Sport Management Review

ISSN: 1441-3523 (Print) 1839-2083 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsmr20

Old and exciting? Sport sponsorship effects on

brand age and brand personality

Christoph Hohenberger & Reinhard Grohs

To cite this article: Christoph Hohenberger & Reinhard Grohs (2020) Old and exciting? Sport
sponsorship effects on brand age and brand personality, Sport Management Review, 23:3,
469-481, DOI: 10.1016/j.smr.2019.05.002

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2019.05.002

Published online: 17 May 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 166

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rsmr20
 Sport Management Review 23 (2020) 469–481

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sport Management Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/smr

Old and exciting? Sport sponsorship effects on brand age and

brand personality
Christoph Hohenbergera,1,* , Reinhard Grohsb,1
a
Technical University of Munich (TUM), School of Management, Germany
b
Seeburg Castle University, Austria

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Brand managers often use sport sponsorship to position a brand in terms of human-like
Received 3 August 2018 personality traits (e.g., exciting or sophisticated) and demographic characteristics (e.g.,
Received in revised form 3 May 2019 young or masculine). Yet, little is known why, how, and under which conditions such
Accepted 5 May 2019
associations transfer from a sport property to a sponsor brand. The present study
Available online 17 May 2019
introduces spontaneous trait transference as a mechanism and explicates that its
properties can account for such associative transfer effects in typical sport sponsorship
Keywords:
contexts with unintentional exposure and limited control. Two experiments show that,
Brand personality
Brand age
consistent with spontaneous trait transference predictions, (a) sport sponsorship transfers
Sport sponsorship only the sponsored sports’ focal traits (but no general evaluative halo) to the sponsors, (b)
Stereotypes spontaneous trait transfer occurs for both sport personality and age traits largely
Spontaneous trait transference independent from each other, and (c) transfer effects occur for unfamiliar brands, but also
(to a lesser extent) for familiar brands. Practical implications of these findings for the
selection of sponsorship properties, the design of sponsorship communication, and for
targeting specific consumer segments with appropriate sponsorships are discussed.
© 2019 Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand. Published by Elsevier
Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Consumers associate brands with human-like personality traits and demographic characteristics. Coca-Cola is often
perceived by consumers as more “cool, all-American, and real,” while Pepsi is viewed as being more “young, exciting, and
hip” (Aaker, 1997, p. 348). An important task for brand managers is to influence consumers’ brand associations through
marketing communication activities like sport sponsorships. Sponsorship research has established that sponsorships can
transfer desired personality traits from a sponsored sport event to the sponsor brand that help brands to achieve their
desired position in consumers’ minds (e.g., Chien, Cornwell, & Pappu, 2011; Grohs, 2016). We extend this stream of research
by examining (a) what types of personality associations can transfer from sponsored properties, and (b) how and why these
associations become linked with the sponsor brand.
Important questions remain in this research field. From a managerial perspective, it is of interest for managers if
sponsorships are also capable of transferring demographic characteristics, such as gender, age, or ethnicity to the sponsor. A
typical case is a brand manager of an established brand who wants this brand to be perceived as young to appeal to new

* Corresponding author: Technical University of Munich, Chair of Strategy and Organization, Arcisstr. 21, 80333 Munich, Germany.
E-mail address: c.hohenberger@tum.de (C. Hohenberger).
1
Equally contributed to the paper.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2019.05.002
1441-3523/© 2019 Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
470 C. Hohenberger, R. Grohs / Sport Management Review 23 (2020) 469–481

target markets (Dion & Mazzalovo, 2016; Lehu, 2004). Only few studies provide preliminary insights into this issue (Angle,
Dagogo-Jack, Forehand, & Perkins, 2017; Grohmann, 2009; Huber, Meyer, Vogel, Weihrauch, & Hamprecht, 2013), and none
of them investigates sport sponsorship. If sponsorships are capable of transferring demographic characteristics, managers
need to understand if and how these characteristics interrelate or interfere with brand personality traits. Demographic
characteristics may evoke physical (e.g., elderly are slow) as well as non-physical (e.g., elderly are more sociable) personality
trait stereotypes (Brewer, Dull, & Lui, 1981; Kite, Deaux, & Miele, 1991). Therefore, associating a brand with certain
demographics (e.g., younger age) can lead people to infer stereotypical personality traits, some of them probably desirable
(e.g., more exciting or innovative), some less so (e.g., less sincere, sophisticated, or competent). No study to date has
investigated if in sponsorships such stereotypical effects occur.
The answers to the aforementioned questions depend on the mechanism that can explain the transfer of associations
from a sponsored property to the sponsor brand. The present study introduces spontaneous trait transference (Skowronski,
Carlston, Mae, & Crawford, 1998) as a mechanism that is particularly suitable for explaining trait transfer effects in
sponsorships characterized by unintentional and brief consumer exposure and limited processing of sponsorship
information. Spontaneous trait transference’s properties are used to propose specific hypotheses how, why, and under which
circumstances a sponsored property’s personality traits as well as demographic age traits transfer to (both unfamiliar and
familiar) sponsor brands directly and/or through age and personality trait stereotypes.
We offer two experiments showing results that are consistent with spontaneous trait transference predictions. First,
a single brief exposure to a sport sponsorship is indeed sufficient to transfer specific personality and age characteristics
of a sport event. Second, sport event sponsorship only changes the target brand personality and age traits associated
with the sponsored sport event without a simultaneous change in similarly valenced traits. Thus, no age-personality
stereotyping occurs beyond the direct effect of the sport event sponsorship on sponsor brand’s personality and age
perceptions. Third, personality and age transfer occur for unfamiliar (fictitious) as well as familiar (well-known)
sponsor brands, although effects are considerably smaller in magnitude for established brands. These findings extend
the understanding of mechanisms that drive brand personality and age transfer and help managers to select
sponsorship properties, design sponsorship communication, and target consumer segments with appropriate
sponsorships.

2. Spontaneous trait transference, sport sponsorship, brand personality, and brand age

In increasingly competitive marketplaces, marketers often link their brands with non-brand related objects (e.g.,
celebrity endorser, sports team) in order to transfer associations from this property to the brand (Bergkvist & Taylor, 2016;
Gwinner & Eaton, 1999; McCracken, 1989). In such circumstances, the brand borrows equity from the other property, often in
terms of abstract, intangible aspects of brand knowledge, such as human-like personality traits. Sport sponsorships of
celebrity athletes, teams, or events are classical examples of properties that provide secondary associations for brands,
usually in exchange for a payment of money or in kind from the focal brand to the property (Bergkvist & Taylor, 2016;
Chanavat, Martinent, & Ferrand, 2010).
Existing studies show personality trait transfer from sponsored athletes (Arai, Ko, & Ross, 2014), sport events (Chanavat
et al., 2010), teams (Ferrand & Pages, 1999) or leagues (Kunkel, Funk, & King, 2014) to the sponsor brand. The processes how
the sponsored property’s brand associations become linked with the sponsor are the issue of much debate. In current studies,
inference making (e.g., meaning transfer; McCracken, 1989) and conditioning processes (evaluative and classical
conditioning, e.g., De Houwer, Thomas, & Baeyens, 2001) are the most common processing mechanisms referred to by
sponsorship researchers (e.g., Chien et al., 2011; Grohs & Reisinger, 2014; Gross & Wiedmann, 2015; Gwinner, 1997; see also
Table 1). Inference making requires cognitive elaboration by the recipient of the sponsorship message, whereas conditioning
processes rely on multiple exposures to a sponsorship stimulus.
However, many sponsorships are evidently different, that is, they are often characterized by single exposure and limited
cognitive processing by the recipient. In the next section, the present study introduces spontaneous trait transference as a
mechanism that can explain trait transfer effects in such circumstances. This section outlines the conceptual foundations of
spontaneous trait transference and discusses how the specific properties of it apply in the context of sport sponsorships.

