The effects of team identification on consumer purchase intention in sports influencer marketing: The mediation effect of ad content value moderated by sports influencer credibility

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research model

Note. Dotted line (H6) represents the mediation effect of ad content value moderated by sports influencer credibility.

Table 1. Overview of measurement items and reliability and validity measures

Construct	Subdimension	Item	B	SE	t	β	AVE	CR
Team identification	̶	When someone criticizes my favorite team, it feels like a personal insult.	1.00	̶	̶	.83	.94	.99
		I am very interested in what others think about my favorite team.	0.91	0.06	15.50	.77
		When someone praises my favorite team, it feels like a personal compliment.	1.12	0.60	20.25	.93
		When I talk about my favorite team, I usually say “we” rather than “they.”	0.97	0.06	16.96	.82
		My favorite team’s successes are my success.	0.86	0.06	13.99	.72
	Model fit indices: χ^2/df = 2.40, p < .05, IFI = .99, TLI = .99, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .07
Ad content value	Informativeness	SNS posts from the sports star influencers whom I follow supply relevant information on products.	1.00	̶	̶	.73	.80^a	.91^a
		SNS posts from the sports star influencers whom I follow provide the most up-to-date information on products.	1.16	0.12	9.65	.83
		SNS posts from the sports star influencers whom I follow supply product information when I need it.	1.13	0.13	8.71	.74
		SNS posts from the sports star influencers whom I follow provide useful product information.	1.04	0.12	8.90	.75
	Entertainment	SNS posts from the sports star influencers whom I follow are entertaining.	1.00	̶	̶	.76
		SNS posts from the sports star influencers whom I follow provide fun experiences.	1.12	0.10	10.98	.88
		SNS posts from the sports star influencers whom I follow make me feel better.	0.96	0.10	9.32	.74
		SNS posts from the sports star influencers whom I follow have many interesting contents.	0.80	0.10	8.11	.65
	Irritation	SNS posts from the sports star influencers whom I follow are irritating.	1.00	̶	̶	1.00
		SNS posts from the sports star influencers whom I follow disturb me.	0.84	0.04	19.93	.84
	Trust	SNS posts from the sports star influencers whom I follow are believable.	1.00	̶	̶	.83
		SNS posts from the sports star influencers whom I follow are reliable.	1.20	0.11	10.93	.96
	Model fit indices: χ^2/df = 2.50, p < .000, IFI = .94, TLI = .92, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .09
Sports influencer credibility	Trustworthiness	The sports star influencers whom I follow are honest.	1.00	̶	̶	.77	.86^b	.95^b
		The sports star influencers whom I follow are trustworthy.	0.99	0.07	13.48	.80
		The sports star influencers whom I follow are sincere.	0.84	0.07	11.87	.70
		The sports star influencers whom I follow are ethical.	0.99	0.07	13.83	.82
	Expertise	The sports star influencers whom I follow have good media reputations.	1.00	̶	̶	.73
		The sports star influencers whom I follow have outstanding performances.	0.92	0.11	8.13	.69
	Attractiveness	The sports star influencers whom I follow are attractive.	1.33	̶	̶	.68
		The sports star influencers whom I follow are handsome/beautiful.	1.25	0.12	11.59	.85
		The sports star influencers whom I follow are classy.	1.00	0.13	9.93	.66
		The sports star influencers whom I follow are friendly.	0.92	0.12	9.10	.60
	Model fit indices: χ^2/df = 2.24, p < .000, IFI = .95, TLI = .93, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .09
Purchase intention	̶	I would like to buy the brands that are endorsed by the sports star influencers whom I follow.	1.00	̶	̶	.79	.92	.98
		I feel like buying the brands impulsively when the sports star influencers whom I follow advertise them.	1.33	0.08	17.16	.89
		I am very likely to buy the brands that are advertised by sports star influencers whom I follow.	1.34	0.08	18.03	.93
		The brands that are endorsed by the sports star influencers whom I follow have the best quality.	1.09	0.08	13.70	.74
	Model fit indices: χ^2/df = 1.49, p < .05, IFI = .99, TLI = .98, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .04

Note. B = Unstandardized Factor Loading; SE = Standard Error; β = Standardized Factor Loading; AVE = Average Variance Extracted; CR = Construct Reliability.

