Required Text: Mullin, B.J., Hardy, S., and Sutton, W.A. 2014. Sport Marketing (4th edition). Human Kinetics. ISBN 9781450424981. With Web Study Guide:Each student will answer all questions associated

Relation ship quality is critical to understanding sport consumer - organization relationships because it can: (a) render a platform to organize wide - ranging relational constructs; (b) provide insight into evaluating relationship - marketing effectiveness; and (c) diag nose and address problems in relationships. Therefore, we propose a conceptual framework of sport consumerorganization relationship quality that consists of three main components. First, we specify that relationship quality consists of five distinct but re lated relational constructs (trust, commitment, intimacy, self - connection, and reciprocity). Second, we suggest that relationship quality influences word of mouth, media consumption, licensed - product consumption, and attendance behaviors. Finally, we argue that psychographic factors such as relationship styles, relationship drive, and general interpersonal orientation are moderators, as well as demographic factors such as age, gender, ethnicity, region, and income. To survive in the current sport business c limate, leaders of professional and collegiate sport organizations must determine how to effectively manage challenges such as spiraling costs, a highly competitive market place, increasing fan discontent and disconnection, and explosive growth of new tech nology (Gladden & Sutton, 2009; Howard & Crompton, 2005). While revenues have increased substantially over the past few years, the cost of running a sport organization has gone up much faster. The average salary in the NBA is more than $4 million a year (Dupree, 2008) and the cost of a new stadium for some NFL teams now exceeds $1 billion (Riper, 2008). In addition, median expenses for NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision programs are greater than $40 million (Fulks, 2008). Competition for spectator dollar s is more severe than ever before. In North America, over 600 professional sport teams and 1,000 collegiate athletic programs are vying with each other to attract spectators. Furthermore, numerous entertainment options are available to sport consumers. In addition, sport consumers are increasingly discontented and disconnected with sport organizations for several reasons. First, the cost of attending sport events has increased dramatically and is no longer affordable for the average sport consumer. Second, sport consumers perceive that the sport organizations and players are more interested in making money than caring for the fans. Third, more sport consumers suspect that marketing practices of the sport organizations are deceptive, insensitive. and manipula tive (Mullin, Hardy, & Sutton, 2007). Lastly, rapidly developing and changing technologies pose both opportunities and threats to the sport organizations. In an effort to meet the challenges in the sport marketplace, researchers have advocated a fundamenta l shift in sport marketing from a traditional exchange paradigm to a relationship paradigm (Gladden & Sutton, 2009; Harris & Ogbonna, 2008; Mullin et al., 2007) and practitioners have adopted relationship - building strategies to a greater extent. There are several reasons why a shift to a relationship paradigm would be beneficial. First, under a saturated and highly competitive market place, sport marketers need to redirect their primary focus from acquisition of new customers to maintenance of existing customers. Creating a new customer is much more difficult and expensive than retaining a current customer (Fornell & Wernerfelt, 1987). The increased importance of customer retention is driving sport marketers to embrace relationship marketing, which focus es on establishing a long - term relationship with customers. Second, sport organizations can take advantage of relationship marketing to repair damaged relationships with disgruntled fans (consumers). The consequences of fans' unhappiness, while not immedia te, are potentially devastating. Sooner or later, fan apathy will lead to declining attendance and television ratings, which eventually will result in the decrease of sponsorship sales, licensed products sales, broadcast contracts, naming right deals. Kim is with Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. Trail is with Seattle University, Seattle, WA. 57 58 Kim and Traii to name a few, unless leaders of sport organizations properly respond to the fans' disappointment and detachment (Howard & Crompton, 2005) . Third, the emergence of new technology encourages sport marketers to adopt relationship marketing. Relationship marketing historically was associated with the efforts to nurture relationships with a few key exchange partners (Hunt & Morgan, 1994) largely because of the significant cost induced to build relationships with the partners. With an emphasis on a few key exchange partners, the application of relationship marketing to the spectator sport segment in which the main service exchanges take pla ce between a sport organization and a large number of sport consumers has been limited. Today, however, information technology (IT) - supported customer contact techniques now make it possible and affordable for sport marketers to develop some form of relati onship not only with a small number of exchange partners such as suppliers, corporate sponsors, and affluent customers, but also with a large number of typical sport consumers. Direct marketing and database building techniques are readily available for spo rt marketers to develop a customized relationship with more customers, while costing considerably less than in past years. Finally, in addition to these challenges, the inherent characteristics of the sport product provide the necessary conditions for rela tionship marketing to be a fertile paradigm. First, sport organizations are commonly anthropomorphized and believed to have personality qualities (e.g., confident, spirited, honest, reliable, tough, and greedy) and other human characteristics (Harris & Ogb onna, 2008). Consumers' tendency to humanize an inanimate object is an essential condition for the object - consumer relationship metaphor to be legitimate because the tendency suggests the willingness to embrace the object as a relationship partner (Fournier, 1998). In addition, similar to a service, typically the core sport product (a game) is produced, delivered, and consumed at the same time (Gladden & Sutton, 2009). Therefore, the interaction between spectators and constituents of sport organizat ions is considered as part of the product (Aijo, 1996), which means that development of a close relationship between spectators and the sport organization is an integral component of the marketing task. In sum, there is a growing need for the relationship paradigm in sport marketing to overcome the serious challenges confronting sport organizations. Overview of Relationship Marketing Since Berry (1983) first introduced the term "relationship marketing" in the services marketing area, relationship marketing has grown tremendously both in practice and academia. The growth is due to the general belief that relationship marketing efforts can build stronger customer relationships leading to improvement in seller performance outcomes such as sales, market share, a nd profits (Crosby, Evans, & Cowles, 1990; Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Definitions of relationship marketing have been as varied as the disciplines and contexts in which relationship marketing has been researched. Berry (1983) suggested that, "relationship marke ting is attracting, maintaining and - in multi - service organizations - enhancing customer relationships" (Berry, 1983, p. 25). Since then, many scholars have proposed various definitions to capture the nature of relationship marketing (Gronroos, 1994; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Rao & Perry, 2002; Shani & Chalasani, 1992; Sheth & Parvatiyar, 2000). Although these definitions vary in perspectives and approaches, they typically identify three fundamental aspects of relationship marketing: process, purpose, and p arties (Sheth & Parvatiyar, 2000). First, the definitions emphasize the process aspect of relationship marketing and the prevailing idea is that the process is characterized by establishment, enhancement, and maintenance of relationships. Next, there is ge neral agreement that the purpose of relationship marketing is to achieve mutual benefit for all parties involved in the relationship. Finally, by its very nature, relationship marketing has entities that participate in relational exchanges, but the nature of the relationship differs by the type of partners. There are generally ten types of partners (Morgan & Hunt, 1994): (1) goods suppliers; (2) service providers; (3) competitors; (4) nonprofit organizations; (5) government; (6) ultimate customers; (7) inte rmediate customers; (8) functional departments; (9) employees; and (10) business units. For the purpose of the current article, we focus on the ultimate customers, in