2.1. Spontaneous trait transference

Spontaneous trait transference is the phenomenon that communicators are perceived as possessing the very traits they
describe in others (Skowronski et al., 1998). To explain transference, Mae, Carlston, and Skowronski (1999) proposed a model
that involves three steps: (a) traits are activated during the interpretation of described behaviors, (b) those activated traits
become associated with people present during Step 1, and (c) associations created by Step 2 implicitly influence trait
impressions of those people. Thus, the focal traits become (involuntarily) associated with the informant (Carlston &
Skowronski, 2005). Spontaneous trait transference has been demonstrated not only from one person to another but also
from symbols to people (Carlston & Mae, 2007), and from people to inanimate objects, such as a baseball and a banana (i.e,
the superstitious banana, Brown & Bassili, 2002).
If inferred traits can also be transferred to and from inanimate objects, it can be assumed that spontaneous trait
transference would apply to the transfer from properties like sport events to objects like brands as well (Bergkvist & Taylor,
 C. Hohenberger, R. Grohs / Sport Management Review 23 (2020) 469–481 471

Table 1
Personality Transfer from Sport Events to Sponsor Brands.

Authors (year) Proposed mechanism Findings

Chanavat et al. (2010) Image transfer (no specific Sport event personality (e.g., joy) transfers directly and indirectly from FIFA Soccer World
mechanism) Cup to sponsor.
Chien et al. (2011) Inference making Sport event personality (e.g., ruggedness) transfers from sport events (e.g., Rugby World
Cup) to sponsors.
Grohs (2016) Image transfer (no specific Sport event personality (e.g., exciting, energetic, emotional) transfers from Ice Hockey
mechanism) World Championship to sponsors.
Grohs, Wagner, and Image transfer (no specific Sport event personality (e.g., traditional, sociable) transfers from Alpine Ski World
Vsetecka (2004) mechanism) Championships to sponsors.
Gross and Wiedmann Associative learning / classical Sport event personality (e.g., bold, innovative) transfers from a large, triennial sport event
(2015) conditioning in Switzerland to sponsor.
Gwinner and Eaton Meaning transfer Sport event personality (e.g., aggressive) transfers from sport events (e.g., Indianapolis 500
(1999) Auto Race) to sponsors.
Lee and Cho (2009) Meaning transfer Matching sport event personality (e.g., diligence) and sponsor personality (e.g., sincerity)
increases sponsorship effectiveness.
Martensen et al. (2007) Image transfer (no specific Sport event personality (e.g., exclusive, wanted) transfers from golf tournament to
mechanism) sponsor.

2016). Specifically, Bergkvist (2017) argues that Step 1 of the spontaneous trait transference process can result not only from
behavioral depictions but also from objects strongly associated with certain traits. This object may be a specific sponsored
property or sport. If this sport is strongly associated with a specific personality trait, seeing a picture of that sport should
activate the trait. In Step 2 the activated trait becomes associated with the sponsor brand that is present in the same picture,
and in Step 3 the associations influence evaluations of the sponsor brand with regard to (only) these traits. Arsena, Silvera,
and Pandelaere (2014), for example, demonstrated that traits such as being sincere transferred via spontaneous trait
transference from a coffee brand advertisement to the endorsing celebrity, as long as the trait was not in conflict with the
celebrity’s existing traits.
Spontaneous trait transference is different from other processes used to explain associations transfer in sponsorship.
Compared to inference making, spontaneous trait transference does not require cognitive elaboration. Contrary to
conditioning processes, spontaneous trait transference does not require extended exposure. Indeed, spontaneous trait
transference researchers agree that simple associations occur in a relatively automatic way and even when there are no
logical bases for making inferences (Crawford, Skowronski, Stiff, & Scherer, 2007; Skowronski et al., 1998). Spontaneous trait
transference is not an attributional or inferential process but an associative process that results from the spatial and
temporal contiguity of activated constructs (Carlston & Skowronski, 2005). Thus, Carlston and Skowronski (2005) conclude
that spontaneous trait transference’s effects rely on a “‘gut feeling’ that reflects perceivers’ previously formed person-trait
associations” (p. 886).
These characteristics of spontaneous trait transference have two important implications for sponsorship that diverge
from other transfer mechanisms proposed in the sponsorship literature. First, as transference is unintentional and
nonconscious (Carlston & Skowronski, 2005), its effectiveness does not depend on sponsor awareness. That is, consumers
need not realize the link between sponsor and sport event for trait transfer to take place. In contrast, inference making
mechanisms like the meaning transfer model require awareness of the sponsor for their effects to occur. Second, Carlston and
Skowronski (2005) claim that with spontaneous trait transference there should be little or no evaluative halo in judgments
of third-party informants. Consistent with this claim Bergkvist (2017) demonstrates personality trait transfer from celebrity
endorsers to endorsed brands exclusively for the target personality trait with no effect on other traits. In contrast, personality
trait transfer mechanisms like the meaning transfer model or conditioning processes would predict generalization from one
trait with a positive valence to a range of traits with the same positive valence (Carlston & Skowronski, 2005). The next
section outlines how these properties of spontaneous trait transference inform the hypotheses framework and the design of
the present study.

2.2. Spontaneous trait transference and sport sponsorship effects on brand personality and brand age

Brand personality, such as the personality of sponsored sports, events, teams, leagues and athletes, can be described
as human personality traits that consumers associate with these entities (Aaker, 1997; Braunstein & Ross, 2010). The
personality of sponsored properties originates from their domain (e.g., sports, arts) and their various forms (golf, tennis,
classic music, rock star, festival etc.) (Gwinner, 1997; Smith, 2004). Other factors like event size, professional status of
participants (professional or amateurs), and tradition and history also influence the personality of the sponsored
property (Gwinner, 1997). To assess the personality of brands and sponsored properties, researchers often use Aaker
(1997) brand personality scale with the five dimensions excitement, ruggedness, sincerity, sophistication, and
competence (e.g., Chien et al., 2011; Lee & Cho, 2009; for an overview of studies and the proposed underlying transfer
mechanisms see Table 1).
472 C. Hohenberger, R. Grohs / Sport Management Review 23 (2020) 469–481

