tripp et al. (1994) also conducted a study examining the effect that the number of

products endorsed by a celebrity had on consumer's attitudes and purchase intentions.

Through two experiments it was determined that as the number of products a celebrity

endorses increases, celebrity likeability and advertisement likeability both decrease.

Tripp et al.'s findings were in accordance with Hovland, Janis, and Kelley's (1953) study

regarding source credibility. The authors found both Expertise (the extent to which a

communicator is perceived to be a source of valid assertions) and Trustworthiness (the

degree of confidence in the communicator' s intent to communicate the assertions he or

she considers most valid) to be highly beneficial when choosing an endorser to influence

a consumer's attitude change.









Although previous studies had been conducted regarding athlete endorsers, they

typically focused on the attractiveness and expertise of the endorser (e.g., Boyd & Shank,

2004; Fink et al., 2004) or the heroism aspect of an athlete (e.g., Chalip, 1996; Stevens,

Lathrop, & Bradish, 2003), limiting the potential breadth of the Eindings. In order to adapt

the factors used in previous studies for use in sport studies, Braunstein and Zhang

(2005a) created the Scale of Athletic Star Power (SASP). Braunstein and Zhang believed

that it was crucial to understand the influence of additional characteristics that have been

used in the evaluation of endorsers in other disciplines. The purpose of the study was to

determine the characteristics that athlete endorsers encompass. The development of the

SASP was guided by celebrity endorser research Eindings that focused on

Trustworthiness, Likeability, Expertise, and Attractiveness. The first factor, Professional

Trustworthiness was defined as the genuineness and integrity of the endorser (Erdogan,

1999; Erdogan et al., 2001; Langmeyer & Walker, 1991a; 1991b; McCracken, 1989;

McGuire, 1985; Shimp, 1979; Smith, 1973; Stevens et al., 2003). It has been noted that if

an endorser is deemed untrustworthy, regardless of his or her characteristics, consumers

view the endorser's message as questionable (Smith, 1973). Second, Likeable

Personality, or the fondness for an endorser as a result of his or her behavior, pertains to a

consumer' s perception of the endorser as a genuine individual (Erdogan; Erdogan et al.;

McGuire, 1985; Stevens et al.). The third factor, Athletic Expertise, the perception that

the endorser is a credible source, refers to the perception that the individual chosen to

endorse a product has a base of knowledge, experience, and ability in his or her chosen

Hield (Boyd & Shank; Brooks & Harris, 1998; Chalip; Erdogan; Fink et al.; Goldsmith et

al., 2000; Hovland et al., 1953; Hovland & Weiss, 1951; Langmeyer & Walker, 1991a;









1991b; McCracken; McGuire, 1968; Miciak & Shanklin, 1994; Stevens et al.). The next

factor, Social Attractiveness, or the perceived image of an individual, does not

necessarily pertain to the physical attractiveness of an endorser. Instead, it is comprised

of personality, exposure, and an individual's public image (Baker & Churchill, 1977;

Boyd & Shank; Brooks & Harris; Chalip; Erdogan et al.; Fink et al.; McCracken;

McGuire, 1968, 1985; Ohanian, 1991). An additional factor, characteristic style, is the

distinctive characteristics of an individual. Although Social Attractiveness had not been

introduced in previous celebrity endorser research, it was included to further define the

unique characteristics of athlete endorsers (Erdogan; Erdogan et al.; Stevens et al.). The

SASP expanded the literature to include characteristics that may be unique to athlete

endorsers. The findings of the exploratory study resulted in a scale that included 5 factors

(Professional Trustworthiness, Likeable Personality, Athletic Expertise, Social

Attractiveness, and Characteristic Style) with a total of 40 items. The study showed that

all five factors influenced direct consumption of endorsed products, and when gender

differences were taken into consideration, the influence of athlete endorsers was greater

with female participants in terms of attractiveness and expertise.

In order to further validate the SASP, Braunstein and Zhang (2005b) reexamined

the scale in order to examine the characteristics of athlete endorsers that consumers

deemed important rather than the characteristics that consumers believe that athlete

endorsers possessed. The factor structure differed from the original SASP, combining

Social Attractiveness and Characteristic Style, renamed as Perceived Image, to create the

Scale of Athletic Star Power Consumer Perspective (SASP CP). When reassessing the

initial factors, and the content of the final factors, it was apparent that Perceived Image









examined the characteristics that pertained to both the athlete endorser' s attractive and

unique characteristics. Although an endorser's perceived image had been examined in

other areas of academic literature, the sport literature primarily focused on expertise and

attractiveness of athlete endorsers. When this was studied, attractiveness was typically

characterized as physical attributes (Boyd & Shank, 2004; Fink et al., 2004), not

necessarily public image (Baker & Churchill, 1977; Brooks & Harris, 1998; Chalip,

1996; Erdogan et al., 2001; McCracken, 1989; McGuire, 1968, 1985; Ohanian, 1991).

The addition of a factor that examined the overall image of an athlete endorser could be

beneficial to the sport literature in terms of its potential practical implications.

Consequently, Braunstein and Zhang (2005b) retained a total of 34 items representing

four factors (Professional Trustworthiness, Likeable Personality, Athletic Expertise, and

Perceived Image). While previous studies examined the fit of endorser characteristics

based on the practitioner' s perspective (e.g., Erdogan et al.), Braunstein and Zhang' s

(2005b) study confirmed that consumers also believe that these traits are relevant for

athlete endorsers.

Endorser-Product Congruency/Match-Up

The congruency between the product and the endorser is an integral aspect of the

match-up relationship. Baker and Churchill (1977) were at the forefront of the match-up

phenomenon. They stated that the interaction between product and spokesperson

characteristics was most important in creating the most influential relationship. Friedman

and Friedman (1979) investigated the effects of matching endorser type and product type

by examining the characteristics of endorsers of products based on the level of risk

associated with the product being endorsed. Three types of endorsers (celebrity, expert,









and consumer) as well as three products defined by risk (low Einancial, performance, and

physical risk; high in Einancial, performance, and physical risk / low in psychological and

social risk; no risk) were included in the study. While examining trustworthiness,

awareness, attractiveness, and likeability, the researchers found that an effective match

was not limited to the physical characteristics of a spokesperson.

Till and Busler (1990) conducted two studies to examine the importance of two

match-up factors: Attractiveness and Expertise. The first study examined the influence of

attractiveness on brand attitude, purchase intention, and key brand beliefs. In the second

study, the authors examined the influence of expertise on the same dimensions by

manipulating the product and the type of endorser. The study found that expertise was

more important than attractiveness, as perceived expertise was found to have an

interaction with the endorser (e.g., athletes and energy bars versus actors and energy bars

or candy bars). Overall, results showed that expertise was a more important factor than

physical attractiveness when it came to brand attitude, purchase intent, and endorser-fit

with the product.

Lynch and Schuler (1994) used the schema theory to interpret the results of

previous inquiries into the match-up hypothesis and designed two experiments to provide

additional insight into how schema might be changed by a spokesperson/product match.

The first experiment addressed the effect of match-up between a spokesperson

characteristic and a product attribute on spokesperson credibility. The second considered

the effect of a match-up between a spokesperson characteristic and a product attribute on

the schema of the product. Both studies supported the match-up hypothesis between a










spokesperson' s characteristics and a product's attributes in that they could both initiate a

change in the spokesperson and product schemas.

It is often assumed that an endorser' s image often influences the image of the

product he or she is helping to promote. Till and Shimp (1998) used an associative

network model of memory to examine the influence of negative information about a

celebrity on the product that they endorsed. Three studies were conducted to examine the

relationship. In the first two studies, fictitious, but realistic, celebrity endorsers were

used. In the third study, an actual celebrity was used. Findings showed that negative

information about a celebrity resulted in a decline in attitude towards the endorsed brand

only for the fictitious celebrity. Overall, Till and Shimp's results differed from Kamins'

(1990) study in that there was no match-up interaction between endorser attractiveness

and products that enhance attractiveness. As a follow-up to Till and Shimp's study, Till

(2000) examined the effect of the product that an individual is endorsing on the overall

image of the endorser him or herself. Till found that both athlete and non-athlete

endorsers' images were negatively affected when they represented unsuitable products.

Furthermore, when an athlete endorsed a product that was viewed as unhealthy, the result

was an even stronger negative image.

In sport, the event is often the product that the individual is endorsing. Fink et al.

(2004) used two fictitious athletes to examine the use of endorsers in promoting

attendance at a sporting event on a university campus. The model used in the study

included the constructs of Attractiveness and Expertise, converging into a second-order

latent variable of overall fit. The relationship of fit with attitudes and intentions to

purchase a ticket to the event was then explored. The researchers found that expertise was









more important for athlete endorsers in predicting an individual's intention to attend a

sporting event. Their findings supported the concept that fit is key, stating that

"attractiveness has little to do with the event itself...level of expertise has a significant

impact on an event" (p. 363). Jones and Schumann (2000) used these theories to examine

trends, congruence, and type of promotional strategies used in advertising campaigns

involving athlete endorsers. The authors used a sport-oriented medium over the course of

its entire publication (1955-1998). The overall findings showed that although the

popularity of athlete endorsers was continually growing (more in sports-related medium),

congruency was only found in approximately half of the advertisements, and most

advertisements were "thinking" type ads.

In sum, attitude theory and its extension to the congruency hypothesis has provided

the framework for the proposed model. According to Lutz (1985), attitude toward the

brand is mediated by attitude toward the advertisement, or in the present case, the

perceived congruency between the endorser and the product. Additional support for the

influence of endorser/product congruency on attitude toward the product comes from

Baker and Churchill (1977), Caballero, Lumpkin, and Madden (1989), and Caballero and

Solomon (1984). Furthermore, research has also shown that aspects that make up

endorser/product congruency consistently have been linked to positive attitude changes as

well as increased purchase intentions (e.g., Braunstein & Zhang, 2005a; Kahle & Homer,

1985; Ohanian, 1991; Simon, Berkowitz, & Moyer, 1970).

As noted above, an individual typically develops an attitude toward the product.