our case, sport consumers, as relationship partners. Thus, based on the previous literatu re, we propose the following: relationship marketing to sport consumers is a set of marketing activities to establish, enhance, and maintain a relationship with sport consumers for the mutual benefit of both the sport organizations and the sport consumers. There has been a limited amount of research done in sport management on relationship marketing. However, what has been done in the area provides some valuable insight. For example, Cousens, Babiak, and Bradish (2006) examined the strategic manag ement of relationships between sport properties and existing or potential corporate sponsors. Tower, Jago, and Deery (2006) discussed how to develop and maintain successful relationships between sport venues and the sport associations that use the venues. In addition. Bee and Kahle (2006) investigated how the effects of relationship marketing on expected outcomes (e.g., attendance at sport events and the purchase of licensed products) are mediated by three different levels of social infiuence: compliance, i dentification, and intemalization. Although this research is valuable and novel to the sport management field, some limitations do exist and future research in this area could benefit from provision of a new framework with which to guide the investigations . Limitations of the Current Literature Considerable knowledge on relationship marketing has been accumulated outside of the sport management Understanding Relationships Between Sport Consumers and Sport Organizations 59 field and the amount of research on the phenomenon is continuously increasing. However, extant literature on relationship marketing has some limitations, which necessitate the current conceptual work. First, although the importance of building a good relationship between sport consumers and the sport organization is much emphasized in both academia and practice (Gladden & Sutton, 2009), there remains a lack of research on what are the key elements comprising a good or bad relationship between sport consumers and the sport organization. Second, extant research offers few insights as to what a sport organization's primary objectives of relationship marketing toward sport consumers should be. Third, there exists a gap in the knowledge of how the effectiveness of relationship m arketing should be evaluated. Lastly, the current literature does not provide sufficient explanation about how relationship marketing strategies influence sport consumption behaviors. What is especially lacking is an understanding of sport consumers' inter mediate responses to relationship marketing such as potential psychological effects that precede actual consumption behavior (Hoyer & Maclnnis, 2007). One useful conceptual framework that might ameliorate these limitations is the relationship quality appro ach. Relationship quality can be defined as an "overall assessment of the strength of a relationship, conceptualized as a composite or multidimensional construct capturing the different but related facets of a relationship"(Palmatier, Dant, Grewal, & Evans , 2006, p. 138). The concept of relationship quality was introduced by Crosby et al. ( 1990) based on Dwyer, Schurr, and Oh's ( 1987) seminal article on relationships. Considerable effort has been devoted to investigating various topics about relationship quality since then (De Wulf, Odekerken - Schröder, & Iacobucci, 2001; Fournier, 1998; Palmatier et al., 2006; Roberts, Varki, & Brodie, 2003; Smit, Bronner, & Tolboom, 2007). Achieving a better understanding of the relationship quality framework within a sport consumer behavior perspective is essential to addressing the limitations on relationship marketing research for the following reasons. First, relationship quality offers a platform to organize wide - ranging constructs considered to be essent ial aspects of a relationship (Fournier, 1998). Second, relationship quality can provide insight into ways of distinguishing successful and unsuccessful relationships (Smit et al., 2007). Third, knowledge of relationship quality helps identify what kinds o f problems exist in relationships and determine how those problems should be addressed (Roberts et al., 2003). Fourth, careful examination of relationship quality can provide a valuable means for evaluating the effectiveness of relationship marketing, as p revious research has shown relationship quality to be a key predicator of organizational performance such as customer loyalty (De Wulf et al., 2001 ; Hennig - Thurau, Gwinner, & Gremier, 2002), word of mouth (Hennig - Thurau et al., 2002; Reynolds & Beatty, 1 999), and expectation of continuity (Crosby et al., 1990; Doney & Cannon, 1997). However, there is little if any research examining relationship quality from a sport consumer behavior perspective and many critical issues remain unsolved. Taken together with the relevance and the potential importance of the relationship quality framework to fill the gaps in the relationship marketing literature, the lack of knowledge about relationship quality in a sport consumer behavior context necessitates mor e extensive examination. Therefore, the purpose of this treatise is to develop a conceptual framework of sport consumer - organization relationship quality to overcome the limitations of current relationship marketing literature. Specifically, the conceptual model is aimed at providing a theoretical explanation of; (a) relational constructs that may best represent the quality of the relationship between sport organizations and consumers, (2) expected behavioral outcomes of sport consumerorganization relations hip quality, and (3) circumstances in which different effects of relationship quality on sport consumption behaviors are likely to occur. Conceptual Framework Our conceptual model is built upon integration of literature, common sense, and past experience, following Eisenhardt's (1989) approach to building conceptual models and theory. Our conceptual framework consists of three main components. First, we specify that relationship quality consists of five distinct but related relational constructs (trust, commitrnent, intimacy, self - connection, and reciprocity), which collectively represent the overarching concept of relationship quality. Second, we suggest that relationship quality influences word of mouth, media consumption, licensed - product consumption, and attendance behaviors. Finally, we argue that relationship personality and demographics are two potential factors moderating the influence of relationship quality on behavioral outcomes (Figure 1 ). Relationship Quality Con structs Construct Selection. We used the literature review approach for including or excluding relationship quality constructs in our conceptual model (Bass & Wind, 1995). A close review of the literature pertaining to components of relationship quality re veals that many different researchers from various disciplines have proposed numerous relational constructs such as trust, commitment, self - connection, intimacy, reciprocity, relationship satisfaction, partner quality, interdependence, nostalgic connection , and love. Both theory and empirical evidence drove our selection of the key relationship quality dimensions; trust, commitment, self - connection, intimacy, and reciprocity. Although we did not include relationship satisfaction, partner quality, interdepen dence, nostalgic connection, and love in our conceptual tnodel due to a lack of theoretical or empirical justification, we briefly discuss each and our rationale for their lack of incorporation in our conceptual model. Then, we review each of the selected five constructs and the reasoning for inclusion of those constructs. 60 Kim and Traii /^ Psychological V Characteristics Relationship Quality Trust Commitment Intimacy Self - Connection Reciprocity Consumption Behaviors Word of Mouth Media Licensed Merchandise Attendance Demographic ^ Characteristics J Figure 1 — Proposed conceptual framework for relationship quality. Con^ructs Not Inciuded in the Conceptual Modei. Relationship satisfaction was reported as a relationship - quality construct (De Wulf et al., 2001). Relationship satisfaction can be defined as individuals' cognitive and affective state resulting from an overall evaluation of the relationship (De Wulf et al, 2001 ; Storbacka, Strandvik, & Gronroos, 1994). This definition underlines t wo notable characteristics of relationship satisfaction that lead to the exclusion of the construct from our conceptual model. First, satisfaction is a refiection of a global evaluative judgment of the relationship rather than an assessment of a specific relationship aspect. Second, satisfaction is, by definition, a resultant state of relationship quality conceptualized as the overall evaluation of multiple facets of a relationship (Palmatier et al., 2006). This notion is consistent with previous research findings that satisfaction was preceded by perceived quality (Collier & Bienstock, 2006; Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Olsen, 2002; Reimann, Lünemann, & Chase, 2008). Moreover, it