Spontaneous trait transference predicts that the transfer of personality traits takes place only for the target traits that are
strongly associated with the sponsored property. For example, rugby is strongly associated with ruggedness (Chien et al.,
2011), hockey with excitement (Grohs, 2016), and golf with exclusiveness, sincerity, and sophistication (Chien et al., 2011;
Martensen, Grønholdt, Bendtsen, & Jensen, 2007). Therefore, according to spontaneous trait transference it is only these
salient and dominant associations that transfer in a relatively automatic way from such sponsored properties to a sponsor
brand, with no evaluative halo in other, similarly valence-laden traits. In accordance with spontaneous trait transference, we
thus propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1. Sport sponsorship transfers salient brand personality perceptions of the sponsored property to the sponsor
brand.
Demographic characteristics are conceptually distinct from personality traits and evaluated separately from each
other (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Empirical results for brands have supported this notion by demonstrating that a brand’s
gender is distinct from its personality traits (Grohmann, 2009). Interestingly, none of the established brand personality
scales includes items related to demographic characteristics, like young, youthful, old, or mature (e.g., Aaker, 1997;
Geuens, Weijters, & De Wulf, 2009). However, Bergkvist (2017) argues that spontaneous trait transference can also
serve as a process for the transfer of sociodemographic characteristics (e.g., age). Arsena et al. (2014) also indicate that
meaning transfer through spontaneous trait transference is not limited to personality traits but includes the transfer of
multiple meanings, such as gender or age. Therefore, spontaneous trait transference predicts that the sponsorship of
specific sports with strong age traits will transfer these age traits to the sponsor brand. For example, sports like BMX
biking and skateboarding are associated with a fairly young age (Cliffe & Motion, 2005), whereas sports like horse
racing and golf are associated with a rather older age (Lee & Cho, 2012). Therefore, we propose the following
hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2. Sport sponsorship transfers salient brand age perceptions of the sponsored property to the sponsor brand.
Carlston and Skowronski (2005) finding that spontaneous trait transference effects fail to generalize beyond the
particular target trait also has important implications for potential stereotyping effects. Specifically, it suggests that no
stereotyping will occur beyond the direct transference effects of sport sponsorships on sponsor brand personality and age
traits. Therefore, in the empirical study we expect to find null results (i.e., no significant correlations) among personality and
age traits when controlling for the direct effect of the sponsorship.
Conceptually, we propose Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2 for unfamiliar and familiar sponsor brands, because Mae et al.
(1999) find that traits activated by behavioral descriptions transfer to familiar celebrities in the same way they transfer to
unknown people. Yet, we assume that trait transference effects will be smaller for familiar (established) brands than for
unfamiliar (fictitious) brands, because Arsena et al. (2014) show that spontaneous trait transference does not occur for
endorsers with a strong preexisting trait that conflicts with the product’s associated trait; similarly, Bergkvist (2017) finds
only weak spontaneous trait transference effects for familiar brands and only for consistent traits (i.e., reinforcement of
already existing target traits) in the context of celebrity endorsements. The next section outlines the design of the
experiments and tests the proposed hypotheses.

3. Empirical approach

To be consistent with the spontaneous trait transference paradigm, the design of the experiment should discourage
participants’ information processing (to avoid inferential processes) and limit participants’ exposure (to avoid conditioning
processes). Therefore, we used little information in the stimulus material. This is consistent with typical sponsorships that
usually consist of very brief links between the sponsor and the sponsored property, and different from more complex stimuli
like advertisements. In addition, participants received a single exposure to the sponsorship stimulus to rule out that
sponsorship effects occur because of consumer learning.

3.1. Stimuli selection

First, we selected two sports with salient and highly idiosyncratic personality and age traits, that is, BMX biking and golf.
Existing studies found that BMX biking is generally associated with excitement and ruggedness (Bennett & Lachowetz, 2004;
Cliffe & Motion, 2005). Golf was found to be generally associated with sincerity and sophistication (Chien et al., 2011; Lee &
Cho, 2012). In terms of competence, studies indicate no strong personality traits for either sport, but Bennett and Lachowetz
(2004) note that for sports like BMX biking creativity, individuality, and a ‘cool’ style are highly important, which is distinct
from the established, more performance-oriented and elitist sports like golf. These findings suggest that BMX biking may be
perceived less competent than golf. In line with H1 we would thus expect personality trait transfer to the sponsor brand for
excitement and ruggedness when sponsoring BMX biking, and for sincerity, sophistication and competence when
sponsoring golf. In terms of age perceptions, both BMX riders and the sport itself are associated with a fairly young age,
whereas in the case of golf, both golf players and the sport itself are associated with a rather older age (Cliffe & Motion, 2005;
Lee & Cho, 2012). Therefore, in line with H2 we predict that sport sponsorship of a BMX (vs. golf) event decreases (vs.
increases) brand age perceptions of the sponsor brand.
 C. Hohenberger, R. Grohs / Sport Management Review 23 (2020) 469–481 473

A pretest was carried out to confirm that BMX and golf showed the expected age and personality trait perceptions. Study
1 then used a fictitious brand and examined the spontaneous trait transfer of age and personality traits from the sponsored
sport events to an unfamiliar sponsor brand, testing H1 and H2. Study 2 replicated the analyses with a familiar sponsor
brand.

3.2. Pretest

The pretest aimed to establish that the two sports BMX and golf are distinct in terms of perceived age and personality
traits. The first pretest presented a convenience sample of 37 participants with eighteen well-known sports (e.g., volleyball,
basketball etc.; see Appendix A) and asked them to imagine that each sport is a person and to indicate how old the person
would be (in years). Results showed that BMX and golf were significantly different in terms of consumers’ perceived age, t
(72) = -10.47, p < .001. As expected, BMX (M = 18.84, SD = 10.57) was perceived significantly younger than golf (M = 47.70,
SD = 13.03).
The second pretest measured consumers’ personality trait perceptions for BMX and golf to confirm that both sports
indeed had the expected salient personality traits (i.e., exciting and rugged for BMX, and sincere, sophisticated and
competent for golf). A convenience sample of 121 participants filled out an online survey. Like in the sports age pretest,
participants were told to imagine that each sport is a person and to indicate how well the presented adjectives describe
the respective sport. Sport personality was measured with a shortened, adapted version of the brand personality scale
by Aaker (1997), which was used successfully in previous brand stereotype research (Ivens, Leischnig, Muller, & Valta,
2015). The scale included 15 single-adjective items (three items for each dimension) measuring the five dimensions
excitement (energetic, exciting, spirited), ruggedness (rugged, tough, rough), sincerity (honest, down-to-earth,
sincere), sophistication (sophisticated, glamorous, upper class), and competence (reliable, competent, hardworking).
Items were presented on a 5-point rating scale, and poles were labeled with ‘doesn’t describe the sport at all’ to
‘describes the sport extremely well’.
As expected, participants perceived BMX as significantly more exciting and rugged, as well as significantly less sincere,
sophisticated, and competent than golf (see Table 2; F values  21.96, all p values < .001). Importantly, one-sample t-tests
showed that BMX was perceived significantly more exciting (but not significantly more rugged), and golf was perceived
significantly more sincere, sophisticated, and competent than the scale mid-point. In contrast, golf was perceived
significantly less exciting and rugged, and BMX was perceived significantly less sincere and sophisticated (see Table 2). These
results confirmed the potential of BMX and golf events to improve consumer perceptions of the sponsor brands with regard
to the hypothesized personality traits, except for ruggedness. Next, two studies investigated if and how consumers’
perceived age and personality perceptions of BMX and golf events transfer to unfamiliar (fictitious) and familiar sponsor
brands.

