Sponsorship Authenticity Scale (SAS)

1. Abstract

The Sponsorship Authenticity Scale (SAS), grounded in the foundational psychometric operationalization of brand authenticity developed by Morhart, Malär, Guèvremont, Girardin, and Grohmann (2015), is a multi-dimensional measurement instrument designed to capture consumer perceptions of genuine brand essence and authentic corporate behavior within marketing, partnership, and sponsorship contexts. As commercial sponsorships, cause-related marketing, and brand alliances face heightened consumer skepticism and cynicism, determining whether a brand acts authentically has emerged as a paramount challenge for empirical consumer psychology and strategic brand management. The scale operationalizes perceived authenticity as an integrative, four-dimensional higher-order construct comprising Continuity (a brand’s ability to transcend trends and maintain historical roots), Credibility (the perceived truthfulness and reliability of brand claims and consumer promises), Integrity (the moral purity, adherence to intrinsic values, and refusal to compromise standards for commercial gain), and Symbolism (the capacity to facilitate consumer self-congruence and identity validation by connecting individuals to what is genuinely meaningful).

Comprising 15 self-report items administered via a 7-point Likert scale (ranging from 1 = Strongly disagree to 7 = Strongly agree), the instrument demonstrates rigorous psychometric properties across both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. The underlying four-factor structure reliably accounts for significant variance across diverse product categories, service environments, non-profit partnerships, and corporate sports sponsorships. Internal consistency evaluations consistently yield Cronbach’s alpha coefficients exceeding 0.85 across all four subscales, with composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) estimates satisfying strict psychometric thresholds for convergent and discriminant validity. By bridging existential, constructivist, and indexical paradigms of authenticity, the scale provides researchers and brand managers with a methodologically robust tool to assess whether commercial activations are perceived as sincere or opportunistic, reliably predicting crucial behavioral outcomes such as brand trust, emotional brand attachment, word-of-mouth advocacy, and purchase intentions.

2. Keywords

Brand Authenticity, Sponsorship Authenticity Scale, Consumer Psychology, Continuity, Credibility, Integrity, Symbolism, Psychometrics, Brand Trust, Cause-Related Marketing, Self-Congruence Theory, Factor Structure

3. Authors

The theoretical framework and psychometric operationalization underlying the 15-item authenticity measurement instrument were established by a distinguished team of consumer psychology and marketing scholars:

• Felicitas Morhart — Professor of Marketing, Faculty of Business and Economics (HEC Lausanne), University of Lausanne, Switzerland. Specialized in brand management, human-brand relationships, luxury branding, and consumer well-being.
• Lucia Malär — Associate Professor of Marketing, Institute of Marketing and Management, University of Bern, Switzerland. Renowned for her empirical investigations into consumer identity, self-congruency, emotional brand attachment, and brand personality.
• Amélie Guèvremont — Associate Professor of Marketing, École des sciences de la gestion, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Expert in consumer skepticism, brand authenticity, and promotional strategy.
• Florencia Girardin — Postdoctoral Researcher and Lecturer in Marketing, HEC Lausanne, University of Lausanne, Switzerland. Specializing in consumer behavior, brand authenticity, and organizational behavior.
• Bianca Grohmann — Professor of Marketing and Concordia University Research Chair in Consumer Psychology and Brand Communication, John Molson School of Business, Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Internationally recognized for her psychometric validation work in sensory marketing, brand design, and scale development.

4. Purpose

In modern consumer culture, markets are inundated with hyper-commercialized advertising, sponsored influencer endorsements, corporate sports sponsorships, and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) claims. Consequently, consumers have developed sophisticated cognitive defense mechanisms against corporate persuasion tactics. The purpose of the Sponsorship Authenticity Scale is to provide a rigorous, theoretically sound psychometric measurement instrument capable of diagnosing, quantifying, and evaluating the degree to which a brand, corporate sponsor, or collaborative initiative is perceived as genuine, unadulterated, and true to itself versus calculated, deceptive, and opportunistic.

