The Relationship between Brand Club Personalities, Trust and Brand Loyalty in Fans of Persepolis FC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fan loyalty is imperative for sports clubs. In fact, fans have more trust in their favorite team will remain loyal to the team. Team managers and sports clubs must win the trust of their fans. Club brand personality is one of the variables that can be used to enhance the trust of the fans. Due to this issue, in this study, the relationship between club brand personality, trust and loyalty of fans have been investigated. The population of this research consists of Persepolis FC fans and 384 persons were evaluated as the statistical sample. To collect the data, the brand personality questionnaire by Tsiotso (2012), the modified questionnaire by Chowdhury and Holbrook (2001), the attitudinal loyalty questionnaire by Gladden and Funk (2003) and the behavioral loyalty questionnaire by Fink et al. (2001) were used. Descriptive and inferential statistics (regression coefficient and Structural Equation Modeling) were used for statistical analysis. The results of structural equation modeling revealed that club brand personality influences on brand trust and it influences behavioral and attitudinal loyalty of the fans. The managers of Persepolis FC can use a brand trust to increase the loyalty of their fans and implement brand personality to gain their trust.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".