4. Study 1

4.1. Method

Study 1 combined the two sports with a fictitious sponsor brand and assessed the transfer of sport age and personality
from the sponsored sport to the sponsor brand directly and indirectly through stereotyping (halo) processes. The
experiment was a one factor, two levels (sport event sponsorship: BMX, golf) between-subjects design. In addition, for
each of the two sport conditions we designed two different versions of the sport sponsorship announcement to ascertain
that it is not idiosyncratic effects of a specific picture of the illustrated sport (e.g., specific colors) that cause the effects we
observe. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four different versions of the stimulus material and filled out a
questionnaire after exposure to the stimulus material. Thus, each participant only saw one sport sponsorship
announcement.

Table 2
Pretest: Brand Age and Personality Perceptions of Different Sports.

Pretest 1 Pretest 2
Evaluations of sport Sport age Excitement Ruggedness Sincerity Sophistication (α = .88) Competence (α = .76)2
(α = .87) (α = .63)1 (α = .78)
BMX 19a 4.21a 3.14a 2.73a 2.36a 2.56a
Golf 48b 2.32c 2.15b 3.67c 4.31c 3.67b
Mid-Point 3.00b 3.00a 3.00b 3.00b 3.00a

Different superscripts (a,b,c) in each column indicate significant differences between means.
1
Cronbach’s α shows that the three ruggedness items were not reliable in the pretest, but the same three items were reliable in Study 1 and Study 2.
2
One item was deleted because it was found to be unreliable. Including this item does not change the significance of the differences between the three
means.
474 C. Hohenberger, R. Grohs / Sport Management Review 23 (2020) 469–481

4.1.1. Stimuli
The sponsorship announcement contained a picture of a person performing the sponsored sport (e.g., a person who rides
a BMX), the sport event in words (e.g., BMX Contest), a date, the place where it would take place, as well as the brand name of
the fictitious sponsor Shawery. Additionally, the sponsorship announcement included the phrase “sponsored by Shawery.” To
limit the effects of age associations derived from the people who perform the sport, faces were not shown on the pictures
(see Appendix B for the stimulus material).

4.1.2. Measures
Similar to the pretest, perceived brand age was measured by asking participants to imagine that Shawery is a person and
to indicate its age in a blank field. Brand personality was again measured with the shortened 15-item brand personality scale
based on Aaker (1997) used in the pretest. The scale was introduced by telling participants that the following adjectives are
used to describe traits of humans, but they can also be used to describe brands. Subsequently, they were told that they should
imagine that Shawery was a person and rate how well the following adjectives describe it. Items were presented on a 5-point
rating scale ranging from ‘doesn’t describe the brand at all’ to ‘describes the brand extremely well’. Each facet was captured
by three items: excitement (items: exciting, cool, and spirited), ruggedness (items: rugged, tough, and rough), sincerity
(items: honest, down-to-earth, and sincere), sophistication (items: sophisticated, glamorous, and upper class), competence
(items: reliable, competent, and hardworking).

4.1.3. Participants and procedure

In total, 143 people (54% females) with an average age of 31 years (SD = 11.50, range: 17–94 years) participated in the
study. Participants were a convenience sample contacted through social media platforms and directly via emails. Almost
half of the sample consisted of students (N = 68), representing a younger age group. After agreeing to take part in the study,
they received a link to an online questionnaire. In the first section, participants were informed that the aim of the study was
to assess sport sponsorship announcements and had to answer questions regarding their socio-demographics (age, gender,
and education). In the second part, participants were exposed to one of the four different announcements. After seeing the
sport event (sponsorship) announcement participants were asked to indicate the perceived age of the brand and its
personality.

4.2. Results

4.2.1. Preliminary analysis

A preliminary analysis served to confirm that the two different versions of the sponsorship announcement in all three
sports did not differ in terms of brand age perceptions. Regression-based analysis, F (5, 142) = 68.19, p < .001, with age ratings
as the dependent variable and sport event sponsorship (BMX, golf), announcements (two versions) as well as the sport-
announcement interaction as the independent variables showed that the sport event sponsorship had a significant effect (β =
.85, p < .001), while the two announcements (β = .04, p = .71) and the interaction term (β = -.01, p = .96) were not significant.
As expected, pairwise comparisons showed that the announcement of the BMX event sponsorship in the first ad (Ma1 = 18.08,
N = 39) did not differ significantly from the announcement of the BMX event sponsorship in the second ad (Ma2 = 19.03, N =
36) with regard to the brand’s perceived age (p = .93). A similar non-significant effect was observed for the two golf event
announcements (Ma1 = 41.15, N = 33; Ma2 = 42.00, N = 35; p = .99). These results indicated that for each of the two sports both
announcements elicited similar brand age perceptions; thus, we aggregated the data over the two different sponsorship
announcements.

4.2.2. The effect of sport sponsorship on brand personality perceptions

To test whether sport sponsorship was able to influence the personality of a brand (i.e., H1) a multivariate analysis of
covariance (MANCOVA) was used. Thereby, the two sport conditions were the levels of the independent variable, the brand
personality dimensions were entered as dependent variables, and participants’ gender and age were included as covariates
to control for individual consumer characteristics. Levene’s test for equality of variances was violated for certain brand
personality dimensions (i.e., ruggedness, sophistication). Therefore, for ruggedness and sophistication Games-Howell post-
hoc comparisons are reported.
MANCOVA results showed significant differences in the perception of brand personality dimensions between the two
sport events, F (5, 135) = 71.09, p < .001, Wilks’ Lambda L = .28, h2 = .73. Pairwise comparisons (see Table 3) revealed that
when sponsoring the BMX event Shawery was perceived more exciting (M = 3.81, SD = .96, N = 75) than when sponsoring the
golf event (M = 2.01, SD = .76, N = 68); more rugged (M = 2.27, SD = .97 vs. M = 1.52, SD = .63); less sincere (M = 2.43, SD = .79 vs.
M = 2.99, SD = .97); less sophisticated (M = 1.88, SD = .68 vs. M = 3.45, SD = 1.11); and less competent (M = 2.78, SD = .79 vs.
M = 3.10, SD = .91). Therefore, the results (for an overview see Fig. 1) provide support for Hypothesis 1.

4.2.3. The effect of sport sponsorship on brand age perceptions

To test whether the sponsored sport events were able to transfer their associated age to the fictitious sponsor brand (i.e.,
Hypothesis 2) an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed. Perceived brand age served as the dependent variable, the
 C. Hohenberger, R. Grohs / Sport Management Review 23 (2020) 469–481 475

Table 3
Study 1: Brand Age and Personality Perceptions of Shawery.

Evaluations of Shawery Sponsor brand Excitement Ruggedness Sincerity Sophistication Competence

when sponsoring age (α = .91) (α = .78) (α = .77) (α = .89) (α = .74)
BMX 19a 3.81a 2.27a 2.43a 1.88a 2.78a
Golf 42b 2.01c 1.52c 2.99b 3.45c 3.10b
Mid-Point 3.00b 3.00b 3.00b 3.00b 3.00b

Different superscripts (a,b,c) in each column indicate significant differences between means.

