The sportswear industry represents a significant global market. According to McKinsey & Company (2025), the global sporting goods sector experienced a consistent annual growth rate of 7% from 2021 to 2024, reaching a market valuation of USD 407 billion by 2024. Traditionally, it has been assumed that sporting goods necessitate hands-on testing, which is why companies prioritize in-store displays (Happ et al., 2021). However, contemporary strategies have increasingly emphasized digital exposure through online advertising, brand communities, and livestreaming (Li et al., 2025). A key question, however, remains empirically unresolved: Do these digital initiatives contribute incremental benefits to brand equity and sales performance beyond the effect of traditional offline exposure?

 

Brand exposure refers to the process by which consumers encounter a brand through various touchpoints (Yang et al., 2014). It is typically an indirect form of interaction, where the brand is presented to consumers without requiring any active participation (Baumann et al., 2015). Nevertheless, brand exposure is prevalent in marketing practice, and plays a role in shaping consumers’ cognition, affection, and behavioral intention toward a brand (Davtyan & Tashchian, 2022; Humphrey et al., 2017). Brand exposure can occur both offline and online (Dabbous & Barakat, 2020). In recent years, the growing prevalence of social media, online advertising, influencer marketing, and other digital marketing strategies have significantly amplified the reach and influence of online brand exposure (Araujo et al., 2020).

 

However, much of the existing research on brand exposure has either focused primarily on traditional offline channels (Grohs & Reisinger, 2014; Kwon & Shin, 2020) or treated offline and online brand exposure similarly (Baumann et al., 2015; Phua et al., 2023), leaving a notable gap in understanding of the unique effect of online brand exposure and its underlying mechanisms. We sought to address this gap by separately examining how online and offline exposure of sportswear brands can predict the perceived value of a brand’s products. It is a crucial evaluative criterion in consumer decision making that occurs at various stages of the purchase process (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001). Further, we examined whether brand equity and value congruence mediated the proposed relationship between brand exposure and perceived value.

Brand exposure refers to the process by which consumers encounter a brand (Olson & Mathias Thjømøe, 2009; Tellis, 1988; Yang et al., 2014). According to the ABC model of attitude, attitudes can be categorized as affective, behavioral, and cognitive, all of which are influenced by brand exposure (Rosenberg & Hovland, 1960). First, at the cognitive level, brand exposure directly enhances brand awareness, even if consumers do not remember the context of the exposure (Holden & Vanhuele, 1999). It also shapes distinct and positive brand image (Baumann et al., 2015; Grohs & Reisinger, 2014) and can align brand image with the sponsored program or event (Kwon & Shin, 2020; van Reijmersdal et al., 2007). Second, at the affective level, brand exposure is positively related to brand attitude (Davtyan & Tashchian, 2022; van Grinsven & Das, 2016), such as brand trust (Baumann et al., 2015), brand preference (Olson & Mathias Thjømøe, 2003), and brand liking (Olson & Mathias Thjømøe, 2009). Finally, at the behavioral level, brand exposure influences purchase intention, brand choice, and purchase volume (Ferraro et al., 2009; Humphrey et al., 2017; Olson & Mathias Thjømøe, 2009; Tellis, 1988) and even non-product-related behaviors. For instance, the Apple logo suggests increased creativity, the Disney logo encourages honesty, and the Red Bull logo promotes aggression (Brasel & Gips, 2011; Fitzsimons et al., 2008).

 

Most of the existing literature has primarily focused on brand exposure through traditional offline channels, such as television advertisements, billboards, and print media (Jarvis et al., 2014; Tellis, 1988); brand placement (Davtyan & Tashchian, 2022; van Reijmersdal et al., 2007); and sponsorship (Grohs & Reisinger, 2014; Kwon & Shin, 2020). However, the development of mobile technology has driven brands to leverage digital or internet-based marketing channels like social media, websites, search engine advertisements, videos, email marketing, influencer endorsements, and digital placements (Araujo et al., 2020), making online brand exposure increasingly prevalent and critical in shaping brand value (Humphrey et al., 2017).

 

Hence, there are several gaps in the existing research. First, while online brand exposure has become increasingly widespread, few studies have explored its effects on social media (Humphrey et al., 2017), meaning that the general effects and underlying mechanisms of online brand exposure remain unclear. Second, much of the literature has not clearly distinguished between online and offline brand exposure contexts, often treating them as having similar effects (Baumann et al., 2015; Phua et al., 2023). Further, few studies have separately investigated the predictive effect of online and offline brand exposure on consumer attitudes and behaviors.

