No abstract

PurposeThis study, an empirical research, aims to construct and validate a new love-hate scale for sports fans and tested its antecedents and consequences.Design/methodology/approachThe scale was designed and validated in three separate empirical survey studies in the context of Israeli professional basketball. In Phase 1, the authors verified the factorial validity of the proposed scale using exploratory factor analysis. In Phase 2, the authors conducted a confirmatory factor analysis using structural equation modeling. In Phase 3, the authors tested the nomological network validity of the scale.FindingsThe findings show that fans' involvement, loyalty and fandom significantly predicted their love–hate, which in turn significantly predicted self-reported fan aggression, fans' acceptance of fan aggression, price premium and frequency of watching games.Research limitations/implicationsThe model was tested on a relatively small sample of fans within a single country. This lack of generalizability should be addressed in future studies by examining the model in other sports contexts and countries.Practical implicationsThis study suggests that understanding the properties of the love–hate measure may assist team sports clubs in identifying, preventing and controlling potential fan aggression.Originality/valueThe study provides three incremental contributions above and beyond existing research: it develops and validates a scale for measuring the phenomenon of sports fans' love and hate as mixed emotions; it makes it possible to capture the variations in the magnitude of fans' love–hate; and it relates fans' love–hate to important attitudinal and behavioral outcomes.

Fear-inducing communications about actual or potential safety hazards of products, are increasingly encountered. These emanate mainly from government agencies and reflect the belief that rational consumers will act to minimize potential risk. Research has shown that credibility of a message source is directly related to effectiveness and persuasion of one message. Although observers have assumed that use of government sources would maximize source credibility in the case of communications about products' safety hazards, recent analyses suggest that this may not be the case. The present research tests two hypotheses with respect to communications of hazard, that government agencies will not necessarily achieve the source with highest credibility among consumers, and that attitude change will be greater among consumers perceiving a source other than the government to be the most credible. Findings are repotted for three studies of different samples of consumers. One involved an experiment in which consumers were exposed to safety warnings supposedly issued by a government agency about a common product. Two involved surveys, the first in the wake of the Tylenol poisonings and the second in the context of industrial buying practices in industrial settings. Results support the hypotheses. Theoretical bases for such findings are offered, and implications for public policy ate discussed.

No abstract

No abstract