{"id":164,"date":"2004-01-04T11:50:31","date_gmt":"2004-01-04T17:50:31","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2015-03-20T08:55:06","modified_gmt":"2015-03-20T13:55:06","slug":"evolution-of-scholars-approach-to-studying-consumer-loyalty-in-recreational-sport-and-fitness-businesses","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/evolution-of-scholars-approach-to-studying-consumer-loyalty-in-recreational-sport-and-fitness-businesses\/","title":{"rendered":"Evolution of Scholars’ Approach to Studying Consumer Loyalty in Recreational Sport and Fitness Businesses"},"content":{"rendered":"
Submitted by: Tian-Shiang Kuo, Chia-Ming Chang,\u00a0and Kuei-Mei Cheng<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Abstract<\/div>\n

Customer loyalty is of great value to recreational sport agencies in terms of their effectiveness and success. In recent decades, students in the field of recreation and leisure have paid growing attention to the phenomenon of customer loyalty. This paper reviews how exploration of consumer loyalty began, especially in the field of recreation and leisure. There have been three stages of evolution: the one-dimensional approach, two-dimensional approach, and multidimensional approach. The\u00a0latter two\u00a0developed out of critiques of an established approach. The authors find the multidimensional approach to be the most comprehensive, and thus the most promising, perspective for future research on consumer loyalty in the\u00a0field of recreation and leisure.<\/p>\n

Evolution of Scholars’ Approach to Studying Consumer Loyalty in Recreational Sport and Fitness Businesses<\/p>\n

Because it is much cheaper to serve loyal customers and easier to maintain their support, customer loyalty is of great value to organizations\u00a0(Seybold, 2001). Rosenberg and Czepiel,\u00a0whom Park and Kim cite (2000),\u00a0\u00a0claim that attracting a new customer costs 6 times more than retaining an existing customer. To a great extent, the success of a recreational sport and fitness business depends on how the business manages customers’ loyalty (Backman & Crompton, 1991a, 1991b). As Park and Kim note, consumer loyalty is embodied not only in economic transactions with a business but more broadly in general support for the organization (Park & Kim, 2000).<\/p>\n

Glimpsing the importance of consumer loyalty to sport-related\u00a0businesses, in recent decades scholars in the field of recreation and leisure have paid growing attention to the phenomenon of customer loyalty (Gahwiler & Havitz, 1995; Howard, Edginton, & Selin, 1988; Park & Kim, 2000). What has been the result of this increased focus?\u00a0For one thing, a\u00a0gradual evolution in how researchers approach the phenomenon of customer loyalty has resulted. Three stages can be roughly identified. In the very beginning, most investigators focused on only one dimension of consumer loyalty, either the behavioral or attitudinal dimension. Next, as a result of criticism of this initial research model, models that approached both behavioral and attitudinal dimensions of customer loyalty were developed. Finally, the latest studies of customer loyalty incorporate multiple attitudinal or psychological facets. This has led to a deeper, better-integrated understanding of loyalty. The following describes in more detail each evolutionary stage of the historical development of customer loyalty research.<\/p>\n

]One-Dimensional Approaches to Studying Consumer Loyalty[<\/p>\n

Behavioral Approaches<\/em><\/p>\n

The majority of early studies of consumer loyalty looked only at its behavioral dimension. A customer was viewed as loyal to a product or service if he or she demonstrated “consistent purchase of one brand over time” (Backman & Crompton, 1991b). According to Prichard and colleagues, one-dimensional behavioral approaches were classified in four groups by Jacoby and Chestnut (Prichard, Howard, & Havitz, 1992, pp.156\u2013157). The first group comprises researchers who located loyalty in\u00a0the customer’s\u00a0purchasing sequence, for example George N. Brown. The second group comprises researchers such as Ross M. Cunningham who defined loyalty on the basis of the proportion of the customer’s purchases\u00a0that featured\u00a0the\u00a0brand in question.\u00a0Jacoby and Chestnut’s third group includes the scholars who applied probability models to analyze consumers’ purchasing behavior. To this group belongs Ronald E. Frank, who in the early 1960s investigated repeat-purchase probabilities using a simple chance model. The fourth and last of Jacoby and Chestnut’s groups integrated\u00a0several behavioral variables\u00a0to generate its\u00a0definition of customer\u00a0loyalty (Prichard et al., 1992). Burford, Enis, and Paul (1971), as an example,\u00a0put forward an index combining three behavioral measures of customer loyalty: proportion of resources spent on brand or store, amount allocated to switching, and the number of alternative brands or stores.<\/p>\n