Fig. 1. Fictitious Sponsor Brand: Effects on Brand Personality Perceptions.

sport sponsorship manipulation served as the between-subjects factor, and participants’ gender and age were included as
covariates to control for individual consumer characteristics.
As Levene’s test for equality of variances indicated that the assumption of homogeneity of variance was violated, a Mann-
Whitney U post-hoc test was performed. ANCOVA results confirmed a main effect of the sport event sponsorship condition
on the perceived age of Shawery, F (1, 139) = 337.41, p < .001). Post-hoc comparisons revealed that in the BMX sponsorship
condition participants perceived the age of Shawery significantly younger (Mdn = 18) than in the golf sponsorship condition
(Mdn = 42; U = 123.5, p < .001). These results support Hypothesis 2. Thus, sport event sponsorship was able to alter the
perceived age of a fictitious brand, and, as expected, the age range for the sponsor brand is slightly smaller than the age range
for the two sports (see Table 2).
In line with our expectations, the empirical study also showed no significant correlations between brand personality
and age traits when controlling for the direct effect of the sponsorship. These findings indicate that no stereotyping or halo
effects occur beyond direct transference effects of sport sponsorships on sponsor brand personality and age. These results
are again supportive of spontaneous trait transference as the mechanism explaining sport sponsorship effects in the
present study.

5. Study 2

Study 2 replicated Study 1 but used a familiar brand as the sponsor. Aral, the largest petrol station brand in Germany with
a market share of 21.5% in 2017 (Statista, 2018) served as the sponsor brand. We expected similar results as in Study 1 but
smaller effect sizes, because changing the perceived age and personality of an established brand is more difficult than
building new age and personality perceptions for an unknown (fictitious) brand. Like in Study 1, the experiment had a one
factor, two level (sport event sponsorship: BMX, golf) between-subjects design with two different versions of the sport event
sponsorship announcement to ascertain that no idiosyncratic features of a specific picture of the illustrated sport (e.g.,
specific colors) cause the effects we observe. In addition, we collected data from a control group to compare the findings in
the experimental groups with participants’ perceptions of brand age and personality of Aral without any of the two sport
sponsorship announcements.
476 C. Hohenberger, R. Grohs / Sport Management Review 23 (2020) 469–481

5.1. Method

5.1.1. Stimuli, measures, participants and procedure

The stimulus material was the same as in Study 1 but used Aral as the sponsor brand. For the control group we only
showed the Aral logo without a sport sponsorship. Perceived brand age and brand personality were measured using the same
procedure and scales as in Study 1. In addition, we measured brand familiarity and brand liking to control for confounding
effects due to different knowledge or likeability of the brand. Participants indicated how well they know (like) the brand on
5-point Likert scales ranging from ‘0 = don’t know (like) the brand at all’ to ‘4 = know (like) the brand very well’.
In the two sport event sponsorship announcement groups 325 people (50% females) with an average age of 40 years
(SD = 11.30; range: 20–60 years) participated in the study. In the control group 162 people (50% females) with an average age
of 42 years (SD = 11.47; range: 20–60 years) participated in the study. The sample is representative for the German population
in terms of age and gender (Bundesamt, 2018). Nearly half of the sample had a lower educational degree (45%), and almost
one quarter had a university degree (23%). Participants were recruited through a panel provider in Germany. They received
an online questionnaire, which was structured like the questionnaire in Study 1. In the first part, participants were told that
the survey was about the perception of brands and answered questions regarding their socio-demographics (age, gender, and
education). In the second part, they saw one of the four sport event sponsorship announcements (or the Aral logo without a
sponsorship announcement in the control group) and were asked to answer the questions about their perceived brand age,
brand personality, brand familiarity, and brand liking.

5.2. Results

5.2.1. Preliminary results

For the four sport event sponsorship announcements we again confirmed that the two different versions of the
sponsorship announcement for each sport did not differ in terms of brand age perceptions. A regression, F (5, 311) = 5.21, p <
.001, with age ratings as the dependent variable and sport event sponsorship (BMX, golf), announcements (two versions) as
well as the sport-announcement interaction as the independent variables revealed a significant main effect of the two sports
(β = .19, p < .01), but no significant effect of the two announcements (β = .09, p = .47) and no significant interaction (β = .12,
p = .42). As expected, pairwise comparisons showed that the announcement of the BMX event sponsorship in the first ad
(Ma1 = 42.87, N = 83) did not differ significantly from the announcement of the BMX event sponsorship in the second ad
(Ma2 = 44.89, N = 84) with regard to Aral’s perceived age (p = .99). A similar non-significant effect was observed for the two
golf event sponsorship announcements (Ma1 = 52.01, N = 82; Ma2 = 49.03, N = 61; p = .97). These results indicated that for each
of the two sports both announcements elicited similar brand age perceptions; thus, we aggregated the data over the two
different sponsorship announcements.

5.2.2. The effect of sport sponsorship on brand personality perceptions

To test whether sport sponsorship was able to influence the personality of a brand (i.e., H1) a multivariate analysis of
covariance (MANCOVA) was used for the experimental group. Thereby, the two sport conditions were the levels of the
independent variable, the brand personality dimensions were entered as dependent variables, and participants’ gender, age,
brand familiarity and brand liking were included as covariates to control for individual consumer characteristics. As Levene’s
test for equality of variances was violated for sincerity, Games-Howell post-hoc comparisons are reported. MANCOVA results
showed significant differences in the perception of brand personality dimensions between the two sports, F (5, 302) = 8.94,
p < .001, Wilks’ Lambda L = .87, h2 = .13. Pairwise comparisons (see Table 4) revealed that when sponsoring the BMX event
Aral was perceived more exciting (M = 3.25, SD = .88, N = 167) than when sponsoring the golf event (M = 2.91, SD = .89, N =
143); more rugged (M = 2.39, SD = .89 vs. M = 2.12, SD = .94); and less sophisticated (M = 2.88, SD = .85 vs. M = 3.17, SD = .92).
With regard to the sincerity and competence dimensions the analysis showed no significant differences.
For a familiar brand, another way of assessing sponsorship effects is comparing consumers’ perceived brand personality
in the experimental conditions with the control condition where no sponsorship took place (Grohs, 2016). While we do not
expect large effects, because a single exposure to a sponsorship of a fictitious event by a well-known brand is not likely to
command large changes of the sponsor brand’s perceived personality, we nevertheless expect to see tendencies. Pairwise
comparisons (see Table 4) showed that in line with H1 Aral was perceived more exciting when sponsoring BMX than in the

Table 4
Study 2: Brand Age and Personality Perceptions of Aral.