This may translate into an individual's initial intention to purchase or not purchase the

product. However, advertisers have realized that an advertising campaign may modify an









individual's initial attitude toward the product, thus potentially increasing the likelihood

of purchase (e.g., Heath, McCarthy, & Mothersbaugh, 1994; Kamins, 1990; Ohanian,

1991). Moreover, when including an athlete endorser in an advertising campaign, a

consumer' s identification with the sport and the athlete become an additional

consideration (Kwon et al., 2005; Robinson & Trail, 2005; Robinson et al., 2004). In

order to further understand the influence that these factors have on an individual's

decision-making process, identity theory must be examined (e.g., James, 1890; Mead,

1934; Stryker & Burke, 2000).

Identity Theory

According to James (1890), individuals have different identities for each of their

networks of relationships. In each relationship, an individual plays a different role based

on the mutually reinforcing and conflicting aspects of oneself (Mead, 1934). Both

identity theory and social identity theory have been used to examine this phenomenon.

Identity theory, as a model, is made up of "four central components: (a) the identity

standard, or set of (culturally prescribed) meanings held by the individual which defined

his or her role identity in a situation, (b) the person' s perceptions of meanings within the

situation match to the dimensions of meaning in the identity standard, (c) the comparator

or the mechanism that compares the perceived situational meanings with those held in the

identity standard, and (d) the individual's behavior or identity which is a function of the

difference between perceptions and standards" (Stryker & Burke, 2000, p. 287). In

contrast, social identity theory states that the social categories to which individuals are

members of are all part of a structured society, existing only in relation to other

contrasting categories (e.g., student versus faculty, Black/African-American versus









Caucasian, male versus female). An individual is born into a society that has already been

structured. Therefore, social categories have been determined before the individual

identifies this role as part of his or her life. Each individual, belonging to a unique set of

social categories, has his or her own set of social identities that work to create an

individual's unique self concept (Stets & Burke, 2000). Both traditions (identity theory

and social identity theory) recognize that individuals view themselves in terms of

meanings imparted by a structured society. However, while both theories involve the

roles that an individual plays in society, identity theory is an individual's own perception

of the role that he or she plays in a specific situation while social identity theory is based

on an individual's role as determined by others.

Stryker (1980) built on the original concept of identity theory, using it to explain

the influence that social structures have on an individual and how, in turn, social

structures influence that individual's social behavior. While Stryker examined the

external motivators of identity theory, Burke (1991) explored the internal motivators of

identity theory. These two strands of identity theory research were brought together in

order to create a greater understanding of how both internal and external motivators

influence an individual's belief of the roles that self and social structure play in creating

an individual's identity (Stryker & Burke, 2000). In an examination of the past, present,

and future of identity theory, Stryker and Burke conceptualized identity theory to

encompass each of these critical components, claiming that an individual's cognitive

comparisons, which ultimately lead to the individual's final behavior, are influenced by

that person's identity standard and perceived situational meanings.









Identity Theory and Sport Consumption

Trail, Anderson, and Fink (2005) used identity theory to explain that an

individual's identification with a sports team may lead to a change in behavior. They

used the Team Identifieation Index (TII; Fink, Trail, & Anderson, 2002; Trail & James,

2001) to measure an individual's identification with the team. Trail, Anderson and Fink

(2000) defined identification as "an orientation of the self in regard to other obj ects

including a person or group that results in feelings or sentiments of close attachment" (p.

165-166). This concept, and specifically this index, has been used extensively. Several

studies (e.g. Fink et al., 2002; Robinson et al., 2004; Trail, Fink & Anderson, 2003; Trail

et al., 2003) found that team identification was significantly related to motives for

following teams (e.g., Drama, Aesthetics, and Social Interaction) and Trail et al. (2003)

showed that team identification was related to expectancies about game outcome. Trail et

al. (2005) determined that it was related to basking in reflected glory (BIRGing) and

cutting off reflected failure (CORFing) behavior and also conative loyalty. However, the

above authors have not been alone in showing that team identification has an influence on

cognitive, affective, conative, and behavioral responses.

While others who have examined this phenomenon (e.g., Mahony, Madrigal, &

Howard, 2000; Milne, & McDonald, 1999; Wann, 2002) have not specifically used

identity theory, they have used measures that were representative of identity theory. For

example, Wann, in a preliminary attempt to validate a measure for assessing an

individual's identification as a sport fan, examined a fan's identification with his or her

role as a sport fan. This involved an individual's awareness and perception of themselves

as a sport fan. The creation of that instrument provided sport marketers with the ability to









assess the level of their fan's identification and, in turn, become more aware of their

consumer' s wants and needs.

Funk, Mahony, and Ridinger (2002) found that factors that pertain specifically to

the sport were the most influential regarding spectator support level. In a separate

application of the Sport Interest Inventory (SII), Funk, Ridinger, and Moorman (2003)

examined 18 factors regarding the aspects that lead to consumer support of the team. In

their study, 10 of the 18 factors explained 48% of the variance in consumer support for

the team, with Interest in the Team (team identification, P = .31) as the most influential

factor. In some of the earlier work that included variables that were similar to team

identification, findings showed that highly identified individuals differed from lowly

identified individuals on several behavior and affective factors (e.g., Branscombe &

Wann, 1991; Lever, 1983; Madrigal, 1995; Wann & Branscombe, 1993).

Identity Theory and Points of Attachment

Although most of the previous research has focused on an individual's

identification with the team (Fink et al., 2002; Funk et al., 2002; Funk et al., 2003;

Robinson & Trail, 2005; Trail et al., 2005), a number of other studies have looked at

other points of attachment, such as identification with the athlete/player or identification

with the sport. Trail et al. (2003) suggested that an individual's level of identification in

sport may not lie solely with a team, and that there are seven potential points of

attachment (Player, Team, Coach, University, Community, Sport, and Level), creating

the Points of Attachment Index (PAI) from the original research with the TII (Fink et al.,

2002). This builds on James (1890) and Mead's (1934) assumptions that individuals have

multiple role identities. The PAI has been retested numerous times (Kwon et al., 2005;









Robinson & Trail; Robinson et al., 2004) with the model showing at least adequate fit

each time. While the PAI has typically been tested on sport consumption, two of the

subscales may prove beneficial in the assessment of the effectiveness of athlete

endorsers: identification with the athlete/player and identification with the sport that the

athlete plays.

While the current study analyzed the relationship between the endorser and the

consumer in terms of identification and identity theory (e.g., James, 1890; Mead, 1934;

Stryker & Burke, 2000), others have examined this relationship in terms of congruency,

match-up, or hero-worship. As athlete endorsers have become commonplace in

advertising, understanding the athlete's characteristics that consumers deem important

becomes extremely relevant. In order to understand the characteristics of athlete

endorsers that consumers identify with, the unique attributes of sport and athletes must be

taken into consideration.

Hero Worship

There has always been the phenomenon of the sport hero. As sport moves into a

new era, individual athletes are garnering the attention that teams once boasted. Wann,

Melnick, Russell, and Pease (2001) discussed the pastime of placing athletes on pedestals

in the public spotlight. Through the creation of entities like Halls of Fame, where hero

worship reins supreme, sport heroes can live on through the years. Generations can pass

down the knowledge of their favorite athletes, linking them with the next, and keeping

the hero worship mentality alive. As identification with these heroes allows the athlete or

coach to have an elevated level of power, it is in the best interest of the public to

understand the means by which they attain their status.









It may be more difficult to worship an athlete today than in the past. As demand

for athlete salaries increase to outlandish levels, labor disputes are constantly pending,

franchises threaten to relocate, and many individual athletes extracurricular activities do

not fit those that put them in contention for hero worship (Stevens et al., 2003). If an

organization is attempting to utilize an athlete to endorse its new product, the executives

should realize that fan identification still runs strong (Milne & McDonald, 1999).

Through all of the ups-and-downs in sport, fans still identify with athletes and teams.

Therefore, as endorsement deals grow and brands vie for the affection of elite athletes, it

may be assumed that fans are identifying more with their heroes.

Endorser-Consumer Congruency/Match-Up

While, according to the Match-up Hypothesis (Kahle & Homer, 1985), it is

extremely important to recognize the congruency between the product and the endorser, it

is also integral to the match to understand the match-up between the consumer and the

endorser. If a particular endorser does not influence an organization's target market, the

money spent on the endorsement may not be worth the investment. Therefore, it is crucial

to the match to be aware of the characteristics that a specific market deems important in

an endorser in order to maximize the match' s effect. While this area of match-up has not

been as widely studied as the product-endorser match-up, a number of studies have been

conducted to examine this relationship. For example, Mowen et al. (1979) used Heider' s

(1958) balance theory to describe the relationships that exist among target audience and

endorser, product and endorser, and consumer and product. The authors found that when

a strong affective relationship exists between each of the pairs, an endorser will be

maximally effective. Mowen et al. concluded that the match itself is what led to a









maximum effect. Boyd and Shank (2004) took this concept one step further by exploring

gender differences. The authors examined gender and expertise match-up as the most

effective use of athlete endorsers. When observing influence on male and female

participants, the results showed that women were more sensitive to the match between

endorser and product. In general, the Eindings state that a greater level of trust exists

between men and male endorsers and women and female endorsers. Additionally, the

authors found that the most effective campaign targeted male viewers, included a male

athlete, and involved a sport-related product. A study conducted by Peetz, Parks, and

Spencer (2004) also examined the role of gender in the meaning-transfer process. The

Endings of the study coincided with Boyd and Shank' s findings, stating that male

endorsers led to a greater increase of purchase intentions. More specifically, a greater

increase of purchase intentions was seen for male participants in response to male

endorsers. These findings support a number of similar studies that found that both

similarity and likeability have been used as determinants of identification and

interpersonal attraction between the source and the message recipient (Aronson &

Worchel, 1966; Berscheid, 1966; Kelman, 1961). As match-up between the consumer

and endorser can be roughly defined through identification and attraction (Kahle &

Homer; Kamins, 1989, 1990; McGuire, 1968; McGuire, 1985; Ohanian, 1990), these

Endings are extremely relevant in the match-up process.

In order for level of celebrity and fan recognition to be effective in marketing, an

individual's perception of an athlete must be elevated above their view of others. This

means that a consumer must believe that an individual has a particular talent or trait that

makes them unique (Braunstein & Zhang, 2005a). They must then wish to identify with










that athlete. As a result of identification, a marketer believes that if the "identified"

athlete endorses a certain product, the consumer will react to this association, and

purchase that product over one that is not endorsed by an individual he or she feels

connected to.