Perceived value is a multifaceted construct that has gained significant attention in the marketing literature, and it reflects a consumer’s overall assessment of the utility of a product based on their perception of what is received and what is given (Zeithaml, 1988). It is not merely a function of quality and price, but encompasses a broader range of intangible, intrinsic, and emotional factors that contribute to the overall value of a product (Sánchez-Fernández & Iniesta-Bonillo, 2007).

 

As a high-level concept that involves a trade-off between the benefit and the sacrifice of purchasing, perceived value plays a critical role in consumer decision making, making it an indispensables variable (Sweeney & Soutar, 2001; Zeithaml, 1988). Further, perceived value is a cognitive–affective judgment that consumers make regarding the worth of products of a brand (Boksberger & Melsen, 2011). Thus, brand exposure can enhance consumers’ cognition, affective connection, and positive attitude toward a brand (Davtyan & Tashchian, 2022; Holden & Vanhuele, 1999; Humphrey et al., 2017). Hence, we proposed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Online brand exposure will positively predict consumers’ perceived value of a brand’s products.

Hypothesis 2: Offline brand exposure will positively predict consumers’ perceived value of a brand’s products.

Brand equity refers to the additional value that a brand adds to its products, and can be viewed from three perspectives: the firm, the trade, and the consumer (Farquhar, 1989). Grounded in cognitive psychology principles, some scholars have specifically defined brand equity from the consumer perspective (Aaker, 1991, 1996; Keller, 1993, 2001), describing customer-based brand equity (CBBE) as “brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and symbol that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or service to a firm and/or to that firm’s customers” (Aaker, 1991, p. 27). Aaker (1991) identified five dimensions of CBBE: brand awareness, brand associations, perceived quality, brand loyalty, and other proprietary brand assets. CBBE was further defined by Keller (1993) as “the differential effect of brand knowledge on consumer response to the marketing of the brand” (p. 2), with brand knowledge consisting of brand awareness and brand image. Subsequently, Keller (2001) proposed a CBBE pyramid model containing the four necessary steps to creating a strong brand: brand awareness, brand association, brand response, and brand relationship. We adopted the conceptualization of CBBE established by Aaker (1991, 1996) and Keller (1993, 2001) and defined brand equity as the set of brand-related perceptions accumulated in consumers’ minds that generate differential marketing responses.

 

This study proposed that brand exposure would have a positive relationship with brand equity. Brand awareness serves as the foundational element of brand equity (Aaker, 1996; Keller, 1993). Empirical evidence has suggested that brand exposure enhances awareness through both recall and recognition mechanisms (Davtyan & Tashchian, 2022; Ferraro et al., 2009; Krisnanto & Yulian, 2020). Brand exposure contributes to perceived brand image development (Baumann et al., 2015; Grohs & Reisinger, 2014), which is also a key component of CBBE. Further, empirical studies have found that brand exposure is positively related to several types of consumer response, including brand attitude (Grinsven & Das, 2016), trust (Baumann et al., 2015), and liking a brand’s products (Olson & Mathias Thjømøe, 2009), collectively strengthening overall brand equity. Jarvis et al. (2014) used structural equation modeling and found a significant positive association between television advertisement exposure and overall brand equity in the context of physical activity promotion. Although the above evidence has shown a positive relationship between brand exposure and brand equity, no study has separately measured and investigated the relationships between different types of brand exposure (i.e., online and offline) and brand equity. Therefore, we proposed the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3: Online brand exposure will have a positive relationship with brand equity.

Hypothesis 4: Offline brand exposure will have a positive relationship with brand equity.

 

According to the aforementioned literature, brand equity is the additional value a brand has added to its products (Farquhar, 1989). On the basis of this definition, the higher the brand equity, the more additional value it brings to its products, and the higher is the value consumers will perceive from its products. Empirical studies have indicated that there is a positive relationship between brand equity and the perceived value of products. For example, components of brand equity, such as brand awareness, brand associations, and perceived quality, have been found to be positively related to consumers’ perceived value of the brand’s products (Baldauf et al., 2003; Kim et al., 2008; Yu et al., 2014). Hence, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5: Brand equity will have a positive relationship with the perceived value of a brand’s products.