Evaluations of Aral when Sponsor brand Excitement Ruggedness Sincerity Sophistication Competence
sponsoring age (α = .82) (α = .78) (α = .88) (α = .82) (α = .86)
BMX 44a 3.25a 2.39a 3.10 2.88a 3.37a
Golf 51b 2.91b 2.12b 3.14 3.17b 3.43ab
Control-Group 47ab 2.96b 2.34a 3.25 3.09b 3.60b

Different superscripts (a,b) in each column indicate significant differences between means.
 C. Hohenberger, R. Grohs / Sport Management Review 23 (2020) 469–481 477

Fig. 2. Familiar Sponsor Brand: Effects on Brand Personality Perceptions.

control condition without sponsorship (M = 3.25, SD = .88 vs. M = 2.96, SD = .94; t(327) = 2.89, p < .01). In addition, results were
in the expected directions for ruggedness (i.e., Aral was perceived as more (vs. less) rugged than the control group when
sponsoring BMX (vs. golf)) and for sophistication (i.e., Aral was perceived as more (vs. less) sophisticated than the control
group when sponsoring golf (vs. BMX)), but differences did not reach conventional significance levels.
Therefore, the results (for an overview see Fig. 2) support Hypothesis 1 for the salient personality traits excitement
(compared with a different sport event sponsorship as well as with a control group), ruggedness, and sophistication
(compared with a different sport event sponsorship). No support was found for the less salient personality traits sincerity
and competence. As expected, the observed patterns indicate a considerably wider range for the sponsor personality
perceptions of the unfamiliar (fictitious) sponsor brand Shawery in Study 1 (Fig. 1) compared with the familiar sponsor brand
Aral in Study 2 (Fig. 2) because consumers have preexisting personality perceptions for the latter that are more difficult to
change. Nevertheless, overall the findings indicate that even for a familiar brand it is possible to transfer specific salient
personality traits of sponsored sport events to the sponsor brand even when sponsorship exposure is short and consumers’
attention is limited.

5.2.3. The effect of sport sponsorship on perceived brand age

To test whether the sponsored sport events were able to transfer their associated age to the sponsored brand (i.e.,
Hypothesis 2) an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed for the experimental group. Perceived brand age served as
the dependent variable, the sport sponsorship manipulation served as the between-subjects factor, and participants’ gender,
age, brand familiarity and brand liking were included as covariates to control for individual consumer characteristics.
ANCOVA results confirmed a main effect of the sport event sponsorship condition on the perceived age of Aral, F (1,
305) = 8.21, p < .001. A post-hoc pairwise comparison revealed that in the BMX event sponsorship condition participants
perceived the age of Aral significantly younger (M = 43.89, SD = 24.09) than in the golf event sponsorship condition
(M = 50.73, SD = 21.61), t (310) = 2.64, p = .009. Thus, sport sponsorship was able to alter the perceived age also in the case of a
familiar brand, although, as expected, the age range for the familiar sponsor brand Aral is considerably smaller than the age
range for the unfamiliar (fictitious) sponsor brand Shawery in Study 1.
Comparisons of participants’ perceptions of Aral’s perceived brand age in the experimental groups with the control group
showed no significant differences. Yet, as expected, when sponsoring BMX (M = 43.89, SD = 24.09), Aral was perceived as
rather younger, and when sponsoring golf (M = 50.73, SD = 21.61), Aral was perceived as rather older than in the control
condition without sponsorship (M = 47.02, SD = 22.63). Overall, the results thus support Hypothesis 2 that a specific sport
event sponsorship transfers the perceived age associations of the sponsored sport to a familiar sponsor brand compared with
a different sport event sponsorship.
Similar to Study 1, additional analyses showed no significant correlations between brand personality and age traits
when controlling for the direct effect of the sponsorship for excitement, ruggedness, sincerity, and competence, and a very
small significant effect for sophistication. These findings indicate that no or very little stereotyping or halo effects occur
beyond direct transference effects of sport sponsorships on sponsor brand personality and age. These results are again
consistent with spontaneous trait transference as the mechanism explaining sport sponsorship effects in the present
study.
478 C. Hohenberger, R. Grohs / Sport Management Review 23 (2020) 469–481

6. Discussion

6.1. Summary and theoretical contribution

Given the challenges for a brand manager to distinguish a brand from competitors through its personality and marketing
communication activities (Keller & Lehmann, 2006), to address different customer (age) segments (Bekk, Spörrle, Landes, &
Moser, 2017), and/or to rejuvenate the brand (Lehu, 2004), establishing key brand associations in the consumer’s mind has
become a major concern (Keller, 2003). Existing research has argued that (sport) sponsorship is better suited than other
types of marketing communication for linking such associations to a brand in consumers’ memory (Bergkvist & Taylor, 2016).
Yet, research gaps remain.
First, recent studies criticized that (sport) sponsorship research has frequently neglected the potential for sponsorship to
transfer non-evaluative associations, such as personality perceptions, and simple cognitive meanings, like gender and age
perceptions, from the sponsored property to the sponsor brand (Bergkvist, 2017; Kim, Stout, & Cheong, 2012). Including such
non-evaluative brand associations in the analysis of sport sponsorships is, however, crucial, as they are important for the
brand in the long term because they can be linked with evaluative associations (Grohs & Reisinger, 2014). Second, existing
sponsorship research often draws on conceptual models of association transfer that do not adequately reflect the nature of
many sponsorships, that is, unintentional and brief consumer exposure and limited cognitive processing of sponsorship
information.
The present research addresses these two gaps. The study proposes spontaneous trait transference theory as a
mechanism that can explain sponsorship effects under conditions of brief sponsorship exposure and shallow information
processing. Spontaneous trait transference can also explain sponsorship effects on both a sponsor brand’s personality and
age perceptions. Finally, spontaneous trait transference allows specific predictions that can be tested.
Consistent with the spontaneous trait transference framework, the empirical study shows that a single brief
exposure to a sport sponsorship is sufficient to transfer specific salient personality and age characteristics of a sport
event onto an unfamiliar (fictitious) sponsor brand. Also in line with spontaneous trait transference predictions, sport
event sponsorship only changes the target brand personality and age traits associated with the sponsored sport event
without a simultaneous change in similarly valence-laden traits. This is crucial because it suggests that no age-
personality stereotyping or halo occurs beyond the direct effect of the sport event sponsorship on the sponsor brand’s
personality and age perceptions. As suggested by spontaneous trait transference, personality and age transfer effects
for a familiar (well-known) sponsor brand are remarkably similar, although considerably smaller in magnitude. The
weaker effects are likely caused by the fact that consumers had prior knowledge of the brand, and these existing
associations were difficult to change through a single exposure to a sponsorship of a fictitious sport event (Doyle,
Pentecost, & Funk, 2014).
Despite the empirical evidence for an spontaneous trait transference mechanism in our studies, a note of caution is
warranted. The sport event sponsorship announcements we used reflect a typical sport sponsorship situation more
consistent with the spontaneous trait transference framework than with other mechanisms that can explain association
transfer (e.g., meaning transfer, evaluative conditioning). Nevertheless, showing support for the spontaneous trait
transference mechanism does not suggest that other mechanisms may not also be relevant. At multi-day or multi-week
sport events, like the soccer World Cup, consumers may well experience extensive sponsorship exposure that fosters
consumer learning and supportive advertising that prompts cognitive elaboration. Therefore, depending on the
circumstances (e.g., limited vs. repeated exposure, stimulus complexity, consumers’ opportunity, ability, and
motivation for cognitive elaboration) we suggest that different, or even multiple mechanisms simultaneously are
required to explain sponsorship effects in terms of association transfer from the sponsored property to the sponsor
brand.