People can typically relate well to others that they believe to have the same values

and interests as themselves (i.e., other individuals in their social structure). For example,

as Generation Y (Gen Y; age 10-27) begins to form their views on the world, they will

identify with those that they relate to, which will be an important concept for marketers

(Rein, Kotler, & Stoller, 1997; Stevens et al., 2003; Stotlar, Veltri, & Viswanthan, 1998).

This is one of the reasons that action sports have become mainstream for Gen-Y

consumers. This generation is looking for extreme ways to live, in part because

individuality is one of their defining qualities (Bennett, Henson, & Zhang, 2003). For

these reasons, marketers are feeding on the individual athlete that will have the ability to

relate to Generation Y (Marlatt, 1999). This generation is not looking to football or

baseball the way that previous generations have. As the sport marketer begins to

understand this, star power moves from the team as one entity to the individual athlete,

whether extreme or mainstream.

Application of the TII established that an individual's identification with the team

might influence consumption behavior (Trail et al., 2005). Trail et al. (2003) also found

that an individual's level of identification may expand beyond identification with just the

team, including the player/athlete and sport as well. This level of identification may

influence the consumer' s belief regarding his or her role identity regarding both the

athlete and the sport. Therefore, an individual's role in a social structure (e.g., Generation










Y) may influence an individual's belief regarding the congruency between an endorser

and a product (e.g., Shaun White and Mountain Dew). If congruency is found, this may

influence the individual's consumption behavior regarding the endorsed product (e.g.,

Heider, 1958; Mowen et al., 1979; Peetz et al., 2004).

No research has examined the relationship from identification with a specific

athlete or sport to perceived congruency between an endorser (the athlete) and the

product. Therefore, when examining the affect of endorsers on a consumer' s purchase

intentions, it is important to also examine that individual's level of identification with

certain factors, as they may influence behavior (e.g., Burke, 1991; Stryker, 1980; Stryker

& Burke, 2000). In the case of an athlete endorsing a product, it is vital that the level of

identification with both the sport and the endorser are taken into account in the overall

effect.

Summary

Previous researchers have examined the importance of fit when including a

celebrity in an advertising campaign (e.g., Kahle & Homer, 1985; Kamins, 1989, 1990;

Kanungo & Pang, 1973; Lynch & Schuler, 1994; Peterson & Kerin, 1977). According to

the Product Match-Up Hypothesis (Kahle & Homer), it is the fit between the

characteristics of the endorser and the product that is the most relevant in creating an

effective advertising campaign. Therefore, it is important to understand the characteristics

of the endorser and product that must first be measured to examine the fit in order to

create the most effective campaign. Although numerous characteristics have been defined

for celebrity endorsers in general, researchers tend to focus on the attractiveness and

expertise of athlete endorsers (e.g., Boyd & Shank, 2004; Fink et al., 2004). Sport studies









need to expand beyond these two factors in order to determine if other characteristics are

relevant for athlete endorsers. In order to achieve a greater understanding of the actual

influence of the match, other factors that influence the relationship must be taken into

consideration. While match-up studies have primarily focused on the influence of the

match itself, they often lack the influence of other factors. Both identification (sport and

athlete; e.g., Kwon et al., 2005; Robinson & Trail, 2005; Robinson et al., 2004; Trail et

al., 2003) and perceived value (e.g., Cravens et al., 1988; Monroe, 1990; Porter, 1990;

Sweeney & Soutar, 2001; Zeithaml, 1988) influence an individual's purchase intentions.

Additionally, the overall influence of these factors may affect a consumer' s perception of

the endorser-product match-up (e.g., Baker & Churchill, 1977; Friedman & Friedman,

1979, Till & Busler, 1990; Till & Shimp, 1998). Therefore, in order to fully understand

the influence of an athlete endorser, each of these factors (i.e., identification with the

endorser or the sport, perception of endorser-product congruency, and perceived value of

the product) must be examined to understand the role that they play in a consumer' s

decision-making process. See Figure 1.















CHAPTER 3
METHOD

Participants

Based on the number of effective parameters in the model (N = 145), a total of 850

participants were recruited for this study (minimum N = 132 to achieve power of .80 with

df = 1 130; MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara, 1996). The participants (N = 400) were a

convenience sample of undergraduate and graduate students at a large southeastern

university. The majority of the participants were male (61%), 20-23 years old (75%),

White/Non-Hispanic (64%), and upper-level university students (junior/senior 70%).

Marketers use athlete endorsers in campaigns in order to target those that are most

highly influenced by this practice (the youngest generation with purchasing power, or,

presently, Generation Y; Holton, 2000). As the older segment of Generation Y, university

students are an appropriate population for this study. At this time in their lives, these

individuals may not have a solidified brand preference, but they may have a loyalty to a

particular athlete that can be transferred to the brand that the athlete is endorsing

(Holton). This, coupled with the ability to purchase middle to high-end products, is what

marketing and advertising executives hope to capitalize on with athlete endorsements.

The sample fit the demographic characteristics of the Generation Y population (Table 2).










Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for the Demographic Variables
Variable Category N %

Gender Male 245 61.1
Female 156 38.9

Age 18-19 72 18.0
20-21 212 52.9
22-23 92 22.9
24 or Older 25 6.2

Ethnicity Afri can-Ameri can/Bl1ack 42 10.5
Asian 23 5.7
Hispanic/Non-White 25 6.2
White/Hi sp ani c 46 11.5
White/Non-Hi spanic 258 64.3
Other 7 1.7

Current Student Status Freshman 25 6.2
Sophomore 78 19.5
Junior 163 40.6
Senior 122 30.4
Graduate Student 13 3.2


Questionnaire Development

For this study, the questionnaire was split into two segments (Observation #1 and

Observation #2). On both segments of the questionnaire, all items were measured using a

7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = slightly disagree; 4 =

neutral; 5 = slightly agree; 6 = agree; 7 = strongly agree). The first segment used two

dimensions of the Points of Attachment Index (PAI; Trail, Robinson, Dick, & Gillentine,

2003) to examine the participant' s level of identification with both the athlete endorser

and the athlete' s sport. The second segment of the questionnaire included two additional

scales. First, the participants were asked questions to examine the congruency between

the athlete and the endorser, including elements of the Scale of Athletic Star Power -

Consumer Perspective (SASP CP; Braunstein & Zhang, 2005b). The second part of the










second segment included the Perceived Value (PERVAL) scale (Sweeney & Stoutar,

2001) to examine the subj ect' s perceived value of the product once he/she has seen the

advertisement. The survey included questions regarding the participant' s purchase

intentions of the product that was used in the study (I believe that this product...is one

that I definitely will purchase, is one that I would consider buying, is one that there is a

high probability that I would purchase, and is one that I intend to purchase). Additionally,

for the purpose of sample description, questions on five sociodemographic variables

(gender, age, ethnicity, current student status, and country of citizenship) were included

in a multiple-choice format. Prior to the administration of the questionnaire, the

University's Institutional Review Board approved the research methods.

Points of Attachment Index

The PAI has been used in numerous studies to examine the influence a consumer's

level of identification on his or her consumption intentions (Kwon, Trail, & Anderson,

2005; Robinson & Trail, 2005; Robinson, Trail, & Kwon, 2004; Trail, Robinson, Dick, &

Gillentine, 2003). Originally developed to determine the factors that influence consumers

to attend sporting events, the PAI has tested various dimensions (Player, Team, Coach,

University, Community, Sport, and Level) in a variety of settings. While the PAI factors

have remained consistent in previous studies, the scale has not been examined in terms of

its influence on an individual's consumption intentions regarding endorsed products or

the belief of the congruency between an athlete endorser and a product. Although

attachment to an athlete has often been referred to as an influential factor in the selection

of an endorser and ultimately the purchase intentions of a consumer (e.g., Tenser, 2004),

these factors have not often been controlled for in athlete endorser studies. Therefore, it

would have been careless to further explore this relationship without examining these









factors to better understand their role in the attitude change process (Eagly & Chaiken,

1993). Consequently, it was necessary to include them in the first stage of the model.

As a result of the content of the current study, it was deemed that two dimensions

(Sport and Player/Athlete) of the original seven (Player, Team, Coach, University,

Community, Sport, and Level) PAI factors (Trail et al., 2003) were to be included in the

model. After evaluating the items in terms of the context of the study, eight items were

retained. The Sport sub-scale included four items: "first and foremost, I consider myself a

(sport) fan," "being a fan of (sport) is very important to me," "(sport) is my favorite

sport," and "I am a (sport) fan at all levels and tours." The Player/Athlete sub-scale also

included four items: "I identify with (athlete)," "when (athlete) loses a match, it feels like

a personal failure," "I am a big fan of (athlete)," and "I follow (sport) because I am a big

fan of (athlete)."

Scale of Athletic Star Power Consumer's Perspective

In Braunstein and Zhang's (2005b) study to examine the Scale of Athletic Star

Power (SASP) with a unique focus, the SASP CP focused on consumer' s beliefs

regarding the characteristics that they believed athlete endorsers should possess, instead

of the characteristics that they did possess. The original scale was constructed to examine

characteristics exhibited by athlete endorsers that potentially influence consumer

purchases of endorsed products and included 40 items under five factors (Professional

Trustworthiness, Likeable Personality, Athletic Expertise, Social Attractiveness, and

Characteristic Style). As a reevaluation of the original scale, the SASP CP was

decreased to 34 items under four factors (Professional Trustworthiness, Likeable

Personality, Athletic Expertise, and Perceived Image).









It was important that the factors, both the SASP and SASP CP (Braunstein &

Zhang, 2005a, 2005b), were reevaluated to examine their relevance in terms of athlete

endorsers and the use of these individuals in promoting non-sport products. For use in

this study, items were evaluated and included or removed based on three criteria. Items

were removed if they had low factor loadings in both of the previous studies (SASP and

SASP CP; Braunstein & Zhang, 2005a, 2005b), did not load on the same factors for the

two analyses, or if they did not have face validity with the newly established 4-factor

model. Once these factors had been established, items were modified based on newly

acquired research regarding athlete endorsers (e.g., Tenser, 2004) and brand personalities

(e.g., Aaker, 1997). The scale then had 33 items under 4 factors.