Value congruence refers to the alignment between consumers’ personal values and their perceived value of a brand (Edwards & Cable, 2009). According to self-congruity theory, value congruence is related to consumers’ emotional attachment and behavior toward a brand (Sirgy et al., 1991). Brand equity enhances value congruence by strengthening the alignment between a brand’s values and consumers’ personal values through multiple mechanisms. First, high brand equity allows consumers to better understand a brand’s core values. High brand awareness establishes mental availability of the brand and creates consumers’ initial exposure to the brand’s values (Keller, 1993; Sharp & Romaniuk, 2016), while strong brand associations deepen understanding of these values by enabling more structured and meaningful interpretations (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993; Sharp & Romaniuk, 2016).

 

Furthermore, strong brand equity encourages consumers to internalize the brand’s values and align them with their own values. According to Keller’s (2001) CBBE model, brand resonance, the highest level of brand equity, reflects a deep psychological bond where consumers feel “in synch” (p. 15) with the brand. This resonance is grounded in a high level of identification that the customer has with the brand (Keller, 2001), which can be interpreted as a specific form of social identification (Tuškej et al., 2013). Moreover, drawing on social identity theory (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Tajfel & Turner, 1979), identification with a group leads individuals to internalize its values and incorporate them into their own self-concept. As such, consumers who have strong resonance with a brand are likely to adopt the brand’s values as part of their self-identity, resulting in value congruence between the consumer and the brand. Hence, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 6: Brand equity will have a positive relationship with the value congruence between brand and consumers.

 

Research has found that individuals are more likely to prefer products of brands aligning with their self-image and values (Park & Yoo, 2016; Sirgy et al., 1991; Yao et al., 2015). Empirical studies have suggested that the value congruence between consumers and brands leads to increased satisfaction and stronger affective commitment of a brand’s products and services (Tuškej et.al, 2013; Zhang & Bloemer, 2008). Therefore, we proposed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 7: Value congruence will have a positive relationship with consumers’ perceived value of a brand’s products.

 

The proposed research framework is presented in Figure 1.

The target population of this empirical study was consumers of sportswear brands. We used an online questionnaire to collect data from part-time Executive Master of Business Administration and Master of Business Administration students with experience of purchasing sportswear in the last 3 months. Then, we adopted the method of snowball sampling, and respondents who completed the questionnaire transmitted it within their social networks, recruiting more people with similar experiences. Ultimately, 329 respondents completed the questionnaire. We included an attention-check item (i.e., “If you are carefully answering the questionnaire, please select ‘3’”) to check whether respondents had answered all questions carefully. To ensure the quality of data, we excluded questionnaires from our data analysis when respondents had no experience of purchasing sportswear in the last 3 months, incorrectly answered the aforementioned attention-check item, or took less than 5 minutes to complete the questionnaire. This timing was based on a pretest, in which 10 respondents were asked to carefully read and answer all items, and all of them took at least 5 minutes to complete the questionnaire. We also excluded questionnaires wherein respondents selected the same response option for more than five consecutive questions. According to the above criteria, 229 valid surveys were included in our final data analysis, resulting in a retention rate of 70.25%.

 

The demographic characteristics of the respondents are summarized in Table 1. The respondents were balanced in terms of gender and over 85% were aged between 18 and 45 years. The majority of respondents had a bachelor’s or degree or higher level of education. Most reported earning more than CNY 8,000 (USD 1,115) per month.

At the beginning of the questionnaire, respondents were asked to recall their most recent experiences of purchasing sportswear, and to describe their impressions of the brand in at least 10 words. Then, they answered the remainder of the questionnaire based on their impressions of the brand (see Appendix). We used a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly agree to 7 = strongly disagree to measure offline brand exposure, online brand exposure, brand equity, value congruence, and perceived value. We measured online brand exposure using one item (e.g., “The online brand exposure is accessible on major digital platforms”) modified from Baumann et al. (2015). Offline brand exposure was measured using five items (e.g., “I often see this brand in the store”) modified from Lee et al. (2002). We measured brand equity using four items (e.g., “I am aware of this brand”) modified from Yoo and Donthu (2001). Value congruence was measured using three items (e.g., “My personal values match with the values of this brand”) modified from Rather et al. (2022). Finally, perceived value was measured using three items (e.g., “This brand’s products have very good value for money”) modified from Kim et al. (2008). As the original items were in English, and all respondents of our questionnaire were Chinese, these were translated into Chinese by experts and adapted to fit the context of the present study. Specifically, an expert with a doctoral degree in linguistics translated the original items into Chinese, then a sportswear brand manager with more than 10 years of market research experience adapted the items to fit the context of sportswear consumption.

