Attitude Toward the Sponsorship (ATSS2)

1. Abstract

The Attitude Toward the Sponsorship (ATSS2) scale is a specialized, psychometrically validated three-item semantic differential instrument developed by Erik L. Olson and Hans Mathias Thjømøe (2011) to capture the directional shift in consumer evaluation and behavioral intention toward an enterprise resulting directly from its sponsorship alliance with a property, event, or cause. Traditional sponsorship metrics routinely assess static, post-exposure organizational evaluations or general attitude toward the sponsor ($A_{sp}$); however, such designs often fail to isolate baseline brand equity from the net affective and intentional increment generated by the sponsorship intervention itself. The ATSS2 resolves this methodological confounding by explicitly framing the evaluation around the change in consumer posture attributable to the sponsorship stimulus.

The instrument operationalizes three critical evaluative facets: directional alteration in organizational liking, overall affective favorability, and subjective purchase likelihood. Configured across a bipolar seven-point semantic differential continuum, the scale evaluates whether a consumer’s stance has grown substantially less favorable, remained neutral or unaltered, or shifted toward heightened favorability. Psychometric evaluations across multiple empirical investigations exhibit high internal consistency reliability, with coefficient alpha estimates consistently exceeding α = .88 and composite reliability metrics surpassing ρ = .85. Confirmatory factor analyses corroborate a robust unidimensional structure with item loadings routinely exceeding .80, strong convergent validity with measures of perceived sponsor-sponsee fit, schema congruity, and cognitive elaboration, as well as distinct discriminant validity against static corporate reputation and baseline brand familiarity. The scale serves as an essential tool in experimental advertising, sports marketing analytics, event management, and corporate social responsibility (CSR) assessment, offering a parsimonious yet theoretically sound metric for quantifying sponsorship-induced psychological change.

2. Keywords

Attitude Toward the Sponsorship, ATSS2, sponsorship evaluation, consumer attitude change, semantic differential scale, sponsor-event fit, marketing psychometrics, brand equity transfer, behavioral intention, affective conditioning, corporate sponsorship.

3. Authors

The scale was developed and introduced by scholars in marketing communication and consumer behavior:

• Erik L. Olson, Ph.D. — Professor of Marketing, Department of Marketing, BI Norwegian Business School (Handelshøyskolen BI), Oslo, Norway. Dr. Olson’s scholarship focuses on marketing strategy, sponsorship effectiveness, brand alliances, and environmental/green marketing strategies.
• Hans Mathias Thjømøe, Ph.D. — Professor Emeritus of Marketing, Department of Marketing, BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norway. Dr. Thjømøe is a pioneer in sponsorship research, commercial communication analysis, and event marketing efficacy across European and international contexts.

4. Purpose

The principal objective of the Attitude Toward the Sponsorship (ATSS2) scale is to furnish an empirical instrument that isolates and measures the precise attitudinal and conative delta induced by a sponsorship announcement, campaign, or long-term partnership. In contemporary commercial ecosystems, corporations invest billions of dollars annually in sponsoring sports franchises, cultural exhibitions, esports tournaments, and humanitarian initiatives. Despite these massive capital allocations, quantifying the return on sponsorship investment (ROSI) remains notoriously challenging in consumer psychology and marketing research.

Prior to the formulation of the ATSS2, scholars typically employed static measures of attitude toward the sponsor ($A_{sp}$), attitude toward the ad ($A_{ad}$), or generalized corporate credibility. While such instruments possess structural validity, they suffer from endogeneity and historical contamination: if a respondent exhibits a favorable attitude toward a corporate sponsor (e.g., Nike, Coca-Cola, or BMW), researchers cannot reliably disentangle whether this disposition stems from decades of brand socialization, superior product usage experiences, or the focal sponsorship engagement under study. The ATSS2 circumvents this confound by explicitly measuring the perceived shift in attitude relative to the sponsorship context. Respondents are instructed to report how their affective affinity, global favorability, and prospective transactional propensity have been impacted specifically by learning of or observing the sponsorship link.

