Trail, G. T. (2018) - Theories of Consumer Behavior - Chapter 2. Seattle, WA: Sport Consumer Research Consultants LLC

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/327043398
Trail, G. T. (2018). Theories of Consumer Behavior – Chapter 2. Seattle, WA:

Sport Consumer Research Consultants LLC.
Chapter · August 2018
CITATIONS READS
0 349
1 author:
Galen T. Trail
Seattle University
83 PUBLICATIONS 3,136 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Sustainability View project
......... View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Galen T. Trail on 15 August 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Galen T. Trail
Theories of Consumer Behavior
Chapter 2
Definition of sport consumer behavior

The American Marketing Association’s (2018) dictionary of terms has the following entry for
consumer behavior, “The dynamic interaction of affect and cognition, behavior, and the environment by
which human beings conduct the exchange aspects of their lives.” A textbook definition of consumer
behavior is generally, “The study of individuals, groups, or organizations and the processes they use to
select, secure, use, and dispose of products, services, experiences, or ideas to satisfy needs and the
impacts that these processes have on the consumer and society” (Hawkins, Best, & Coney, 2004, p. 7).
So, what do the definitions really mean? What is consumer behavior?
A simple definition of consumer behavior could be, “The study of why people buy.” The study of
consumer behavior is essentially an attempt to understand what influences a person’s decision to
consume a product. The AMA entry illustrates that consumers are influenced by their own thoughts and
Copyright 2018 Galen Trail Page 51

feelings, other people, and the environment or situations in which they live. As I illustrated in the first
chapter, it is important for professional sport leagues and university athletic programs to at least
maintain a base of sport consumers, and in more cases than not, for organizations to work on increasing
their levels of attendance, viewership, social media and merchandise consumption. The competitive
environments in which most sport teams and leagues operate make it a necessity to better understand
consumer behavior and the factors influencing such behavior.
A study of consumer behavior can include individuals, groups, or organizations; I will focus on
the individual consumer. More specifically, I will consider in depth sport consumer behavior. A simple
way to define sport consumer behavior is to modify the formal definition so that the focus is on sport
products: The study of the buying units and the exchange processes involved in acquiring, consuming,
and disposing of sporting goods, services, experiences, and ideas. The study of sport consumer behavior
can be very broad and include efforts to understand the acquisition, consumption, and disposal of some
product. We are going concentrate first on the acquisition process, or how consumers get to the point of
purchasing or consuming a particular sport product (e.g., a ticket to a game, a team jersey, watching a
game on TV, or streaming a game on a smart phone), and then consider how experiences associated
with consuming the sport product influence future choices and behaviors.

Applications of sport consumer behavior – why study human behavior?

Hawkins, Best and Coney (2004) noted that all marketing decisions and regulations should be
based on knowledge about consumer behavior. They suggested there are four main reasons to
understand consumer behavior. First, to be successful, businesses need to base marketing decisions on
knowledge, research and theories about consumer behavior. Second, organizations need to collect
information about their consumers, so that they understand how to market to them, how to segment
them, and how to establish long-lasting relationships that make a satisfied and loyal customer. Third,
organizations need to understand that consumer behavior, and the motivations to consume, is a very
complex process, that varies across individuals. Fourth, if organizations understand the motivations and
influences that affect consumption behavior, then marketing practices can be designed to influence and
shape that behavior to the benefit of the organization. I will discuss each of these in more detail below.
Marketing decisions—Creating better marketing campaigns to satisfy target consumer needs/desires
and to deliver greater value to consumers. As Hawkins et al., (2004) noted, decisions based on research
and theory “are much more likely to be successful than are decisions based solely on implicit intuition”
(p. 9). Unfortunately, in the world of sport, many marketers and managers do not make decisions based
on research. They either do
what they have always done
historically in that particular
organization, or if they do try
something new, it is
something they heard about
from a friend of theirs at
another organization.
Typically, there is no evidence
that these marketing or
managing decisions actually
work and increase return on
investment (ROI). Consider
the example of an
intercollegiate athletic
department that gave away t-
shirts as a promotional item
in an effort to increase
attendance. The sponsoring
organization was a local
business whose product had no meaningful connection to the team or sport. The shirts advertised a hair
salon and did not even have the team logo on the shirt. Very few shirts were taken when handed out,
and most that were received were left in the stands after the game. Another athletic department spent
$140,000 advertising one of their non-revenue producing teams. Research after the season determined
that the advertising did not influence attendance in the slightest, did not improve intentions to attend,
did not improve perceptions about the team, and did not even increase awareness about the team
(awareness was already almost 100% in the local market). A lack of research and knowledge of theories
about the effectiveness of advertising campaigns in certain situations caused this athletic department to

waste $140,000. The athletic department literally would have saved money and generated greater
attendance numbers if they had paid people to come to the games instead.
Consumer information – Collection of information about the consumers that will allow for
segmentation. All organizations that sell to consumers recognize the need to collect and analyze
consumer information in order to better understand their consumers. Unfortunately, many sport
organizations have been slow, or have actually failed, in collecting consumer information. When
information is collected, it may only be the basic information necessary to contact people for billing
purposes. For example, recently I was helping a professional team with some market research. They had
contact information for most of their fans, but it was split among three different databases (Access,
Excel, and one I had never heard of). They had some demographic information in the Excel database, but
it was not connected to the contact information, so was pretty much useless. Unfortunately,
demographic information will not help segment the team’s consumers into useable market segments
because research has shown that consumers typically do not differ much on their beliefs, attitudes,
intentions, or behaviors, based on demographic variables, as we will show in future chapters.
Cutting-edge sport organizations have focused on collecting information about psychographic
variables that are much better predictors of actual behavior and allow the markets to be segmented
more usefully. Advertising can be more effective when it is designed to reach specific market segments.
The difficulty arises in how to collect information, how to store it, and how to analyze it once it is
collected. Now, more than ever, it is requisite that franchises have people dedicated to doing exactly
this. Luckily some franchises have realized this and are on the way to being able to use collected data
more efficiently than in the past. If you read any modern marketing textbook you will learn that one way
to store and easily access information about consumers is with some type of management information
system (MIS). A management information system is simply a plan for collecting, storing and
disseminating information. Any data base program can be used to maintain consumer information
records. The challenge as we noted is having a plan to actually utilize the information.
The Phoenix Suns offer a good example of collecting and utilizing information with their customer
relationship management (CRM) system. The system implemented by the Suns maintains one file for
each customer; the file includes information about all transactions and interactions a consumer has with
the organization. The system links all business units together
and information is accessible to the various units based on
particular security protocols. Demographic information
collected when a person purchased his or her season tickets is
included in the record, along with information about tickets
purchased. When the consumer uses his or her credit card to
purchase concessions or merchandise at the ballpark, the
record is updated with consumption behavior. Going further,
if a fan has a team affinity card and participates in the rewards
program, she or he will answer periodic questions using the ballpark kiosks that will update information
in the record and add whatever content is queried, including psychographic measures. More and more
sport organizations are realizing the benefits of CRM programs and are using them; some organizations
are considerably more effective than others in doing this.
In the case of the Suns organization, the CRM system is maximized through the linkage of multiple
organizations – the Phoenix Suns, the Phoenix Mercury, the Arizona Rattlers, and Talking Stick Resort
Arena (formerly US Airways Center). A consumer’s transactions and interactions with all of the linked

organizations are maintained in one record. The linked organizations are able to maximize cross-selling
and up-selling of products. The in-depth information enables the organizations to maximize sponsor
relationships, guest relations programs, and community relations activities. The Phoenix Suns and their
partners are, however, an exception to the norm. Many athletic departments and professional
franchises are not anywhere close to collecting and utilizing in-depth consumer information in an
effective and efficient way.
In addition to developing and implementing a plan to collect and utilize consumer information, it is
just as important to appreciate the unique features of sport consumers. Organizations daunted by the
task of collecting, analyzing, and utilizing information hire marketing firms that charge a large amount of
money and yet do not understand the unique characteristics of the sport market as I pointed out in
Chapter 1. Consequently, the “hired guns” are more often than not providing sport organizations with
information and analysis that is either irrelevant or in some instances flat out wrong. These marketing
firms need to understand the theory behind sport consumption and the relationships among the
constructs that explain actual sport consumption, rather than just assuming that knowledge about
consumption of jeans, cars, and soda pop is applicable to the sport context.
Understanding consumer behavior—Comprehension of the values, beliefs, attitudes, goals,
motivations, and situational characteristics that explain sport consumer behavior. As noted above, too
frequently sport organizations have no idea why sport spectators and fans consume their products. It is
necessary to comprehend what motivates people to consume sport. As we will discuss later in the
chapter and in the rest of the book, peoples’ values, beliefs, goals, and attitudes are all potential
motivating factors for why people consume sport. However, just understanding that is not sufficient.
Understanding the
relationships among the
different motivating
factors and how these
motivators may be
influenced, either
increased or decreased
by situational factors, is
critical to explaining
consumer behavior.
Knowing a person’s
values will not necessarily
help a marketer
understand why that
person came to today’s
game. However,
understanding how a
person’s values
influenced their beliefs or
attitudes toward the
team, and how those attitudes might be modified by environmental constraints, will help the marketer
understand what satisfies the consumer and will enable the marketer to create a greater connection to
the team/organization, thus increasing repeat patronage.