We used Amos 26.0 and SPSS 27.0 to test and analyze the data. Specifically, we calculated standardized loadings, Cronbach’s alpha values, construct reliability, and average variance extracted (AVE) to test the convergent validity and reliability of the scale. Additionally, structural equation modeling was used to test the above hypotheses.

We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to evaluate the validity of the measurement model, the results of which are shown in Table 2. All standardized loadings were higher than .50 and the majority were higher than .70, suggesting a good convergent validity (Hair et al., 2006). Cronbach’s alpha, construct reliability, and AVE values for each construct were also computed. Cronbach’s alpha values for each construct were greater than .70, suggesting good reliability of the scales (Nunnally, 1978). All construct reliability values exceeded .70, indicating acceptable internal consistency, and all AVE values surpassed the recommended threshold of .50, suggesting adequate convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

We also examined discriminant validity. As shown in Table 3, the square root of the AVE values for the majority of variables was greater than the corresponding correlation coefficient, thereby suggesting acceptable discriminant validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2006).

Further, we conducted Harman’s (1976) one-factor test to check for common method bias. The results showed that the first factor accounted for 40.37% of the variance, which is below 50%, suggesting no significant common method bias (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986).

We employed structural equation modeling in Amos 26.0 to test the hypotheses. We conducted a bootstrapping analysis with 1,000 resamples and 95% confidence intervals using bias-corrected intervals (Bollen & Stine, 1992). The model revealed a good fit to the data, χ²/df = 1.26, goodness-of-fit index = .94, normed fit index = .94, comparative fit index = .99, root-mean-square error of approximation = .034.

 

The results estimated by structural equation modeling are shown in Table 4. There were significant positive relationships between online brand exposure and brand equity, between offline brand exposure and brand equity, between brand equity and value congruence, and between brand equity and perceived value. Therefore, Hypotheses 3, 4, 5, and 6 were supported. There were no significant relationships between online brand exposure and perceived value, between offline brand exposure and perceived value, or between value congruence and perceived value; thus, Hypotheses 1, 2, and 7 were not supported.

The results of main effect testing of the model are shown in Figure 2. That Hypotheses 3, 4, 5, and 6 were supported suggests that both online and offline brand exposure were positively related to perceived value. That Hypotheses 1, 2, and 7 were not supported suggests that brand equity fully mediated the relationship between the two types of brand exposure and perceived value. Specifically, online brand exposure positively predicted perceived value through the mediating path of online brand exposure → brand equity → perceived value. Comparably, offline brand exposure positively predicted perceived value through the mediating path of offline brand exposure → brand equity → perceived value.

We calculated the coefficient of each path from online or offline brand exposure to perceived value (see Table 5). The direct path from online brand exposure to perceived value was not significant. The indirect path from online brand exposure to perceived value through brand equity and value congruence was also not significant, while the indirect path from online brand exposure to perceived value through brand equity was significant, with a coefficient of .07, suggesting that brand equity fully mediated the relationship between online brand exposure and perceived value. Further, the direct path from offline brand exposure to perceived value was not significant. The indirect path from offline brand exposure to perceived value through brand equity and value congruence was also not significant, while the indirect path from offline brand exposure to perceived value through brand equity was significant, with a coefficient of .12, suggesting that brand equity fully mediated the relationship between offline brand exposure and perceived value.

Our findings enrich the existing literature in the fields of brand management and social psychology in three respects. First, this study separately measured online and offline brand exposure. The proliferation and ubiquity of the internet and cellular devices, such as smartphones, has increased the influence of online brand exposure on consumer behaviors (Wang et al., 2023). However, existing research has primarily focused on the effect of offline brand exposure (Grohs & Reisinger, 2014; Tellis, 1988; van Reijmersdal et al., 2007), or combined online and offline exposure into one construct (Baumann et al., 2015; Phua et al., 2023). The present study enriches the literature by measuring online and offline brand exposure as separate constructs, and this approach can be used in future research investigating the effect of brand exposure.