has been found that sport consumers' perceptions of relational - service - qua lity was antecedent to, and a main driver of, satisfaction with sport organizations (Murray &Howat, 2002). Partner quality, interdependence, nostalgic connection, and love were also noted as relationship quality constmcts in a brand relationship context (F oumier, 1996). Partner quality was not included in our model because the central concem of the concept is not the quality of the relationship with the partner but the overall quality of the partner. Interdependence is viewed more appropriately as an outcom e of relationship quality than as a component of relationship quality itself (Palmatier, Dant, & Grewal, 2007). Nostalgic connection emerged as a relationship quality facet from an exploratory factor analysis by Foumier (1996). However, there was no theore tical justification to support the derivation of the construct. Lastly, love was not incorporated in our model because love is typically not considered as an individual indicator refiecting a particular aspect of a relationship. Rather, love is conceptualized as an overarching construct that embraces various affective aspects in some particularly strong relationships (Shaver, Morgan, & Wu, 1996). In addition to the construct - specific limitations, the lack of support for all four of these construc ts identified by Foumier as key elements of relationship quality was readily apparent when all of those constructs were excluded by Fournier and his colleagues in a subsequent study of relationship quality (Aaker, Foumier, & Brasel, 2004). Furthermore, nei ther empirical nor theoretical rationale for incorporating these factors as sport consumer - organization relationship quality factors was found in the sport management literature. Proposed Model Constructs Tmst. Trust has been most commonly considered as a critical component of a successful relationship (Dwyer, et al., 1987; Garbarino & Johnson, 1999; Morgan & Understanding Relationships Between Sport Consumers and Sport Organizations 61 Hunt, 1994; Palmatier et al., 2006). Anderson and Weitz (1989) defined trust as "one party's belief that its needs will be fulfilled by actions undertaken by the other party" (p. 312). Trust was also defined as "a willingness to rely on an exchange partner in whom one has confidence" (Moorman, Deshpandé, & Zaltman, 1993, p. 8 2). Both definitions emphasized that confidence is an essential part of trust. Morgan and Hunt (1994) suggested that trust is based on a judgment that the relationship partner is reliable and has high integrity and trust reduces opportunistic behavior and conflict in relational exchanges. In addition, trust influences various seller - performance objectives such as market share, sale, and profit (Doney & Cannon, 1997; Palmatier et al., 2006; Reynolds & Beatty, 1999). Some researchers tended to hi ghlight types of trust that are found in person - to - person relationships such as employee - employer (Robinson, 1996; Zhang, Tsui, Song, Li, & Jia, 2008) and salesperson - customer (Palmatier, Scheer, Houston, Evans, & Gopalakrishna, 2007; Powers & Reagan, 2007 ). However, a consumer's trust may be given to an organization, as well as a person. The consumer's trust in the organization is conceptualized as the consumer's confidence in the quality and reliability of service or in the product offered by an organizat ion, similar to the way that the consumer's trust in an individual partner refers to the confidence in quality and reliability of an action taken by the partner (Garbarino & Johnson, 1999). This point is extended to the relationship between sport consumers and sport organizations. Sport consumers place their trust in the sport organization similarly to the way in which they put trust in a person (Ross, 2007). Moreover, a sport consumer who trusts a sport organization is more likely to develop future purchas e intentions and may be willing to pay higher prices (Chen, 2006; Phyllo, Funk, & Alexandris, 2008; Funk & James, 2006). Commitment. Like trust, commitment has been widely accepted as a vital component of successful relationships (Dwyer, et al., 1987; Garbarino & Johnson, 1999; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Palmatier et al., 2006). Commitment has generally been defined as "an exchange partner believing that an ongoing relationship with another is so important as to warrant maximum efforts a t maintaining it; that is, the committed party believes that relationship is worth working on to ensure that it endures indefinitely" (Morgan & Hunt, 1994, p. 23). Commitment is one of the major characteristics that differentiate relational partnerships fr om functional relationships (Levy & Weitz, 2004). Commitment positively influences acquiescence and cooperative behavior, while commitment negatively influences propensity to leave (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). In addition, strong commitment results in improvemen t of sales, market share, and profits (Doney & Cannon, 1997; Palmatier et al., 2006; Reynolds & Beatty, 1999). In addition, commitment to sport organizations plays a pivotal role in characterizing the nature of the relationship between sport consumers and sport organizations (Funk & Pritchard, 2006; Mahony, Madrigal, & Howard, 2000; Wann & Pierce, 2003). Self - Connection. Self - connection has been frequently recognized as an essential indicator of relationship quality (Fournier, 1996; Smit et al., 2007; Swami nathan, Page, & Gürhan - Canli, 2007). Fournier ( 1998) stated that selfconnection is a "relationship quality facet [that] reflects the degree to which the brand delivers on important identity concerns, tasks, or themes, thereby expressing a significant aspect of self ' (p. 364). Strong self - connections guide customers to maintain the relationship through developing the protective feelings of uniqueness and dependency (Drigotas & Rusbult, 1992). In addition, high levels of self - connection enco urage customers to stay in the relationship when they face adverse circumstances (Lydon & Zanna, 1990). Self - connection to brand or organization parallels team identification. The theoretical origin of both concepts can be traced back to identity theory (S tryker, 1968). Stryker noted that individuals assume multiple roles (identities) that represent who they are and these identities guide individuals' behaviors. Although team identification has not been investigated within a relationship quality framework, it has been considered to be a key relational construct to explain various sport consumer behaviors (McDonald & Milne, 1997; Trail, Anderson, & Fink, 2005). Team identification has been found to influence expectancies for event experience and outcome (Trai l, Fink, & Anderson, 2003), price sensitivity (Sutton, McDonald, Milne, & Cimperman, 1997), intention to attend games (Matsuoka, Chelladurai, & Harada, 2003), and actual attendance (Laverie & Arnett, 2000). Moreover, a higher level of identification with a local team positively influences the psychological health of fans (Wann, 2006). Intimacy. Several researchers have identified intimacy as a fundamental component of relationship quality (Aaker, Fournier, & Brasel, 2004; Fletcher, Simpson, & Thomas, 2000; MacMillan, Money, Money, & Downing, 2005; Meng & Elliott, 2008; Smit et al., 2007). The extant literature has typically focused on intimacy within romantic relationships. The term intimacy often refers to sexual feelings and physical contact, which w ere only experienced in the context of romantic relationships (Gaia, 2002). However, some social psychologists have also recognized and investigated nonsexual dimensions of intimacy, which can be widely found in most relationships and may play a critical r ole therein (Hook, Gerstein, Detterich, & Gridley, 2003; Levine, 1991 ; Me Adams, 2000). In the current study, we focus on nonsexual dimensions of intimacy and conceptualize it as the degree of familiarity, closeness, and openness to relationship partners similar to Fournier (1998), who defined intimacy in the customer - brand relationship context. Our definition is also consistent with Sternberg's (1986) definition, which emphasized that closeness and openness were essential features that constituted intimac y in various relationship contexts. Although intimacy is probably interrelated with self - connection, intimacy is distinct in that it is a concept focusing on the distance between an individual and an 62 Kim and Trail organization, while the focal point of self - connection is the extent of the overlap between an individual's self and an organization. Successful brand relationships are built on a high level of intimacy between relationship partners (Foumier, 1998). In addition, intimacy fosters continuity of relationships by infiuencing perceptions of relationship partners (Murray, Holmes, & Griffin, 1996), improving the effect of persuasive communication efforts, and facilitating conflict resolution (Stem, 1997). The concept of intimacy also has been studied in the sport consumption behavior domain (Harris & Ogbonna, 2008; McDonald & Milne, 1997). Indeed, intimacy