In order to further reduce the number of items, a test of construct validity was

conducted with 40 university students. The students were provided with two lists: one list

of the factors and one list of the items. They were then instructed to match the items with

the factor that they believed worked best to define the overriding construct. As a result of

these findings and the addition of the congruency between athlete and endorser to the

model, likeability was eliminated as a factor.

After the initial construct validity check, the scale was decreased to three factors

with 18 items. These factors included Trustworthiness (sincerity, hard-working, quality,

consistency, dependability, and reliability), Expertise (competence, performance over

time, accomplishments, ability to perform, superiority, and success), and Image

(appearance, style, attractiveness, trendy, recognizability, and distinctiveness). As

previous research has consistently linked these three factors (Expertise, Trustworthiness,

and Image/Attractiveness) to both positive attitude changes and increased purchase









intentions (e.g., Kahle & Homer, 1985; Simon, Berkowitz, & Moyer, 1970), they fit the

criteria used to test the model. The scale was preceded by the phrase "I believe that both

the endorser and the product match up well in terms of..." in order to examine the

congruency of the attributes between the athlete endorser and the product.

Perceived Value Scale

The PERVAL was originally developed to expand the previous literature that

examined consumer' s perceptions of the value of products (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001).

Originally, perceived value was operationalized as the trade-off between Quality and

Price (Cravens, Holland, Lamb, & Moncrieff, 1988; Monroe, 1990; Zeithaml, 1988). The

introduction of the PERVAL scale was intended to add the dimensions of Emotion and

Social to the two original factors (Sweeney & Stoutar). Lee, Trail, Kwon, and Anderson

(2005) reexamined the PERVAL scale in terms of the convergent and divergent

characteristics of the factors. While the results did not reveal high factor loadings for

many of the items or high average variance extracted (AVE) values for many of the

factors, there were a number of items that did load well and were reevaluated for use in

this study. Therefore, the PERVAL factors that were used in the study included Emotion

(is one that I would enj oy, is one that I would want to use, is exciting, is one that I would

feel comfortable using, is one that would make me happy, would make me feel good, and

would be fun), Quality (would perform consistently well, is high-quality, is well-made,

has an acceptable standard of quality, and would last a long time), Price (is reasonably

priced, is a good product for the price, is fairly priced, and is affordable), and Social

(would give its owner social approval, would make a good impression on other people,

would help me to feel accepted by others, and would improve the way I am perceived by

others). All factors retained from Lee et al.'s study had factor loadings of .63 or higher, of









which only one item was below .70 (Lee et al.). The items were preceded by the

following statement: "Regarding (product) I believe that this product is..."

Validity Screening

Following its preliminary formulation, the questionnaire was submitted to a panel

of experts (n = 16) for a test of content validity. The panel included eight university

professors in sport management, tourism, and/or marketing and eight graduate students

maj oring in sport management. Based on 80% agreement among the panel members, the

items were evaluated on whether the format and content were: (a) appropriate, (b)

adequate/representative, and (c) accurate/clear (Lam, Zhang, & Jensen, 2005; Zhang,

Pease, Hui, & Michaud, 1995).

After the initial items were determined, a test of internal consistency was conducted

on the SASP CP, PERVAL, and purchase intention subscales (N = 49). The test was

not conducted on the PAI, as the subscales (identification with sport and identification

with player/athlete) have proven to have high alpha values in previous studies (Kwon et

al., 2005; Robinson & Trail, 2005; Robinson et al., 2004; Trail et al., 2003). The items

were retained based on Nunally and Bernstein' s (1994) criterion that alpha reliability

coefficient' s should be equal to or greater than .70. The alpha coefficients for the SASP

- CP were .76 (Expertise), .83 (Trustworthiness), and .44 (Image). If the item

"controversy" was eliminated from the Image dimension, the alpha coefficient increased

to .69. Therefore, the item was dropped and "appearance" was added to the Image factor.

The final scale included three factors with six items representing each factor.

For the PERVAL scale, the alpha coefficients were .56 (Emotion), .83 (Quality),

.82 (Price), and .83 (Social). As a result of the low alpha coefficient for Emotion, the

items were reexamined. In order to improve Emotion, "would make me want to use it,"










the most problematic item, was dropped (after, 0= .61) and a number of additional items

were added ("is exciting," "is one I would want to use," "is one that would make me

happy," and "would be fun"). The Einal scale included 4 factors with a total of 20 items.

The purchase intention subscale had a sufficient alpha coefficient of .87, retaining all four

items. The final questionnaire included four sub scales (PAI, SASP CP, PERVAL, and

purchase intentions) with 50 total items.

Athlete and Product Selection

In order to identify the athletes for the study, the same students used to test the

content validity of the scale were asked to list all of the athletes that they could think of in

three minutes. The celebrities were later ranked based on the number of times their names

were mentioned. Two of the athletes that were mentioned most often were Dale

Earnhardt Junior and Maria Sharapova. As these two athletes currently promote middle-

to high-end products, they were chosen as potential endorsers to use to test the model.

The Einal pairings of endorsers and products include Dale Earnhardt Junior with Wrangler

jeans and Maria Sharapova with Canon cameras. Once the final pairings were determined

and advertisements were selected, the same set of students was asked if they would

purchase either of these products. After an overwhelming response that they would

purchase a Canon camera and they would not purchase Wrangler j eans, the Maria

Sharapova/Canon advertisement was chosen for the study.
































Figure 2. Product-Endorser Advertisement

Procedures

Subj ects were asked to participate in the study, designed to examine the affect of

athlete endorsers on consumer' s purchase intentions for non-sport products. Online

testing procedures were uniform for all research participants. Data collection procedures

included: (a) an e-mail to all potential participants, including an introduction of the

researcher, the purpose of the study, and a link to the questionnaire (serving as the

consent form); (b) an explanation that participation is voluntary, anonymous, and there

would be no penalty for not participating or not completing the questionnaire; (c) a

welcome statement; (d) two screening questions in order to be included as a research

participant in this study ("I know who Maria Sharapova is by reading her name" and "I

know what the Canon Power Shot digital camera is by reading the name of the product");

(e) the first part of the questionnaire; (f) the advertisement with the athlete and the

product (Figure 2); and (g) the second part of the questionnaire. Once the questionnaire

was finished, the data was submitted via the survey service and the final screen thanked


~rcSi;n .....c.l...--1. I .... ~. .-..
'-'' L''' ~~~-"*' *~~-''~''LLlrl- C~IL
~ Gi~ ~i L~B~r(
I
culplraa .I-~pU ~Cbl~'9*









the individual for his/her time and support for the study. The questionnaire was

administered in an online format and took approximately 10 minutes to complete.

Data Analyses

Of the 850 e-mails distributed, 400 completed (555 total) submissions were made,

constituting an overall response rate of 47%. Descriptive statistics for the

sociodemographic variables were calculated using SPSS 13.0 (Norusis, 2004). The

RAMONA (SYSTAT, 1997) program was used to test the overall model fit of the

measurement model (a confirmatory factor analysis CFA). In the CFA, the latent

variables were allowed to correlate, while the error terms were not. Model fit was

determined by examining the root-mean-square-error of approximation (RMSEA;

Steiger, 1989), a confidence interval (CI) for the RMSEA, the ratio of the chi-square to

its degrees of freedom, and the percent of residuals greater than .10 (Browne & Cudeck,

1992). Researchers often indicate the importance of additional goodness-of-fit indices

(e.g., Root Mean Square Residual and the Non-Normed Fit Index; Hair, Anderson,

Tatham, & Black, 2002); however, RAMONA does not provide additional indices.

Browne and Cudeck believed that the RMSEA is the least influenced by the sample size

and number of parameters included in the model. Therefore, additional indices were not

deemed necessary and, as a result, not included in the RAMONA program. The RMSEA,

bound by zero on the lower end and only equal to zero when there is perfect fit, was the

first measure of model fit. According to Hu and Bentler (1999), the following criteria

regarding RMSEA values should be used to determine the fit of the model: less than .060

indicates a close fitting model, .061 .080 indicates reasonable fit, .081 .100 indicates

mediocre fit, and > .100 is unacceptable. While it has often been suggested that chi-

square per degree of freedom values should range from 2.0 to 3.0, there is no consensus










on this figure, with Bollen (1989) also stating that "acceptable values can reach as high as

5.0" (p. 278). According to Bagozzi and Yi (1988), when less than 10% of the residuals

are greater than .10, this is another indicator of adequate model fit.

Factor loadings equal to or greater than .707 show that there is more common

variance than unique variance (Hair et al., 2002), thus indicating that the item represents

the construct well. In addition, the factors were tested for internal consistency against the

standard of I > .70 (Nunally & Bernstein, 1994) and tested for construct reliability

against the standard of AVE values > .50 (Hair et al.). Discriminant validity was assessed

to determine if the factors were distinct from one another. This was accomplished by

squaring the correlations of the two referent factors. According to Fornell and Larcker

(1981), if the findings are greater than the AVE score of either factor, then the factors are

not distinct.

After the fit of the measurement model had been examined, RAMONA was then

used to examine the fit of the structural model. The same criteria were used to examine

the structural model as were used with the measurement model. Path coefficients were

used to determine the most influential direct or indirect relationship on an individual's

intent to purchase the product.















CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

Measurement Model Analysis

After reviewing the skewness and kurtosis coefficients, one item ("When Maria

Sharapova loses a match, it feels like a personal failure") did not meet the criteria of

approximately + 2.00 (Stevens, 1996; Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996). As a result, the item

was eliminated from the remainder of the analysis. The balance of the items did meet the

criterion, suggesting that the data did not deviate from normality for any given variable

(Table 3). Therefore, it was appropriate to test the measurement model. The analysis

indicated that the data fit the model adequately. The RMSEA was .078 (CI = .075 to

.082) and the chi-square per degree of freedom value (2750/798) was 3.45. While the chi-

square per degree of freedom value may be slightly higher than the typically accepted

value, as previously stated, Bollen (1989) suggested that a value as high as 5.0 may be

deemed acceptable. The number of residuals greater than .10 in the current analysis, 150

(12.76%), was an indicator that the model could be improved. The maj ority of the AVE

coefficients were above the acceptance criterion (.53 for Athlete, .69 for Sport, .45 for

Expertise, .49 for Trustworthiness, .50 for Image, .54 for Emotion, .65 for Quality, .70 for

Price, .57 for Social, and .68 for Purchase Intention). Alpha coefficients of internal

consistency for the factors were all above the acceptance criterion of .70 (Nunnally &

Bernstein, 1994). AVE values, alpha coefficients, and factor loadings can be found in










Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for the Measurement Model
Variable MSD


Skewness Kurtosis


Identification


Athlete (4items)
1 I follow tennis because I am a big fan of
Maria Sharapova.
2 I identify with Maria Sharapova.
3 When Maria Sharapova loses, it feels like
a personal failure.
4 I am a big fan of Maria Sharapova

Sport (4items)
1 First and foremost, I consider myself a
tennis fan.
2 Being a fan of tennis is very important
to me.
3 Tennis is my favorite sport.
4 I am a tennis fan at all levels and tours.


2.39
3.02

1.64
3.34




3.35

2.65
2.20
2.78


1.37
1.65

1.13
1.76




1.80

1.54
1.61
1.65


0.95 0.03
0.38 0.91

2.28 5.57
0.18 -1.11


0.34

0.83
1.45
0.61


1.03

-0.06
1.19
-0.76


Attitude Toward Endorser-Product Congruency


Expertise (6 items)
1 Competence.
2 Performance over time.
3 Accomplishments.
4 Ability to perform.
5 Superiority.
6 Success.

Trustworthiness (6 items)
1 Sincerity.
2 Hard-working.
3 Quality.
4 Consistency.
5 Dependability.
6 Reliability.


4.72
4.98
4.68
5.38
4.71
5.36



4.41
5.19
5.28
4.91
4.77
4.93


1.22
1.16
1.31
1.11
1.28
1.12



1.17
1.22
1.07
1.09
1.17
1.16


-0.74
-0.70
-0.61
-0.86
-0.55
-0.99



-0.60
-0.88
-0.87
-0.52
-0.66
-0.62


0.38
0.55
0.28
1.01
0.13
1.50



0.46
0.63
1.00
0.41
0.53
0.28










Table 3. Continued
Variable


Imane (6 items)
1 Appearance.
2 Style.
3 Attractiveness.
4 Trendy.
5 Recognizability.
6 Distinctiveness.


M~ SD Skewness Kurtosis


5.49
5.54
5.76
5.59
5.62
5.22


1.06
1.04
1.07
1.07
1.11
1.13


-1.09
-0.97
-1.15
-0.89
-1.20
-0.70


1.92
1.23
1.99
1.14
2.21
0.51


Attitude Toward the Product

Emotion (7 items)
1- Is one that I would enj oy.
2 Is on that I would want to use.
3 Is exciting.
4 Is one that I would feel comfortable using.
5 Is one that would make me happy.
6 Would make me feel good.
7 Would be fun.

Quality (5 items)
1 Would perform consistently well.
2 Is high-quality.
3 Is well-made.
4 Has an acceptable standard of quality.
5 Would last a long time.

Price (4 items)
1 Is reasonably priced.
2 Is a good product for the price.
3 Is fairly priced.
4 Is affordable.

Social (4 items)
1 Would give its owner social approval.
2 Would make a good impression on other
people.
3 Would help me to feel accepted by others.
4 Would improve the way I am perceived by
others.


5.19
5.01
4.89
5.28
4.45
4.11
5.20



5.25
5.30
5.18
5.10
4.82



4.29
4.45
4.44
4.30


4.44

4.60
3.14


1.16
1.25
1.23
1.04
1.44
1.42
1.17



1.10
1.09
1.04
1.12
1.15



1.13
1.07
1.10
1.07


1.39

1.29
1.59


-1.03
-0.86
-0.60
-0.90
-0.62
-0.47
-1.07



-1.04
-0.73
-0.45
-0.94
-0.39



-0.15
-0.14
-0.35
-0.32


1.88
0.89
0.53
1.55
0.14
-0.22
2.10



1.87
1.03
0.30
1.35
0.42



0.18
0.33
0.41
1.15


-0.46 -0.12

-0.71 0.48
0.07 -0.98

0.08 -0.90


3.40 1.55










Table 3. Continued
Variable

Purchase Intention


M~ SD Skewness Kurtosis


1 Is one that I definitely will purchase.
2 Is one that I would consider buying.
3 Is one that there is a high probability that
I would purchase.
4 Is one that I intend to purchase.


3.60 1.50
4.74 1.35

3.99 1.49
3.58 1.46


0.05
-1.01


-0.58
0.88


-0.21 -0.73
0.04 -0.53


Table 4. Factor Loadings for the Measurement Model
Variable Pt. Est. CI (L) CI (H) SE t aA VE

Identification


Athlete (3 items)
1 I follow tennis because I am a big fan
Of Maria Sharapova.
2 I identify with Maria Sharapova.
3 I am a big fan of Maria Sharapova.

Sport (4 items)
1 First and foremost, I consider myself
a tennis fan.
2 Being a fan of tennis is very important
to me.
3 Tennis is my favorite sport.
4 I am a tennis fan at all levels and tours.


.75 .53


0.719
0.621
0.825


0.666
0.559
0.778


0.773 0.033 22.13
0.683 0.037 16.59
0.872 0.028 29.00


.90 .69


0.803 0.769 0.837 0.021 38.68


0.906
0.746
0.861


0.883
0.706
0.834


0.928 0.014 66.05
0.787 0.025 30.05
0.888 0.017 51.94


Attitude Toward Endorser-Product Congruency


Expertise (6 items)
1 Competence.
2 Performance over time.
3 Ability.
4 Superiority.
5 Success.
6 Accomplishments.

Trustworthiness (6 items)
1 Sincerity.
2 Hard-working.
3 Quality.
4 Consistency.
5 Dependability.
6 Reliability.


.84 .45


0.541
0.586
0.722
0.781
0.695
0.774


0.540
0.625
0.758
0.745
0.796
0.809


0.481
0.531
0.681
0.747
0.651
0.739


0.479
0.572
0.720
0.706
0.762
0.777


0.601
0.642
0.764
0.816
0.740
0.809


0.601
0.678
0.796
0.785
0.829
0.841


0.037 14.80
0.034 17.25
0.025 28.68
0.021 37.45
0.027 25.68
0.021 36.18


0.037 14.51
0.032 19.36
0.023 32.60
0.024 30.84
0.020 39.03
0.019 41.86


.86 .49










Table 4. Continued
Variable

Image (6 items)
1 Style.
2 Attractiveness.
3 Trendy.
4 Recognizability.
5 Distinctiveness.
6 Appearance.


t aA VE

.85 .50
26.34
26.52
34.19
18.33
20.01
19.11


Pt. Est. CI (L) CI (H) SE


0.726
0.728
0.791
0.624
0.650
0.637


0.681
0.683
0.753
0.568
0.597
0.582


0.771
0.773
0.829
0.681
0.704
0.692


0.028
0.027
0.023
0.034
0.032
0.033


Attitude Toward the Product


Emotion (7 items)
1 Is one that I would enj oy.
2 Is one that I would want to use.
3 Is exciting.
4 Is one that I would feel comfortable
using.
5 Is one that would make me happy.
6 Is one that would make me feel good.
7 Would be fun.

Quality (5 items)
1 Would perform consistently.
2 Is high-quality.
3 Is well-made.
4 Has an acceptable standard of quality.
5 Would last a long time.

Price (4 items)
1 Is reasonably priced.
2 Is a good product for the price.
3 Is fairly priced.
4 Is affordable.

Social (4 items)
1 Would give its owner social approval.
2 Would make a good impression on
other people.
3 Would help me to feel accepted by
others.
4 Would improve the way I am
perceived by others.


.89 .54


0.804
0.795
0.751

0.692
0.691
0.660
0.783


0.809
0.824
0.782
0.797
0.792


0.772
0.837
0.894
0.851


0.772
0.761
0.712

0.646
0.645
0.611
0.748


0.777
0.794
0.747
0.764
0.758


0.734
0.807
0.871
0.824


0.837
0.828
0.790

0.738
0.737
0.710
0.818


0.841
0.854
0.817
0.831
0.826


0.809
0.867
0.917
0.879


0.020
0.020
0.024

0.028
0.028
0.030
0.021


0.019
0.018
0.021
0.020
0.021


0.023
0.018
0.014
0.017


40.92
38.97
31.64

24.84
24.69
22.01
36.79


41.71
45.23
36.46
39.26
38.20


33.72
46.50
64.26
50.31


.90 .65


.90 .70


.83 .57


0.577 0.518 0.637 0.036 15.95

0.596 0.539 0.654 0.035 16.99

0.900 0.872 0.927 0.017 53.86

0.883 0.855 0.912 0.017 50.59









Table 4. Continued
Variable Pt. Est. CI (L) CI (H) SE t aA VE

Purchase Intention

Purchase Intentions (4 items) .89 .68
1 Is one that I definitely will purchase. 0.849 0.821 0.877 0.017 49.97
2 Is one that I would consider buying. 0.681 0.633 0.729 0.029 23.32
3 Is one that there is a high probability
that I would purchase. 0.866 0.841 0.892 0.016 55.15
4 Is one that I intent to purchase. 0.892 0.870 0.915 0.014 64.23


The three Match-Up subscales (Expertise, Trustworthiness, and Image) did not

evidence discriminant validity as per Fornell and Larcker (1981). Thus, the first-order

latent variables were eliminated and all items were forced to load directly on the latent

variable "Match-Up" for the remainder of the analysis. After collapsing the factors into

one (Match-Up), the new AVE value was .49 and the new alpha coefficient was .93.

While the balance of the factors showed adequate discriminant validity, Quality was not

distinct from Emotion. Based on theory, the factors were supposed to be unique

constructs in the examination of Perceived Value (i.e., attitude toward the product; e.g.,

Lee, Trail, Kwon, & Anderson, 2005; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). However, in this data

set, Quality and Emotion were not distinct. It is suspected that a "Quality" product may

result in positive emotions. Therefore, as it was not theoretically feasible to combine the

factors, Emotion was dropped for the remainder of the analysis. In addition, Emotion was

a more recent addition to the PERVAL scale (Sweeney & Soutar) and had been

problematic in previous studies (Lee et al., 2005). The altered model contained eight

factors: seven first-order latent variables (Athlete, Sport, Match-Up, Quality, Price,

Social, and Purchase Intention) and one second-order latent variable (Perceived Value).