While operationalizing such behavioral approaches is easy enough, at the same time they may exhibit fatal weaknesses as theoretical frameworks upon which to hang studies of consumer loyalty. Beginning in the late 1960s, some consumer loyalty researchers began to criticize behavioral approaches to their task\u00a0(Howard et al., 1988, p. 42). They pointed out, for example, that because the associated measures relied on overt, observable behaviors, behavioral conceptualizations of consumer loyalty were doomed to such error as the classification of particular consumers as loyal in one study and nonloyal in the next (Backman & Crompton, 1991b, p. 206). Moreover, failure to identify relations between loyalties measured by different patterns of use brought many researchers to\u00a0the conclusion that “brand loyalty encompassed more than repeat use” (Backman & Crompton, 1991b, p. 206).<\/p>\n

Attitudinal Approaches<\/em><\/p>\n

Conceptually, behavioral models could not, Day noted (1969), discriminate between true or intentional loyalty and spurious loyalty (Backman & Crompton, 1991b; Prichard et al., 1992). Day (1969) and Jacoby (1971) proposed an attitudinal conceptualization of customer loyalty in order\u00a0to better understand it. According to Jacoby (as cited in Prichard et al., 1992), a customer who shows brand loyalty by implication\u00a0“repeat[s] purchase based on cognitive, affective, evaluative and predispositional factors: the classical primary components of an attitude” (1971, p. 26). Prichard et al. (1992) also briefly review those early researchers\u00a0who looked\u00a0at psychological aspects of consumer loyalty as well as behavioral. Guest, Monroe,\u00a0and Guiltinan; Bennett\u00a0and Kassarijia; and Jain, Pinson,\u00a0and Malhotra all made an effort to study consumers’ attitudes or intentions.<\/p>\n

Just like approaches focused one-dimensionally on consumer behavior, however, approaches focused one-dimensionally on attitudinal loyalty had limitations. According to Prichard et al., the early studies of the attitudinal components in consumer loyalty, when they were reviewed by loyalty theorists, were often found to lack adequate\u00a0theoretical conceptualization. A result of this was a multitude of measures that confounded research. Examination of the theoretical and empirical rigor underlying the development of various attitudinal measures raised certain questions about construct validity (Prichard et al., 1992).<\/p>\n

Overall, then, early definitions of customer loyalty as solely a behavioral construct or solely an attitudinal construct could be accused not only of superficiality but also of insufficiency.\u00a0In time, a two-dimensional approach would replace these flawed perspectives.<\/p>\n

]Consumer Loyalty as a Two-Dimensional Construct[<\/p>\n

As noted by Jacoby and Chestnut, neither behaviors nor psychological attachments alone could well explain customer loyalty (Backman & Crompton, 1991a, p. 2).\u00a0Criticism of the old models (which was most vigorous against the one-dimensional behavioral models)\u00a0informed the development of a new model integrating behavioral and attitudinal dimensions. Day’s (1969) new two-dimensional definition of consumer loyalty\u00a0(cited in Selin, Howard, Udd, & Cable, 1988, p. 220) provides an example of the advances at the research’s next evolutionary stage. Day’s results showed his consumer loyalty index combining behavioral and attitudinal dimensions to have twice the predictive power of the behavioral approach.<\/p>\n

Olson and Jacoby’s (1971) six-point definition of loyalty followed Day in supporting with empirical evidence the idea that loyalty’s “cognitive” and “behavioral” parts were separate and identifiable (Backman & Crompton, 1991b, p. 207). Olson and Jacoby defined loyalty as “a biased, behavioral response, expressed over time, by some decision making unit, with respect to one or more alternative brands out of a set of such brands, and [moreover] . . . a function of psychological processes” (Prichard et al., 1992, p.159). The definition came to be\u00a0\u00a0“widely accepted as the conceptual basis for loyalty research” (Backman & Crompton, 1991b, p. 207).<\/p>\n