perceived by sport consumers is comparable to what has been documented in research about relationships in brand - to - consumer and busine ss - to - consumer contexts. It has been noted that level of the familiarity, closeness, and openness are essential characteristics to describe the nature of a relational bond between sport consumers and sport organizations (Harris & Ogbonna, 2008). Reciprocit y. A strong and successful relationship is also characterized by a high degree of perceived reciprocity between relationship partners (De Wulf et al., 2001; Miller & Kean, 1997). According to Gouldner (1960), reciprocity is the generalized moral norm guidi ng social interaction among individuals and "evokes obligations toward others on the basis of their past behavior" (p. 170). The principle of reciprocity states that when one benefits from another, the recipient should return the favor in proportion to wha t the other has done for him or her. Until the recipient reciprocates the benefit received from the donor, he or she is obliged or indebted to the giver (Gouldner, 1960). The rule of reciprocity is one of the most widespread and vital norms of human culture and society; and the development of various relationships, transactions, and exchanges that are foundations of human society heavily depend on this sense of obligation or indebtedness (Cialdini, 1998). All members of society learn from childhood th at they should abide by the rule or they may be punished with serious social disapproval. Consequently, the reciprocity rule often affects the decision to agree to another's request (Cialdini, 1998). Giving something to others is a very useful tactic for p ersuasion because of the three characteristics of the principle of reciprocation. First, the principle of reciprocity is exceptionally strong and it frequently dominates the impact of other factors that generally influence the decision to comply with a req uest. Second, the principle is in effect even in a situation that the initial favor was not invited by recipient, which limits an individual's choice in deciding whom he or she wants to owe and allows others to have the choice. Third, the principle can sti mulate unequal exchanges because an individual often willingly returns a considerably larger favor than the one he or she first was given to be free from uncomfortable feelings of obligation or indebtedness (Cialdini, 1998). In general, reciprocity has bee n considered to be a key factor in predicting the duration and stability of an exchange relationship (Larson, 1992). Reciprocity has frequently been considered as a key variable of interest in distribution channel relationships (De Wulf et al., 2001, Harmon & Griffiths, 2008; Kumar, Scheer, & Steenkamp, 1998; Lee, Jeong, Lee, & Sung, 2008; Li & Dant, 1997). For example, perceived reciprocity in channel members increases perceived task performance by selling partners, reduces the barrier of risk, and th erefore motivates parties to continue the relationship (Smith «feBarclay, 1997). In the consumer behavior realm, Bagozzi (1995, p. 275) highlighted reciprocity as "the core of marketing relationship" and stated that the principle of reciprocity could apply to customer - firm relationships as well. He also emphasized that relationship marketing research should further examine the psychological manifestation of reciprocity and the way it serves its role in relational exchanges between consumer and firm. When co nsumers perceived that they have a reciprocal relationship with a brand or store, they respond to an unsatisfactory quality of product or service by collaborating and compromising (Kaltcheva & Weitz, 1999). Miller and Kean (1997) found that, in a rural com munity, reciprocity is the strongest motivator for maintaining a relationship with local retailers (Miller & Kean, 1997). In a leisure context, when tourists perceive reciprocity in tourist - provider relationships, the tourists are more likely to resist cha nging providers when faced with counter - persuasion (Moráis, Dorsch, & Backman, 2004). Reciprocity is important in the sport consumer behavior context as well. Based on social exchange theory, the relationship between sport consumers and sport organizations continues only if both parties perceived that the reciprocity in the relationship is balanced (Howard & Crompton, 2004). If either the sport organization or the sport consumer perceives that there is asymmetry in the exchange of benefits and costs, the sense of inequity will weaken the loyalty, reduce the likelihood of future exchange, and lead to termination of the relationship. In a similar vein, it is also contended that sport consumers want to have a relationship with sport organizations i n which sport consumers are appreciated and valued in return for their financial and psychological investment in the sport organizations (Couvelaere & Richelieu, 2005; Harris & Ogbonna, 2008; Mullin et al., 2007). Outcomes of Relationship Quality Although relationship quality constructs are valuable in their own right, a crucial issue in the research of relationship quality is to understand predictive value of the relationship quality constructs. Sport consumerorganization relationship quality is purported to affect four primary behaviors of" sport consumers: word of mouth, merchandise consumption, media consumption, and attendance. We focus on these four behavioral aspects of sport consumption because these aspects are of primary interest to sport organizat ions (Schwarz & Hunter, 2008). Furthermore, the meaningful links between relationship quality and the four aspects are easily justified based on previous research. Understanding Relationships Between Sport Consumers and Sport Organizations 63 Word of Mouth. Word of mouth (WOM) refers to a behavior in which a consumer informally communicates experience, evaluation, and recommendation of goods or services with other po tential consumers (Anderson, 1998). Word of mouth communication is a highly influential factor in consumers' purchasing decisions and often more powerful than other promotional methods that can be used by marketers mainly because personal communication is perceived as a more trustworthy and dependable source than nonpersonal information (Hennig - Thurau et al., 2002). While consumers' product awareness is typically increased by mass media, in many occasions WOM is more effective in influencing the actual purc hase decision (Bayus, 1985). The relevance of relationship quality in generating WOM is generally accepted (Palmatier et al., 2006). In a service context, strong relationship quality between the consumer and the service provider triggered positive WOM beha vior (Hennig - Thurau et al., 2002). In the area of sport marketing, a sport consumer's higher identification and commitment, which are major components of our self - connection construct in relationship quality, encouraged certain supportive behaviors includi ng positive WOM (Madrigal & Chen, 2008). Media Consumption. One of the noteworthy characteristics of sport consumption is that sport consumers can consume the product through the media such as television, radio, and internet. Development of media has changed the way sport is consumed and the spectatorsport industry. The sport media segment is the financial base of the spectator sport industry. According to Hau (2008), television rights for the NFL and the MLB are over $3.7 billion and $750 million annu ally. Therefore, increasing media related consumption of a sport organization is essential for the success of many for - profit, and some nonprofit, organizations. Established and marketable sport organizations that can attract a large media audience can enj oy substantial revenue from broadcast rights. In addition, media consumption level is closely related to sport organizations' sponsorship solicitation and licensed product sales. Consequently, not only professional organizations but also collegiate athleti c programs have become more interested in the level of media consumption (Goff & Ashwell, 2009). Although no research has directly investigated the association between relationship quality and level of media consumption including sport media consumption, p revious research on relationship quality generally suggested that relationship quality is a crucial predictor of behavioral dependence (Fournier, 1998). That is, customers who perceive a high - quality relationship with a brand or company do not only buy mor e products from the brand or the company but also expand scope, diversity, and frequency of brand - related or company - related activities. These findings can be applied to sport media consumption behaviors quite easily. »(tendance. Increasing attendance is a primary objective of sport managers and marketers. Ticket sales account for approximately 20 - 50% of the total revenues for professional sport organizations in Major League Baseball, the National Football League, the National Basketball Asso ciation, and the National Hockey League (Badenhausen, Ozanian, & Settimi, 2007). Even higher proportions of total revenue are generated from ticket sales for the sport organizations