6.2. Managerial implications

Brand managers of companies, public organizations, cities, or other entities can use the findings from this study to
improve consumers’ perceptions of their brands’ personality and age.
If managers want to change brand image, sport sponsorships are a promising choice, because we showed that sport
sponsorships can improve very specific brand personality and age perceptions in line with brand managers’ intended brand
positioning. These effects occur without unintended (and potentially negative) stereotyping effects or an overall evaluative
halo. For example, if brand managers want a brand to be perceived as younger they can sponsor sports that are perceived as
younger, like BMX or skateboarding, whereas if they want the brand to be perceived as older they should focus on sports that
are perceived as relatively old, like golf or dart (see Appendix A for a comprehensive list of sports and their corresponding age
ratings). Managers are also advised to sponsor endorsers in these sports who fall into the target age range, because endorsers
also transfer their age to the brand.
Another practical implication from our findings relates to suggestions how to adjust a brand’s personality or age
over time. We showed that one-time sport sponsorship efforts are sufficient to change the perceived brand personality
of the sponsor brand. This would also allow brands with smaller budgets to change the perceived personality or age by
sponsoring small and/or local events. Given that we used sponsorship announcements as communication means,
 C. Hohenberger, R. Grohs / Sport Management Review 23 (2020) 469–481 479

brand managers can put these announcements on their own and their partners’ webpages to extend their potential
reach via additional communication channels. Moreover, brand managers can harness social media channels to
promote their sponsorship, which would be a cost-effective approach to promoting the change of a brand’s personality
or perceived age.
Finally, our results have implications for brand extensions. For example, Grohmann (2009) demonstrated that the misfit
of the demographic image of a product (e.g., female) with a brand’s demographic image (e.g., male) leads to a lower purchase
intention of the respective product. More interestingly, Lambert-Pandraud and Laurent (2010) found that older consumers
tend to remain attached to older products. The authors hypothesize that one reason for this effect lies in the relationship
consumers form with the product over time; older people look for products they are already familiar with because they have
been around for a long time, and they look for products that are in line with their self-image, for example in terms of age (cf.
Belk, 1988). Thus, rejuvenating existing older brand age perceptions can lead to a misfit with the perceived age of the product
and thus lower purchase intentions. To address this issue, brands could tailor (sport) sponsorships to specific consumer
segments (e.g., older and younger) to avoid a misfit and create consistent but distinct brand age perceptions within different
age segments.

6.3. Limitations and further research

Although this study contributes to our understanding of sport sponsorship effects on brand personality and brand age,
some limitations remain. The present study focused on the transfer of salient personality traits and age perceptions from
specific sport event sponsorships to sponsor brands. However, we did not analyze other demographic characteristics, such
as gender, or socio-demographics, like social class. In addition, we did not examine the sources of the sports personality
traits and age perceptions. Consumers’ beliefs about the actual age of the sport, for example, may contribute to the sport’s
and the sponsor brand’s age and personality perceptions; BMX, surfing, or skateboarding, for example, are young sports
founded in the last 50 years, whereas tennis is considerably older, and track and field athletics were already performed in
Ancient Greece and Rome. Furthermore, it is difficult to separate characteristics of typical users or endorsers in the
different sports from actual sports characteristics, because socio-demographic characteristics of typical users are one
pillar for evaluating perceived brand age and personality of a specific sport. The potential of a sponsored sport (event) to
influence the perceived brand age and personality will thus also depend on the existence of stereotypes about the typical
sport user (Maehle & Supphellen, 2011). The physical engagement linked to the sport itself might also influence the
personality and socio-demographic perceptions of a sport sponsor brand. Golf, for example, is played in a very harmless
environment, whereas BMX is more dangerous and the sportsperson has to wear a helmet because the likelihood of a
serious injury is much higher.
Therefore, further research should examine transfer effects of other socio-demographic characteristics, such as gender or
education. In addition, further research could investigate the sources of the personality traits and the socio-demographic
perceptions of specific sports, for example in relation to a sport’s history, typical athlete and spectator stereotypes, or a
sport’s physical characteristics. Investigating individual consumer differences, like their liking or relevance of the sponsored
sports, can provide another promising avenue for further research, because individual consumer differences may serve as
moderators that can increase (or decrease) the magnitude of sport sponsorship effects. Overall, a better understanding of
consumer characteristics as well as different sources of a sponsored sport’s personality and socio-demographic perceptions
would be useful for improving association transfer effectiveness in sport sponsorship and informing sport sponsorship
selection and design.
Finally, from a theoretical perspective, spontaneous trait transference provides a starting point for highly relevant further
sponsorship research. The specific features of spontaneous trait transference outlined in the present study (failure to
generalize beyond the focal trait, very little dependency on working memory capacity, unintentional and nonconscious
processing, independence of sponsor awareness) are consistent with sponsorship studies that show implicit memory and
brand choice effects of sponsorship without conscious sponsor recall or recognition (e.g., Herrmann, Walliser, & Kacha,
2011). Even more interesting, Carlston and Skowronski (2005), p. 896) note that in an spontaneous trait transference
framework “participants cannot consciously correct for the transference error simply by being warned of that error prior to
making their judgments.” These properties of spontaneous trait transference open up new avenues for research on (sport)
sponsorship (e.g., on the effectiveness of sponsorship disclosure) that can have important implications for sponsorship
researchers and managers.

Appendix A. Perceived Sport Age in Years

BMX: 18.84; Snowboarding: 20.92; Surfing: 23.03; Motocross: 23.73; Beach volleyball: 25.62; Basketball: 25.76;
Swimming: 26.95; Soccer: 28.32; Figure skating: 31.68; Tennis: 31.76; Skiing: 32.30; Bicycle racing: 33.22; Formula 1: 35.03;
Equestrianism: 38.03; Sailing: 40.89; Dart: 43.95; Golf: 47.70; Bavarian curling: 51.76
480 C. Hohenberger, R. Grohs / Sport Management Review 23 (2020) 469–481

Appendix B. Sport Sponsorship Stimuli Study 1: BMX, Golf

Condition 1

Condition 2

Condition 3

Condition 4
 C. Hohenberger, R. Grohs / Sport Management Review 23 (2020) 469–481 481

References

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347–356.
Angle, J. W., Dagogo-Jack, S. W., Forehand, M. R., & Perkins, A. W. (2017). Activating stereotypes with brand imagery: The role of viewer political identity.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(1), 84–90.
Arai, A., Ko, Y. J., & Ross, S. (2014). Branding athletes: Exploration and conceptualization of athlete brand image. Sport Management Review, 17(2), 97–106.
Arsena, A., Silvera, D. H., & Pandelaere, M. (2014). Brand trait transference: When celebrity endorsers acquire brand personality traits. Journal of Business
Research, 67(7), 1537–1543.
Bekk, M., Spörrle, M., Landes, M., & Moser, K. (2017). Traits grow important with increasing age: Customer age, brand personality and loyalty. Journal of
Business Economics, 87(4), 511–531.
Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the extended self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139–168.
Bennett, G., & Lachowetz, T. (2004). Marketing to lifestyles: Action sports and generation Y. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 13(4), 239–243.
Bergkvist, L. (2017). Celebrity trait transference: When brands pick up endorsers’ personality traits. International Journal of Advertising, 36(5), 663–681.
Bergkvist, L., & Taylor, C. R. (2016). Leveraged marketing communications: A framework for explaining the effects of secondary brand associations. AMS
Review, 6(3-4), 157–175.
Braunstein, J. R., & Ross, S. D. (2010). Brand personality in sport: Dimension analysis and general scale development. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 19(1), 8–16.
Brewer, M. B., Dull, V., & Lui, L. (1981). Perceptions of the elderly: Stereotypes as prototypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(4), 656–670.
Brown, R. D., & Bassili, J. N. (2002). Spontaneous trait associations and the case of the superstitious banana. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(1), 87–92.
Bundesamt, D.-S. (2018). Bevölkerungsstand – Durchschnittsalter nach Geschlecht und Staatsangehörigkeit. Retrieved from. https://www.destatis.de/DE/
ZahlenFakten/GesellschaftStaat/Bevoelkerung/Bevoelkerungsstand/Tabellen/Durchschnittsalter_Zensus.html.
Carlston, D. E., & Mae, L. (2007). Posing with the flag: Trait-specific effects of symbols on person perception. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(2),
241–248.
Carlston, D. E., & Skowronski, J. J. (2005). Linking versus thinking: Evidence for the different associative and attributional bases of spontaneous trait
transference and spontaneous trait inference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(6), 884–898.
Chanavat, N., Martinent, G., & Ferrand, A. (2010). Brand images causal relationships in a multiple sport event sponsorship context: Developing brand value
through association with sponsees. European Sport Management Quarterly, 10(1), 49–74.
Chien, P. M., Cornwell, T. B., & Pappu, R. (2011). Sponsorship portfolio as a brand-image creation strategy. Journal of Business Research, 64(2), 142–149.
Cliffe, S. J., & Motion, J. (2005). Building contemporary brands: A sponsorship-based strategy. Journal of Business Research, 58(8), 1068–1077.
Crawford, M. T., Skowronski, J. J., Stiff, C., & Scherer, C. R. (2007). Interfering with inferential, but not associative, processes underlying spontaneous trait
inference. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(5), 677–690.
De Houwer, J., Thomas, S., & Baeyens, F. (2001). Association learning of likes and dislikes: A review of 25 years of research on human evaluative conditioning.
Psychological Bulletin, 127(6), 853–869.
Dion, D., & Mazzalovo, G. (2016). Reviving sleeping beauty brands by rearticulating brand heritage. Journal of Business Research, 69(12), 5894–5900.
Doyle, J. P., Pentecost, R. D., & Funk, D. C. (2014). The effect of familiarity on associated sponsor and event brand attitudes following negative celebrity
endorser publicity. Sport Management Review, 17(3), 310–323.
Ferrand, A., & Pages, M. (1999). Image management in sport organisations: The creation of value. European Journal of Marketing, 33(3/4), 387–402.
Geuens, M., Weijters, B., & De Wulf, K. (2009). A new measure of brand personality. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26(2), 97–107.
Grohmann, B. (2009). Gender dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(1), 105–119.
Grohs, R. (2016). Drivers of brand image improvement in sports-event sponsorship. International Journal of Advertising, 35(3), 391–420.
Grohs, R., & Reisinger, H. (2014). Sponsorship effects on brand image: The role of exposure and activity involvement. Journal of Business Research, 67(5), 1018–1025.
Grohs, R., Wagner, U., & Vsetecka, S. (2004). Assessing the effectiveness of sport sponsorships – An empirical examination. Schmalenbach Business Review, 56
(2), 119–138.
Gross, P., & Wiedmann, K. P. (2015). The vigor of a disregarded ally in sponsorship: Brand image transfer effects arising from a cosponsor. Psychology &
Marketing, 32(11), 1079–1097.
Gwinner, K. P. (1997). A model of image creation and image transfer in event sponsorship. International Marketing Review, 14(3), 145–158.
Gwinner, K. P., & Eaton, J. P. (1999). Building brand image through event sponsorship: The role of image transfer. Journal of Advertising, 28(4), 47–57.
Herrmann, J. L., Walliser, B., & Kacha, M. (2011). Consumer consideration of sponsor brands they do not remember: Taking a wider look at the memorisation
effects of sponsorship. International Journal of Advertising, 30(2), 259–281.
Huber, F., Meyer, F., Vogel, J., Weihrauch, A., & Hamprecht, J. (2013). Endorser age and stereotypes: Consequences on brand age. Journal of Business Research,
66(2), 207–215.
Ivens, B. S., Leischnig, A., Muller, B., & Valta, K. (2015). On the role of brand stereotypes in shaping consumer response toward brands: An empirical
examination of direct and mediating effects of warmth and competence. Psychology & Marketing, 32(8), 808–820.
Keller, K. L. (2003). Brand synthesis: The multidimensionality of brand knowledge. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 595–600.
Keller, K. L., & Lehmann, D. R. (2006). Brands and branding: Research findings and future priorities. Marketing Science, 25(6), 740–759.
Kim, K., Stout, P. A., & Cheong, Y. (2012). The image management function of sponsorship: A general theoretical framework. International Journal of
Advertising, 31(1), 85–111.
Kite, M. E., Deaux, K., & Miele, M. (1991). Stereotypes of young and old: Does age outweigh gender? Psychology and Aging, 6(1), 19–27.
Kunkel, T., Funk, D., & King, C. (2014). Developing a conceptual understanding of consumer-based league brand associations. Journal of Sport Management, 28
(1), 49–67.
Lambert-Pandraud, R., & Laurent, G. (2010). Why do older consumers buy older brands? The role of attachment and declining innovativeness. Journal of
Marketing, 74(5), 104–121.
Lee, H. S., & Cho, C. H. (2009). The matching effect of brand and sporting event personality: Sponsorship implications. Journal of Sport Management, 23(1), 41–64.
Lee, H. S., & Cho, C. H. (2012). Sporting event personality: Scale development and sponsorship implications. International Journal of Sports Marketing and
Sponsorship, 14(1), 46–63.
Lehu, J. M. (2004). Back to life! Why brands grow old and sometimes die and what managers then do: An exploratory qualitative research put into the French
context. Journal of Marketing Communications, 10(2), 133–152.
Mae, L., Carlston, D. E., & Skowronski, J. J. (1999). Spontaneous trait transference to familiar communications: Is a little knowledge a dangerous thing? Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(2), 233–246.
Maehle, N., & Supphellen, M. (2011). In search of the sources of brand personality. International Journal of Market Research, 53(1), 95–114.
Martensen, A., Grønholdt, L., Bendtsen, L., & Jensen, M. J. (2007). Application of a model for the effectiveness of event marketing. Journal of Advertising
Research, 47(3), 283–301.
McCracken, G. (1989). Who is the celebrity endorser? Cultural foundations of the endorsement process. Journal of Consumer Research, 16(3), 310–321.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52(1), 81–90.
Skowronski, J. J., Carlston, D. E., Mae, L., & Crawford, M. T. (1998). Spontaneous trait transference: Communicators take on the qualities they describe in
others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 837–848.
Smith, G. (2004). Brand image transfer through sponsorship: A consumer learning perspective. Journal of Marketing Management, 20(3/4), 457–474.
Statista (2018). Tankstellen. Retrieved from. https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/3444/umfrage/marktanteile-auf-dem-tankstellenmarkt-in-
deutschland/.