Using the type of knowledge just described, I

helped an athletic department improve their marketing
strategy by identifying why some people supported the
women’s basketball team and attended games. I identified
a segment of consumers and potential consumers who
were motivated by the idea of supporting women’s
causes. These people were motivated to connect with the
women’s basketball team because they saw it as support
for a cause that promoted the development of young
women. They believed that through sport women learned
how to become leaders, how to work as a team, and how
to be disciplined individuals. Because of these beliefs, this
segment of fans showed their support for the team by
attending games, buying merchandise, and promoting the
team through word of mouth. I suggested that the team
develop this market by encouraging existing fans with
these beliefs to bring like-minded individuals to the game.
I suggested that the team hold a pre-game dinner with a
speaker from the Women’s Sports Foundation and
encourage all fans to come. Every fan that came was given a voucher for one free ticket to a future
game with paid admission so that they could bring a friend to a game.
Shaping consumer behavior—With knowledge of fan and spectator motivations and situational
constraints for sport consumption, consumption can be modified and increased. As marketers gain a
greater understanding of consumer behavior (i.e., what motivates consumers and how to satisfy
consumers), they can develop promotional activities and/or advertising campaigns that have greater
effectiveness in influencing people to consume more. In addition, as marketers and managers
understand the environment surrounding the
consumer and what may positively or negatively
influence consumption, they are able to either
change the environment in some situations or
put a positive spin on aspects that sometimes
appear to negatively influence consumer
behavior. For example, some colleagues and I did
some consulting for an Arena League football
team and determined that many fans who
attended with their children were very upset
with other fans who were obnoxious, vulgar, and
had too much alcohol to drink. We suggested the
team create a “Family Friendly” zone where no
alcohol could be served or consumed, where
only families could sit, and where greater supervision was provided by ushers to moderate any
potentially unruly fans. We also suggested that alcohol sales be stopped earlier and that the team create
a Fan Code of Honor that would be promoted and encouraged. Some of these suggestions were
implemented by the team and season ticket-holder retention increased.

In sum, sport marketers need to understand why people consume sport, what motivates them
to consume sport, what satisfies them and makes them a happy consumer, what makes them a loyal
consumer, so that they can do a better job marketing to the consumer. That is, sport managers need to
be able to understand how to segment the market better, create marketing (advertising) plans that are
specific to the identified market segments, and thus the marketing plans should create a greater ROI. If
managers understand consumers better, they can provide a more satisfying consumption experience,
whether it is when the consumer attends the game, watches it on television, consumes social media, or
buys some merchandise. Research has shown that building a relationship that the customer finds
satisfying creates a more loyal customer who is less likely to defect during price increases or specific to
sport, when the team is not successful.
The study of consumer behavior – Where we have been

The study of consumer behavior includes ideas drawn from disciplines such as psychology,
sociology, anthropology, and economics. Writing about consumer behavior across time, Zaichkowsky
(1991) illustrated how various disciplines have influenced the study and application of consumer
behavior. During the 1940s, study of consumer behavior was influenced largely by economic theory. The
“Economic Man” theory was widely held, which regards consumers as rational and calculating. From this
perspective individual buyers are expected to purchase products that provide the most satisfaction
relative to one’s preferences and price. As Belz and Peattie (2012) noted, from a marketing perspective,
these early days could be summarized as “how to sell more stuff to people” (p. 13). The influence of
psychology emerged in the 1950s when consumers came to be thought of as irrational, impulsive
decision makers. In this era Zaichkowsky suggested that consumers came to be regarded as passive,
open, and vulnerable, and subject to external influences. This period was also marked by the emergence
of business schools and the training of researchers in business schools.
The growth of business schools produced a blending of economic and psychological

perspectives, resulting in new theories of consumer behavior (Zaichkowsky, 1991). During this period

the marketplace grew, and segmentation became a primary topic. Emerging in this time was the idea of
the consumer as a “Cognitive Man,” one who actively searched for information about desired products.
This era marked the emergence of many of the decision-making models which still direct the study of
consumer behavior today and the emphasis in marketing toward understanding the customer’s needs
and wants (Belz & Peattie, 2012).
The period of the 1980s included a cluttered marketplace with literally thousands of products
for consumers to evaluate, and consumers having less discretionary time to engage in extended decision
making processes (Zaichkowsky, 1991). The view emerged that buyers were cognitive misers who had
less time for shopping decisions and concurrently had greater choice in the marketplace. This
environment focused the attention of researchers on individual decision-making processes.
Moving through the 1990s into the 2000s,
there has been increasing attention to globalization
and the “shrinking” world. Ironically, the study of
consumer behavior has considered not the increasing
similarity across consumers, but the potential for
greater diversity. Zaichkowsky (1991) noted that in
the United States, the growing senior (or grey)
market, the aging of the baby boomer generation,
and the growth of “minority” populations, actually
serves to create more differences relative to
potentially different values and certainly different
cultural roots which impact consumer behavior. de
Mooij (2004) advocated that consumer behavior is
not converging as a result of globalization, rather it is
becoming more differentiated. Thus, there is an even
greater need to study consumer behavior now than in
the past, particularly the influence of individual and external forces on consumption. Belz and Peattie
(2012) suggested that people interested in consumer behavior should help organizations focus on the
relationship that is formed and maintained with the consumer. In addition, they suggested that there is
a lack of fit between how we
typically think of consumer
behavior and how we use that
information to market to the
consumer. Belz and Peattie
proposed that the ecological and
social realities of the
environment need to be taken
into account. Extending this idea,
it is important to study
consumer behavior relative to
specific contexts such as sport
consumer behavior, but within
the wider ecological and social
environment.

How to study consumer behavior

A variety of models, frameworks, and theories have been used to try and explain consumer
behavior in general. However, very little research has been done to explain consumer behavior in sport.
The following is a brief overview of some of the consumer behavior models.
A Variety of Models
Vakratsas and Ambler (1999) identified five different types of models that have been used to
explain general consumer behavior: Market Response Models, Cognitive Models, Affective Models,
Persuasive Hierarchy Models, and Low-Involvement Hierarchy Models. Each of these models has
positive aspects and negative aspects, and some do a substantially better job of explaining and
predicting consumer behavior than others. Furthermore, marketing supposedly has different influences
on consumer behavior and influences consumer behavior in different stages depending on the model.
Although Vakratsas and Ambler focused on the influence of advertising in many of their models, we are
expanding their premises to include all marketing aspects, rather than just advertising.
Market Response Models focus on repeat purchasing behavior. These models depict how
advertising, price, and promotional measures directly influence sales, market share, and brand choice.
Vakratsas and Ambler (1999), after a thorough review of results based on Market Response studies,
determined that advertising only has a
short-term effect, noting that 90% of the
advertising effect is gone within 3-15
months. Advertising typically works
better for durable products than
nondurable products. A sporting event
such as a baseball, basketball, football, or
other type of game, in terms of attending
a game or watching it on television, is a
non-durable product (unless you record
it). Sport merchandise, such as a team
jersey or jacket would be considered a
durable product. So, advertising is
expected to be more successful for
merchandise than for games. Advertising
works better for new products/brands
than for existing products/brands. Within
sport, this would indicate that if a marketer is trying to increase awareness about a new team in a city,
then advertising is probably going to be effective, and may influence sales. Although, as Vakratsas and
Ambler noted, advertising has diminishing returns. The first exposure will increase sales, but after that
advertising is considerably less effective, if at all. For established brands, advertising has little if any
effect. In the case of a sport product such as a sports team, advertising may create awareness about the
time or day of a game, but typically has no effect on whether people attend. This is especially relevant if
the product is frequently purchased and the consumer already has a fair amount of knowledge about it.
Finally, Vakratsas and Ambler noted that promotions typically have greater short-term effects than
advertising, but the effects are even shorter than advertising effects. This is especially evident in sport
promotions. Several baseball teams in both the major and minor leagues have noted that during the