at the collegiate level and minor league level across various types of spo rt (Fulks, 2008). In addition, the revenue from the sale of on - site game day concessions, merchandising, and parking is also contingent on attendance. Accordingly, attendance, or intention to attend, has been the most frequently employed outcome variable i n sport management research (DeSchriver, 2007; Funk & James, 2001 ; Madrigal, 1995; Mahony & Moorman, 1999; Rascher, McEvoy, Nagel, & Brown, 2007; Trail et al., 2005). Relationship quality positively influences consumers' intentions to purchase and their r epeat - purchase behaviors (Hennig - Thurau & Klee, 1997). Moreover, relational constructs such as trust (Couvelaere, & Richelieu, 2005), identification (Laverie & Arnett, 2000; Trail et al., 2003), commitment (Mahony et al., 2000; Wann & Pierce, 2003), recipr ocity (Hunt, Bristol, & Bashaw, 1999), and intimacy (Fisher & Wakefield, 1998) have been found to be key drivers of game attendance. Licensed Products Purchase. Sport - related licensed products are any and all products bearing the name or logo of a sport team, which manufacturers use, sell, and offer for sale through a licensing contract with the league or team. The total worldwide retail sales of sport - related licensed products were estimated to be worth $19.9 billion in 2007 (Lisanti, 2008). The sa le of licensed products has been a major area of interest for sport managers and marketers due to the following reasons. First, licensing is a major revenue source for teams and leagues. In the 2008 fiscal year, licensing royalties for the University of No rth Carolina totaled $3.7 million (Schwartz, 2009). Second, licensing enables teams and leagues to enhance awareness and interest as well. No research has empirically examined the relationship between relationship quality and level of licensed product cons umption. However, Fournier (1996) argued that brand relationship quality is a better predictor of purchase intention than brand attitude and satisfaction because brand relationship quality explained 61% of variance in purchase intention, whereas brand atti tude and satisfaction explained 37% and 52% of the variance in purchase intention respectively. Furthermore, a higher level of relationship quality leads to a positive attitude toward brand extension (Park, Kim, & Kim, 2002). This implies that consumers wh o perceive good relationship quality are more likely to buy products which use the same brand name. In addition, sport consumers use items with team logo to show their relationship with the teams or to support their teams (Cialdini et al, 1976). In sum, word of mouth, media consumption, attendance, and licensed products consumption are highly 64 Kim and Trail likely to be the main outcomes of relationship quality. However, there may be differential relationships among the constructs. Moderators of Re lationship Quality's Influence on Sport Consumption Behaviors Although academicians and practitioners have generally suggested that relationship quality positively influences consumers' purchase intentions and purchases (Crosby et al., 1990; De Canniére, D e Pelsmacker, & Geuens, 2009; Hennig - Thurau & Klee, 1997), researchers have also recognized that the strength of the associations varies with several moderating factors (Anderson & Narus, 1991; Bart, Shankar, Sultan, & Urban, 2005; Palmatier et al., 2006). For example, personality traits such as relationship style and interpersonal orientation moderate the strength of the brand - consumer relationship and the influence of relationship quality on consumption behaviors (Fournier, 1996). However, there is a lack of research that has explored the potential moderators of the relationship quality - behavioral outcome relationship in sport consumer behavior contexts. Psychographic Moderators. To reflect differences among consumers' psychological characteristics, which might govern the association between relationship quality and sport consumption behaviors; we identified three broad psychographic factors as potential moderators; relationship styles, relationship drive, and general interpersonal or ientation. These relational personality constructs were chosen based on the following theoretical and empirical considerations. The selected relational personality constructs appear to be more conceptually proximal to relationship quality than other psycho logical factors such as mood, neuroticism, trait anxiety. enthusiasm, intelligence, and self - determination among others (Cohen, 1967). This conceptual proximity implies the relevance of those factors to an individual's relationship related judgments and be haviors (Rusbult &Van Lange, 2003). Moreover, empirical support indicated that the relationship between attachment to a brand and behavioral outcomes is moderated by the relational personality traits that affect the individual's interpersonal relationships (Fournier, 1996). Based on Mathews's (1986) research, Fournier (1996) identified three primary relationship styles; independent, discerning, and acquisitive. Individuals who possess the independent relationship style easily start a relationship but mainta in a distance and simply discontinue the relationship as the environment around their lives change. Individuals who possess the discerning relationship style selectively and slowly develop new relationships and maintain only a few strong relationships, but these relationships are not easily influenced by the individual's life circumstances. Finally, the individual with an acquisitive relationship style is readily able to initiate new relationships, but also values the development of strong relationships and the retention of relationships. Consequently, these individuals tend to increase the number of relationships throughout their lifespan. Reviewing Mathews's (1986) descriptions of three relationship styles reveals that the classification is based on two main characteristics; relationship development style and relationship maintenance style. Figure 2 portrays Mathews's relationship categories in a two dimensional format. The horizontal dimension represents relationship development style. Pe ople who score high on this dimension typically are not afraid of interaction with new people, easily start a new relationship, quickly develop a relationship. The vertical dimension is based on relationship maintenance style. People who are rated high on this dimension do not easily end any relationship Rel Discerning Acquisitive Kcliitionship Stvlf Reclusive Independent Relation.ship Development Figure 2 — Relationship style. Understanding Relationships Between Sport Consumers and Sport Organizations 65 and tend to maintain long and strong relationships with others. Upper - right quadrant, upper - left quadrant, lowerright quadrant, and lower - left quadrant in the matrix represent acquisitive, discerning, independent, and reclusive relationshi p styles respectively. Relational personality traits such as relationship style, relationship drive, and interpersonal orientation influence the perceived importance of brand - consumer relationships for the consumers. Specifically, individuals, who possess an acquisitive relationship style, a stronger relationship drive, and a more relationship - oriented disposition in the interpersonal domain, typically see the greater value of a relationship with the brand. These individuals want to develop and maintain a s tronger relationship than individuals who possess a reclusive relationship style, a weaker relationship drive, or a more task - oriented disposition (Fournier, 1996). This can be explained by the potential halo effect that relational personality may have upo n the brand - consumer relationship. That is, an individual's relationship personality, which guides interpersonal relationships, may have a positive effect on the brand - consumer relationship domain as well (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). This halo effect of relat ional personality also implies that the link between relationship quality and brand consumption behavior is stronger for the individual who possesses an acquisitive relationship style, a stronger relationship drive, and/or a more relationship - oriented disposition (Fournier, 1996). Considering the halo effect of relational personality on the consumer - brand relationship, we expect that individuals with personality traits influencing interpersonal relationships carry those same person ality traits into the spectator - organization relationship domain as well. Specifically, it is likely that individuals who possess an acquisitive relationship style, a stronger relationship drive, and a more relationship - oriented disposition in the interper sonal domain are more likely to develop and maintain a stronger relationship with a sport organization as well. In addition, for those individuals, the relationship quality with the sport organization may have a greater impact on sport consumption behavior s. Demographic Moderators. Demographic variables include characteristics such as gender, race, age, household income, ethnicity, level of education, and marital status. It is important to understand demographic characteristics of consumers in both practice and academic research because consumer behaviors may vary among subgroups of consumers with different demographic characteristics. One advantage of using demographic characteristics as explanatory variables or segmenting criteria is that they can be more easily identified and more accurately measured compared with psychographic variables (Hoyer & Maclnnis, 2007). However, solely depending on demographic variables to explain or predict consumer behavior is often criticized because demographic characteristics are only superficial causes or reasons for the behaviors of interest. People with the same demographic characteristics are more likely to share similar life experiences and psychographic characteristics. In fact, these life experiences and the psychographic factors may be the actual antecedents of the consumer behaviors behind the demographic factors (Shimp, 2008). There has been limited research on the moderating role of demographic variables on relationship quality and consumption behavior s; however, many researchers have broadly suggested that consumer behaviors vary with age, gender, ethnicity, region in which consumers reside, social class, and household types, or any combination of these variables (Hoyer & Maclnnis, 2007). In addition, researchers in sport management have often found that demographic factors such as gender (James & Ridinger, 2002), race (Bilyeu & Wann, 2002), income (Armstrong, 2002), age (Bernthal & Graham, 2003), and region (Mahony, Nakazawa, Funk, James, & Gladden, 20 02) altered the nature of association between the variables of interest and sport consumption behaviors. Hence, we argue that subgroups of consumers with different demographic characteristics may vary in the strength of the link between relationship qualit y and sport consumption behaviors. Summary Building, enhancing, and maintaining a good relationship with fans is perhaps the most fundamental principle of sport marketing. In addition, the idea that sport organizations can achieve an insurmountable competitive advantage by implementing effective relationship marketing strategies and growing strong bonds with sport consumers, opposed to focusing on short - term ticket sales and immediate profits, seems compelling (Gladden & Sutton, 2009). To better develop and execute the relationship marketing strategies, it is essential to understand the quality of the relationship between sport consumers and sport organizations. Despite the theoretical and practical importance of relationship quality, l ittle research on the sport consumer - organization relationship quality has been done. In an attempt to start filling this void within the spectator sport context, we are proposing a theoretically - based framework of sport consumer - organization relationship quality and the role of relationship quality in motivating sport consumption behaviors. We developed a conceptual framework to provide a foundation for understanding ( 1 ) the central constructs of sport consumer - organization relationship quality; (2) the pivotal behavioral aspects of sport consumption that are affected by the sport consumer - organization relationship quality; and (3) some potential moderators of the link between relationship quality and sport consumer behaviors of interest. The conceptual model for sport consumer relationship quality (Figure 1) is proposed to include five components of relationship quality: trust, commitment, intimacy, self - connection, and reciprocity. In addition, the conceptual model postulates that word of mouth, media consumption, merchandise consumption, and attendance are influenced by relationship quality. This fundamental premise is well supported from the theoretical and 66 Kim and Trail empirical side (Couvelaere, & Richelieu, 2005; Hunt et al., 1999; Trail et al, 2003). Furthermore, the effect of relationship quality on sport consumption behaviors may depend on certain conditions. First, relationship styles, relationship drive, and general interpersonal orientation are suggested as pertinent moderators among various psychographic factors. Next, demographic factors such as age, gender, ethnicity, region, and income are included as potential moderators. The importance of understanding demographic contexts in which the research phenomenon is embedded is mirrored in social science research (Babbie, 2007). Future Research An attractive area for further research, in addition to testing the proposed model, may be to integrate the relationship quality construct with other key drivers known or found to affect sport con sumption behaviors. Although we emphasized relationship quality as a primary driver of sport consumption behaviors in our conceptual framework, sport consumption behaviors are also determined by various nonrelationship drivers. It is possible that relation ship quality might interact with other key predictors of sport consumption behaviors in the decision - making process. For example, team performance has been found to influence attendance (Baade &Tiehen, 1990). It could be argued that attendance decisions of sport consumers who perceive higher relationship quality toward the sport organization might be less likely to be affected by team performance, which indicates that a moderating role of relationship quality may exist. Hence, it would be worthw hile to examine the role of relationship quality in the association with sport consumption behaviors and known key drivers to better understand the sport consumption decision process. Another interesting topic for further research is the applicability of t he conceptual model to more general contexts. Considering that the conceptual model was developed mainly for sport consumer - organization relationship quality and its impacts on sport consumption behaviors, applicability of the model to the contexts beyond spectator sport is unknown. Therefore, it is important to explore the boundary conditions of the conceptual model. Particularly, future research can compare the effectiveness of the conceptual model in the spectator sport context to other sport contexts, a nd other more general contexts to determine the boundary conditions of the model. References Aaker, J., Fournier, S., & Brasel, S.A. (2004). When good brands do bad. The Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 1 - 16. Aijo, T.S. (1996). The theoretical and philosophical underpinnings of relationship marketing: Environmental factors behind the changing marketing paradigm. European Joumal of Marketing, 2, 8 - 18. Anderson, E.W. (1998). Customer satisfaction and word of mouth. Journal of Service Research, 1, 5 - 17 . Anderson, J.C, & Narus, J.A. (1991). Partnering as a focused market strategy. California Management Review, 33(3), 95 - 113. Anderson, E., & Weitz, B. (1989). Detenninants of continuity in conventional industrial dyads. Marketing Science, 8, 310 - 323. Armst rong, K.L. (2002). Race and sport consumption motivation: A preliminary investigation of a black consumers' sport motivation scale. Joumal of Sport Behavior, 25, 309 - 330. Babbie, E. (2007). The practice of social research (11th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson. Baade, R.A., & Tiehen, L.A. (1990). An analysis of major league baseball attendance. Joumal of Sport and Social Issues, 14, 14 - 32. Badenhausen, K., Ozanian, M.K., & Settimi, C. (2007, April). The business of baseball. Retrieved January 30,2009, from http:/ /www.forbes.com/2007/04/19/business - baseballvaluations - 07mlbcz_kb_0419baseballjand.html Bagozzi, R.P. (1995). Reflections on relationship marketing in consumer markets. Joumal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27, 272 - 277. Bart, Y, Shankar, V, Sultan, R, & Urban, S. (2005). Are the drivers and role of online trust the same for all websites and consumers? A large - scale exploratory empirical study. Joumal of Marketing, 69(4), 133 - 152. Bass, RM., & Wind, J. (1995). Introduction to the special issue : Empirical generalizations in marketing. Marketing Science, 14, 1 - 5. Bayus, B.L. (1985). Word of mouth: The indirect effects of marketing efforts. Joumal of Advertising Research, 25, 31 - 39. Bee, C C , & Kahle, L.R. (2006). Relationship marketing in sports : A functional approach. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 15, 102 - 110. Bernthal, M.J., & Graham, P.J. (2003). The effect of sport setting on fan attendance motivation: The case of minor league vs. collegiate baseball. Joumal of Sport Behavior, 26, 223 - 239. Berry , L.L. (1983). Relationship marketing. In L. L. Berry, L. K. Shostack, & Upah. (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on service marketing (pp. 25 - 58). Chicago: American Marketing Association. Bilyeu, J.K., & Wann, D.L. (2002). An investigation of racial difference in sport fan motivations. International Sports Journal, 6(2), 93 - 106. Chen, P. (2006). Sport tourists' loyalty: A conceptual model. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 11, 201 - 237. Cialdini, R.B. (1998). Infiuence: The psychology of persuasion (2nded.). New York: Quill. Cialdini, R.B., Borden, R.J., Thome, A., Walker, 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. Cohen, J.B. (1967). An interpersonal orientation to the study of consumer behavior. JMR, Joumal of Marketing Research, 4, 270 - 278. Collier, J.E., & Bienstock, CC. (2006). Measuring service quality in e - retailing. Joumal of Service Research, 8, 260 - 275. Cousens, L., Babiak , K., & Bradish, C.H. (2006). Beyond sponsorship: Re - framing corporate - sport relationships. Sport Management Review, 9, 1 - 23. Couvelaere, V., & Richelieu, A. (2005). Brand strategy in professional sports: The case of French Soccer Teams. European Sport Man agement Quarterly, 5, 23 - 46. Understanding Relationships Between Sport Consumers and Sport Organizations 67 Cronin, J.J.,& Taylor, S.A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55 - 68. Crosby, L., Evans, K.R., & Cowles, D. (1990). Relationship quality in service selling: An interpersonal influence perspective. Journal of Marketing, 54(3), 68 - 81. De Canniére, M.H., De Pelsmacker, P.D., & Geuens, M. (2009). Relationship quality and the theory of planned beh avior models of behavioral intentions and purchase behavior. Journal of Business Research, 62, 82 - 92. DeSchriver, T.D. (2007). Much adieu about Freddy: Freddy Adu and attendance in major league soccer. Journal of Sport Management, 21, 438 - 451. De Wulf, K., Odekerken - Schröder, & Iacobucci, D. (2001). Investments in consumer relationships: A cross - country and cross - industry exploration. Journal of Marketing, 6/(4), 35 - 51. Doney, PM., & Cannon, J.P (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in b uyer - seller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 6l(2),35 - 5l. Drigotas, S.M., & Rusbult, C.E. ( 1992). Should I stay or should I go? A dependence model of breakups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 62 - 87. Dupree, D. (2008). USA Today salar y data base. Retrieved January 30,2009, from http://content.usatoday.com/sports/ basketball/nba/salaries/default.aspx Dwyer, FR., Schurr, PH., & Oh, S. (1987). Developing buyerseller relationships. Journal of Marketing, 51(2), 11 - 27. Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989 ). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532 - 550. Filo, K., Funk, D.C, & Alexandris, K. (2008). Exploring the role of brand trust in the relationship between brand associations and brand loyalty in sport and fitness. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 3, 39 - 57. Fisher, R.J., & Wakefield, K. (1998). Factors leading group identifications: A field study of winners and losers. Psychology and Marketing, 15, 23 - 40. Fletcher, G.J.O., Simpson, J.A., & Th omas, G. (2000). The measurement of perceived relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 340 - 354. Fornell, C, & Wernerfelt, B. (1987). Defensive marketing strategy by customer complaint management: A theoretical analysis. JMR, Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 337 - 346. Fournier, S.M. (1996). A consumer - brand relationship framework for strategic brand management. (Doctoral dissertation. University of Florida, 1994). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56, 4473. Foumier, S.M. (1998). Consumers and their brands: Developing relationship theory in consumer research. The Journal of Consumer Research, 24, 343 - 373. Fulks, D.L. (2008). 2004 - 200 6 revenues and expensed of Division I intercollegiate athletics programs report. Indianapolis, IN: National Collegiate Athletic Association. Funk, D.C, & James, J. (2001). The psychological continuum model: A conceptual framework for understanding an indiv idual's psychological connection to sport. Sport Management Review, 4, 119 - 150. Funk, D.C, & James, J.D. (2006). Consumer loyalty: The meaning of attachment in the development of sport team aWegiance. Joumal of Sport Management, 20, 189 - 217. Funk, D.C, & P ritchard, M.P (2006). Sport publicity: Commitment's moderation of message effects. Journal of Business Research, 59, 6 \ 3 - 62 \ . Gaia, A.C (2002). Understanding emotional intimacy: A review of conceptualization, assessment and the role of gender. Intemational Social Science Review, 77, 151 - 170. Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 70 - 87. Gladden, J.M., & Sutton, W.A. (2009). Marketing principles applied to sport management. In H.P. Masteralexis, CA. Barr, & M.A. Hums (Eds.), Principles and practices of sport management (pp. 42 - 59). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Goff, B., & Ashwell, T. (2009). Sport broadcasting. In H.P Mas teralexis, CA. Barr, & M.A. Hums (Eds.), Principles and practices of sport management (pp. 386 - 411). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Gouldner, A. W. (I960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161 - 178. Gronroos, C. (1994). Quo vadis marketing? Toward a relationship marketing paradigm. Journal of Marketing Management., 10, 347 - 360. Hau, L. (2008, January). TV's most influential sportscasters. Forbes. Retrieved July 29, 2009, from http://www.forbes. com/2008/01/28/television - sports - madden - biz - sportscxJh_ OI28broadcasters.html Harmon,T.R.,&Griffiths, M. A. (2008). Franchisee perceived relationship value. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 23, 256 - 263. Harris, L.C, & Ogbonna, E. (2008). The dyna mics underlying service firm - customer relationships: Insights from a study of English Premier League soccer fans. Journal of Service Research, 10, 382 - 399. Hennig - Thurau, T., Gwinner, K.P, & Gremler, D.D. (2002). Understanding relationship marketing outcomes: An integration of relational benefits and relationship quality. Journal of Service Research, 4, 230 - 247. Hennig - Thurau, T., & Klee, A. (1997). The impact of customer satisfaction and relationship quality on customer retention: A critical reassessment and model development. Psychology and Marketing, 14, 737 - 765. Hook, M.K., Gerstein, L.H., Detterich, L., & Gridley, B. (2003). How close are we? Measuring intimacy and examining gender differences. Journal of Counseling and Developm ent, 81, 462 - 472. Howard, D.R., & Crompton, J.L. (2004). Tactics used by sports organizations in the United States to increase ticket sales. Managing Leisure, 9, 87 - 95. Howard, D.R., & Crompton, J.L. (2005). Financing sport (2nd ed.). Morgantown, WV: Fitne ss Information Technology. Hoyer, W.D., & Maclnnis, D. J. (2007). Consumer behavior (4th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Hunt, S.D., Bristol, T., & Bashaw, R.E. (1999). A conceptual approach to classifying sport fans. Journal of Services Marketing, 13, 439 - 452. Hunt, S.D., & Morgan, R.M. (1994). Relationship marketing in the era of network competition. Marketing Management, 5(1), 18 - 28. James, J.D., & Ridinger, L.L. (2002). Female and male sport fans: A comparison of sport consumption motives. Journ al of Sport Behavior, 25, 260 - 278. Kaltcheva, V., & Weitz, B. (1999). The effects of brandconsumer relationships upon consumers' attributions and reactions. Advances in Consumer Research. Association for Consumer Research (U. S.), 26, 455 - 462. Kumar, N., Scheer, L.K., & Steenkamp, J.E.M. (1998). Interdependence, punitive capability, and the reciprocation of punitive actions in channel relationships. JMR, Journal of Marketing Re.search, 35, 225 - 235. 68 Kim and Trail Larson, A. (1992). Network dyads in entrepreneurial settings: A study of the governance of exchange relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 76 - 103. Laverie, D.A., & Arnett, D.B. (2000). Factors affecting fan attendance: The influ ence of identity salience and satisfaction. Journal of Leisure Research, 32, 225 - 246. Lee, D., Jeong, I., Lee, H.T., & Sung, H.J. (2008). Developing a model of reciprocity in the importer - exporter relationship: The relative efficacy of economic versus soci al factors. Industrial Marketing Management, 37, 9 - 22. Levine, S.B. (1991). Psychological intimacy. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 17, 259 - 267. Levy, M., & Weitz, B.A. (2004). Retailing management (5th ed.). Chicago: Richard D. Irwin. Li, Z.G., & Dant, R.P. ( 1997). An exploratory study of exclusive dealing in channel relationships. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 25, 201 - 213. Lisanti, T. (2008, October). Global licensing sales hold fast. License Global 2008 Annual Report. Retrieved July 29, 2009, from http://www.licensemag.com/licensemag/ ArticleStandard/Article/detail/558852 Lydon, J., & Zanna, M. (1990). Commitment in the face of adversity: A value - affirmation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1040 - 1047. MacMillan, K., Money, K., Money, A., & Downing, S. (2005). Relationship marketing in the not - for - profit sector: An extension and application of the commitment - trust theory. Journal of Business Research, 58, 806 - 818. Ma drigal, R., & Chen, J. (2008). Moderating and mediating effects of team identification in regard to causal attributions and summary judgment following a game outcome. Journal of Sport Management, 22, 717 - 733. Madrigal, R. (1995). Cognitive and affective de terminants of fan satisfaction with sporting event attendance. Journal of Leisure Research, 27, 205 - 227. Mahony, D.F., Madrigal, R., & Howard, D.R. (2000). Using the psychological commitment to team scale to segment sport consumers based on loyalty. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 9, 15 - 25. Mahony, D.E, & Moorman, A.M. (1999). The impact of fan attitudes on intentions to watch professional basketball teams on television. Sport Management Review, 2, 43 - 66. Mahony, Nakazawa, Funk, James, & Gladden. (2002). Motivational factors influencing behavior of J. League spectators. Sport Management Review, 5, 1 - 24. Matthews, S. (1986). Friendships through the life course: Oral biographies in old adage. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Library of Soci al Research. Matsuoka, H., Chelladurai, P., & Harada, M. (2003). Direct and interaction effects of team identification and satisfaction on intention to attend games. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12, 244 - 253. McAdams, D.P. (2000). Attachment, intimacy, and generativity. Psychological Inquiry, II, 117 - 120. McDonald, M.A., & Milne, G.R. (1997). A conceptual framework for evaluating marketing relationships in professional sport franchises. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 6(1), 11 - 2,1. Meng, J., & Ellio t, K.M. (2008). Predictors of relation quality for luxury restaurants. Journal of Retailing Services, 15, 595 - 515. Miller, N.J., & Kean, R.C (1997). Reciprocal exchange in rural communities: Consumers' inducement to inshop. Psychology and Marketing, 14, 63 7 - 661. Moorman, C, Deshpande, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors affecting trust in marketing relationships. Journal of Mar keting, 57(1), S \ - \ 0 \ . Moráis, D.B., Dorsch, M.J., & Backman, S.J. (2004). Can tourism provider buy their customer' loyalty? Examining the influence of customer - provider investments on loyalty. Journal of Travel Research, 42, 235 - 243. Morgan, R.M., & Hunt, S.D. (1994). The commitment - trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(2), 20 - 58. Mullin, B.J., Hardy, S., & Su tton, W.A. (2007). Sport marketing. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Murray, D., & Howat, G. (2002). The relationship among service quality, value, satisfaction, and future intentions of customers at an Australian sports and leisure centre. Sport Management Review, 5, 25 - 43. Murray, S.L., Holmes, J.G., & Griffin, D.W. (1996). The benefits of positive illusions: Idealization and construction of satisfaction in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 79 - 98. Nisbett, R.E., & Wilson, T.D. (1977). The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 250 - 256. Olsen, S.O. (2002). Comparative eva luation and the relationship between quality satisfaction, and repurchase loyalty. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30, 140 - 149. Palmatier, R.W., Dant, R.P, & Grewal, D. (2007). A comparative longitudinal analysis of theoretical perspectives of interorganizational relationship performance. Journal of Marketing, 71(4), 172 - 194. Palmatier, R.W., Dant, R.P, Grewal, D., & Evans, K.R. (2006). Factors influencing the effectiveness of relationship marketing: A meta - analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70(4) , 136 - 153. Palmatier, R.W., Scheer, L.K., Houston, M.B., Evans, K.R., & Gopalakrishna, S. (2007). Use of relationship marketing programs in building customer - salesperson and customerfirm relationships: Differential influences on financial outcomes. Interna tional Journal of Research in Marketing, 24, 210 - 223. Park, J., Kim, K., & Kim, J. (2002). Acceptance of brand extensions: Interactive influence of product category similarity, typicality of claimed benefits, and brand relationship quality. Advances in Consumer Research. Associationfor Consumer Research (U. S.), 29, 190 - 198. Powers, T.L., & Reagan, W.R. (2007). Factors influencing successful buyer - seller relationships. Journal of Business Research, 60, 1234 - 1242. Rao, S., & Perry, C (2002). T hinking about relationship marketing: Where are we now? Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 17, 598 - 614. Rascher, D.A., McEvoy, CD., Nagel, M.S., & Brown, M.T. (2007). Variable ticket pricing in Major League Baseball. Journal of Sport Management, 21, 407 - 437. Reimann, M., Lünemann, U.F., & Chase, R.B. (2008). Uncertainty avoidance as a moderator of the relationship between perceived service quality and customer satisfaction. Journal of Service Research, 11, 63 - 73. Reynolds, K., E. & Beatty, S. E. ( 1999). Customer benefits and company consequences of customer salesperson relationship in retailing. Journal of Retailing, 75, 11 - 32. Riper, T.V. (2008, March). Here come the super - stadiums. Forbes. Retrieved January, 30, 2009, from http://www. forbes.co m/2008/03/31/sports - stadiums - yankees - bizsports_ cx_tvr_0331 stadiums.html Understanding Relationships Between Sport Consumers and Sport Organizations 69 Roberts, K., Varki, S., & Brodie, R. (2003). Measuring the quality of relationships in consumer service s: An empirical study. European Joumal of Marketing, 37, 160 - 196. Robinson, S.L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 574 - 599. Ross, S. (2007, November). Validation of the brand trust scale: A case of intercollegiate athletics. Presented at the annual conference of Sport Marketing Association, Pittsburg, PA. Rusbult, C.E., & Van Lange, PA.M. (2003). Interdependence, interaction, and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology 54, 351 - 375. Schwartz, P.J. (2009). The most valuable college basketball teams. Forbes. Retrieved January 30, 2009, from http:// www.forbes.com/2009/03/l6/most - valuable - collegebasketball - teams - business - sports - final - four.html Schwarz, E.C., & Hunter, J.D. (200 8). Advanced theory and practice in sport marketing. Burlington, MA: Butterworth - Heinemann Publications. Shani, D., & Chalasani, S. (1992). Exploiting niches using relationship marketing. Journal of Services Marketing, 6, 43 - 52. Shaver, PR., Morgan, H.J., & Wu, S. (1996). Is love a basic emotion'} Personal Relationships, 3, 81 - 96. Sheth, J.N., & Parvatiyar, A. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of relationship marketing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Shimp, T.A. (2008). Advertising, Promotion, and aspects of integrated m arketing communications (8th ed.). Portland, OR: South - Western College Publishing. Smit, E., Bronner, F., & Tolboom, M. (2007). Brand relationship quality and its value for personal contact. Journal of Business Research, 60, 627 - 633. Smith, J.B., & Barclay, D.W. (1997). The effects of organizational differences and trust on the effectiveness of selling partner relationships. Journal of Marketing, 61{ \ ), 3 - 21. Stern, B.B. (1997). Advertising intimacy: Relationship marketing and the services consumer. Journal of Advertising, 26(4), 7 - 19. Stemberg, R.J. ( 1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119 - 135. Storbacka, K., Strandvik, T., & Gronroos, C. ( 1994). Managing customer relationship for profit: The dynamics of relationship quali ty. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 5(5), 21 - 38. Stryker, S. (1968). Identity salience and role performance: the relevance of symbolic interaction theory for family research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 30, 558 - 564. Sutton, W. A., McDonald, M.A., Milne, G.R., & Cimperman, J. (1997). Creating and fostering fan identification in professional sports. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 6( I ), 15 - 22. Swaminathan, V., Page, K.L., & Gürhan - Canli, Z. (2007). "My" brand or "Our" brand: The effe cts of brand relationship dimensions and self - construal on brand evaluations. The Joumal of Consumer Research, 34, 248 - 259. Tower, J., Jago, L., & Deery, M. (2006). Relationship marketing and partnerships in not - for - profit sport in Australia. Sport Marketi ng Quarterly, 15, 167 - 180. 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 - 112. Trail, G.T., Fink, J.S., & Anderson, D.F. (2003). Sport spectator consumption behavior. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12, 8 - 17. Wann, D.L. (2006). Examining the potential causal relationship between sport team identification and psychological wellbeing. Journal of Sport Behavior, 29, 79 - 95. Wann, D.L., & Pierce, S. (2003). Measuring sport team identification and commitment: An empirical comparison of the sport spectator identification scale and the psychological commitment to team scale. North American Jo umal of Psychology 5, 365 - 372. Zhang, A.Y., Tsui, A.S., Song, L.J., Li, C, & Jia, L. (2008). How do I trust thee? The employee - organization relationship, supervisory support, and middle manager trust in the organization. Human Resource Management, 47, 111 - 132. Copyright of Journal of Sport Management is the property of Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc.

and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, user s may print, download, or email articles for individual use