 

Second, this study found that both online and offline brand exposure had a significant positive relationship with perceived value. Although existing research has suggested that offline exposure to a brand can promote consumers’ favorable attitude toward the brand’s products, the relationship between online brand exposure and consumer attitudes when controlling for offline brand exposure remained unclear. By separately measuring offline and online brand exposure, and investigating their individual relationships with perceived value, this study found a significant positive link between online brand exposure and perceived value when controlling for brand offline exposure. This finding enriches understanding of the frequency effect and the mere exposure effect in the brand management field (Popov & Reder, 2020; Zajonc, 1968), and underscores the necessity of digital transformation in brand communication strategies in the digital era.

 

Third, this study found that brand equity fully mediated the relationship between the two types of brand exposure and perceived value. The indirect paths from online and offline brand exposure to perceived value through brand equity were significant, while the direct paths from the two types of brand exposure to perceived value were not significant, suggesting that brand equity fully mediated the link between both online and offline brand exposure and perceived value. Thus, high levels of brand exposure can bring additional value to products. This finding extends the application range of CBBE to the domain of communication of sportswear brands (Keller, 1993, 2001; Park & Yoo, 2016; Sirgy et al., 1991).

The study findings have two practical implications for practitioners of sportswear brand management. First, we recommend increasing brand exposure through both online and offline channels. Consumers often need to try out sportswear before deciding to make a purchase. Therefore, it is assumed that sportswear brands increase their brand exposure primarily through offline channels, while the relationship between online brand exposure and consumer attitudes remains uncertain. This study found that online exposure was also positively related to perceived value when controlling for offline exposure. Therefore, sportswear brand managers should increase brand exposure through both online and offline channels to promote favorable consumer attitudes toward their products.

 

Second, increasing brand exposure through online and offline channels is a way to increase brand equity, thus enhancing the value that a brand brings to its products. Building and increasing brand equity is an important task for practitioners in brand management. This study found that brand equity fully mediated the relationship between brand exposure and perceived value, suggesting that enhancing brand exposure is an effective way to build brand equity and increase brand value, especially in the digital era (Aaker, 1991; Keller, 1993, 2001). Practitioners of brand management should invest in initiatives strengthening consumers’ trust, loyalty, and recognition of a brand through both offline and online channels.

This study has two main limitations. First, due to a lack of measurement tools in the existing literature that may be used to separately measure online brand exposure, we only used one item to measure online brand exposure, which limited the validity of the measurement of this construct. Future research could develop and validate new tools to measure online brand exposure in a more accurate way. Second, the generalizability of this study is limited. We focused only on sportswear brands, and it is unclear whether the findings can be extended to other industries. Future research could examine other industries, such as cosmetics, digital products, and cultural performances, to enhance the representativeness of the results.

This survey asks about your purchase experiences and impressions of sports brands. It will take approximately 10 minutes to complete, is conducted anonymously, and all personal information will be kept strictly confidential. The data collected will be used only for academic research purposes.

 

If you have never purchased a sportswear brand, please exit the survey. Thank you for your cooperation!

 

Now, please recall: which brand was your most recent sportswear product purchase? Answer the following questions based on your impressions of that brand.

Aaker, D. A. (1991). Managing brand equity: Capitalizing on the value of a brand name. The Free Press.

 

Aaker, D. A. (1996). Building strong brands. The Free Press.

 

Araujo, T., Copulsky, J. R., Hayes, J. L., Kim, S. J., & Srivastava, J. (2020). From purchasing exposure to fostering engagement: Brand–consumer experiences in the emerging computational advertising landscape. Journal of Advertising, 49(4), 428–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2020.1795756

 

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.2307/258189

 

Baldauf, A., Cravens, K. S., & Binder, G. (2003). Performance consequences of brand equity management: Evidence from organizations in the value chain. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 12(4), 220–236. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420310485032

 

Baumann, C., Hamin, H., & Chong, A. (2015). The role of brand exposure and experience on brand recall—Product durables vis-à-vis FMCG. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 23, 21–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2014.11.003

 

Boksberger, P. E., & Melsen, L. (2011). Perceived value: A critical examination of definitions, concepts and measures for the service industry. Journal of Services Marketing, 25(3), 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876041111129209