After Day (1969) and Jacoby (1971), a consensus developed in the field that loyalty should be treated as a two-dimensional construct, a concept including both behavioral and attitudinal facets. As Backman urged, “to measure loyalty necessitates assessing both affective attachment to an activity as well as measuring behavioral use of the activity” (1991, p. 335).<\/p>\n

According to Selin et al. (1988, p. 219), the two-dimensional model offered\u00a0by Day and Jacoby was improved on in a study Jacoby reported with Kyner (1973). They used a two-dimensional definition of loyalty weighing both repeat purchase and consumers’ attitudes, and their definition became the next “definitive” standard for the measures used in loyalty studies.<\/p>\n

Once the two-dimensional model was available, many researchers applied it in investigations of consumer loyalty. Most representative is Backman and Crompton’s\u00a0operationalization of this approach in loyalty research (1991a), following their review of the conceptualization of loyalty proposed by such earlier researchers such as Pessemier, Day, Olsen and Jacoby, and Howard, Edginton, and Selin. Backman and Crompton studied golf and tennis participants and used attitudinal and behavioral scores to segment the respondents in their study. A semantic differential scale with 13 items was used to measure participants’ “general feelings” about golf and tennis (1991a, p.208); a two-dimensional matrix next was used to distinguish four discrete levels of loyalty. The resulting four-quadrant matrix served to group participants according to their weak versus strong attitudes and their high versus low “behavioral consistency” (Mahoney & Howard, 2000, p. 16).<\/p>\n

Backman and Crompton (1991a) divided studied consumers into four groups having different levels of loyalty: low loyalty<\/em> (weak psychological attachments and weak behavioral consistency); latent loyalty <\/em>(strong psychological attachment but weak behavioral consistency); spurious loyalty <\/em>(weak psychological attachment but strong behavioral consistency); and high loyalty <\/em>(strong psychological attachment and strong behavioral consistency). Mahony and Howard (2000, p. 17) judged Backman and Crompton’s research to offer an improved grasp of consumer loyalty in a context of sport and leisure, because their two-dimensional operationalization “reaffirmed and extended Day’s claim” about loyalty and also “provided important insights into the complexity of the construct” (Mahony, Madrigal, & Howard, 2000).<\/p>\n

The two-dimensional approach combining behavioral and psychological facets of consumer loyalty advanced the literature on loyalty by overcoming weaknesses of earlier, one-dimensional approaches. As it turned out, however, most two-dimensional studies of consumer loyalty were themselves deficient,\u00a0in that it proved very difficult to measure consumers’ psychological attachment to brands. In the end, even the operationalization of Backman and Crompton’s attitudinal loyalty was far from sufficient (Mahony et al., 2000, p.17). In recent years, the further exploration of the attitudinal dimension has led to the conceptualization of consumer loyalty as a dynamic process.<\/p>\n

Beyond the Two-Dimensional Model<\/p>\n

The complexity of the attitudinal dimension, in particular, has drawn the attention of many recent researchers to the multifacetedness of the concept of consumer loyalty. Park and Kim’s\u00a0analysis (2000) of attitudinal loyalty within the recreational sport industry indicates three components of attitudinal loyalty: normative loyalty, <\/em>based on “social expectation or normal pressure”; affective loyalty, <\/em>based on “affective attachment”; and investment loyalty, <\/em>based on “accumulation of investments.” Park and Kim further suggest that all of these dimensions are distinct and should be simultaneously taken into consideration to explain attitudinal loyalty.<\/p>\n

Prichard et al. (1992) note that in past decades, commitment as a component of attitudinal loyalty attracted much attention from loyalty researchers. They further describe how multidimensional models of commitment based on Buchanan’s work\u00a0(1985) paralleled the studies of composite loyalty. (Buchanan had defined commitment using three dimensions: behavioral consistency, affective engagement, and degree of investment.) They also argued for Crosby and Taylor’s conceptualization of commitment (1983) as the one to “provide a sound theoretical basis for operationalizing the attitudinal dimension of recreation loyalty.” Crosby and Taylor used both “cognitive consistency” and “position involvement” when conceptualizing commitment.<\/p>\n