height of the Beanie Baby craze, people would buy a ticket to the game so that
they could collect the Beanie Baby give-away and then leave before the game
even started. These people certainly were not attending for the core product
(the game). Luckily, most teams have learned from these mistakes and do not
do such promotions anymore. Furthermore, promotions make non-loyal
consumers more price sensitive than they were already. Some sports and or
leagues frequently have two-for-one, or half-off, ticket nights. Individuals, who
are not psychologically connected to the team, but enjoy going to a game once
in a while for entertainment purposes, will wait for these promotions and take
advantage of a price reduction. Sometimes this occurs frequently enough that
people never have to pay full price if they do not attend that often. Once the
consumers become used to the reduced prices, they never want to pay full price, and will not attend if
they do not have some type of discount. Supposedly, advertising makes consumers less price sensitive
and more loyal to the brand. If this is the case, then organizations need to weigh the positives and
negatives of both advertising and promotions to determine whether the benefits outweigh the costs.
The next two types of models that Vakratsas and Ambler (1999) categorized, Cognitive
Information Models and Pure Affect Models, are antithetical to each other. Cognitive Models assume
that consumer decision making is solely rational. The consumer evaluates a product and makes the
choice to purchase or not based on the attributes of the product and how badly the consumer needs or
wants the product. If there are two similar products, the consumer compares and contrasts the product
attributes and makes a rational choice between the two. No emotion is involved, and advertising or
marketing theoretically plays no part in influencing product evaluation other than by creating awareness
or providing information about specific product attributes. This might work when comparing two
different brands of green beans, but it certainly does not work in terms of consumption of most sport
products.
The Pure Affect Models are dramatically different from the Cognitive Models. The Affect Models
focus on affective responses (emotional responses) and typically include no reference to cognition at all.
With a pure affects model, consumers are believed to form preferences based on whether they like a
product, and advertising is supposed to induce feelings or emotions that influence consumers to
purchase the product. These types of models are impractical at best because some type of cognitive
functioning is present in the consumer if only at the awareness-of-the-product level. However, what is
important is that marketing that evokes emotions typically is effective to some extent, but certainly
needs to be paired with cognitive appraisal of the product before consumption will occur. Furthermore,
when consumers like an advertisement for the product, they are more likely to form a positive attitude
toward the product.
Persuasive Hierarchy Models are represented by the presumption that a hierarchy exists in
which Cognition precedes Affect which precedes Behavior, and that marketing can “persuade” or
influence behavior by moderating the relationships. Vakratsas and Ambler (1999) suggested that there
are two mediators that intercede between advertising and the cognition-affect-behavior relationship:
involvement with the ad and attitude toward the ad. However, there has not been a lot of support for
these models because the relationship between affect and behavior has typically been low, with
correlations (r) ranging between 0.00 and 0.30. One of the reasons for this low relationship might be
due to intervening variables that were not considered, for example, intentions to consume the product,

or constraints that prevent consumption of the product even though the individual would like to
consume it.
The final category
of models is the Low-
Involvement Hierarchy
Models which consist of
several types. The first is
depicted by a Cognition ⇒
Experience ⇒ Affect
hierarchy. Consumers are
aware of the product,
consume it, and then
determine whether they
like it or not. Experience
with a product is the
primary determinant in
future consumption
behavior. This type of
model might work when
involvement is low or if the
product is inexpensive, for
example, a candy bar. When Derek Jeter formerly of the New York Yankees came out with a candy bar,
people might have bought it solely to see if it was any good. After eating it, they either liked it or not,
which determined whether they would buy it again. Several other low-involvement models have been
proposed as well, including all of those
listed in Figure 2.1.
Conation is the intention to Figure 2.1 – Low Involvement Hierarchy Models
do something. So, the first model
depicts that a consumer is aware of
the product (Cognition), has some
type of feeling for the product
(Affect), and has an intention to
consume the product or not
(Conation). Although different
combinations of these aspects have
been proposed, some of them do not
make a lot of sense in terms of sport
consumption, specifically the ones in
which Conation precedes either
Cognition or Affect. Furthermore, as Peterson, Hoyer, and Wilson (1986) pointed out, “The question ‘did
the person think first or feel first’ is not very meaningful. Individuals are always in a stream of thinking or
feeling; therefore, it is irrelevant to say, ‘Are there any thoughts preceding affect?’ or ‘Is there affect
preceding cognition?’ The important issue to be addressed is how affect and cognition interact to
influence behavior” (p. 142).

Models based on Interaction Effects

Most models depict that affect and cognition interact on some level to influence conation,
which then leads to behavior. However, many are predicated on Lavidge and Steiner’s (1961) hierarchy
of effects model. In this section, we will give an overview of their model and then focus on several
different interaction effects models that concentrate on motivation for consumption.
Lavidge and Steiner’s (1961) Step Model of Advertising is a hierarchy of effects model, which
means that consumers must progress through a sequence of stages before they end up purchasing the
product. This model shows that initially the consumer is unaware of a product and therefore, through
some means, must become aware of it. This could be through advertising as suggested by Lavidge and
Steiner, or it could be by word of mouth from a friend or associate, among other ways. After the
consumer is aware of the product, the consumer must learn what the product has to offer. Then the
consumer must come to like the product and prefer it over other similar products available. Finally,
before the actual purchase can be made, the consumer must desire the product and believe that the
purchase will be a wise one.
Figure 2.2 – Lavidge & Steiner’s (1961) Step Model of Advertising
According to Lavidge and Steiner the consumer must follow the progression of stages, but each stage
does not have to be equally weighted. That is, the consumer may pass through some stages more
quickly than others, and much more easily. For example, if the consumer is buying a car, the cognitive
stages may take longer to progress through than the affective or conative stages due to the cost of the

product. However, if the product is an impulse purchase that is relatively inexpensive, the consumer
may not even be aware of passing through the first few stages and be at the emotional and conative
stage rather quickly; the “I like it” and “I want it” stages when one is hungry and sees a candy bar. Most
consumer behavior models are built on some type of hierarchy, but the focus and the type of stages
differ dramatically. Furthermore, most models also suggest that interactions exist and that the stages do
not exist in isolation.
Motivation for Consumption Model

Ratneshwar, Mick and Huffman (2000) developed a motivation for consumption model (Figure
2.3) based on the “who,
what, when, where, why, Figure 2.3 – Motivation for Consumption Model
and how” of consumption.
Each of these aspects
interacted to determine
consumption. In the “Who”
aspect, Ratneshwar et al.
suggested that there are
cross cultural, inter-
individual, and inter-group
differences that exist in
consumers. These
differences interact with
situational and contextual
differences (the When &
Where of the model) and
the motives, goals, and
desires (the Why of the
model). The consumers’
cognitive and affective
processes interact with the
motives to determine
consumption. To some extent this is cyclical; specifically, past consumption influences present motives,
which then influences future consumption.
Cohen and Warlop (2001) noted that one of the problems of looking at motives, per se, is that
motives themselves are contingent on central traits, values, self-images, and desires; this is the “Who”
aspect of Ratneshwar et al.’s (2000) model. In addition, motives tend to be salient, easier to measure,
and more relevant than the more remote sources of the motives. For example, personal values may be
important to consumption but are mediated by more salient aspects such as the desire to go with a
group of friends to a game. The same problem exists with respect to the economic, social, and cultural
context of the consumption. There may be economic influences, but typically they are mediated by the
motives. If the economy is poor, that may have a negative influence on some people’s sport
consumption behavior. However, some people will choose to make other sacrifices and still keep their
season tickets with the Dallas Cowboys. The goal to be a loyal fan outweighs the economic impact of the
ticket cost.