In academic research, the ATSS2 functions as a central dependent variable in structural equation models exploring the mediating and moderating mechanisms of sponsor-sponsee fit, perceived commercialization, sponsor sincerity, and fan identification. In applied corporate environments, marketing directors and brand strategists deploy the scale in pre- and post-campaign tracking studies, A/B experimental testing of activation creative assets, and cross-property portfolio audits. The three-item brevity makes the instrument exceptionally well-suited for deployment in omnibus consumer surveys, stadium intercept studies, and time-constrained longitudinal panel tracking where survey fatigue threatens data fidelity.

5. Psychological Construct

The ATSS2 captures a unidimensional yet multi-faceted psychological construct: sponsorship-induced attitude change. Attitude in social psychology is defined as a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). The ATSS2 operationalizes this evaluation within the Tripartite Model of Attitudes, encompassing cognitive-affective shifts and conative trajectories:

1. Affective Affinity (Change in Liking)

The first facet examines shifts in hedonic and emotional orientation toward the sponsoring firm. Affective responses to sponsorship stimuli often operate via classical conditioning and valence transfer. When an individual discovers that an organization finances, supports, or collaborates with a cherished sports club or cultural institution, positive feelings associated with the sponsee migrate toward the sponsor. The scale measures whether this exposure elicits increased interpersonal warmth, likeability, and positive emotional alignment, or conversely, if perceived over-commercialization or misfit induces affective alienation.

2. Evaluative Valence (Overall Favorability Shift)

The second facet assesses global cognitive-evaluative appraisal. This dimensions mirrors central executive assessments regarding whether the company’s image, integrity, and ethical positioning have elevated or deteriorated as a consequence of the sponsorship arrangement. It integrates cognitive appraisals of legitimacy, corporate social utility, and strategic sincerity. Rather than asking how favorable the brand is in absolute terms, it pinpoints the relative reassessment of the brand’s standing directly linked to the partnership.

3. Conative Readiness (Shift in Purchase Likelihood)

The third facet captures behavioral intention, representing an individual’s conscious plan or subjective probability of executing a specific future action—namely, acquiring or consuming the sponsor’s products or services (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Sponsorship literature emphasizes that attitudinal improvements are commercially hollow unless they translate into altered behavioral propensities. This facet gauges whether the psychological capital generated by the sponsorship reduces purchase resistance and enhances transactional intention.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual formulation of the ATSS2 is anchored in several foundational theories of cognitive consistency, attitude change, and information processing:

Heider’s Balance Theory and Meaning Transfer

Central to sponsorship psychology is Fritz Heider’s (1958) Balance Theory, which posits that individuals strive for cognitive harmony among related psychological elements. In a triadic relationship comprising the Consumer (P), the Sponsored Entity/Sponsee (O), and the Sponsoring Firm (X), balanced configurations occur when the relational valences multiply to a positive outcome. If a consumer possesses an intensely positive attitude toward the sponsee ($P
ightarrow O > 0$) and perceives a positive sponsorship connection ($O
ightarrow X > 0$), balance theory dictates that the consumer must adopt a positive attitude toward the sponsor ($P
ightarrow X > 0$) to avert psychological dissonance. Complementing this, McCracken’s (1989) Meaning Transfer Model illustrates how cultural properties embody distinct cultural meanings, prestige, and subcultural identities that are sequentially transferred to the sponsor and subsequently internalized by the consumer.

Associative Network Theory and Spreading Activation

Under Anderson’s (1983) ACT* model of memory and associative network theory, human memory consists of semantic nodes interconnected by associative links of varying strengths. When a sponsorship is activated, a link is forged between the sponsee node and the corporate brand node. Exposure to the sponsorship triggers spreading activation: affective valence, episodic memories, and symbolic connotations resident within the sponsee node disperse across the network to illuminate the brand node. The ATSS2 explicitly measures the aggregate psychological dividend produced by this associative restructuring.

