Examining the Impact of Corporate Social Responsibility Perceptions on Consumer-based Brand Equity in the Context of Professional Sport
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While research has progressed in the areas of implementation and strategic communication of corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities as well as the strategic benefits of such activities, the impact of such activities on sport team brand equity from the perspective of the sport consumer has been unexplored in the literature. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship among sport consumer’s perceived CSR, brand perceptions, brand feelings, and their purchase intentions toward a sport team brand. To better understand the role perceived CSR plays in building brand equity, a two-step approach was utilized to test the measurement and structural model components via MPlus 7.31. The findings of this study showed that perceived CSR significantly impacted brand superiority (b = .76) and brand affect (b = .74). Brand affect (b = .65) and brand superiority (b = .16) significantly predicted purchase intentions. Interestingly, perceived CSR (b = .07) did not directly impact purchase intentions. A bootstrap estimation revealed significant indirect effects of perceived CSR on purchase intentions through brand affect. The results of this study are important for numerous reasons. First, sport organizations commit a significant amount of resources to CSR activities. However, the impact of CSR on sport consumers thoughts, feelings, and intentions toward the sport team brand is unknown. This study showed that being perceived as “socially responsible” positively impacts perceptions of superiority and feelings that sport consumers hold toward the brand. Further, this study illustrates the vital role that brand affect plays in the perceived CSR-purchase intentions relationship.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it