Within consumer psychology and empirical marketing research, authenticity has historically suffered from conceptual ambiguity, frequently conflated with related constructs such as brand credibility, brand prestige, perceived quality, or brand personality. The SAS resolves this limitation by synthesizing disparate philosophical traditions—ranging from objective, indexical authenticity to subjective, existential, and constructivist authenticity—into a measurable psychometric architecture. By isolating four distinct dimensions—continuity, credibility, integrity, and symbolism—the scale enables researchers to dissect the precise cognitive and affective components that underpin consumer judgments of authenticity across commercial endeavors.

In research contexts, the scale addresses critical questions regarding brand equity preservation during high-profile sponsorship alliances (e.g., Olympic partnerships, FIFA World Cup sponsorships, philanthropic and cause-related alliances). When a corporation sponsors a mega-event, artistic festival, or social justice initiative, consumers evaluate the alignment between the sponsor and the sponsee. If the sponsorship is perceived as a superficial public relations stunt lacking historical commitment (continuity) or moral principles (integrity), consumers react with cynicism and brand boycott behaviors. The scale provides the measurement granularity needed to detect which dimension of authenticity is undermined or reinforced by such commercial actions.

From an applied and managerial perspective, the instrument serves as a critical diagnostic tool. Brand strategists, market analysts, and marketing directors utilize the scale to conduct brand audits, pre-test sponsorship campaigns, benchmark competitive positioning, and track brand equity degradation following corporate crises. It allows organizations to measure consumer sentiment longitudinally, identifying whether brand heritage campaigns effectively cultivate continuity or whether corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs bolster perceived integrity. By identifying specific subscale vulnerabilities, firms can tailor their strategic communications to mitigate consumer skepticism, cultivate profound psychological attachment, and foster lasting loyalty.

5. Psychological Construct

The central psychological construct measured by the instrument is perceived brand authenticity, applied specifically across general branding and commercial sponsorship environments. In contemporary psychometric theory, brand authenticity is defined as the subjective consumer perception that a brand is faithful to its origins, honest in its commitments, driven by moral conviction rather than pure short-term financial opportunism, and capable of providing authentic self-reflective meaning to the consumer. Rather than existing as an objective, intrinsic property of a physical product, perceived authenticity is an interactive perceptual construct synthesized within the consumer’s mind through brand communications, corporate actions, and historical interactions.

The construct is conceptualized as an integrative four-dimensional higher-order model comprising the following distinct psychological dimensions:

1. Continuity (Historical Transcendence and Temporal Endurance)

Continuity captures the extent to which a brand is perceived as possessing a rich, unbroken heritage that transcends ephemeral fads and market trends. Psychologically, continuity appeals to consumers’ need for stability, tradition, and temporal grounding in an increasingly transient and fast-paced world. A continuous brand represents longevity, survival across decades, and historical authenticity. For example, when evaluating a brand like Porsche, Levi’s, or an enduring event sponsor like Rolex at the Wimbledon Championships, consumers observe an uninterrupted legacy. If a brand suddenly adopts fleeting promotional gimmicks that contradict its historical narrative, its continuity score drops, signaling opportunistic discontinuity.

2. Credibility (Honesty and Promise Fulfillment)

Credibility reflects the consumer’s cognitive evaluation of whether the brand is truthful, transparent, and capable of executing its stated commitments. Grounded in signaling theory, credibility represents the brand’s willingness and ability to deliver on its value proposition without deceiving or manipulating buyers. It encompasses consumer judgments regarding whether marketing claims, product representations, and sponsored messages correspond to actual performance. For example, a sponsor claiming to promote grassroots youth fitness through a marathon alliance demonstrates credibility only if its actual resource deployment matches its promotional rhetoric.