Acknowledging that consumer loyalty was multidimensional, some scholars went a step farther and began to investigate the\u00a0relationships between dimensions of loyalty. Applying hierarchical multiple regression analyses,\u00a0Park (1996)\u00a0studied the \u00a0relationships between involvement and attitudinal loyalty constructs in a fitness program, reporting the two constructs to be “highly intercorrelated” though independent. According to Park, both involvement and attitudinal loyalty are multidimensional.<\/p>\n

Gahwiler and Havitz (1995) also sought to understand these relationships. Dissatisfied with how earlier research had investigated in isolation from one another such factors as social subworld, involvement, psychological commitment, and behavioral loyalty, Gahwiler and Havitz studied the four simultaneously (p. 3). Analyzing data from a study of YMCA patrons, they found that a relatively high level of consumer loyalty was positively related to each of the following: relatively greater social-world integration,\u00a0 relatively greater position involvement, and relatively greater psychological commitment (p. 1).<\/p>\n

Iwasaki and Havitz (1998) proposed a path analytic model of the relationships among loyalty’s dimensions (involvement, psychological commitment, and loyalty). They criticized studies by Park (1996) and by Kim, Scott, and Crompton (1997), arguing\u00a0that the development of consumer loyalty really was a dynamic process. Iwasaki and Havitz outlined the progressive stages consumers went through\u00a0enroute to becoming loyal customers; these sequential psychological\u00a0processes included\u00a0(a) formation of high levels of involvement in an activity, (b) development of psychological commitment to a brand, and (c) maintenance of strong resistance to any change of brand preference (p. 256). In addition, Iwasaki and Havitz believed that variables such as personality and social status “moderate the developmental process” (1998, p. 256).<\/p>\n

These relational studies involving multiple dimensions of consumer loyalty\u00a0facilitated understanding of the loyalty concept and are more comprehensive than the one- and two-dimensional approaches had been. The path analytic model, especially, \u00a0in representing a dynamic process, advanced an investigation of the mechanism by which an individual develops consumer loyalty.\u00a0The model may be\u00a0less parsimonious than previous models, but it provides an insightful theoretical framework for further study of consumer loyalty.<\/p>\n

]Conclusion[<\/p>\n

Reviewing the evolution of the consumer loyalty concept, looking at several decades’ worth of loyalty research, suggests that the concept’s complexity was not adequately acknowledged by the behavioral approach, attitudinal approach, or even composite approach to its study.\u00a0Only recent multidimensional modeling of consumer loyalty that incorporates relational analyses of loyalty’s dimensions and a path analytic model,\u00a0as Iwasaki and Havitz did (1998),\u00a0 is dynamic enough in its approach to psychological processes to offer a useful direction for future research.<\/p>\n

]References[<\/p>\n

Backman, S. J. (1991). An investigation of the relationship between activity loyalty and perceived constraints. Journal of Leisure Research, 23<\/em>(4), 332\u2013344.<\/p>\n

Backman, S. J., & Crompton, J. L. (1991a). Differentiating between high, spurious, latent, and low loyalty participants in two leisure activities. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 9<\/em>(2), 1\u201317.<\/p>\n

Backman, S. J., & Crompton, J. L. (1991b). The usefulness of selected variables for predicting activity loyalty. Leisure Sciences, 13<\/em>, 205\u2013220.<\/p>\n

Buchanan, T. (1985). Commitment and leisure behavior: A theoretical perspective. Leisure Sciences, 7<\/em>(4), 401\u2013420.<\/p>\n

Burford, R. L., Enis, B. M., & Paul, G. W. (1971). Functional and behavioral application: An index for the measurement of consumer loyalty. Decision Science, 2, <\/em>17\u201324.<\/p>\n

Crosby, L. A., & Taylor, J. R. (1983). Psychological commitment and its effects on post decision evaluation and preference stability among voters. Journal of Consumer Research, 9, <\/em>413\u2013431.<\/p>\n

