Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 2 – uploaded by Rui Biscaia

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Note. “ Scale referring to the games attended per season and in the current season. The length in years as season-ticket holder was 3.96 (SD = 3.34): ) Scale from 0 to 12 using the recall measure. No correlations failed the AVE test of discriminant validity. *p<.05; ** p<.01. fable 2 Mean (M), Standard Deviation (SD), and Correlation Matri

Table 2 Note. “ Scale referring to the games attended per season and in the current season. The length in years as season-ticket holder was 3.96 (SD = 3.34): ) Scale from 0 to 12 using the recall measure. No correlations failed the AVE test of discriminant validity. *p<.05; ** p<.01. fable 2 Mean (M), Standard Deviation (SD), and Correlation Matri

Related Figures (4)

Figure 1 — Hypothesized model.
Figure 1 — Hypothesized model.
Table 1 Factor Loadings, Z-Values, Composite Reliability (CR), and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) Note. Item eliminated due the lack of individual reliability. Model fit (sponsor A): ¥7(59)=520.23 (p<.001), x?/df = 8.82, TLI=.97, CFI=.98, GFI=.96, RMSEA=.07. Model fit (sponsor B): ¥2(68)=290.58 (p<.001), y2/df = 4.93, TLI=.99, CFI=.99, GFI=.98, RMSEA=.05. It is important to note that the use of mail surveys com- monly allows for collecting large samples within a short period of time, but it may limit the representativeness of the sample. Ages of the respondents ranged from 16 to 70 years (M = 31.92 years), and about two-thirds were in the 20-40 age bracket (65.6%). A great majority were males (87.7%) and almost half reported going to the stadium in the company of two or three other persons (47.8%). The majority of respondents were paid-up mem- bers of the team (85.9%), paying a monthly fee to have discounts on club’s activities, yet only about one-third were season-ticket holders (25.5%). Nearly two-thirds of the respondents indicated paying the necessary fee for accessing the TV channel of the club (63.4%), while almost half responded watching more than 20 home and away games of the team each season on either public or private TV channels (47.8%). Team Loyalty. Team loyalty was measured using both attitudinal and behavioral constructs, with attitudinal loyalty including five items to capture both the commitment with the team and behavioral intentions (Kaynak et al., 2008). Three of these items were derived from Biscaia et al. (2012) to gauge behavioral intentions,
Table 1 Factor Loadings, Z-Values, Composite Reliability (CR), and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) Note. Item eliminated due the lack of individual reliability. Model fit (sponsor A): ¥7(59)=520.23 (p<.001), x?/df = 8.82, TLI=.97, CFI=.98, GFI=.96, RMSEA=.07. Model fit (sponsor B): ¥2(68)=290.58 (p<.001), y2/df = 4.93, TLI=.99, CFI=.99, GFI=.98, RMSEA=.05. It is important to note that the use of mail surveys com- monly allows for collecting large samples within a short period of time, but it may limit the representativeness of the sample. Ages of the respondents ranged from 16 to 70 years (M = 31.92 years), and about two-thirds were in the 20-40 age bracket (65.6%). A great majority were males (87.7%) and almost half reported going to the stadium in the company of two or three other persons (47.8%). The majority of respondents were paid-up mem- bers of the team (85.9%), paying a monthly fee to have discounts on club’s activities, yet only about one-third were season-ticket holders (25.5%). Nearly two-thirds of the respondents indicated paying the necessary fee for accessing the TV channel of the club (63.4%), while almost half responded watching more than 20 home and away games of the team each season on either public or private TV channels (47.8%). Team Loyalty. Team loyalty was measured using both attitudinal and behavioral constructs, with attitudinal loyalty including five items to capture both the commitment with the team and behavioral intentions (Kaynak et al., 2008). Three of these items were derived from Biscaia et al. (2012) to gauge behavioral intentions,
Table 3 Summary Results of the Structural Model for Each Sponsor Eevee ees rN Mae Model fit (sponsor A): ¥7(68)=550.45 (p<.001), y?/df = 8.01, TLI=.97, CFI=.98, GFI=.96, RMSEA=.06 Model fit (sponsor B): 72(68)=294.90 (p<.001), 92/df = 4.34, TLI=.99, CFI=.99, GFI=.98, RMSEA=.04
Table 3 Summary Results of the Structural Model for Each Sponsor Eevee ees rN Mae Model fit (sponsor A): ¥7(68)=550.45 (p<.001), y?/df = 8.01, TLI=.97, CFI=.98, GFI=.96, RMSEA=.06 Model fit (sponsor B): 72(68)=294.90 (p<.001), 92/df = 4.34, TLI=.99, CFI=.99, GFI=.98, RMSEA=.04
Figure 2 — Standardized estimates of the structural models. Notes: S-A = Sponsor A; S-B = Sponsor B; * p < .05; ** p < .OL: n.s.=Not Significant.
Figure 2 — Standardized estimates of the structural models. Notes: S-A = Sponsor A; S-B = Sponsor B; * p < .05; ** p < .OL: n.s.=Not Significant.
Related topics:
Sport PsychologyFootball (soccer)Recreation & Leisure StudiesSports ManagementSport MarketingLeisure StudiesSports FansSport ManagementSports marketingSport sponsorship
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved