Consumer values versus perceived product attributes: Relationships among items from the MVS, PRS, and PERVAL scales

Consumer values versus perceived product attributes: Relationships among items from the MVS, PRS, and PERVAL scales Donghun Leea,*, Galen T.. The purpose of this study was twofold: a to

Consumer values versus perceived product attributes: Relationships among items from the MVS, PRS, and PERVAL scales

Donghun Leea,*, Galen T Trailb,1, Hyungil H Kwonc,2, Dean F Andersond,3

a

Division of Business, College of Mount St Joseph, 5701 Delhi Road, Cincinnati, OH 45233, United States

b

Seattle University, Lynn 112, 901 12th Avenue, P.O Box 222000, Seattle, WA 98122, United States

c

Florida State University, Tully Gym 120A, Tallahassee, FL 32306-4280, United States

d

College of Education, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, United States

By the end of the 1990s, estimates of the total production and consumption of sporting goods and services ranged from

$213 to $560 billion (Howard & Crompton, 2004).Shank (2002)reported that retail sales of licensed products of the four major leagues and universities in the U.S have doubled from $5.35 billion in 1990 to $10.95 billion in 1999 Nearly 20% of the total amount spent on sport was for sport product consumption including equipment, apparel, footwear, and licensed goods

sports venues (Howard & Crompton) This market trend has continued Retail sales of sport-licensed merchandise have reached $13.2 billion in 2005 in the U.S and Canada (Brochstein, 2006) According to Brochstein, sports licensing is the fastest growing segment within the licensing industry The purchase of sport merchandise has contributed a significant portion to the overall consumption of sport

Although the amount spent on sport products and services is known, internal and external influences that affect the purchase of licensed sport merchandise are not well understood According to Richins and Dawson (1992), although consumers may behave independently, they tend to be directed by very similar desires for goods Thus, individuals might be able to be classified by the degree of similarity in their consumer values (Pitts & Woodside, 1984) Likewise, comprehending

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Received 12 March 2009

Received in revised form 14 April 2010

Accepted 4 May 2010

Available online 8 June 2010

Keywords:

Consumer values

Perceived product attributes

A B S T R A C T Consumer values and the perceived attributes of a product elicit consumptive behaviors The purpose of this study was twofold: (a) to test the psychometric properties of three scales (MVS;Richins & Dawson, 1992; PRS,Richins, 1994; PERVAL scale,Sweeney & Soutar,

2001) that measure consumer values and the perceived attributes of a product within a licensed sport merchandise (LSM) setting, and (b) to examine the relationships among items across the three scales for commonalities, and to examine the relationships between consumer values (CV) and perceived product attributes (PPA) Statistical analyses indicated that the psychometric properties of the MVS, PRS, and PERVAL scales could be improved substantially A principal components analysis (PCA) indicated nine inter-pretable dimensions; five that could be categorized as CV dimensions (Social Approval, Materialism, Covetousness, Prestige/Status, and Escape) and four that could be categorized

as PPA dimensions (Price/Quality, Nostalgia, Craftsmanship, and Aesthetic Beauty)

ß2010 Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand Published by

Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved

* Corresponding author Tel.: +1 352 392 4042x1309; fax: +1 352 392 7588.

E-mail addresses: don_lee@mail.msj.edu (D Lee), trailg@seattleu.edu (G.T Trail), kwon@coe.fsu.edu (H.H Kwon), deanf@iastate.edu (D.F Anderson).

1

Tel.: +1 206 398 4605; fax: +1 206 398 4618.

2

Tel.: +1 850 645 2350; fax: +1 850 644 0975.

3

Tel.: +1 515 294 3427; fax: +1 515 294 8740.

Contents lists available atScienceDirect

Sport Management Review

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w e l s e v i e r c o m / l o c a t e / s m r

1441-3523/$ – see front matter ß 2010 Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand Published by Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved.

what determines product consumption is clarified when consumer values are identified (Richins, 1994) and additionally, when the aspects that constitute perceived value (important attributes) of a product are understood (Sweeney & Soutar,

2001) This distinction is a critical one and one that is often neglected Consumer values (CV) are beliefs that guide consumers’ behavior when purchasing products or services The perceived value of an object is the object’s perceived worth

to the individual or asZeithaml (1988)noted, it is the ‘‘consumer’s overall assessment of the utility of a product (or service) based on perceptions of what is received and what is given’’ (p 14) The perceived value of a product is often predicated on the consumer values for that individual, and thus these concepts are frequently confused within the research on these topics Thus, we purposefully refer to perceived value of a product as the perceived product attributes (PPA) throughout this study Another method of distinguishing between the two is that CVs are internal and are typically generalizable across consumer behavior situations, while PPA are specific to the individual and are typically contingent on the product itself (i.e., product specific)

1 Consumer values and perceived product attributes

As we noted above, consumers are likely to have different preference criteria according to their value systems Compared

to attitudes, values generally carry greater importance in a person’s life and are more abstract and general (Schwartz, 1992) Values are often expressed by various motivational types of goals (Schwartz, 1992; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1990) However, it is uncertain how individuals establish their values, such as honesty, security, power, and so forth In addition, it is not clear that values themselves are sufficient in explaining consumption behaviors As a result, several researchers have used the means-end chain approach (Gutman, 1982; Reynolds & Gutman, 1988; Vinson, Scott, & Lamont, 1977) For instance, Gutman distinguished values from product attributes in that values are end states that one desires to be, which may or may not be actualized Product attributes are the product features that provide the desired benefits, which may gratify specific values (Gutman) Vinson et al classified an individual’s value system into several dimensions (i.e., global values–domain-specific values–evaluative values) Within the classification, global values are the beliefs that guide one’s thought process, while evaluative values are specifically related to product attributes that elicit one’s beliefs These lead to evaluation of the properties of a product, which elicits behavior In this vein, an individual’s perceived attributes of a product tends to be an evaluation of information available to the individual, such as cost, craftsmanship, aesthetic appearance, and so forth

characteristics, product characteristics, and situational variables influencing perceived product importance, which in turn, influenced product purchase Consumer characteristics included values, needs, personality traits, and social roles, among other things Product characteristics were the attributes of the product (e.g., cost, symbolic attributes of the product, etc.) Situational variables included time available to search for the product and/or the presence or absence of family or friends at time of purchase Bloch and Richins also divided product importance type into two dimensions: enduring importance and instrumental importance Enduring importance was defined as a ‘‘long-term, cross-situational perception of product importance based on the strength of the product’s relationship to central needs and values’’ (Bloch & Richins, p 72) Instrumental importance was defined as ‘‘a temporary perception of product importance based on the consumer’s desire to obtain particular extrinsic goals that may derive from the purchase and/or usage of the product’’ (Bloch & Richins, p 72) The distinction Bloch and Richins made between consumer characteristics and product characteristics is similar to our distinction between consumer values and perceived product attributes In their model, each influenced product consumption, mediated by a different type of product importance In summary, the proposed models and hypotheses noted above suggest that a CV–PPA distinction exists However, there is little, if any, empirical evidence supporting a distinction between the two at a domain level Thus, there is a need for empirical examination of such aspects, especially in a context-specific situation, like LSM consumption However, this context-context-specific situation of LSM consumption may cause licensed sport merchandise to be evaluated differently from many other types of merchandise or merchandise in general

2 SEC paradigm

One way of categorizing goods is the search–experience–credence (SEC) paradigm.Nelson (1970)proposed that goods could be categorized into either ‘‘search’’ goods or ‘‘experience’’ goods depending on how easily the core attributes of the good could be evaluated prior to purchase A consumer can easily inspect the qualities of search goods prior to purchase (e.g.,

a book;Ekelund, Mixon, & Ressler, 1995), whereas the qualities of an experience good can only be evaluated after the consumption of the product (e.g., a cruise; Ekelund et al.) Due to this relative complexity, consumers of experience goods are more skeptical about their evaluation of product attributes than those of search goods (Franke, Huhmann, & Mothersbaugh,

2004) According to Ford, Smith, and Swasy (1988),Darby and Karni (1973)proposed the third category of goods (credence) because ‘‘certain qualities can never be verified by the average consumer This occurs because the consumer may not possess sufficient technical expertise to assess the product’s true performance, to diagnose his/her own need for the product or service, or because diagnosing a need separately from filling the need at the same time is uneconomical or difficult’’ (Ford

after purchase and consumption Ekelund et al suggested that marriage counseling (therapy) would be a credence good However, as Ford et al noted, although the SEC has intuitive appeal, it has not been validated Furthermore,Huang, Lurie, and

longer the amount of search or the perceived ability to assess product quality before purchase that distinguishes search from experience goods; rather, it is the type of information sought and the way this information is accessed and processed by the consumer’’ (p 66) Thus, products and services, rather than fitting neatly into one particular category, may exist on a continuum somewhere between the most basic ‘‘search’’ good and the most esoteric ‘‘credence’’ good

A product without a brand association with a team but in a similar vein (e.g., a shirt, cap, or jacket) would typically be categorized as a search good However, the branding of the same product with a team name (e.g., a Lakers jersey) potentially moves the product into the experience-product category because the core attribute of LSM (i.e., vicarious achievement obtained by wearing team merchandise) is rather difficult to evaluate without an actual experience That

is, the full experience of the product is not obtained until the purchaser wears the product and is evaluated by others (either positively or negatively) due to the association created with the referent team by the product If this was the case, then LSM may tend to be a credence good, as this added value may never be able to be fully evaluated by the purchaser Thus, consumers of LSM may be more cautious about their product purchase compared to general non-sport/ team merchandise, indicating that perhaps LSM is closer to an experience product than a search product on the continuum, or perhaps even more closely related to a credence product The potential for evaluating LSM differently from other types of products may make existing measures of consumer values and perceived product attributes less valid when used with LSM purchases

3 Measures of consumer values and perceived product attributes

There have been several attempts to develop research tools that systematically measure the complex nature of consumer values (Helgeson, Kluge, Mager, & Taylor, 1984; Richins, 2004; Richins & Dawson, 1992) Several researchers have developed scales that measure consumer values and perceived product attributes relative to general product consumption For example, Richins and Dawson developed the 18-item Material Values Scale (MVS) that consists of three consumer values (i.e., Success, Centrality, and Happiness) The items of the MVS were designed to measure materialistic values that trigger an individual’s consumption behavior Similarly,Richins (1994)introduced a Possession Rating Scale (PRS) that measures possession of goods that are important to a person according to various reasons such

as enjoyment, interpersonal ties, self-expression, and appearance-related aspects However, the PRS scale included items measuring both consumer values and perceived product attributes Sweeney and Soutar (2001) developed a Perceived Value (PERVAL) scale that measured the perceived worth of consumer products to the purchaser Similar to PRS, the items on the PERVAL scale seem to measure both consumer values and perceived attributes of a product as well Accordingly, using these scales, researchers attempted to explain complex consumption behaviors and also initiated the development of research tools to measure cognitive aspects possibly influencing general product purchases It is readily apparent that the three scales have structural and/or contextual similarities and differences while designed to focus on general product consumption Regardless of these efforts to comprehend product consumption behavior, no one has examined these scales, nor any other scales, referent to sport products, specifically licensed sport merchandise Although there has been a fair amount of research attempting to explain sport consumption, most of it has focused

on motives for attendance (Fink, Trail, & Anderson, 2002; Funk, Mahony, & Ridinger, 2002; Sloan, 1989; Trail & James,

2001) While there has been some research concerning consumption of licensed sport apparel (Kwon & Armstrong,

making a purchase decision or in judging the perceived attributes of the sport-related product itself Accordingly, the purpose of this study is twofold The first purpose is to test the psychometric properties of the three scales (MVS, PRS, and PERVAL) relative to purchasing/owning licensed sport merchandise by examining the factor structure, the construct reliability, the internal consistency, and the discriminant validity of the subscales The second purpose is to examine relationships among items and/or subscales across the three scales for similarities and differences The third objective is

to determine if differences between consumer values and perceived product attributes exist, and if so, how are they represented

3.1 Material Values Scale (MVS)

people tend to spend little time on leisure activities because they desire to work longer hours in order to earn more money They suggested that consumers’ materialistic behaviors function along the three dimensions of centrality, success, and happiness, representing their CV Centrality indicates the degree to which individuals ‘‘place possessions and their acquisition at the center of their lives’’ (p 304) Materialists judge standard of success by the number and quality of possessions they own Happiness is accomplished through acquisition of possessions rather than personal relationships, experiences, or achievements

samples The coefficient alpha for the entire 18-item scale was above 70 In addition, the Chi-square difference-test values indicated that the predicted three-factor model fit better than either the two-factor or the one-factor model (Richins & Dawson) Furthermore,Richins (2004)reassessed the 18-item MVS and suggested that a 15-item version demonstrated better psychometric properties than the 18, 9, 6 or 3-item versions across multiple populations

3.2 Possession Rating Scale (PRS)

In an extension of the previous work by Richins and Dawson (1992), Richins (1994) investigated the value (meanings) that possessions have for their owners From the literature, she identified four potential dimensions: utilitarianism value, enjoyment, representations of interpersonal ties, and identity/self-expression After several studies, Richins proposed 11 different dimensions of values, the four previously mentioned and seven new ones: facilitates interpersonal ties, represents achievement, symbolizes personal history, financial aspects, appearance-related, status, and spiritual We have provided the description of each dimension inTable 1and have also classified each dimension as either a consumer value (CV; internally based) or as a perceived product attributes (PPA; externally based) Richins developed the 23-item scale (PRS) based on a revised version of Dittmar’s Possession Rating Scale and suggested these

11 dimensions (seeRichins, 1994, p 519) However, Richins did not report any internal consistency coefficients or construct reliability coefficients

3.3 Perceived Value (PERVAL) Scale

Unlike the consumer values discussed byRichins and Dawson (1992), and as we noted above, perceived product attributes relate to the ‘‘consumer’s overall assessment of the utility of a product (or service) based on perceptions of what is received and what is given’’ (Zeithaml, 1988, p 14).Sweeney and Soutar (2001)argued that previously developed value factors failed to capture the extensive range of what the customer valued because the focus was primarily on the relationship between quality and price Thus, Sweeney and Soutar developed a scale (i.e., PERVAL) based on both utilitarianism and hedonic components to measure ‘‘consumption values’’ (p 203) that effect purchase attitudes and behaviors in a retail setting They derived two subscales representing the hedonic component: Emotion and Social For example, emotional value

is ‘‘derived from the feelings or affective states that a product generates’’ (p 211) On the other hand, social value is ‘‘derived from the product’s ability to enhance social self-concept’’ (p 211) In addition, they developed two subscales representing the utilitarianism component: Price and Quality For example, price or value for money is ‘‘the utility derived from the product due to the reduction of its perceived short term and longer term costs’’ (p 211) Similarly, the perceived quality of a product is ‘‘the utility derived from the perceived quality and expected performance of the product’’ (p 211) We propose that the Emotion and Social dimensions refer to consumer values, whereas the Price and Quality dimensions refer to perceived product attributes The PERVAL subscales were internally consistent in measuring consumers’ post purchase experiences (a= 84–.95;Sweeney & Soutar, 2001) The results indicated that the four-factor model (Quality, Price, Emotion, and Social) fit better than the three-factor, one-factor, or null model Sweeney and Soutar also claimed convergent and discriminant validity

Although all three of the aforementioned scales have been tested on product consumption, testing these scales within the licensed sport merchandise context is necessary to determine applicability Positive psychometric results of these scales would allow retailers to use them as a reliable and valid tool for better communication with individual consumers and, as a result, could enhance overall sales of LSM When retail staffs have a clear understanding of the nature of consumer values and the perceived attributes of a particular product to the consumer, then they will be able to develop better marketing strategies rather than relying on mere discounting (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001) However, if these scales do not have adequate psychometric properties, then it will be necessary to continue scale development in

Table 1

Classification and descriptions of dimensions of the combined scales.

Happiness The possession of a certain product that gratifies happiness (i.e., a hedonic value)

Enjoyment The possession of a certain product that provides enjoyment (i.e., a hedonic value) Represents interpersonal ties Memories of relationships with significant others

Facilitates interpersonal ties Spending time with others

Self-expression The expression or reinforcement of the sense of the self

Symbolizes nostalgic appeal Memories of personal events or places

Perceived product attributes (PPA)

an attempt to create scales that will measure consumption values and perceived product attributes that influence the purchase of LSM

4 Method

4.1 Sample and procedures

We used a convenience sampling method to survey 319 college students We collected 117 responses from two physical activity classes and two lecture classes in a large Mid-western university and 202 responses from several lecture classes in a large southeastern university The final sample (N = 312; seven were eliminated due to incompleteness) consisted of 56.9% males and 43.1% females, with an average age of 21.5 years Most respondents were U.S citizens (97.3%) Prior to distributing the surveys, brief instructions were given to the students about the nature of the study, including purpose of the study, voluntary participation, and confidentiality of the information they provided

4.2 Instrumentation

The questionnaire consisted of items from the three existing materialism scales: MVS, PRS, and PERVAL scale The 18-item MVS consisted of the three constructs of Centrality (7 items), Happiness (5), and Success (6) The respondents were asked to rate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed in identifying what affected their consumption of LSM by using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) Strongly Disagree to (5) Strongly Agree

The 23-item PRS consisted of 11 constructs: Enjoyment (3 items), Represents Interpersonal Ties (3), Facilitates Interpersonal Ties (1), Utilitarianism (3), Appearance-related (2), Self-expression (2), Spiritual (1), Personal History (3), Achievement (2), Status (2), and Financial Aspects (1) The respondents were asked to think about a specific piece of LSM and write it down in the space provided They were then asked to rate the extent how true or not true each item in the scale was for them, relative to the piece of sport merchandise they had chosen The preface to all the items was ‘‘This possession is important to me because it ’’ and an example of an item is ‘‘provides comfort or emotional security.’’ The response format was a 7-point Likert-type scale from (1) Not True for Me to (7) Very True for Me

The 19-item PERVAL scale consisted of four constructs: Price (4 items), Quality (6), Emotion (5), and Social (4) The same introduction as PRS was given to the respondents except that we emphasized the LSM item should be one that the respondent had purchased for him or herself and was important The preface statement was ‘‘I bought this item because

it ,’’ followed by an item such as ‘‘has an acceptable standard of quality.’’ The items were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from (1) Strongly Disagree to (7) Strongly Agree Thus, there were 60 items total from the 3 scales We also included several demographic items in the questionnaire

4.3 Data analysis

We used the RAMONA program available in the SYSTAT 7.0 statistical package and performed three separate Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA), one on each scale (MVS, PRS, and PERVAL), to examine factor loadings of the items on the pre-specified factors We used the results of the CFA to test the construct reliability and the discriminant validity of the subscales within their own scale We also calculated Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for each pre-specified factor

To examine the relationships among all items across the three scales, we used a principal components analysis (PCA) with direct Oblimin rotation We used the Scree plot, the eigenvalue criterion and interpretability of dimensions, to determine how many components should be retained Items with factor loadings exceeding 6 without a double loading greater than 3 were retained.Tabachnick & Fidell (2001)stated that ‘‘as a general rule of thumb, it is comforting to have a least 300 cases for factor analysis.’’ (p 588): thus our sample of 312 was sufficient for a PCA

We then used a multidimensional scaling technique (Euclidean distance method using ALSCAL program in SPSS) to obtain additional information about the CV-PPA structure S-stress tests were reported as an indication of model fit Stress values < 05 indicate ‘‘excellent’’, values < 1 indicate ‘‘good’’, values < 2 indicate ‘‘usable’’, and values > 2 indicates un-interpretable model fit (Clarke, 1993, p 126)

5 Results

Respondents identified the following types of licensed sport merchandise that they had recently purchased for themselves and that were the focal point of their responses to the items for each scale: hat, visor, jersey, sweatshirt, T-shirt, short, hooded t-shirt, mug, automobile license plate, jacket, and key chain

5.1 Model estimation and psychometric properties of scales

MVS The CFA on the 18-item MVS indicated that the model had reasonable fit (RMSEA,eA= 064; CI = 054, 073;

p = 011;x2/df = 296.74/132 = 2.25) as did the CFA on the15-item MVS (RMSEA,e = 063; CI = 051, 075; p = 037,

/df = 193.35/87 = 2.22) Although Richins (2004) suggested that the 15-item version demonstrated better psychometric properties than the 18, 9, 6 or 3-item versions, we found no significant differences between the 18-item and 15-item versions Therefore, we selected the more parsimonious one (15-item version) The 15-item MVS evidenced poor construct reliability for all three subscales as the average variance extracted (AVE) values of each (refer

the three sub-scales (refer toTable 2), centrality (a= 66), success (a= 71), and happiness (a= 72), were either close to or above the 70 value recommended byNunnally and Bernstein (1994) Initial discriminant validity was evidenced in that

no correlation between any of the three constructs was within two standard errors of unity (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988) However, the subscales failedFornell and Larcker’s (1981)more stringent test of discriminant validity in which the AVE value for a specific construct should be greater than the squared value of the correlation between that construct and any other (refer toTable 3)

PRS The CFA results on the PRS indicated that the model had mediocre fit (RMSEA, eA= 092; CI = 084, 100;

utilitarianism, appearance-related, and personal history subscales (refer toTable 4) did not reach the 50 cut-off value The internal consistency for each of the eight pre-specified factors was moderate at best (aranged from 55 to 78; refer

unity However, the following subscales failed the more stringent test for discriminant validity: represents interpersonal ties, self-expression, achievement, utilitarianism, enjoyment, appearance, status, personal history, facilitates interpersonal ties, and spirit (refer toTable 5)

PERVAL The CFA results on the PERVAL scale indicated that the model had poor fit (RMSEA,eA= 100; CI = 092, 108;

pclose= 000,x2/df = 589.18/146 = 4.04) AVE values were less than 50 on two of the subscales: price and quality (refer to

However, quality (a= 74) was borderline, and price (a= 62) was belowNunnally and Bernstein’s (1994)cut-off value (refer

criterion of the more stringent test (refer toTable 7)

5.2 Principal component analysis

The PCA initially identified 14 components with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 Based on interpretation of the Scree plot, the loadings, and meaningfulness of the components, we identified 9 components that were interpretable: five that

Table 2

Beta coefficients, means, standard deviations, internal consistency, and average variance extracted for the material values scale (15-item MVS).

I put less emphasis on material things than most people I know a

I try to keep my life simple, as far as possessions are concerned 515 2.77 93

The things I own aren’t all that important to me a

Some of the most important achievements in life include acquiring material possessions 584 2.03 97

I don’t place much emphasis on the amount of material objects people own as a sign of success a 497 2.84 96

I wouldn’t be any happier if I owned nicer things a

It sometimes bothers me quite a bit that I can’t afford to buy all the things I’d like 491 2.41 1.07

I have all the things I really need to enjoy life a

My life would be better if I owned certain things I don’t have 745 2.77 1.00

Note Statistical method: confirmatory factor analysis.

a

Indicates reverse scored items.

Table 3 Correlation Table (MVS).

1

Note Statistical method: confirmatory factor analysis (EQS).

a

could be categorized as consumer values (CV) dimensions (Social Approval, Materialism, Covetousness, Prestige/Status, and Escape) and four that could be categorized as perceived product attributes (PPA) dimensions (Price/Quality, Nostalgia, Craftsmanship, and Aesthetic Beauty) These items and dimensions explained approximately 55% of the total variance Only 30 out of 60 total items from all three scales combined loaded higher than 6 on the interpretable components with

no double-loadings greater than 3 on another component (Table 8) The AVE values ranged from 408 to 632 and the Cronbach’s alpha values ranged from 525 to 896 (Table 8) None of the correlations from the PCA component correlation matrix exceeded 48 (evidence for discriminant validity;Table 9) In addition, discriminant validity was established at the stringent level More specifically, discriminant validity among the nine constructs from the PCA was

Table 4

Beta coefficients, means, standard deviations, internal consistency, and average variance extracted for the Possession Rating Scale (PRS).

Reminds me of my relationship with a particular person 558 3.38 2.07

Reminds me of my family or a group of people I belong to 660 4.30 2.06

Expresses what is unique about me, different from others 710 3.96 1.84

Financial aspects = FINANC (1)

Facilitates interpersonal ties = FAINTIE (1)

Allows me to spend time or share activities with other people 3.03 1.79

Spiritual = SPIRIT (1)

Table 5

Correlation Table (PRS).

1 Represents interpersonal ties 1

3 Represents achievement 736 583 1

1

8 Symbolizes personal history 963 a 838 762 503 741 485 454 1

10 Facilitates interpersonal ties 502 285 374 704 729 453 539 399 174 1

Note Statistical method: confirmatory factor analysis (EQS).

a

evidenced in that the AVE value was greater than the squared correlation between that construct and any others (Fornell & Larcker, 1981)

5.3 Multidimensional scaling (MDS)

MDS created a visual map exhibiting relative relationships among values on a two-dimensional configuration Coefficients of alienation for the two-dimensional solution indicated an excellent fit (Young’s S-stress < 04;Clarke, 1993) The stress test indicates ‘‘the proportion of the variance of the disparities not accounted for by the MDS model’’ (Hair et al.,

1998, p 540) The visual projections of the two-dimensional solution of the hypothesis were also interpretable (refer to

6 Discussion

This study examined the psychometric properties of three values scales: the MVS (Richins & Dawson, 1992), the PRS

items across the three scales in an attempt to distinguish between the items measuring ‘‘consumer values’’ that influence product purchases and the items representing ‘‘perceived attributes’’ of a product

6.1 Overview of the significant findings

The 15-item MVS had reasonable fit and was comparable to the findings ofRichins and Dawson’s (1992)for non-sport consumers However, in that research they did not report either construct reliability or discriminant validity values More recentlyRichins (2004)noted that the original 18-item MVS had ‘‘some imperfect psychometric properties’’ (p 212) and

Table 6

Beta coefficients, means, standard deviations, internal consistency, and average variance extracted for the Perceived Value (PERVAL) Scale.

Has poor workmanship a

Would not last a long time a

Note Statistical method: confirmatory factor analysis.

a

indicate reverse scored items

Table 7

Correlation table (PERVAL).

1

Note Statistical method: confirmatory factor analysis (EQS).

a

Correlation is not distinct ( Kline, 2005 ).

thus, she recommended that a shorter version (15-item) be used instead Unfortunately, we found that in the present sample the 15-item version had construct reliability and discriminant validity problems as well

We also found that the CFA on the PRS did not indicate good model fit and both convergent and discriminant validity tests failed at the stringent level We could not compare these results to Richins’ (1994) study because no model test or psychometric tests were performed in that research

The PERVAL scale also displayed poor model fit and although two subscales had construct reliability, the scale generally failed reliability and discriminant validity tests This does not support the previous reliability and discriminant validity results reported bySweeney and Soutar (2001)in a non-sport consumer sample

In sum, the psychometric properties for all three scales indicated that the designated items did not represent the referent constructs well in this data set This may be due to the potential distinctiveness of LSM relative to other goods in the SEC paradigm These scales may measure search goods adequately, but the added value of the association with the team brand for LSM might make LSM more similar to an experience good or credence good, thus potentially limiting the applicability of the MVS, PRS, or PERVAL Therefore, we performed a PCA on the combined items to determine whether we could discover better constructs and to determine similarities among items across the three scales The PCA indicated 14 dimensions with eigenvalues greater than 1, but only 9 were interpretable; 5 that could be categorized as consumer values (CV) dimensions

Table 8

Factor loadings for the three scales combined (PCA).

Note Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis Rotation method: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.

Table 9

Correlations for the three scales combined.

1 Social approval 1

2 Materialism 13 *

1

3 Price/quality 35 **

.11 *

.21 **

1

5 Covetousness 16 **

.24 **

6 Craftsmanship 20 **

.15 *

9 Aesthetic beauty 44 **

.15 *

.29 **

.30 **

.21 **

.45 **

1 Note Statistical method: principle component analysis (SPSS).

*

Correlation is significant at the 05 level.

**

Correlation is significant at the 01 level.

(Social Approval, Materialism, Covetousness, Prestige/Status, and Escape) and 4 that could be categorized as perceived product attributes (PPA) dimensions (Price/Quality, Nostalgia, Craftsmanship, and Aesthetic Beauty) These nine dimensions combined explained 55% of the total variance

6.2 Consumer value dimensions

Factor 1 consists of the four items from the PERVAL social subscale referring to purchasing products to achieve Social Approval and had good construct reliability and internal consistency Although those items were designed to be product related, they seem to be more like Consumer Values than Perceived Product Attributes.Holt’s (1995)idea supports this supposition in that consumers seek object meanings through affiliating action.Richins’ (1994)andSweeney and Soutar’s

influences one’s social relationships (e.g., acceptance by others) Factor 1 seems to be conceptually related to the notion of basking in reflected glory (BIRGing) In sport spectating situations, fans tend to psychologically associate themselves with others who are successful (Cialdini et al., 1976; Wann & Branscombe, 1990)

Factor 2 consists of three items from the MVS scale: all from the Centrality subscale Both the construct reliability and internal consistency of this scale were a little below typical benchmarks This indicates that these items need further refinement However, the content of this factor seems to be similar to the concept of Materialism, which was defined byBelk

assume a central place in a person’s life and are believed to provide the greatest sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction’’ (p 291) These results are consistent withRichins and Dawson’s (1992)findings, in that participants acknowledged that they are likely to possess or acquire products solely for the joy of acquisition Richins and Dawson stated that, ‘‘materialists view themselves as successful to the extent they can possess products that project desired self-images’’ (p 304) For instance, college students may tend to possess or acquire quality licensed sport products in order to impress others as a sign of success Factor 5 consists of three items from the Happiness subscale of the MVS and shows adequate construct reliability and internal consistency Although these items originally were designed to represent happiness, they may refer to Covetousness These items seem to represent the desire to be able to own things that are not obtainable at the moment For instance, one item depicted the consumer’s desire to buy more things (I’d be happier if I could afford to buy more things) Another item was

Fig 1 Hypothetical structure of relations among consumer values and perceived product attributes.