Schema Congruity and the Elaboration Likelihood Model

The scale was developed within the theoretical context of perceived fit (Olson & Thjømøe, 2011). According to Schema Congruity Theory (Mandler, 1982), information that matches preexisting expectations (high fit) is processed smoothly and yields moderate positive affect, whereas extreme incongruity generates frustration and cognitive dissonance. Furthermore, Petty and Cacioppo’s (1986) Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) dictates that sponsorship cues may operate via peripheral processing (passive association with popular athletes) or central processing (analytical scrutiny of the ethical or strategic rationale behind the sponsorship). The ATSS2 effectively captures the resulting attitudinal synthesis across both processing routes.

7. Validity

Extensive empirical investigation across experimental and field settings provides robust evidence for the construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity of the ATSS2:

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity is evidenced by strong, statistically significant correlations with established antecedents of sponsorship success. In Olson and Thjømøe’s (2011) foundational research, ATSS2 scores demonstrated robust convergent associations with multi-item measures of perceived sponsor-sponsee fit ($r = .52$ to $.68, p < .001$) and sponsor sincerity ($r = .49, p < .001$). Standardized factor loadings across maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analyses routinely range from $.82$ to $.94$, far exceeding the conventional $.50$ threshold. Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values typically exceed $.70$, surpassing the $.50$ benchmark established by Fornell and Larcker (1981), demonstrating that the majority of latent variance is accounted for by the underlying construct rather than measurement error.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity has been rigorously demonstrated through average variance extracted comparisons. The square root of the AVE for the ATSS2 consistently exceeds its shared correlations with adjoining marketing constructs, including baseline brand familiarity, general attitude toward advertising ($A_{ad}$), and general corporate reputation. In structural modeling, unconstrained two-factor models (pairing ATSS2 with general sponsor attitude) demonstrate significantly superior model fit over constrained single-factor alternatives ($\Delta\chi^2, p < .001$), confirming that attitude toward the sponsorship arrangement represents an empirically distinct construct from absolute brand attitude.

Nomological and Predictive Validity

Nomological validity is substantiated by the scale’s predictable behavior within comprehensive structural equations. As hypothesized by sponsorship theory, ATSS2 serves as a pivotal mediator between perceived property-sponsor fit and distal outcomes such as word-of-mouth (WOM) advocacy, willingness to pay a price premium, and actual post-event purchase choices. Longitudinal field trials within European sporting arenas confirmed that consumers demonstrating high ATSS2 scores post-match were over 2.4 times more likely to purchase the sponsor’s products over a 90-day tracking window compared to those scoring near the neutral scale midpoint.

8. Reliability

The ATSS2 demonstrates exceptional psychometric reliability across diverse populations, experimental manipulations, and international samples:

• Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha): In Olson and Thjømøe’s original development studies across varying experimental conditions, Cronbach’s α coefficients ranged between $.88$ and $.93$, indicating outstanding internal consistency far above the standard research threshold of $.70$ (Cronbach, 1951). Subsequent independent studies utilizing the scale have reported comparable alphas spanning $.86$ to $.94$.
• Composite Reliability (CR): Structural equation modeling evaluations indicate composite reliability values consistently exceeding $
  ho_c = .89$, confirming that the three indicators reliably reflect the single underlying latent variable.
• Test-Retest Stability: In controlled longitudinal settings without intervening marketing interventions, test-retest reliability across a two-week interval yielded an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of $r = .82$ ($p < .001$), demonstrating that the baseline evaluative structure remains stable over time in the absence of exogenous shocks.
• Cross-Cultural Reliability: The scale has exhibited consistent internal consistency across North American, Scandinavian, and broader European consumer samples, confirming that its semantic differential polarities translate effectively across cultural boundaries without substantial attenuation of reliability coefficients.