Item correlations are found in Appendix A and factor correlations are found in Table 5.










Table 5. Factor Correlations for the Measurement Model

Variable Pt. Est. CI (L) CI (H) SE t

Intent
Social 0.599 0.534 0.657 0.038 15.96
Price 0.644 0.584 0.697 0.034 18.75
Quality 0.488 0.413 0.556 0.043 11.22
Emotion 0.622 0.560 0.678 0.036 17.28
Image 0.163 0.071 0.253 0.055 2.95
Trustworthiness 0.367 0.283 0.445 0.049 7.45
Expertise 0.355 0.270 0.435 0.050 7.05
Athlete 0.232 0.138 0.322 0.056 4.13
Sport 0.197 0.108 0.282 0.053 3.72

Social
Price 0.434 0.355 0.506 0.046 9.44
Quality 0.359 0.275 0.437 0.049 7.28
Emotion 0.481 0.405 0.551 0.044 10.89
Image 0.182 0.090 0.271 0.055 3.28
Trustworthiness 0.343 0.258 0.423 0.050 6.80
Expertise 0.348 0.262 0.429 0.051 6.82
Athlete 0.185 0.089 0.278 0.058 3.22
Sport 0.099 0.008 0.188 0.055 1.81

Price
Quality 0.594 0.528 0.652 0.038 15.73
Emotion 0.602 0.537 0.659 0.037 16.14
Image 0.257 0.168 0.343 0.053 4.82
Trustworthiness 0.449 0.371 0.521 0.046 9.79
Expertise 0.458 0.379 0.530 0.046 9.91
Athlete 0.184 0.089 0.276 0.057 3.22
Sport 0.178 0.089 0.264 0.053 3.34

Duality
Emotion 0.930 0.904 0.949 0.014 68.59
Image 0.580 0.510 0.643 0.040 14.36
Trustworthiness 0.659 0.598 0.712 0.035 18.95
Expertise 0.678 0.618 0.731 0.034 19.77
Athlete 0.227 0.132 0.318 0.057 3.99
Sport 0.165 0.075 0.252 0.054 3.05










Table 5 Continued
Variable

Emotion
Image
Trustworthiness
Expertise
Athlete
Sport

Image
Trustworthiness
Expertise
Athlete
Sport

Trustworthiness
Expertise
Athlete
Sport

Expertise
Athlete
Sport

Athlete
Sport


Pt. Est. CI (L) CI (H)


0.539
0.534
0.602
0.265
0.166


0.696
0.812
0.228
0.034


1.000
0.219
0.161


0.279
0.186


0.465
0.461
0.533
0.171
0.076


0.637
0.763
0.130
-0.059


0.606
0.599
0.662
0.354
0.253


0.747
0.851
0.321
0.126


0.043
0.042
0.039
0.056
0.054


0.033
0.027
0.058
0.057


0.017
0.058
0.055


0.057
0.055


0.039


12.64
12.70
15.38
4.74
3.08


20.87
30.60
3.91
0.59




3.79
2.94


4.89
3.39


16.23


0.122 0.311
0.070 0.249


0.182
0.094


0.369
0.274


0.639 0.570 0.699


Structural Model Analysis

Due to the elimination of the Emotion subscale and the highly kurtotic Athlete

Identification item, the structural model consisted of 42 items. Although the original

relationships among Athlete Identification, Sport Identification, Match-Up, Perceived

Value, and Purchase Intention were not altered, the structural model did vary from the

measurement model in terms of the number of items analyzed and number of first-order

latent variables. The structural model revealed adequate fit as well, with an RMSEA of

.080 (CI = .077 to .083) and chi-square per degree of freedom value of 3.55 (2873/810).










However, not all criterion were met, with the number of residuals greater than 0. 10

(234/861 = 27. 18%) above the criteria of approximately 10%.

In addition to model fit, specific variance was examined to determine the amount of

variance explained in the model. In order to determine the amount of variance that the

model explained for a specific factor, specific variance (i.e., error) was subtracted from

1.0 (i.e., 1 Z). The variance explained for each factor was: 7% (Match-Up), 39%

(Perceived Value), and 54% (Purchase Intention). For path coefficients, see Table 6 and

Figure 3.

Table 6. Relationships in the Structural Model
Variable Point Est. CI (Low) CI (High) SE t

Athlete

Sport 0.642 0.572 0.702 0.039 16.34
Match-Up 0.268 0.136 0.399 0.080 3.36
Purchase Intention 0.064 -0.012 0.141 0.047 1.39

sport

Match-Up -0.013 -0.139 0.113 0.077 0.17

Match-Up

Perceived Value 0.622 0.558 0.687 0.039 15.87

Perceived Value

Quality 0.769 0.716 0.822 0.032 23.82
Price 0.787 0.735 0.838 0.031 0.29
Social 0.587 0.517 0.657 0.042 13.84
Purchase Intention 0.723 0.665 0.782 0.036 20.36

























IDENTIFICATION
WITH ATHLETE


Figure 3. Structural Model















CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION

Previous studies focusing on the use of endorsers in advertising have helped to

determine the general factors (i.e., Attractiveness, Expertise, and Trustworthiness) that

academicians and practitioners believe play a key role in understanding the effectiveness

of endorsers (e.g., Erdogan, 1999; Erdogan, Baker, & Tagg, 2001; Hovland, Janis, &

Kelley, 1953; Hovland & Weiss, 1951; Langmeyer & Walker, 1991a; 1991b;

McCracken, 1989; McGuire, 1985; Shimp, 1979; Smith, 1973; Stevens, Lathrop, &

Bradish, 2003). However, there are other factors that may influence consumer behavior in

terms of the perceived congruency between an endorser and a product (i.e., effectiveness

of endorsers). With the continued practice of using athlete endorsers to promote non-

sport products, it was necessary to examine this phenomenon to determine its relevance

and impact on consumer's purchase intentions. Previously, athlete endorser effectiveness

was only examined in terms of the attractiveness and expertise of the endorser (e.g., Boyd

& Shank, 2004; Fink et al., 2004). This study was conducted to examine factors in

addition to those included in traditional studies that may influence a consumer' s purchase

intentions.

Model development, guided by Attitude Theory (e.g., Fishbein, 1963; Fishbein &

Ajzen, 1975; Zimbardo & Ebbesen, 1970) and Identity Theory (e.g., James, 1890; Mead,

1934; Stryker & Burke, 2000), was intended to include factors beyond those typically

addressed in the endorser literature. First, attitude theory was used to examine a

consumer' s perception of the match between an endorser and a product (Expertise,









Trustworthiness, and Attractiveness/Image; e.g., Braunstein & Zhang, 2005a, 2005b;

Kahle & Homer, 1985; Kamins, 1989, 1990; McGuire, 1968, 1985; Ohanian, 1990) and

the individual's perception of the value of the product in general (Emotion, Quality,

Price, and Social; Lee et al., 2005; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). As a result of the inclusion

of athlete endorsers in the study, it was determined that an individual's level of

identification with both the athlete and the athlete's sport should be included in the model

as well. Identity theory was used as the foundation for this phenomenon (Athlete

Identification and Sport Identification; e.g., Fink, Trail, & Anderson, 2002; Kwon, Trail,

& Anderson, 2005; Robinson & Trail, 2005; Robinson, Trail, & Kwon, 2004; Trail,

Robinson, Dick, & Gillentine, 2003; Wann, 2002). Ultimately, a 5-factor (50 item) model

was developed to examine the relationships between Athlete/Sport Identification and

Match-Up (Expertise, Trustworthiness, Image), Athlete Identification and Purchase

Intention, Match-Up and Perceived Value (Emotion, Quality, Price, Social), and

Perceived Value and Purchase Intention.

The proposed measurement model was tested and found to fit the data adequately.

However, there was evidence of psychometric problems with some of the subscales. One

item used to measure athlete identification ("When Maria Sharapova loses a match, it

feels like a personal failure.") was eliminated as a result of its high skewness and kurtosis

coefficients. This may have been a result of the syntax used to construct the item, as the

remaining athlete identification items referred to being a fan, and this may have tried to

measure something unique from the other statements that were much more general. After

examining skewness and kurtosis coefficients, factor loadings were reviewed. In general,

the factor loadings were favorable. Discriminant validity between the dimensions was









examined and it was determined that there was no discriminant validity among the

Match-Up subscales (Expertise, Trustworthiness, and Image). In addition, there was a

lack of discriminant validity between two of the four Perceived Value subscales (Emotion

and Quality).

The lack of discriminant validity among the Match-Up subscales contradicted

previous findings (e.g. Baker & Churchill, 1977; Friedman & Friedman, 1979; Kamins,

1990; Lynch & Schuler, 1994; Till & Busler, 1990), which indicated that these were

distinct concepts and that each played a significant role in the effectiveness of endorsers.

Expertise and Trustworthiness may not have been distinct because participants may have

believed that endorsers that have a certain level of expertise in an area are therefore

trustworthhy, or vice versa. This may also stem from a number of factors, including (a) the

fact that the advertisement included an athlete with a non-sport product or (b) a halo

effect. Halo effect refers to a cognitive bias, using an individual's judgment of one

quality to influence the assessment of other qualities (Asch, 1946). In other words, the

participants may not have examined the advertisement closely enough to decide whether

or not they believed there to be a congruency between the endorser and the product.