3. Integrity (Moral Purity and Intrinsic Motivation)

Integrity pertains to the moral dimension of authenticity, reflecting consumer perceptions that the brand is guided by deeply held internal values, ethical convictions, and genuine passion rather than unconstrained commercial greed. Psychologically, integrity taps into the human need to discern the underlying motives of social actors. When an entity demonstrates integrity, it displays a willingness to adhere to its core principles even when doing so entails financial sacrifice. For instance, Patagonia’s decision to discontinue producing corporate-branded vests for Wall Street firms that fail to meet strict environmental standards exemplifies brand integrity, signaling an unwillingness to compromise core values for commercial gain.

4. Symbolism (Existential Value and Self-Identity Reflection)

Symbolism captures the existential utility of the brand, reflecting its capacity to serve as an authentic self-referential resource that consumers can utilize to express their real selves, validate their personal identities, and connect with what is deeply meaningful. Grounded in existential psychology and self-concept research, symbolism shifts the focus from what the brand does to what the brand enables the consumer to become. A brand exhibiting high symbolism allows consumers to connect with authentic cultural values, personal virtues, and community bonds, transforming the consumer-brand relationship into an existential anchor.

6. Theoretical Framework

The development of the scale draws upon an extensive synthesis of philosophical, sociological, and psychological theories, reconciling paradigms that were previously considered incompatible in consumer research. The scale integrates three foundational traditions of authenticity:

1. The Objectivist and Indexical Paradigm

The objectivist approach, grounded in the work of historians, archaeologists, and museum curators, defines authenticity as objective factuality, verifiable provenance, and physical spatiotemporal linkage to an original source (indexical authenticity, as conceptualized by Charles Sanders Peirce). Within the scale, this paradigm informs the Continuity dimension. Consumers act as lay historians, evaluating whether a brand possesses an authentic origin story, temporal continuity, and unbroken heritage. A sponsor that has genuinely partnered with an athletic community for fifty years possesses an indexical link that cannot be artificially manufactured overnight.

2. The Constructivist Paradigm and Signaling Theory

Constructivist authenticity posits that authenticity is not an inherent quality of an object, but rather a socially constructed, socially negotiated attribution. Drawing upon Erving Goffman’s sociological dramaturgical analysis and Michael Spence’s economic signaling theory, consumers interpret marketing and sponsorship cues to evaluate the underlying intent of the corporate actor. Here, the Credibility and Integrity dimensions emerge. Credibility operates as a signal of competence and honesty, reducing information asymmetry. Integrity reflects moral attributions, drawing on attribution theory (Kelley’s Covariation Model), where consumers evaluate whether corporate actions stem from intrinsic motivations (caring about the sponsored cause) or extrinsic commercial incentives (exploitative marketing).

3. The Existential Paradigm and Self-Determination Theory

Existential philosophy (articulated by Jean-Paul Sartre, Martin Heidegger, and Søren Kierkegaard) asserts that authenticity involves being true to one’s authentic self, resisting external societal pressures to conform to inauthentic roles (overcoming “bad faith”). When translated into consumer psychology, existential authenticity informs the Symbolism dimension. Drawing upon Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) and Identity Signaling Theories (Belk’s extended self-concept), consumers use authentic commercial entities as external scaffolding to support their own pursuit of self-actualization. Authentic brands provide consumers with identity-relevant symbolic resources that help them connect with what they perceive as genuinely important in life.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the instrument was established through rigorous, iterative empirical testing across diverse consumer samples and product categories. Morhart et al. (2015) and subsequent replication studies have demonstrated robust evidence for construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity:

Construct and Convergent Validity

Convergent validity was confirmed via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), where all standardized factor loadings across the 15 items consistently exceeded the recommended 0.70 benchmark (ranging from 0.72 to 0.91, all p < 0.001). The Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for each of the four latent factors exceeded the 0.50 threshold established by Fornell and Larcker (1981):

• Continuity: AVE = 0.68
• Credibility: AVE = 0.74
• Integrity: AVE = 0.69
• Symbolism: AVE = 0.66

These values demonstrate that the scale explains far more variance through its specified latent constructs than through measurement error.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was established using multiple criteria. First, applying the Fornell-Larcker criterion, the square root of the AVE for each latent construct was substantially higher than any inter-construct correlation ($r$ values between latent dimensions ranged from 0.42 to 0.68). Second, the scale demonstrated clear discriminant validity against established neighboring constructs, including brand credibility (Erdem & Swait, 2004), brand personality (Aaker, 1997), perceived quality, and brand prestige. Structural equation models comparing unconstrained models with models constraining inter-construct correlations to unity yielded statistically significant chi-square differences ($\Delta\chi^2$, p < 0.001), confirming that authenticity is psychometrically distinct from mere brand favorability or trust.