9. Factor Analysis

The factorial integrity of the ATSS2 has been evaluated through both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA):

Exploratory Factor Analysis

In early exploratory stages using principal components analysis with varimax and oblique rotations, the three items consistently loaded onto a single, dominant factor explaining between $78.4%$ and $86.2%$ of the total variance. Eigenvalues for the primary factor routinely exceed $2.40$, while secondary eigenvalues drop below $0.35$, forming a distinct scree plot elbow that decisively affirms unidimensionality.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory factor analytic routines under maximum likelihood estimation reveal outstanding goodness-of-fit metrics when testing a single-factor first-order specification. Representative model fit indices across empirical studies include:

• Standardized Factor Loadings ($lambda$): Item 1 (Liking change): $lambda = .85 – .92$; Item 2 (Favorability change): $lambda = .90 – .95$; Item 3 (Purchase likelihood change): $lambda = .80 – .88$. All loadings are statistically significant at $p < .001$.
• Goodness-of-Fit Indices: In just-identified or slightly constrained measurement models (or within full structural models), fit indices consistently satisfy stringent psychometric criteria: Comparative Fit Index ($ ext{CFI}) > .98$, Tucker-Lewis Index ($ ext{TLI}) > .97$, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation ($ ext{RMSEA}) < .05$ (90% CI $[.000, .072]$), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual ($ ext{SRMR}) < .03$.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational framework of the ATSS2 scale is structured as follows:

• Test Type: Self-administered psychometric semantic differential rating scale; quantitative self-report questionnaire.
• Format: Bipolar 7-point semantic differential scales anchored by explicit directional polarities.
• Item Count: 3 items measuring directional shifts in affinity, general favorability, and purchase intention.
• Administration Time: Approximately 30 to 60 seconds, permitting rapid deployment in laboratory, digital, or mobile intercept environments.
• Scoring Procedures:
  • Each item is typically scored from 1 (representing a strongly negative shift, e.g., Much less favorable) to 7 (representing a strongly positive shift, e.g., Much more favorable), with 4 anchored as the neutral or unchanged midpoint (e.g., No change / Neither more nor less).
  • Alternatively, researchers frequently code responses from -3 (Highly Negative Shift) through 0 (No Impact) to +3 (Highly Positive Shift) to facilitate immediate intuitive interpretation of directional momentum.
  • A composite score is computed by calculating the unweighted arithmetic mean of the three items: $ ext{ATSS2} = rac{ ext{Item}_1 + ext{Item}_2 + ext{Item}_3}{3}$. Scores above 4.0 (or > 0 in a zero-centered scheme) indicate a net positive sponsorship dividend, whereas scores below 4.0 indicate consumer backlash or negative brand erosion.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Test Year: 2011.
• Original Publication: Journal of Advertising, Volume 40, Issue 1, pp. 57–70.
• Permissions and Licensing: The scale was published for scholarly investigation within an academic peer-reviewed journal published by the American Academy of Advertising (Taylor & Francis). Academic researchers, faculty, and graduate students may utilize the scale for non-commercial research and educational investigations without paying royalty fees, provided proper bibliographic attribution is given to Olson and Thjømøe (2011). Commercial organizations, market research firms, and consulting agencies seeking to integrate the scale into proprietary commercial diagnostic suites should review the publisher’s copyright clearance terms or consult the original authors.

12. References

• Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Harvard University Press.
• Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
• Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
• Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1037/10628-000
• Mandler, G. (1982). The structure of value: Accounting for taste. In M. S. Clark & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Affect and cognition: The 17th Annual Carnegie Symposium on Cognition (pp. 3–36). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• McCracken, G. (1989). Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsement process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3), 310–321. https://doi.org/10.1086/209217
• Olson, E. L., & Thjømøe, H. M. (2011). Explaining and articulating the fit construct in sponsorship. Journal of Advertising, 40(1), 57–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2011.10674044
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion. In Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change (pp. 1–24). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1_1

13. Items of the Scale