However, as a result of the screening questions, it was clear that they did have previous

knowledge of the athlete endorser as well as the product. Therefore, participants may

have had preconceived notions regarding both elements of Match-Up, that is, the

participants may have assumed that the advertisement was included in the study because

there was a high level of congruency. This may have resulted in the slightly negatively

skewed responses. This speculation cannot be validated without further analyses

involving different types of endorser-product match-ups. Because of the lack of









discriminant validity among the dimensions in Match-Up and the fact that the purpose of

the study was to test the overall relationships in the model (i.e., the relationships with the

second-order latent variable Match-Up), the items from the three first-order latent

variables were allowed to load directly on Match-Up as a first-order latent variable for

the remainder of the analysis. Although the factors were not distinct in the initial analysis,

when the factor loadings on Match-Up as a first-order latent variable were examined

there was some indication that there may be more than one factor, as previous researchers

have stated (e.g. Baker & Churchill; Friedman & Friedman; Kamins, 1990; Lynch &

Schuler; Till & Busler). Therefore, the lack of discriminant validity between the original

factors may stem from a number of possibilities, such as preconceived notions of the

athlete and/or product, the wording of the items, the sample, the advertisement, and the

endorser. Therefore, this issue needs further examination.

Based on theory (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001), the dimensions of Quality and

Emotion are not similar. However, the measurement model showed a lack of discriminant

validity between these two factors. After further examination, it was determined that

there may be a distinct relationship between the factors that was not previously detected.

The factors may be related in that one is cognitive (Quality) and one is affective

(Emotion). If, as previous researchers have stated (e.g., Lavidge & Steiner, 1961),

cognition precedes affect, this may account for the high correlation between the two

factors. Therefore, instead of being a part of the dimensions that represent Perceived

Value, the Emotion construct may be the affective component and the consequence of, or

response to, the cognitive perception of the value of a product. Also, problems may have

arisen from the way that the items were stated. This may account for the problems that









the PERVAL scale has had in the past (e.g., Lee et al., 2005). As previously mentioned,

the two factors should be measuring different constructs, and thus should not be

correlated due to the content of the items. Therefore, if there is a hierarchical relationship,

with Price/Quality/Social being cognitive dimensions and Emotion being an affective

dimension, that might explain the high correlation between the two factors and alleviate

the problems associated with that scale. However, for the purposes of testing the

proposed structural model, the Emotion subscale was eliminated from the analysis.

Social, the other factor along with Emotion, that Sweeney and Soutar (2001) added

to represent Perceived Value, had some problems as well. Although the construct had an

adequate AVE value and was distinct from the other factors, only two of the items loaded

at the set criteria of .707 or higher (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 2002). Upon

review, this may be due to inconsistent wording of the items. Some of the items asked the

participant to take ownership (e.g., "would improve the way I am perceived by others")

while others did not (e.g., "would give its owner social approval"). Therefore, the

wording of the questions should probably be modified for use in future studies.

Another aspect of the instrument that may benefit from a reevaluation is Purchase

Intention. Upon further examination of the factor, the mean score of the four items was

3.91 on a 7-point Likert-type scale. Therefore, the average response was just below

neutral (towards slightly disagree). This may be due to the fact that the statements were

worded very strongly. The item with the highest mean referred to a "consideration" of a

purchase, whereas the rest of the items were stronger statements (i.e., "will purchase").

As a result, this may not be an adequate measure for middle to high-end products.

Marketers may intend to create an interest, not a definite purchase intention, as a









consumer will most likely not make a purchase decision based on an advertisement,

especially with only one exposure to the promotion. Therefore, it may be beneficial to

inquire into a consumer' s intention to examine or search out middle to high-end products

(e.g., digital cameras, automobiles, season tickets) as a result of an advertisement.

Focusing on an individual's "consideration of purchase" may provide marketers with a

greater understanding of the actual impact of athlete endorsers on consumer' s purchase

intentions, especially in a highly competitive market where consumers are looking for a

way to differentiate among brands.

The Einal structural model included 42 items within 5 factors: Athlete

Identification, Sport Identifieation, Match-Up, Perceived Value (Quality, Price, Social),

and Purchase Intention. The model (Figure 3) fit adequately well, explained 54% of the

variance in Purchase Intention, and examined four main relationships: Identifieation with

both Sport and Athlete to Match-Up, Identifieation with Athlete to Purchase Intention,

Match-Up to Perceived Value, and Perceived Value to Purchase Intention. Identification

had relatively no influence on any aspect of the model. Previous investigations did not

include this relationship, so it should be reexamined in future studies. The relationship

between Athlete Identifieation and Purchase Intention explained less than one percent of

the variance in the model as well. However, this is not reflective of previous findings

regarding identification in sport. Previous studies have found that identification does

influence purchase intention (e.g., Kwon et al., 2005; Robinson & Trail, 2005; Robinson

et al., 2004; Trail et al., 2003). The finding may be due to the specific athlete used in the

study, the way the questions were phrased, and/or there is no overall influence of

identification with an athlete on an individual's purchase intentions regarding an









endorsed product. Although examining identification in this context is new to academia,

practitioners have used a criterion similar to identification when selecting athlete

endorsers for use in campaigns (Tenser, 2004). Therefore, it would be beneficial to

continue examining the importance of this factor in the future.

The amount of variance that Sport Identification and Athlete Identification

combined to explain in Match-Up was extremely low (7%). This was surprising, as

previous research did find that a consumer tends to react to his or her perception of the

talents or traits of an athlete endorser (Braunstein & Zhang, 2005a), which was part of the

rationale behind this relationship. Athlete (Player) Identification was one of the Points of

Attachment examined by previous researchers (Fink et al., 2002; Kwon et al., 2005;

Robinson & Trail, 2005; Robinson et al., 2004; Trail et al., 2003), who found that these

factors did influence consumer purchase (attendance) intentions. Identification has not

been involved in studies similar to the research design of the current investigation.

Findings of the current study indicated that identification with the sport in general may

not influence a consumer' s perception of the congruency between the endorser and the

product. The small amount of variance explained by the relationships may mean that

identification is not an integral aspect of the decision-making process, or it could be the

result of a number of different factors. For example, the athlete endorser used in this

study may not have elicited the same level of identification as other endorsers. It is

important to use an endorser that a specific market relates to (Rein, Kotler, & Stoller,

1997; Stevens et al., 2003; Stotlar, Veltri, & Viswanthan, 1998). Perhaps the endorser

used in this advertisement was not appropriate for the Generation Y market. The only










way to determine the relevance of identification in this relationship is through continued

research.

The model did explain 3 8% of the variance in the relationship between Match-Up

and Perceived Value. While it has been said that an individual's attitude is not easily

altered, marketing practices have been found to moderately influence a potential

consumer' s perception of a product (MacKenzie, Lutz, & Belch, 1986). Although the

current Eindings of the current study supported this relationship, the amount of variance

explained may be inflated due to similar items being included in both scales. After further

examination of the Trustworthiness sub scale of the SASP CP and the Quality sub scale

of the PERVAL scale, there are a number of items that may have caused the exaggeration

of the importance of the relationship (e.g., Trustworthiness: quality, dependability,

reliability; Quality: would perform consistently, is high-quality, is well-made). Therefore,

the items will need to be reexamined if the scales are to be used in conjunction with one

another in future studies. The aforementioned alterations to the congruency and brand

perception constructs may also strengthen these Eindings in the future.

The largest amount of variance explained by the model was in the relationship

between Perceived Value and Purchase Intention (52%). That is, the participant' s

perception of the value of the product likely influenced his/her intentions of purchasing

the product. The Eindings of this relationship coincided with previous findings, as a

consumer' s perception of the value of the product has been found to influence purchase

intentions (e.g., Lee et al., 2005; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). The Emotion subscale,

perceived as an important aspect of a consumer' s perception of a product (Lee et al.,

2005; Sheth, Newman, & Gross, 1991; Sweeney & Soutar, 2001), was eliminated from










the structural model. However, future studies may find that this factor plays a key role in

mediating the relationship between Perceived Value and Purchase Intention (e.g.,

Lavidge & Steiner, 1961; Palda, 1966; Ray, 1973). Very importantly, the model

explained a large amount of variance in Purchase Intention (54%), which provides

evidence that the factors included in the model were integral to the decision-making

process.

The model provided presented a potential foundation for marketers to use when

evaluating the use of athlete endorsers in the future. This initial investigation, that

included identification as a potentially influential factor, may provide practitioners with a

basis for the selection of athlete endorsers. While academicians have not included

identification (athlete and/or sport) in their examination of the effectiveness of athlete

endorsers, practitioners have noted that these factors play an important role in their

selection of endorsers. Marketers have used selection criterion including: "is hottest new

star in his/her sport," "has been playing or played the sport for a long time,"

"plays/played for one of my favorite teams," and "plays/played sport I follow" (Tenser,

2004). They have also examined factors such as the sport that the athlete is involved in

(sport that your target market likes) and the individual's level of success (success on the

field and post-sports career) when making final selections (Tenser). While practitioners

have begun to look into factors that lean toward identification, they have not truly

examined it as a part of this process. Therefore, a model that further examines

identification's role in the overall decision-making process may help practitioners to

determine if identification is integral in positively altering a consumer' s perception of the

product, ultimately ending in a purchase intention. In this study, the participants were not










highly identified with the athlete or sport involved in the campaign, and the athlete's

appearance in the advertisement did not make an impact on the participant' s purchase

intentions. If the sample was the company's target market, perhaps the athlete was not the

appropriate endorser to select for their campaign. However, if future studies show that

identification does impact purchase intentions, it may benefit an organization if their

executives take this into consideration when designing a marketing campaign. For

example, an expanded use of focus groups to determine levels of identification (athlete

and sport) and belief of product-endorser congruency may provide a better platform for

an organization interested in selecting an endorser that has the best potential to reach a

specific market.

Because of the purpose of the study, the composition of the sample, the format of

the questionnaire, the advertisement (i.e., only one athlete and one non-sport product),

and the exploratory nature of the study, the findings can only be viewed as part of the

continuing development and validation process for the model. Although the model

provided an adequate fit to the data, continuous improvement is necessary to obtain the

fit indices that are desired. According to Baumgartner and Jackson (1999), in addition to

examining the content and construct validity of an instrument, criterion and predictive

validity should also be evaluated in future studies. Therefore, future studies with other

samples representing different populations are necessary to further validate the model.