Means-End Chain Theory

Means-End Chain Theory proposes a conceptual model for the cognitive organization, structure,
and content of product knowledge in memory (Claeys & Abeele, 2001), and can be used to explain goal
directed behavior. According to Pieters, Allen, and Baumgartner (1995), goal-directed consumer
behavior is organized hierarchically, ranging from concrete observable movements to abstract, personal
goals. A goal is identified by the individual, for example, losing weight, as is depicted in Figure 2.4.
However, the goal does not exist in a vacuum. There are reasons (the motivation) that someone might
want to lose weight, and then there are the practicalities of how to actually accomplish the goal. Losing
weight can be accomplished by a combination of dieting and exercising. However, there are several
ways to go about dieting. The individual might decide to buy “light” products, actually use them (rather
than just try them once, decide they are nasty, and leave them in the refrigerator until they go bad), and
try to not eat any snacks. There are many ways to exercise and our example consumer in the figure
decided to play tennis and walk to work. Walking to work was also motivated by being able to save
money. Exercising is specific to the goal of losing weight, but also has a secondary motive of being fit.
Losing weight, in turn is motivated by being healthy and wanting to be seen as attractive. Being
attractive has a higher order motive of wanting to be liked by others. As is apparent, the motives, goals,
and processes used to achieve those goals can possibly
Figure 2.4 – Means-End Chain Theory be an ever-spreading network. It is possible to figure out

other goals that could easily fit within this diagram and be compatible with these motives. Additional
higher order motives could also be found. The point is that when an individual chooses a goal, that goal
is motivated by something (typically a higher order goal or motive). In addition, the individual needs to
determine the processes by which the goal can be achieved. However, different individuals can have the
same goal, be motivated by different things, and use dramatically different processes to achieve the
goal.
Hierarchical Model of Consumer Goals

Another model that examines motivation for consumption is Huffman, Ratneshwar and Mick’s
(2000) Hierarchical Model of Consumer Goals (Figure 2.5). They suggested that individuals have six
hierarchically ordered goal levels: Life Themes & Values, Life Projects, Current Concerns, Consumption
Intentions, Benefits Sought, and Feature Preferences. Those goals that are more central to the
individual’s existence and represent the individual’s personal ideals are labeled “Being.” Those goals
that are immediate, or in the present, are represented by the concept “Doing.” The goals that focus on
the external entity’s attributes are labeled “Having.”
Life themes are based on an individual’s personal history. They are an accumulation of the
experiences, beliefs, and values of the individual, which the individual tries to incorporate into a
coherent whole. Both life themes and values are invariant, stable, and represent the core conception of
the self. They also guide selection of lower order goals and behavior.
Huffman et al. (2000) suggested
that life projects are the creation and
Figure 2.5 – Hierarchical Model of Consumer Goals

maintenance of key role identities. These roles vary to some extent over the life span as events change.
Let us use Joe Fan as an example. When Joe got married, he took on the role of husband. When his first
child was born, he took on the role of father. When he got his first coaching job, he took on the role of
coach. Each of these identities can change to greater or lesser extents based on situations and life
events. They also interact to influence each other. For example, Joe decided that his roles of coach,
father, and husband all required a lot of time to do each well. Based on his values he decided he could
not continue to coach and be a good husband and father. So, he quit coaching and chose to get his Ph.D.
in Sport Management so that he could become a professor at a university. He felt that being a professor
would not require him to be away from his family as much, but he could still have a job focusing on
sport. By quitting coaching, his identity of “coach” was eventually snuffed out.
Current concerns are defined by Huffman et al. (2000) as short-term activities or tasks. These
are current activities that an individual is trying to accomplish but are typically directed by the values
and role identities of the individual. For example, if Joe Fan decided to write a textbook, that would be a
current activity that is guided by his identity (life project) as a university professor.
Huffman et al. (2000) defined consumption intentions as an individual’s intent to consume a
particular product. These intentions are predicated on the current concerns, life projects, and values of
the individual. If we continue the example above, to write his book (Joe’s current concern), he needed
to buy a better computer (that’s his story and he is sticking to it, despite what his wife thinks!).
The next two stages of Huffman et al.’s (2000) model are similar and differ only in terms of
abstractness. Benefits Sought are the consequences desired from the ownership and usage of the
product to be consumed. They are subjective and outcome-referent. Feature Preferences are the
desired product features that can be evidenced in concrete or financial terms and are relatively
objective and specific to the product. For example, after having decided that he needed a new
computer, Joe had some ideas about what kind of benefits he wanted to get from the computer. He
wanted something of good quality, reliable, inexpensive, and fast. These were the subjective benefits
sought. After researching various computer options, he determined the specific feature preferences that
he wanted. He decided on a Dell® because a well-respected consumer magazine indicated that only 16%
of consumers who owned Dells reported needing repairs or having serious problems, which was the
third best rating. The Dell was the least expensive of all similarly rated computers with the features that
he wanted. Furthermore, in that price range the Dell had the fastest processor. As is apparent, benefits
sought and feature preferences are very closely tied together.
However, there are several limitations with this model, as there are with most. The first is that it
addresses only goal-driven behavior, not
autotelic (having a purpose in itself)
behavior (such as sports attendance).
Second, the framework is mainly cognitive
and does not include affective (feelings)
dimensions to a large extent. Third, some
of the dimensions may not be distinct, or
at least are very similar. There are
additional theories that are not specifically
consumer behavior oriented that I have
used to explain behavior and I give a brief
overview of some of them next.

Identity Theory
The concept of identity is based on the symbolic interactionism of Mead (1934) in which the self
is made up of interdependent and independent, mutually reinforcing and conflicting parts. One
definition of identity is 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). How we think about identity comes in part from James’ (1890) idea that people have as many
identities as distinct networks of relationships in which they occupy positions and play roles.
Identities are cognitive schemas that reflect internally stored information and meanings that
serve as frameworks for interpreting experience. Typically, people’s identities are organized in a
hierarchy reflecting the importance of the identity to the particular individual and identities are usually
stable across time and situations. However, sometimes in certain situations the hierarchy of importance
changes; an identity becomes activated and comes to the forefront. This is called identity salience and is
defined as the probability that an identity will be invoked in a certain situation. For example, Joe Fan is a
father, he is a Seattle Seahawks fan, he is a husband, he is an employee, he is a brother, he is a friend,
and he is a partier. All of these are roles or identities that he has. If you were to ask him which role was
most important to him he might say husband or dad. If you asked him which role is least important to
him he might say partier. However, on game day, the roles of fan and partier may come to the forefront;
that is, those roles become more salient because of that particular situation. That does not necessarily
mean that the other roles change in the hierarchical order within the individual, it just means that at this
particular time Joe is focused on being a fan. However, if Joe
was at the game and he received a call on his phone from the
baby sitter that his 1-year old daughter was sick, the role of
Dad would come to the forefront, replacing the role of fan. Joe
would immediately leave the game and go home to take care of
his daughter.
The identity is internal, consisting of internalized
meanings and expectations associated with the role. The role
itself is external and is linked to social positions with the social
structure (Stryker & Burke, 2000). Each role or set of roles is
embedded in one or more of a variety of groups that provide
context for the meanings and expectations associated with that
role. People typically are embedded in multiple role
relationships in multiple groups and they hold multiple
identities. These roles may reinforce one another, but often do
not. When they do not, conflicts can arise that create cognitive
dissonance. Let us go back to our example with Joe Fan above.
Joe is at home taking care of his sick daughter, being a good
dad. Monday rolls around and Joe’s daughter is still sick. He
calls in to work and says that he needs to stay home with his daughter. The boss tells him to get in to
work because he has a very important presentation to give to some clients that afternoon. His boss tells
Joe that if he does not give the presentation he is fired. This example shows a situation when two roles
are in direct conflict with each other. Does Joe stick with the role of father and stay home to take care of
his sick daughter, or does he switch to the role of employee and give the presentation to keep his job.
Obviously, this situation will cause a lot of stress for Joe, that is, cognitive dissonance.