 

Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. A. (1992). Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit measures in structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 205–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124192021002004

 

Brasel, S. A., & Gips, J. (2011). Red Bull “gives you wings” for better or worse: A double-edged impact of brand exposure on consumer performance. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 21(1), 57–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2010.09.008

 

Dabbous, A., & Barakat, K. A. (2020). Bridging the online offline gap: Assessing the impact of brands’ social network content quality on brand awareness and purchase intention. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 53, Article 101966. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101966

 

Davtyan, D., & Tashchian, A. (2022). Exploring the impact of brand placement repetition on the effectiveness of umbrella branding. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 31(7), 1077–1090. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBM-02-2021-3381

 

Edwards, J. R., & Cable, D. M. (2009). The value of value congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 654–677. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014891

 

Farquhar, P. H. (1989). Managing brand equity. Marketing Research, 1(3), 24–33.

 

Ferraro, R., Bettman, J. R., & Chartrand, T. L. (2009). The power of strangers: The effect of incidental consumer brand encounters on brand choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(5), 729–741. https://doi.org/10.1086/592944

 

Fitzsimons, G. M., Chartrand, T. L., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2008). Automatic effects of brand exposure on motivated behavior: How apple makes you “think different.” Journal of Consumer Research, 35(1), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1086/527269

 

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104

 

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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2013.08.008

 

Hair, J. F., Jr., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Prentice Hall.

 

Happ, E., Scholl-Grissemann, U., Peters, M., & Schnitzer, M. (2021). Insights into customer experience in sports retail stores. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 22(2), 312–329. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-12-2019-0137

 

Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis. University of Chicago Press.

 

Holden, S. J. S., & Vanhuele, M. (1999). Know the name, forget the exposure: Brand familiarity versus memory of exposure context. Psychology & Marketing, 16(6), 479–496. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199909)16:6<479::AID-MAR3>3.0.CO;2-Y

 

Humphrey, W. F., Jr., Laverie, D. A., & Rinaldo, S. B. (2017). Brand choice via incidental social media exposure. Journal of Research in Interactive Marketing, 11(2), 110–130. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-04-2016-0025

 

Jarvis, J. W., Rhodes, R. E., Deshpande, S., Berry, T. R., Chulak-Bozzer, T., Faulkner, G., Spence, J. C., Tremblay, M. S., & Latimer-Cheung, A. E. (2014). Investigating the role of brand equity in predicting the relationship between message exposure and parental support for their child’s physical activity. Social Marketing Quarterly, 20(2), 103–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524500414528183

 

Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, and managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299305700101

 

Keller, K. L. (2001). Building customer-based brand equity: A blueprint for creating strong brands. Marketing Science Institute. https://thearf-org-unified-admin.s3.amazonaws.com/MSI/2020/06/MSI_Report_01-107.pdf

 

Kim, W. G., Jin-Sun, B., & Kim, H. J. (2008). Multidimensional customer-based brand equity and its consequences in midpriced hotels. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 32(2), 235–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348007313265

 

Krisnanto, U., & Yulian, D. (2020). How brand awareness does not have a significant effect on customer loyalty in a public company. Journal of Economics and Business, 3(3), 1038–1050. https://doi.org/10.31014/aior.1992.03.03.260

 

Kwon, H., & Shin, J. E. (2020). Effects of brand exposure time duration and frequency on image transfer in sport sponsorship. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 21(1), 170–190. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSMS-04-2019-0042

 

Lee, Y. W., Strong, D. M., Kahn, B. K., & Wang, R. Y. (2002). AIMQ: A methodology for information quality assessment. Information & Management, 40(2), 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(02)00043-5

 

Li, Z., Wang, Y., Cianfrone, B. A., Guo, Z., Liu, B., Zhang, J., & Shi, C. (2025). Impact of scene features of e-commerce live streaming on consumers’ flow and purchase intentions of sporting goods. Behavioral Sciences, 15(2), 238. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15020238

 

McKinsey & Company. (2025). Sporting goods 2025—The new balancing act: Turning uncertainty into opportunity. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/sporting-goods-industry-trends#/

 

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

 

Olson, E. L., & Mathias Thjømøe, H. (2003). The effects of peripheral exposure to information on brand preference. European Journal of Marketing, 37(1/2), 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560310453280