^aThe CR and AVE values of ad content value were calculated based on the standardized factor loadings of each second-order factor: informativeness (.80), entertainment (.84), irritation (.13), and trust (.67). ^bThe CR and AVE values of sports influencer credibility were calculated based on the standardized factor loadings of each second-order factor: trustworthiness (.68), expertise (.81), and attractiveness (.78)

Table 2. AVE, correlations, and squared correlation coefficients

Construct	1	2	3	4	M	SD
1	.94 ^c	.10	.04	.08	4.59	1.46
2	.32**	.80	.29	.37	4.38	.82
3	.20**	.54**	.86	.18	5.14	.73
4	.28**	.61**	.42**	.92	3.58	1.36

Note. 1 = Team Identification, 2 = Ad Content Value, 3 = Sports Influencer Credibility, 4 = Purchase Intention. ^cThe diagonal elements (italic) represent the AVE values. Upper diagonal represents squared correlations of each construct.

*p < .05, **p < .01.

Table 3. Results of process macro (model 4) (n = 298)

Independent variable	Dependent variable	B	SE	t	β	LLCI	ULCI	H	Result
X	Y	.27	.05	5.09**	.28	1.85	2.85	H1	Accepted
R^2 = .08, F = 25.92 (p = .00), Total effect of X
X	M	.18	.03	5.70***	.32	.12	.24	H2	Accepted
R^2 = .10, F = 32.54 (p = .00)
X	Y	.10	.05	2.09*	.10	.01	.18
M		.97	.08	12.12***	.58	.81	1.12	H3	Accepted
R^2 = .39, F = 92.80 (p = .00), Direct effect of X (37%)
Independent variable	Dependent variable	Mediator	Indirect Effect	SE	Z	BC 95% CI
						LLCI	ULCI
X	Y	M	.18	.04	5.38**	.11	.26

Note. B = Unstandardized Path Coefficient; SE = Standard Error; β = Standardized Path Coefficient; BC = Bias Corrected; LLCI = Lower Limit Confidence Interval; ULCI = Upper Limit Confidence Interval; X = Team Identification; M = Ad Content Value; Y = Purchase Intention.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001

Table 4. Results of process macro (model 15) (n = 298)

Independent variable	Dependent variable	B	SE	t	LLCI	ULCI	H	Result
X	M	.18	.03	5.70***	.12	.24
R^2 = .10, F = 32.54 (p = .00)
X	Y	−.04	.26	−.14	−.54	.47
M		−.10	.46	−.21	−.99	.80
W		−.65	.37	−1.78	−1.38	.07
X x W		.03	.05	.54	−.07	.12
M x W		.18	.09	2.14*	.02	.35	H4	Accepted
Low W (4.40)		.71	.11	6.22***	.49	.94
High W (5.87)		.98	.11	9.13***	.77	1.19
R^2 = .41, F = 40.40 (p = .00)
Conditional direct effect		B	SE	t	BC 95% CI
X → Y					LLCI	ULCI
Low W (4.40)		.08	.06	1.35	−.04	.20	H5	Accepted
High W (5.87)		.12	.06	2.10*	.01	.23
Conditional indirect effect		B	SE		BC 95% CI
X → M → Y					LLCI	ULCI
Low W (4.40)		.13	.03		.07	.19
High W (5.87)		.18	.05		.09	.28
Index of moderated mediation		B	SE		BC 95% CI
					LLCI	ULCI
W		.03	.02		.01	.09	H6	Accepted

Note. B = Unstandardized Path Coefficient; SE = Standard Error; β = Standardized Path Coefficient; BC = Bias Corrected; LLCI = Lower Limit Confidence Interval; ULCI = Upper Limit Confidence Interval; X = Team Identification; M = Ad Content Value; Y = Purchase Intention; W = Sports Influencer Credibility.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Figure 2. Moderation effects of sports influencer credibility on ad content value

Figure 3. Conditional indirect effects of team identification

Figure 4. Unstandardized path coefficients for research model

Note. Dotted line (H6) represents the mediation effect of ad content value moderated by sports influencer credibility. Unstandardized path coefficients of H5 and H6 stand for one SD below and one SD above from the mean of sports influencer credibility.