The Identity Theory Model consists of four central components: Identity Standard, Cognitive
Comparison, Perceived Situational Meanings, and Behavior (Figure 2.6a). The identity standard is the
self-perceived role
that the individual Figure 2.6a – Identity Theory Model
has, for example
“fan.” Let us say
that Sally believes
that a fan should act
in a certain way
(watch games,
support the team)
and have certain
attitudes (be loyal to
one’s own team,
dislike the rival).
Sally also perceives
that in certain
situations fans are
expected to do
certain things
because of that particular environment; for example, yell at the officials if there is a bad call against the
fan’s team, be happy and perhaps go celebrate with a beer after upsetting the rival. The perceived
situational meanings are typically socially determined or influenced. However, sometimes the identity
standard and the perceived situational meanings do not match. In our previous example, if Sally does
not like to drink, there is a disconnect with what her identity standard is for being a fan and what she
perceives many other fans do after a big win. Sally will either modify her own standards to mesh with
those of the social group that she is “hanging with” or Sally will change social groups to one that
matches her own standards. Whichever she chooses, a behavior will result, but it will differ based upon
her choice. Stryker and Burke (2000) call this type of behavior goal-directed. If Sally chose to find a
different group of friends, her choice would change the situation she would find herself in the next time
she went to a game. She would instigate the change in order to match meanings to her standards.
Motives and expectations influence the interaction between the identity standard and the
situational meanings, resulting in the cognitive comparison (Stryker & Burke, 2000). For example, Sally’s
motivation to watch the women’s Olympic gold medal basketball game was to see aesthetically pleasing,
high-quality basketball. Her expectation was that because it was the gold medal game (perceived
situational meaning), the play would be aesthetically pleasing and of high quality. Her identity standard
is that of a basketball fan. As the game progressed, she cognitively compared the game to that of her
identity standard. She did not think the quality of play was very good nor was the game aesthetically
pleasing. Because the game did not meet her expectations about what motivated her to watch it in the
first place, her behavior changed. She stopped watching it. Thus, the model can be expanded to look like
this.
Emotion can be incorporated directly into the model also (Stryker & Burke, 2000). An increasing
discrepancy between the identity standard and the perceived situational meaning results in a negative

emotion. A decreasing discrepancy would result in a positive emotion. Thus, the resulting model would
look like Figure 2.6b.
Positive emotions influence behavior that supports the identity. If the identity is confirmed the
importance of the
Figure 2.6b – Identity Theory Model identity will be
reinforced. If not, then
the importance of the
identity is likely to
diminish (Stryker &
Burke, 2000). For
example, Sally goes to
a game to support her
team the Tampa Bay
Rays against the
Boston Red Sox. Based
on the historical lack
of success that the
Rays have had against
the Red Sox, Sally is
not holding out a lot of hope for a Rays win. However, the Rays pull off the upset and beat the Sox. Sally
is jubilant, so she decides to go the second game of the series as well. Her identity as a fan of the Rays is
being reinforced. She went to a game and she enjoyed herself. Thus, she decided to go to another game.
As we noted earlier, these roles are typically hierarchically ordered. Tsushima and Burke (1999)
distinguished between lower-level roles which pertain to programs of behavior, and higher-level roles
which pertain to general principles and values that guide the lower-level roles. So, if we incorporate
values into the model and also include identity salience and importance from above, the model looks
like Figure 2.6c. The interaction of all of these variables theoretically explain people’s behavior.
Figure 2.6c – Identity Theory Model

Social Identity Theory

Social identity theory varies from identity theory on several key points, but they are also similar
in many regards. In social identity theory, “a social identity is a person’s knowledge that he or she
belongs to a group” (Stets & Burke, 2000, p. 225). Thus, the identity is a common identification with a
collectivity or social category and has focused on category-based identities (e.g., Black or white,
Christian or Muslim). An identity within identity theory focuses on role-based identities such as student,
teacher, father, son. As is evident, the identity of fan can certainly be category-based or role-based,
thus, both social identity theory and identity theory have been used to examine the identity of “fan.” As
Stets and Burke noted, self-categorization and social comparison are two important processes involved
in social identity formation. Specifically, they suggested that:
The consequence of self-categorization is an accentuation of the perceived similarities between
the self and other in-group members, and an accentuation of the perceived differences between
the self and out-group members. This accentuation occurs for all the attitudes, beliefs and
values, affective reactions, behavioral norms, styles of speech, and other properties that are
believed to be correlated with the relevant intergroup categorization (p. 225).
However, the reason that we have chosen identity theory rather than social identity theory is
because social identity theory does not explain variance within the collectivity; in other words, it does
not explain why fans act differently from each other. As the identification model above depicts, fans act
differently because the identity standard (role identity) is specific to the individual and varies to the
extent that the individual wants it to vary relative to the perceived situational meanings. Despite this
drawback, social identity theory has been used extensively within sport research (including by yours
truly, before I smartened up) to explain why people are fans.
Theory of Planned Behavior

According to Azjen (1991), the theory of planned behavior is an extension of the theory of
reasoned action, primarily through the addition of the construct of perceived behavioral control. As in
the theory of reasoned action, intentions are central to the model in the attempt to predict behavior.
Obviously, the theory of planned behavior focuses on behavior over which the individual has at least
some level of control, that is, the individual has volition and is planning to do the behavior. For example,
Joe Fan intends to go to the game, and later in the day he actually attends the game. However, as Azjen
(1991) points out, although most behaviors meet the requirement in which if a person decides to do
something then they will probably carry out that decision and actually do the behavior, there are
situational factors that come into play that may decrease the likelihood of accomplishing the objective
and decrease or eliminate the likelihood of actually carrying out the behavior. For example, at the end of
the season, Joe Fan intended to go to the playoff game, however he could not get tickets, the game was
sold out, and scalpers were asking $500 per ticket, which was more money than Joe had in his life
savings (Joe does not plan his finances well either, obviously). Thus, even though Joe intended to go to
the game, due to the situation and a lack of planning on Joe’s part, he was not able to go.
Azjen (1991) suggested that there were three factors that influenced behavioral intentions and
then behavior: perceived behavioral control, subjective norms, and attitude toward the behavior.
Perceived behavioral control refers to “the perceived ease or difficulty of performing the behavior and
it is assumed to reflect past experience as well as anticipated impediments and obstacles” (Azjen, 1991,
p. 188). This idea is similar to Bandura’s (1977, 1982) idea of perceived self-efficacy. An individual who is

high in self-efficacy believes that she can accomplish whatever the specific task is. The idea of self-
efficacy is similar to self-esteem, except that self-efficacy is typically situationally specific, whereas self-
esteem is general. For example, Sally Super Fan is very confident about her abilities in general; she has
high self-esteem. On game day, Sally and her friends go to the arena. A business is sponsoring Make-a-
Sign-Night, where fans can draw pictures or make slogans on their signs and get on TV (of course the
sponsor gets their name plastered all over everywhere as well, in addition to getting TV time on the
signs that the fans make). Sally immediately grabs some pens and draws a good picture with a slogan. All
of her friends are impressed with her ability. In that specific situation, Sally had high self-efficacy in her
ability to make a sign. As she and her friends make their way into the arena, they come across a sign-up
for the halftime contest in which the contestant has to dribble through an obstacle course and then
shoot a three-point shot. Sally’s friends immediately try to get Sally to enter, but she will not. When
Figure 2.7 – Theory of Planned Behavior Model
asked why, she finally admits that she is not a very good dribbler (she was a center in high school and
the team would not let her bring the ball up court she was so bad). Because of her poor dribbling skills,
she is afraid that she would embarrass herself in front of the crowd. In this situation, she has low self-
efficacy in terms of dribbling. Individuals who have low self-efficacy in many situations, probably will
have low self-esteem as well. In a review of several studies, Azjen (1991) determined that when
individuals felt that they would be able to perform the behavior with ease, then they were more likely to
do the behavior if they intended on doing so. Or put another way, if the behavior poses no serious
problems of control, intentions will predict the behavior fairly accurately.
The second antecedent to intentions is the attitude toward the behavior and “refers to the
degree to which a person has a favorable or unfavorable evaluation or appraisal of the behavior in
question” (Azjen, 1991, p. 188). In other words, it is how much the individual likes doing the behavior.
Azjen determined that the attitude toward the behavior predicted intentions about as well as perceived
control, and in some instances better. This really should not be surprising as the two variables are
typically fairly highly correlated with each other. It makes sense, if the individual believes that he is good
at something, he is probably going to like to do it. For example, Joe Fan likes to tailgate before the game.
He thinks that he is good with the barbeque grill and his friends seem to eat his ribs readily enough.