Day, G. S. (1969). A two-dimensional concept of brand loyalty. Journal of Advertising Research, 9<\/em>, 29\u201335.<\/p>\n

Frank, R. E. (1962). Brand choice as a probability process. The Journal of Business, 35, <\/em>43\u201356.<\/p>\n

Gahwiler, P., & Havitz, M. (1995). Toward a relational understanding of leisure social worlds, involvement, psychological commitment, and behavioral loyalty. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 13<\/em>(2), 1\u201323.<\/p>\n

Howard, D. R., Edginton, C. R., & Selin, S. W. (1988). Determinants of program loyalty. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 6<\/em>(4), 41\u201351.<\/p>\n

Iwasaki, Y., & Havitz, M. E. (1998). A path analytic model of the relationship between involvement, psychological commitment, and loyalty. Journal of Leisure Research, <\/em>30<\/em>(2), 256\u2013280.<\/p>\n

Jacoby, J. (1971). A model of multi-brand loyalty. Journal of Advertising Research, 11,<\/em> 25\u201330.<\/p>\n

Jacoby, J., & Kyner, D. (1973). Brand loyalty vs. repeat purchasing behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 10<\/em>(2), 1\u20139.<\/p>\n

Kim, S. S., Scott, D., & Crompton, J. L. (1997). An exploration of the relationships among social psychological involvement, behavioral involvement, commitment, and future intentions in the context of birdwatching. Journal of Leisure Research, 29<\/em>, 320\u2013341.<\/p>\n

Mahony, D. F., Madrigal, R., & Howard, D. (2000). Use the Psychological Commitment to Team (PCT) Scale to segment sport consumers based on loyalty. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 9<\/em>(1), 15\u201325.<\/p>\n

Olson, J. C., &\u00a0Jacoby, J.\u00a0(1971). A construct validation study of brand loyalty. Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, 6, <\/em>657\u2013658.<\/p>\n

Park, S. H. (1996). Relationships between involvement and attitudinal loyalty constructs in adult fitness programs. Journal of Leisure Research, <\/em>28<\/em>(4), 233\u2013250.<\/p>\n

Park, S. H., & Kim, Y. M. (2000). Conceptualizing and measuring the attitudinal loyalty construct in recreational sport contexts. Journal of Sport Management, 14, <\/em>197\u2013207.<\/p>\n

Prichard, M. P., Howard, D. R., & Havitz, M. E. (1992). Loyalty measurement: A critical examination and theoretical extension. Leisure Sciences, 14, <\/em>155\u2013164.<\/p>\n

Selin, S. W., Howard, D. R., Udd, E., & Cable, T. T. (1988). An analysis of consumer loyalty to municipal recreation program. Leisure Sciences, 10, <\/em>217\u2013223.<\/p>\n

Seybold, P. (2001). Loyalty incentives. Executive Excellence, 18, <\/em>15.<\/p>\n

Author Note<\/p>\n

Tian-Shiang Kuo; Chia-Ming Chang, D. S. M.; & Kuei-Mei Cheng, D. S. M.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Submitted by: Tian-Shiang Kuo, Chia-Ming Chang, D. S. M. & Kuei-Mei Cheng, D. S. M.<\/div>\n