Predictive and Nomological Validity

Nomological validity was verified by demonstrating strong, theoretically coherent relationships with critical behavioral and affective outcomes. Structural equation modeling established that perceived authenticity significantly predicts:

• Emotional Brand Attachment: ($eta = 0.54$, p < 0.001), mediated predominantly by the symbolism and integrity dimensions.
• Brand Trust: ($eta = 0.62$, p < 0.001), driven strongly by credibility and integrity.
• Word-of-Mouth (WOM) Advocacy: ($eta = 0.48$, p < 0.001).
• Willingness to Pay a Price Premium: ($eta = 0.38$, p < 0.01), demonstrating economic relevance in commercial environments.

8. Reliability

The scale demonstrates exemplary internal consistency reliability and temporal stability across a broad spectrum of commercial, sponsorship, and non-profit contexts. Initial scale development across multiple consumer samples ($N > 1,200$) produced high reliability coefficients across all subscales:

• Continuity Subscale (4 items): Cronbach’s $lpha = 0.89$; Composite Reliability (CR) = 0.89
• Credibility Subscale (3 items): Cronbach’s $lpha = 0.90$; Composite Reliability (CR) = 0.90
• Integrity Subscale (4 items): Cronbach’s $lpha = 0.88$; Composite Reliability (CR) = 0.89
• Symbolism Subscale (4 items): Cronbach’s $lpha = 0.89$; Composite Reliability (CR) = 0.89
• Overall Brand/Sponsorship Authenticity (15 items): Cronbach’s $lpha = 0.94$; Composite Reliability (CR) = 0.95

Test-retest reliability was evaluated across a four-week interval using a dedicated non-student consumer panel ($n = 184$). The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and test-retest correlation coefficients remained robust across all dimensions ($r_{tt}$ for Continuity = 0.84, Credibility = 0.81, Integrity = 0.82, Symbolism = 0.85; overall scale $r_{tt} = 0.86$, p < 0.001). Furthermore, split-half reliability and item-total correlations consistently exceeded 0.65, demonstrating that the measurement instrument possesses minimal measurement error and exceptional structural stability.

9. Factor Analysis

The psychometric dimensionality of the scale was established through a rigorous two-stage factor-analytic protocol adhering to best-practice scale development standards (Churchill, 1979; Gerbing & Anderson, 1988).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In the scale development phase, an initial pool of over 60 candidate items derived from qualitative interviews, consumer focus groups, and literature reviews was administered to a calibration sample ($N = 450$). Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) with oblique rotation (Promax, $kappa = 4$) was conducted because the underlying dimensions of authenticity were theoretically expected to correlate.

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was 0.94, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was highly significant ($\chi^2(105) = 4312.87$, p < 0.001), indicating excellent data factorability. The scree test and parallel analysis unambiguously converged on a four-factor solution accounting for 71.4% of total variance. Items exhibiting weak factor loadings (< 0.60), high cross-loadings (> 0.30 on secondary factors), or conceptual redundancy were systematically eliminated, producing the refined 15-item structure.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Model Fit

The four-factor structure was subsequently tested on an independent validation sample ($N = 618$) using structural equation modeling. Confirmatory factor analysis evaluated competing structural models, comparing a one-factor unidimensional model, a four-factor orthogonal model, a four-factor first-order correlated model, and a second-order hierarchical model where the four primary factors load onto a general higher-order Authenticity construct.