Because he thinks he is good at grilling and his friends agree, Joe really likes to grill. He loves the
compliments.
The third antecedent to intentions is termed subjective norm, and it is a social factor that refers
to “the perceived social pressure to perform or not to perform the behavior (Azjen, 1991, p. 188). Azjen
has found that even though subjective norms are typically not as good predictors of intentions as the
other two factors, in some instances, they are better predictors than perceived behavioral control. Azjen
listed a study that found that the social pressure to use condoms was a better predictor of intentions to
use condoms than perceived control. Azjen also listed another study that showed that the social
pressure to commit multiple traffic violations was a greater influence than attitude toward committing
traffic violations. However, in most other instances, subjective norms did not contribute to explaining
intentions well. In the sport fandom world though, subjective norms (social pressures) are often seen in
people’s behavior. This is often called social facilitation or known as going along with the crowd. For
example, Joe Fan finally figured a
way into the playoff game (do
not ask him what happened to
his car). During the first quarter,
the people near Joe started
heckling the referee over
perceived bad calls. Because
everyone around Joe was doing
it, he decided to do it as well.
However, when everyone else
stopped during a lull in the
crowd noise, Joe yelled out
something derogatory at the
official in a very loud voice that
everyone heard, including the
referee. Security came and
escorted Joe out of the arena and banned him from the game.
Attitude Theory
According to Eagly and Chaiken (1993) attitudes motivate behavior and they defined attitude as
“a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor
or disfavor” (p. 1). Eagly and Chaiken also defined psychological tendency as “a state that is internal to
the person” (p. 1) and defined evaluating as “all classes of evaluative responding, whether overt or
covert, cognitive, affective or behavioral” (p. 1). For example, Sally graduated from the University of
Tennessee and was good friends with the former women’s basketball coach Pat Summit. Sally’s attitude
toward the women’s basketball team (the entity) at Tennessee was very favorable (positive). Based
upon her experiences at Tennessee she evaluated the women’s basketball team cognitively (noted the
associations that she had both with the university and with the coach); she also evaluated the team
affectively (when she was around the team she felt happy); and she evaluated the team behaviorally
(she enjoyed herself when she went to basketball games).
Evaluation is probably the most critical aspect of attitudes. Most people typically form an
attitude about all entities that they happen to come across in life. Entities can be tangible (the women’s

basketball team) or intangible (racism). When an individual forms an attitude the individual typically
ascribes two level of goodness or badness to the entity. Joe Fan likes the Seahawks and hates the
Cowboys. The Seahawks are good, and the Cowboys are bad. When Joe evaluates the Seahawks, his
responses are typically those of approval, favor, liking and attraction. However, when Joe evaluates the
Cowboys, his responses are typically those of disapproval, disfavor, disliking, and aversion.
Attitudes are comprised of both valence and intensity. The valence or direction of the attitude
refers to the positive or negative evaluation of the entity. The intensity or extremity of the attitude
refers to the degree of the feeling: slightly, moderately, or very. There exists a neutral point between
positive and negative attitudes (Figure 2.8).
Figure 2.8 – Attitude Valence and Intensity Eagly and Chaiken (1993) prefer to look at
attitudes that fall on the neutral point as a degree of evaluation that may not have either valence or
intensity, but still is evaluative (p. 11). The object of the evaluation, in addition to being called an entity
is also termed an attitude object. Once an individual has evaluated an object and assigned some type of
favorable or unfavorable meaning to the object, the individual’s attitude toward that object persists for
at least a short time, and according to Eagly and Chaiken (1993), energizes and directs behavior. For
example, Joe Fan was watching his Seahawks play the Washington Redskins and during the game a
Redskins linebacker hit the Seahawks quarterback late and out-of-bounds, drawing a penalty. Joe was
incensed. He immediately assigned a very negative meaning to the linebacker and developed a very
intense negative attitude toward the linebacker. This negative attitude toward the linebacker was
evidenced in Joe’s behavior toward the player. Joe shouted things at the player that cannot be printed in
a textbook. Now
every time Joe hears
that player’s name
he gets upset and
complains that the
player should have
been thrown out of
the game. This
attitude toward the
player will last some
time, but eventually
will fade.
Attitudes
have three different
types of
antecedents:

cognitive, affective, and behavioral (Figure 2.9). According to Eagly and Chaiken (1993), a “cognitive
learning process is assumed to occur when people gain information about the attitude objects and
thereby form beliefs” (p. 14). An affective process occurs when an individual has an emotional
experience, great pleasure or distress.
Attitudes can also be derived from past behaviors as well. Oftentimes the three processes
happen in concert, all occurring at one time. However, it is possible for them to happen separately. For
example, if Sally read that an opposing coach had criticized the Tennessee Lady Volunteers basketball
team, she would form an attitude about that opposing coach, and it probably would not be a positive
one. The process of forming the attitude would be cognitive, but in all likelihood, there would be
affective processes happening at the same time because as Sally read the article she would be
experiencing some type of emotion as well. Although some researchers claim that there can be
cognition without affect, when dealing with attitude formation they typically occur together.
Once an individual has formed an
attitude toward an entity, there are Figure 2.9 – Attitude Theory Model
typically three potential classes of responses. Eagly and Chaiken (1993) conceptualize evaluative
responses of the cognitive type as beliefs. They feel that affective evaluative responses consist of
feelings, moods, and emotions that people experience in relation to attitude objects. Eagly and Chaiken
regard evaluation and affect as conceptually distinct because an individual can have an affective
reaction to something before evaluating it consciously and can potentially evaluate an entity without
having an affective reaction to it as shown on the diagram on the previous page. Evaluative responses of
the behavioral (or conative) type consist of the overt actions that people exhibit in relation to the
attitude objects. Eagly and Chaiken argue that behavioral responses also can be regarded as
encompassing intentions to act that are not necessarily expressed in overt behavior. This is absolutely
true, which suggests that rather than having only three response categories, there should be a fourth as
well, titled Conative Responses. Conation is the intention to do something. However, research has
shown that the relationship between intentions and actual behavior can vary quite a bit based on the
situation and potential constraints. Continuing the example from above, Sally, after reading what the
opposing coach had said, decided to write a letter to the newspaper editor, slamming the opposing
coach. Later, after calming down a bit, she decided that it would not do any good to write the letter, but
that she would just wait and see what the Volunteers did next time they played the other team.

Eagly and Chaiken (1993) suggested that attitudes allow people to express their personal values
and self-concepts. This means that both values and self-concepts influence the formation of attitudes.
Self-concepts can be identities, such as that of fan. This certainly makes sense on both counts
There are many other models that attempt to explain consumption behavior, or behavior in
general, some of which are hierarchical, some of which are interactive, and some are both. Although
there seems to be a plethora of models explaining consumer behavior, very few have been proposed to
explain sport consumption specifically. In the following section we present additional content regarding
the nature of sport consumption followed by our model of sport consumption behavior for your
consideration.
Constraint Theory
Constraints are defined as factors (or reasons) that prevent or prohibit an individual from
participating and enjoying some activity. Much of the information we have regarding constraints comes
from people that study leisure activities. According to
Crawford and Godbey (1987), leisure constraints can be
divided into three main categories: intrapersonal,
interpersonal, and structural constraints.
Intrapersonal constraints include an individual’s
psychological states and the attributes that might have a
negative influence on leisure preferences. Crawford and
Godbey (1987) suggested several examples:
 stress,
 religiosity,
 reference group attitudes,
 prior socialization into specific leisure activities,
 perceived self-skill,
 subjective evaluation of the appropriateness and
availability of various leisure activities.
The list is not an all-encompassing, but it certainly
gives us an idea of some of the potential intrapersonal constraints.
Interpersonal constraints focus on the
relationships, or more specifically, the lack of
relationships, with others; for example, lack of
a partner that will participate with you in some
activity like sky diving (who would turn down a
chance to sky dive?), or lack of someone to
attend a game with. The impact of the (lack of)
relationship might be a negative influence on
both leisure preference and participation
(Crawford & Godbey, 1987). Here’s another
example, the fan in the picture on the left only
attended one OSU Buckeye game that year
because he had no one that wanted to go to
the game with him  (not really true, but we needed an example).