Abstract<\/h2>\n

Customer loyalty is of great value to the effectiveness and success of
\n recreational sport agencies. Students in the field of recreation and leisure
\n have paid growing attention to loyalty-related issues in recent decades.
\n In this paper, the authors review the development of the exploration of
\n consumer loyalty, especially in the field of recreation and leisure. The
\n authors find that the study of this concept has roughly gone through the
\n evolution of three stages: one-dimensional, two-dimensional, and multidimensional
\n approaches. They developed through the critiques of the former approaches
\n respectively. Looking at the process of development of the conceptualization
\n of consumer loyalty, the authors believe that the last approach is the
\n most comprehensive and thus promising perspective that future researches
\n should apply.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_options":[]},"categories":[290,291,296],"tags":[59,27,60,8],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4btio-2E","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":1403,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/the-role-of-psychological-commitment-and-attitudinal-loyalty-on-the-relationship-between-involvement-and-behavioral-loyalty-of-sport-fans\/","url_meta":{"origin":164,"position":0},"title":"The Role of Psychological Commitment and Attitudinal Loyalty on The Relationship Between Involvement and Behavioral Loyalty of Sport Fans","date":"December 24, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by Tzetzis George and Tachis Stavros ABSTRACT Despite the recent rapid spread of leisure involvement and loyalty research, very little attention has been given to the conceptualization of the nature of involvement's relationship with loyalty of sport fans. The purpose of the present study was to examine whether psychological\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Management"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":4044,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/the-impact-of-perceived-value-satisfaction-service-quality-on-customer-loyalty-in-womens-fitness-clubs\/","url_meta":{"origin":164,"position":1},"title":"The Impact of Perceived Value, Satisfaction, Service Quality on Customer Loyalty in Women\u2019s Fitness Clubs","date":"October 27, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Jon Lim, Bryan Romsa, & Suzannah Armentrout Jon Lim is an Associate Professor of Sport Management at the Minnesota State University, Mankato. Bryan Romsa is an Assistant Professor of Sport Management at the South Dakota State University. Suzannah Armentrout is a Professor of Sport Management at the Minnesota State\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Research"","img":{"alt_text":"Table 1 - Loyalty in Fitness Clubs","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Table-1-Loyalty-in-Fitness-Clubs.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":3416,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/a-study-of-the-fan-motives-for-varying-levels-of-team-identity-and-team-loyalty-of-college-football-fans\/","url_meta":{"origin":164,"position":2},"title":"A Study of the Fan Motives for Varying Levels of Team Identity and Team Loyalty of College Football Fans","date":"January 25, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by David Gargone*(1) (1) David Gargone is an assistant professor of business and director of the sport management program at Misericordia University. *Corresponding Author: David Gargone, Ed.D. Misericordia University 301 Lake St Dallas, PA 18612 dgargone@misericordia.edu 570-674-6337 ABSTRACT Fan motives, factors that influence a person\u2019s decision to attend a\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Management"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":353,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/a-study-of-the-participative-motivation-satisfaction-and-loyalty-of-the-members-at-the-taekwondo-training-hall-in-taipei-county\/","url_meta":{"origin":164,"position":3},"title":"A Study of the Participative Motivation, Satisfaction and Loyalty of the Members at the Taekwondo Training Hall in Taipei County","date":"October 5, 2009","format":false,"excerpt":"Chang Chia-Ming, Associate Professor, Department of Physical Education, National Chia-Yi University; Chen, Kuan-Chung, United States Sport Academy; Kelly E. Flanagan, D.S.M., Chair of Sport Studies, United States Sports Academy Abstract The purpose of this study was to explore the differences among the taekwondo training hall members\u2019 demographic variables as they\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Coaching"","img":{"alt_text":"Figure 1","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/10\/Figure1-1.png?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":6694,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/branding-in-womens-sports-a-literature-review\/","url_meta":{"origin":164,"position":4},"title":"Branding in women\u2019s sports: A literature review","date":"November 22, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Authors: Isabell Mills Corresponding Author:Isabell Mills, PhD1400 E Hanna AveIndianapolis, IN 46227millsi@uindy.edu219-805-3791 Isabell Mills is an assistant professor of sport managementat the University of Indianapolis. Her research areas are sport and fitnessbranding. Branding in women\u2019s sports: A literature review ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to explore the gaps\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "General"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":129,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/a-review-of-service-quality-in-corporate-and-recreational-sportfitness-programs\/","url_meta":{"origin":164,"position":5},"title":"A Review of Service Quality in Corporate and Recreational Sport\/Fitness Programs","date":"February 15, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Chia-Ming Chang, Chin-Tsu Chen and Chin-Hsien Hsu, Tajen Institute of Technology, Taiwan, Republic of China Abstract The purpose of this article is to present a review of the literature related to the study of service quality. This article reviews the discussions of the conceptualization and operationalization aspects of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Facilities"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/164"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=164"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/164\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1108,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/164\/revisions\/1108"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=164"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=164"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=164"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}