When studying the influence of athlete endorsers in the future, it would be beneficial to

reexamine the relationships proposed in this model. Although the sample size was

adequate for the number of parameters in the model, it would be beneficial to examine

the relationships using experimental design with different types of advertisements (e.g.,










informative, humorous), athlete endorsers (e.g., high-profile, low-profile), and products

(e.g., low cost, high cost / low-involvement, high-involvement / sport, non-sport). Using

experimental design with a hypothetical product or a product that is new to the market

will provide researchers with the opportunity to examine participant' s perception of the

product before and after exposure to the advertisement. It may also be beneficial to

eliminate the screening questions in order to observe all individuals that may have

exposure to the advertisement, and not just those that already know the endorser and/or

the product. Additionally, a study that examines the consumer' s attitude toward the

advertisement, product/brand, and athlete in a very simple way (like/dislike) in order to

observe the participant' s basic feelings regarding the effectiveness of athlete endorsers

could prove useful in reevaluating the model.

Pre-advertisement attitude toward the product influences both initial purchase

intention and post-advertisement attitude toward the product. However, the latter

relationship could be mediated by congruency between the endorser and the product.

Both the initial purchase intention and the post-advertisement attitude toward the product

would be related to post-advertisement purchase intention. This was not examined in the

current study. In future studies, researchers should consider using experimental design to

test attitude change as well as within and between group differences. Once the model has

been reevaluated, a multigroup structural equation modeling technique could be used to

examine the differences between male and female athlete endorsers and the differences

between athlete endorsers as a result of their level of athletic star power. This would

allow for the use of a control group to determine if the relationships are as influential

with the advertisement as without it.









It may also be beneficial to reexamine the model with attitude presented in a

hierarchical structure (i.e., cognition, affect, and conation; e.g., Lavidge & Steiner, 1961;

Palda, 1966; Ray, 1973). As previously stated, some of the Perceived Value factors

(Quality, Price, and Social) may examine cognitive dimensions, while the fourth factor

(Emotion) looks at an affective dimension. Restructuring the model in order to examine a

potential hierarchical structure may provide a solution for the lack of discriminant

validity between Emotion and Quality (see Figure 4) as well as the problems that the

PERVAL scale has faced in the past (e.g., Lee et al., 2005).

In order to obtain a greater understanding of the impact of athlete endorsers on

consumer' s intention to purchase endorsed products, future studies should also consider

an alternative way to examine the Match-Up Hypothesis (e.g., Kahle & Homer, 1985;

Kamins, 1989; Kamins, 1990). Even though the factors were not distinct in this study,

previous studies have found unique factors that they believe to be an integral aspect of

the endorser concept. In addition to the reanalysis of product-endorser congruency,

identification must be further explored as well. Even though the model did not explain a

large amount of variance regarding the relationships between Identification (Athlete and

Sport) and Match-Up, identification has been proven to increase consumer purchase

intentions in the past (e.g., Kwon et al., 2005; Robinson & Trail, 2005; Robinson et al.,

2004; Trail et al., 2003). While these studies have focused on purchase intentions

regarding event attendance, marketers are using a number of the same variables when

selecting athlete endorsers (e.g., Tenser, 2004). With the purpose behind the use of

athlete endorsers stemming from an interest in increasing brand recognition, consumer's

identification with the athlete or sport may prove to be an integral part of the relationship










leading to purchase intentions. Although this was not the case in this study, the

importance of identification must be further examined to determine its relevance in the

selection of endorsers. With the continued use of athlete endorsers in advertisements and

promotional tools, additional research regarding both Match-Up and Identification will be

beneficial to practitioners in the selection of appropriate endorsers for their products.

In summary, the model in this analysis provided an initial examination into some of

the factors that may influence the use of athlete endorsers. Although alterations to the

model are recommended, the findings do provide a framework (based on identity theory

and attitude theory) for additional analyses. Both practitioners and academicians may

adapt and adopt the model to assess the influence of these factors on consumer purchase

intentions regarding endorsed products. Mailed, telephone, in-person, or online

quantitative and qualitative questionnaires may be used to further assess these

relationships and their effectiveness with various types of endorsers and products. This

may provide further evidence for or against the use of athlete endorsers to influence

consumer purchase intentions.























IDENTIFICATION
WITH ATHLETE


Figure 4. Recommended Model for Future Research














APPENDIX A
ITEM CORRELATIONS FOR THE MEASUREMENT MODEL



















Al S1 A2 S2 S3 A4 S4 El T1 Il E2 T2 Il E3 T3 IS


ATHLETE
SPORTS
ATHLETES
SPORTS
SPORT3
ATHLETE
SPORT4
EXPERTS
TRUST
INIAGE1
EXPERTS
TRUST
INIAGE2
EXPERTS
TRUST3
INIAGE3
EXPERT
TRUST4
INIAGE4
EXPERTS
TRUST
INIAGE5
EXPERT
TRUST6
INIAGE6
ENIOTION 1
QLTALITY1
PRICES
SOCIAL
INTENT
ENIOTION2
QLTALITY2
EMOTIONS
PRICES
SOCIAL
INTENT
ENIOTION4
QLTALITY3
PRICE
SOCIAL
EMOTIONS


1.000
0.377
0.421
0.399
0.290
0.613
0.329
0.184
0.239
0.094
0.048
0.117
0.114
0.159
0.148
0.147
0.100
0.085
0.006
0.177
0.102
0.135
0.187
0.206
0.183
0.138
0.092
0.102
0.067
0.157
0.155
0.123
0.171
0.072
0.127
0.142
0.116
0.101
0.071
0.223
0.181


1.000
0.398
0.728
0.574
0.455
0.694
0.152
0.077
-0.011
0.034
0.093
0.030
0.129
0.099
0.010
0.062
0.014
0.019
0.056
0.028
0.109
0.135
0.126
0.172
0.183
0.126
0.058
-0.003
0.115
0.169
0.146
0.099
0.120
0.079
0.156
0.133
0.129
0.104
0.031
0.131


1.000
0.475
0.308
0.499
0.411
0.126
0.105
-0.011
0.024
0.140
0.040
0.114
0.057
0.034
0.095
0.018
0.041
0.110
0.057
0.139
0.157
0.119
0.098
0.057
0.109
0.130
0.097
0.183
0.086
0.120
0.140
0.142
0.135
0.143
0.068
0.045
0.153
0.080
0.085


1.000
0.680 1.000
0.463 0.306
0.773 0.666
0.192 0.147
0.142 0.087
-0.012 -0.078
0.119 0.055
0.171 0.061
0.014 0.064
0.174 0.170
0.096 0.032
-0.016 -0.088
0.057 0.030
0.102 0.064
0.016 -0.043
0.135 0.148
0.150 0.119
0.141 0.032
0.182 0.093
0.155 0.117
0.171 0.120
0.112 0.063
0.091 0.044
0.063 0.066
0.061 0.027
0.193 0.207
-0.028 0.086
-0.038 0.042
-0.006 0.035
0.043 0.157
0.048 0.068
0.007 0.116
-0.085 0.044
-0.043 0.048
0.167 0.150
0.089 0.136
0.146 0.087


1.000
0.445 1.000
0.258 0.161 1.000
0.199 0.108 0.521
0.168 -0.048 0.402
0.106 0.038 0.310
0.149 0.064 0.347
0.125 -0.047 0.284
0.125 0.113 0.409
0.113 0.076 0.416
0.149 -0.017 0.269
0.148 0.072 0.364
0.050 0.044 0.369
0.065 0.015 0.279
0.181 0.101 0.370
0.111 0.105 0.385
0.242 0.056 0.316
0.205 0.097 0.425
0.178 0.089 0.412
0.166 0.116 0.332
0.154 0.053 0.303
0.143 0.019 0.329
0.084 -0.006 0.106
0.041 0.002 0.210
0.088 0.067 0.130
0.179 0.099 0.218
0.153 0.055 0.231
0.150 0.034 0.237
0.134 0.105 0.237
0.142 0.042 0.275
0.180 0.099 0.205
0.202 0.031 0.269
0.152 0.052 0.247
0.124 0.074 0.169
0.077 0.020 0.168
0.138 0.061 0.218


1.000
0.362
0.334
0.421
0.233
0.391
0.342
0.234
0.364
0.405
0.173
0.344
0.415
0.189
0.420
0.439
0.286
0.337
0.365
0.229
0.259
0.244
0.288
0.351
0.342
0.248
0.315
0.247
0.218
0.282
0.285
0.250
0.287


1.000
0.416
0.419
0.655
0.399
0.452
0.621
0.455
0.328
0.385
0.351
0.314
0.377
0.452
0.347
0.351
0.335
0.339
0.170
0.174
0.094
0.213
0.376
0.335
0.139
0.220
0.120
0.257
0.233
0.135
0.068
0.166


1.000
0.609
0.375
0.469
0.446
0.361
0.416
0.467
0.230
0.386
0.405
0.251
0.395
0.433
0.269
0.378
0.451
0.318
0.295
0.242
0.295
0.368
0.299
0.277
0.222
0.209
0.221
0.299
0.267
0.175
0.262


1.000
0.420
0.499
0.455
0.414
0.483
0.491
0.251
0.384
0.443
0.269
0.503
0.411
0.326
0.416
0.499
0.312
0.307
0.200
0.305
0.426
0.388
0.289
0.278
0.296
0.284
0.325
0.261
0.152
0.264


1.000
0.350
0.471
0.593
0.429
0.302
0.403
0.281
0.266
0.442
0.421
0.361
0.446
0.359
0.395
0.224
0.219
0.123
0.266
0.375
0.295
0.196
0.208
0.199
0.285
0.292
0.136
0.050
0.193


1.000
0.671 1.000
0.446 0.572
0.552 0.660
0.548 0.553
0.288 0.355
0.560 0.524
0.531 0.583
0.341 0.393
0.565 0.533
0.528 0.585
0.392 0.426
0.402 0.405
0.398 0.460
0.355 0.279
0.287 0.211
0.289 0.177
0.240 0.224
0.363 0.423
0.323 0.303
0.387 0.327
0.281 0.211
0.313 0.303
0.259 0.358
0.308 0.375
0.301 0.244
0.226 0.084
0.295 0.211


1.000
0.572
0.330
0.541
0.368
0.370
0.461
0.496
0.367
0.429
0.331
0.349
0.180
0.251
0.078
0.251
0.416
0.377
0.182
0.231
0.198
0.245
0.324
0.169
0.092
0.226


KEY: A =Athlete, S =Sport; E =Expertise; T =Trustivorthiness; I= Image, EM= Emotion; Q =Quality; P =Price; S =Social; PI =Purchase Intention