Structural constraints are characterized as factors that

interfere between leisure preferences and participation. Said
another way, these are constraints, physical or environmental
factors, that prevent an individual from participating in a
leisure activity (Godbey & Crawford, 1987). Examples of
structural constraints include: financial resources, season,
climate, and the scheduling of work time.
However, in much of the research on leisure
constraints, there was quite a bit of overlap between the
interpersonal constraints and intrapersonal constraints. In
addition, there was a lack of content validity in the items
representing each category of constraint (i.e., items in the wrong categories). So, Kim and Trail (2010)
proposed a new model in which there were only two dimensions, rather than three: internal constraints
and external constraints. They defined internal constraints as internal psychological cognitions that
deter behavior (Kim & Trail, 2010). The definition combines both the interpersonal and intrapersonal
constraints proposed by Godbey and Crawford (1987). Kim and Trail suggested four internal constraints -
lack of knowledge, lack of someone to attend with, lack of success by the team, and no interest from
others – would have a particular influence on consumers. There are many more internal constraints, but
those are the ones they listed.
External constraints were defined as social or environmental aspects that prevent or decrease
the likelihood of the individual performing the behavior (Kim & Trail, 2011). There are many potential
external constraints, and many are situation specific, but most can be categorized into either
environmental constraints or leisure alternative constraints. For the former, some of the constraints that
have been identified are distance to the game, bad traffic both going to and coming from the game,
parking at the venue, time it takes to get to the venue and into the game, the location of the venue,
access to public transportation, the cost of going to the game, and weather. For external leisure
alternatives, some of the constraints that have been identified are: exercising and recreation
opportunities, other leisure activities, watching other sports on TV, entertainment alternatives,
participant sport activities, and
others.
However, I am proposing
that the external constraints
dimension can be separated into
two categories, the first being those
constraints in the external
environment and second, those
that are in the internal
organizational environment (i.e.,
those constraints that are at least
nominally under control by the
sport organization). The internal
constraints are those that are
specific to the customer’s internal
perceptions.

Models of Sport Consumption

People may argue that consumer behavior models should suffice across all products and
services, but that is not the case. The range of psychological connections consumers may form with a
sport product compared to other goods and services make the sport product unique. Consider the
example of attending a National Football League game. Some consumers may attend because of the
novelty of going to a professional football game. Others may attend because of an opportunity to spend
time with friends or family members. For others, attending a game is a chance to entertain existing or
prospective business clients. Still others enjoy being part of the collection of fans and derive some sense
of belonging from going to games. There will also be individuals for whom the team is a target of
identification, and who “have to” attend because they think of themselves as part of the team. While
the purchase and consumption of a piece of sporting equipment or sporting apparel may not be
arguably different from other goods, there are definite differences with respect to sport services,
particularly the product we know as sports teams. What we need is a better understanding of sport
consumption.
At the most basic level, Figure 2.10 – Sport Consumption
sport consumption can be
explained in terms of the
interaction between motivation and
activation (Figure 2.10). Activation
is the external instigator for the
action and motivation is the
internal reason for wanting to act.
The interaction between the two
causes the individual to consume a
sport product, whether it is
purchasing a team jersey, watching
a game on television, or attending a
game at the stadium or arena.
After the product is
consumed, the individual evaluates
both the product that was
consumed and the consumption
process as a whole. For example,
after Joe Fan gets back from the game, he rehashes how the game went, how his team played, how the
other team played, the refereeing, etc. He is evaluating the product. At the same time, he may evaluate
the concession service, the length of the line in the men’s restroom versus the length of the line trailing
down the concourse from the women’s restroom, his attempt to find parking, and the traffic after the
game that made him miss the 11 o’clock news. All of this and much more is part of the consumption
process, but is ancillary to the actual product itself, the game. All of these things combine to make Joe
Fan happy or depressed, or perhaps mad, and to some extent may influence whether Joe goes back for
another game. There are two models/frameworks that try to address sport consumer behavior
extensively. Trail and colleagues (Trail & Fink, 1998; Trail, Anderson, & Fink, 2000) proposed their Model
of Sport Consumer Behavior (MSCB) first, followed by Funk and colleagues’ (Funk, Gladden, Howard,
James, Kahle, Mahony, Nakazawa, & Trail, 1999; Funk & James, 2001) Psychological Continuum Model

(PCM) one year later. Both have positives and negatives, but we will discuss Funk and colleagues PCM
model first and then show why Trail and colleagues’ model is better both theoretically, empirically, and
practically.
Psychological Continuum Model (PCM)

The PCM is a hierarchy of effects model similar to the AIDA (Awareness Interest Desire Action)
models that preceded it, of which Lavidge and Steiner’s (1961) is the most well-known. It is also based
upon the Transtheoretical
Model (TTM) of Prochaska & Figure 2.11 – Psychological Continuum Model
DiClemente (1982) and Mullin,
Hardy, and Sutton’s (2000)
Escalator Model. Funk and
colleague’s PCM has four stages
(Figure 2.11): Awareness,
Attraction, Attachment, and
finally Allegiance. At the first
stage, Awareness, the individual
becomes aware of the team or
object through socializing agents
extrinsic to the individual. At the
second level, Attraction, the
individual “acknowledges having
a favourite team or favourite
sport based upon various social-
psychological and demographic-
based motives” (Funk & James,
p. 121). At the third stage,
Attachment, the individual
develops a psychological
connection to the team based
“based upon the perceived
importance attached to physical
and psychological features
associated with a team or sport”
(p. 121). At the fourth stage,
Allegiance, the individual
develops loyalty to the team,
represented by consistent and
durable attitudes and behaviors. Funk and James suggest that Allegiance leads to Behavior Loyalty even
though it is not depicted as a fifth stage.
As noted by Funk and James (2006), the original PCM had a variety of problems and therefore
needed to be modified. They did so by changing the first three stages (Awareness, Attraction, and
Attachment) to processes and creating Outcomes for each Process. For example, the Level 1 Outcomes
of the Awareness Process, through socialization, are knowledge, realization, and extrinsic aspects. These

Level 1 Outcomes then influence the Attraction Process, (hedonic motives, dispositional needs, and
social situational factors) and Level 2 Outcomes. Supposedly, the interaction between Level 1 Outcomes
and Attraction Processes create Level 2 Outcomes (attitude formation, social utility needs, individual
needs, and something called P & P features – which aren’t explained). The Level 2 Outcomes then
interact with Attachment processes (meanings, self-concept, and values) to impact Level 3 Outcomes
(attitude strengthening, identification, and “decreased likelihood of replacing the team with another
object” (p. 192). However, Funk and James suggest that there is a feedback loop between the Level 3
Outcomes and the Attachment Processes. In addition, the Level 3 Outcomes and the Attachment
Processes then influence Allegiance Outcomes of durability and ‘impactfulness’.
However, Funk and James (2006)
no longer mention behavioral loyalty as a Figure 2.12 – Revised Psychological Continuum Model
potential end-product. They also mention
that it would be difficult to test this model
due to its complexity. They prove this by
attempting to establish some relationships
between Level 2 Outcomes and Allegiance,
Level 2 Outcomes and Level 3 Outcomes,
and a mediated relationship between Level
2 Outcomes and Allegiance through
Attachment Processes. Unfortunately, only
some of their hypotheses were supported.
In addition, they did not test their model as
depicted either, by ignoring the other
potential paths and the feedback loop that
they suggested existed between
Attachment Process and Level 3 Outcomes.
Lastly, their model does not have good
theoretical support either.
In Beaton and Funk (2008) they
claim that the PCM has been applied and
tested in sport spectator settings, which is not accurate, as the whole model has not been tested, and
the parts that have been tested are incomplete at best. Later, in Beaton, Funk, Ridinger, and Jordan
(2011), they show a slightly modified version of the PCM and claim that PCM is applicable to a variety of
situations, which may or may not be true because there is no support. Most recently, in Alexandris, Du,
and Funk (2016), they noted that the model has provided “limited discussion on how internal and
external forces influence actual behavior,” has a conceptual limitation on “how behavioral experiences
influence movement along the continuum stages,” and “how personality traits influence stage-based
progression of an individual’s attitude” (p. 223). Unfortunately, their results didn’t help much in
resolving those issues or many others that still exist.
Luckily, Trail and colleagues’ model does a much better job in providing theoretical justification
for their model and the relationships therein. It has been tested in its entirety and shown to work well
both from a statistical, theoretical, and practical standpoint. Best of all, it solves most, if not all, of the
issues that Funk and colleagues have been unable to fix. So, without further ado, let’s examine the
Model of Sport Consumer Behavior.