The four-factor correlated model and the second-order hierarchical model demonstrated superior, excellent goodness-of-fit indices across standard evaluation criteria:

• Chi-Square / Degrees of Freedom ($\chi^2 / df$): 1.84 (Value < 3.0 indicates excellent fit)
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): 0.978 (Value > 0.95 indicates superior fit)
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): 0.972 (Value > 0.95 indicates superior fit)
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): 0.037 (90% CI: [0.030, 0.044], value < 0.05 indicates close fit)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): 0.032 (Value < 0.05 indicates excellent fit)

Standardized item factor loadings across the four dimensions are presented below:

• Continuity: Item 1 ($lambda = 0.82$), Item 2 ($lambda = 0.84$), Item 3 ($lambda = 0.88$), Item 4 ($lambda = 0.85$)
• Credibility: Item 5 ($lambda = 0.86$), Item 6 ($lambda = 0.89$), Item 7 ($lambda = 0.87$)
• Integrity: Item 8 ($lambda = 0.81$), Item 9 ($lambda = 0.85$), Item 10 ($lambda = 0.80$), Item 11 ($lambda = 0.86$)
• Symbolism: Item 12 ($lambda = 0.83$), Item 13 ($lambda = 0.82$), Item 14 ($lambda = 0.86$), Item 15 ($lambda = 0.84$)

All item factor loadings were statistically significant at p < 0.001, confirming robust structural parameterization.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Standardized self-report psychometric rating scale; multi-dimensional perceptual assessment tool.
• Format: Paper-and-pencil or online digital survey battery.
• Target Population: Consumers, sports event spectators, brand stakeholders, general adult populations (ages 18+).
• Item Count: 15 items grouped into four distinct subscales: Continuity (4 items), Credibility (3 items), Integrity (4 items), and Symbolism (4 items).
• Target Entity: Can be applied to standalone consumer brands, corporate sponsors, commercial alliances, or cause-related marketing partnerships (by substituting [Brand] with the relevant brand/sponsor name).
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree).
• Administration Time: Approximately 4 to 6 minutes.
• Scoring Rules:
  • All 15 items are positively phrased; no reverse scoring is required.
  • Continuity Subscale Score: Calculate the arithmetic mean of items 1, 2, 3, and 4.
  • Credibility Subscale Score: Calculate the arithmetic mean of items 5, 6, and 7.
  • Integrity Subscale Score: Calculate the arithmetic mean of items 8, 9, 10, and 11.
  • Symbolism Subscale Score: Calculate the arithmetic mean of items 12, 13, 14, and 15.
  • Overall Authenticity Index: Calculate the grand mean across all 15 items (sum of scores divided by 15). Higher scores indicate higher perceived brand/sponsorship authenticity.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Publication: 2015.
• Original Publishing Outlet: Journal of Consumer Psychology (Volume 25, Issue 2, pages 200–218).
• Copyright Holder: Society for Consumer Psychology (published by Elsevier Inc. / John Wiley & Sons, Inc.).
• Fee: Free for non-commercial academic, psychological, and scientific research. No licensing fee is required when used for non-profit academic scholarship with appropriate bibliographic citation of the original authors (Morhart et al., 2015).
• Commercial Use: Commercial organizations, market research firms, and proprietary brand consulting agencies seeking to integrate the scale into commercial audit products should obtain formal permissions or verify institutional licensing agreements through the Copyright Clearance Center or the publisher.

12. References

Aaker, J. L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379703400304

Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377901600110

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Erdem, T., & Swait, J. (2004). Brand credibility, brand consideration, and choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(1), 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1086/383434

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

Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(2), 186–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378802500207

Morhart, F., Malär, L., Guèvremont, A., Girardin, F., & Grohmann, B. (2015). Brand authenticity: An integrative framework and measurement scale. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 25(2), 200–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2014.11.006

Speed, R., & Thompson, P. (2000). Determinants of sports sponsorship response. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 226–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300282004

13. Items of the Scale