 

Olson, E. L., & Mathias Thjømøe, H. (2009). Sponsorship effect metric: Assessing the financial value of sponsoring by comparisons to television advertising. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(4), 504–515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-009-0147-z

 

Park, M., & Yoo, J. (2016). E-mass customization: Effects of self-congruity and functional congruity on consumer responses. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 44(8), 1379–1394. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2016.44.8.1379

 

Phua, P., Page, B., Trinh, G., Hartnett, N., & Kennedy, R. (2023). Does childhood exposure to a brand improve brand name recognition? Comparing age-of-acquisition effects with ongoing brand exposure and experience. Journal of Advertising Research, 63(4), 370–383. https://doi.org/10.2501/JAR-2023-025

 

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 531–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408

 

Popov, V., & Reder, L. M. (2020). Frequency effects on memory: A resource-limited theory. Psychological Review, 127(1), 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000161

 

Rather, R. A., Hollebeek, L. D., Vo‐Thanh, T., Ramkissoon, H., Leppiman, A., & Smith, D. (2022). Shaping customer brand loyalty during the pandemic: The role of brand credibility, value congruence, experience, identification, and engagement. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 21(5), 1175–1189. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.2070

 

Rosenberg, M. J., & Hovland, C. I. (1960). Cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of attitudes. In M. J. Rosenberg & C. I. Hovland (Eds.), Attitude organization and change: An analysis of consistency among attitude components (pp. 1–14). Yale University Press.

 

Sánchez-Fernández, R., & Iniesta-Bonillo, M. Á. (2007). The concept of perceived value: A systematic review of the research. Marketing Theory, 7(4), 427–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593107083165

 

Sharp, B., & Romaniuk, J. (2016). How brands grow. Oxford University Press.

 

Sirgy, M. J., Johar, J. S., Samli, A. C., & Claiborne, C. B. (1991). Self-congruity versus functional congruity: Predictors of consumer behavior. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19(4), 363–375. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02726512

 

Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value: The development of a multiple item scale. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(01)00041-0

 

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.

 

Tellis, G. J. (1988). Advertising exposure, loyalty, and brand purchase: A two-stage model of choice. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2), 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378802500202

 

Tuškej, U., Golob, U., & Podnar, K. (2013). The role of consumer–brand identification in building brand relationships. Journal of Business Research, 66(1), 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.022

 

van Grinsven, B., & Das, E. (2016). Logo design in marketing communications: Brand logo complexity moderates exposure effects on brand recognition and brand attitude. Journal of Marketing Communications, 22(3), 256–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2013.866593

 

van Reijmersdal, E. A., Neijens, P. C., & Smit, E. G. (2007). Effects of television brand placement on brand image. Psychology & Marketing, 24(5), 403–420. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20166

 

Wang, T., Chen, W.-F., Wang, X., & Fan, X. (2023). Smartphone use increases the likelihood of making short-sighted financial decisions. Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology, 17, Article 18344909221147782. https://doi.org/10.1177/18344909221147782

Yang, L. W., Cutright, K. M., Chartrand, T. L., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2014). Distinctively different: Exposure to multiple brands in low-elaboration settings. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(5), 973–992. https://doi.org/10.1086/673522

 

Yao, Q., Chen, R., & Xu, X. (2015). Consistency between consumer personality and brand personality influences brand attachment. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 43(9), 1419–1427. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2015.43.9.1419

 

Yoo, B., & Donthu, N. (2001). Developing and validating a multidimensional consumer-based brand equity scale. Journal of Business Research, 52(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(99)00098-3

 

Yu, H. S., Zhang, J. J., Kim, D. H., Chen, K. K., Henderson, C., Min, S. D., & Huang, H. (2014). Service quality, perceived value, customer satisfaction, and behavioral intention among fitness center members aged 60 years and over. Social Behavior and Personality: An international journal, 42(5), 757–767. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.5.757

 

Zajonc, R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2, Pt.2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025848

 

Zeithaml, V. A. (1988). Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: A means-end model and synthesis of evidence. Journal of Marketing, 52(3), 2–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298805200302

 

Zhang, J., & Bloemer, J. M. M. (2008). The impact of value congruence on consumer-service brand relationships. Journal of Service Research, 11(2), 161–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670508322561