Model of Sport Consumer Behavior Figure 2.13 - Original Sport Consumer Behavior Model
As noted earlier, Trail and
colleagues (Trail & Fink, 1998; Trail,
Anderson, & Fink, 2000) proposed the
Sport Consumer Behavior model in 1998.
They tested and presented the original
model in 1999, and then published the
initial statistical tests of the measures in
2001 (Trail & James, 2001) and 2002 (Trail,
Anderson, & Fink, 2002; Fink, Trail, &
Anderson, 2002), and then tested the
whole model in 2003 (Trail, Fink, &
Anderson, 2003). There were some parts of
the model that did not work as well as they
had hoped, so they modified the model
slightly and retested it with much better
success, publishing those results in 2005
(Trail, Anderson, & Fink, 2005). Trail and
colleagues continued to improve and test
parts of the model in the following years
(Kwon, Trail, & Anderson, 2006; Harrolle & Figure 2.14 - Current Sport Consumer Behavior Model
Trail, 2007; James & Trail, 2008; Woo,
Trail, Kwon, & Anderson, 2009; Lee, Trail,
& Anderson, 2009; Kim & Trail, 2010;
Harrolle, Trail, Rodríguez, & Jordan, 2010;
Lee & Trail, 2011; Kim & Trail, 2011;
Shapiro, Ridinger, & Trail, 2013; Ballouli,
Trail, Koesters, & Bernthal, 2016; Trail,
Anderson, & Lee, 2017).
The most recent published version
of the model of Sport Consumer Behavior
(Figure 2.14) was in an earlier edition of
this text (Trail & James, 2015), but has not
been tested in its entirety. That’s not
totally true, it has been tested, but the
results have not been published as of yet;
hopefully soon. These models are
structural models that are testable using
structural equation modeling procedures.
The advantages of this model over
Funk and colleagues’ model is that it is
testable and earlier versions of the entire
model have been tested and published,
unlike Funk and colleagues’. Part of the

reason that this model can be tested is that it looks at sport consumers at one point in time (i.e., it is a
cross-sectional model). It doesn’t show a progression along some type of consumer pathway like Funk
and colleagues’ model, which hypothesizes a progression from Awareness to Allegiance. As Funk and
colleagues noted, that makes a model much more difficult to test because either researchers need to
track sport consumers longitudinally along the path or researchers need to be able to segment a large
number of sport consumers (and potential sport consumers) by their status on stages, and then test
each stage. Although Funk and colleagues purport that they have been able to do so (Beaton et al.,
2011), their results leave much to be desired.
Until recently though, Trail and colleagues’ model did not show a progression along a consumer
pathway, except for the feedback loop from post-consumption reactions/evaluation to attitude toward
the product/brand. Based on Trail’s (2016; Trail & McCullough, 2017) sustainability campaign pathway
for sport fans, which is based on Young’s (2010) and similar consumer pathways, such as Lavidge and
Steiner’s (1961), I have added a consumer pathway for sport fans to the Model of Sport Consumer
Behavior, and also modified the MSCB once again. The Revised MSCB (R-MSCB) now has two
components (depicted in the Figure 2.15). The first is Consumer Pathway for Sport Fandom and the
second is the Environmental Insight Framework.
Figure 2.15 – Revised Model of Sport Consumer Behavior
The consumer pathway consists of seven stages that people progress through to achieve true
sport fandom: Awareness, Interest, Active Consideration, Purchase (Conversion), Consumption (Usage),
Repatronage, and Lifestyle Change. Individuals will progress along the pathway, hopefully in a positive
direction but not necessarily, influenced by aspects within the Environmental Insight Framework (EIF).
The EIF consists of the external environment, the internal organizational environment (the environment
within the sport organization), and the customer environment (the potential sport consumer). Each of

these environments influences progress along the Consumer Pathway. This is a theoretical model and is
not statistically testable as depicted. To test this new model, a structural model must be drawn that
includes most of the components, so the Revised Structural Sport Consumer Behavior Model is depicted
in Figure 2.16.
We will discuss all
Figure 2.16 – Revised Structural Model of Sport Consumer Behavior
of the components of the
Revised Model of Sport
Consumer Behavior in
upcoming chapters, but for
now we will just give a brief
overview. The External
Environment includes
cultural aspects, contextual
aspects, socialization
factors, and external
constraints. The External
Environment impacts both
the Organizational
Environment and the
Customer Environment. The
Organizational Environment
includes activation of
marketing/communication
plans, relationship building,
and the brand associations
(product related attributes,
non-product related
attributes, benefits, and
organizational constraints)
among other organizational
aspects. The Customer
Environment includes
internal motivators such as
the personality of the
individual, the individual’s
personal needs, values, and
beliefs, perceived internal
constraints, and
demographics. The
interaction between the
External Environment,
Organizational
Environment, and Customer
Environment all influence

the individual’s brand attitude (i.e., attitude toward the sport product/brand). Points of attachment will
also have an impact on brand attitude.
Brand Attitude is the primary determinant of whether or not people intend to consume the
product. Intentions lead to actual consumption, but not as often as one would think. This is because
there are external factors that constrain or prevent people from both intending to consume and also
actually consuming. For example, Joe Fan would like to have season tickets to the Los Angeles Lakers,
but they cost too much money, Joe lives in Seattle (a long way to travel to Laker games), and there is a
waiting list for season tickets (scarcity). Each of these things can be considered external constraints,
among many potential other constraints, some of which are listed in the different environmental
categories but come into play here.
If the individual ends up consuming the product, expectancies about the experience are either
confirmed or disconfirmed in either a positive or negative way. This confirmation or disconfirmation of
expectancies creates an emotional response in the individual. For example, Lisa Loyal-Fan expected her
team to win when she attended the game. Her team did win, confirming her expectations in a positive
manner, so she is happy and satisfied that she went to the game. This may make her feel good enough
about herself that her connection with the successful team increases her feelings of self-esteem. (Don’t
worry if this does not make sense yet; we will talk about it more in a later chapter.) All of this might
make her feel even more connected to the team (developing affective loyalty) and intend to come back
to another game in the future (repeat patronage).
In the next Section of the book (Section II), we will discuss the External Environment, including
culture, context, socialization, and external environmental constraints, and how those things impact
both the organizational environment and the customer environment. In Section III we will discuss the
Organizational Environment and how that impacts the customer environment and progression along the
pathway. In Section IV, we will discuss the customer environment and consumer pathway. Finally, in
Section V we will cover the consumption and post-consumption reactions/evaluation.
View publication stats

Trail, G. T. (2018) - Theories of Consumer Behavior - Chapter 2. Seattle, WA: Sport Consumer Research Consultants LLC

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Trail, G. T. (2018) - Theories of Consumer Behavior - Chapter 2. Seattle, WA: Sport Consumer Research Consultants LLC

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Trail, G. T. (2018). Theories of Consumer Behavior – Chapter 2. Seattle, WA:

Chapter · August 2018

Sustainability View project

......... View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Definition of sport consumer behavior

Copyright 2018 Galen Trail Page 51

Copyright 2018 Galen Trail Page 52

Applications of sport consumer behavior – why study human behavior?

Copyright 2018 Galen Trail Page 53

Copyright 2018 Galen Trail Page 54

Copyright 2018 Galen Trail Page 55

Using the type of knowledge just described, I

Copyright 2018 Galen Trail Page 56

The study of consumer behavior – Where we have been

The growth of business schools produced a blending of economic and psychological

Copyright 2018 Galen Trail Page 57

Copyright 2018 Galen Trail Page 58

How to study consumer behavior

Copyright 2018 Galen Trail Page 59

Copyright 2018 Galen Trail Page 60

Copyright 2018 Galen Trail Page 61

Models based on Interaction Effects

Copyright 2018 Galen Trail Page 62

Motivation for Consumption Model

Copyright 2018 Galen Trail Page 63

Means-End Chain Theory

Copyright 2018 Galen Trail Page 64

Hierarchical Model of Consumer Goals

Copyright 2018 Galen Trail Page 65

Copyright 2018 Galen Trail Page 66

Copyright 2018 Galen Trail Page 67

Copyright 2018 Galen Trail Page 68

Figure 2.6c – Identity Theory Model

Copyright 2018 Galen Trail Page 69

Social Identity Theory

Theory of Planned Behavior

Copyright 2018 Galen Trail Page 70

Figure 2.7 – Theory of Planned Behavior Model

Copyright 2018 Galen Trail Page 71

Copyright 2018 Galen Trail Page 72

Copyright 2018 Galen Trail Page 73

Copyright 2018 Galen Trail Page 74

Copyright 2018 Galen Trail Page 75

Structural constraints are characterized as factors that

Copyright 2018 Galen Trail Page 76

Models of Sport Consumption

Copyright 2018 Galen Trail Page 77

Psychological Continuum Model (PCM)

Copyright 2018 Galen Trail Page 78

Copyright 2018 Galen Trail Page 79

Copyright 2018 Galen Trail Page 80

Figure 2.15 – Revised Model of Sport Consumer Behavior

Copyright 2018 Galen Trail Page 81

Copyright 2018 Galen Trail Page 82

Copyright 2018 Galen Trail Page 83

View publication stats

Вам также может понравиться