Table 1 Study 1: The AA Relationships outcomes. Manchester United Happy (sad) for good (bad) External (vs. internal) blame Attached-averse (n = 200) things attribution AA Relationships = .98, < .001 = .96, < .001 = .99, < .001 p p p γ γ γ Brand-self distance = .66, < .01 = .65, < .01 = .69, < .001 p p p γ γ γ AA Relationships = .93 vs. = .46; = .88 vs. = .53; = .94 vs. = .59; γ γ γ γ γ γ vs. brand attachment = 37.43, < .001 = 22.43, < .001 = 21.76, < .001 z p z p z p AA Relationships = .96 vs. =.60; = .93 vs. =.61; = .97 vs. =.65; γ γ γ γ γ γ vs. emotional valence = 18.52, < .001 = 17.04, < .001 = 17.21, < .001 z p z p z p AA Relationships = .92 vs. = .54; = .90 vs. =.55; = .98 vs. =.55; γ γ γ γ γ γ vs. attitude strength = 19.92, < .001 = 19.98, < .001 = 20.63, < .001 z p z p z p Table 2
Table 1 Study 1: The AA Relationships outcomes. Manchester United (n = 200) Happy (sad) for good (bad) things External (vs. internal) blame attribution Attached-averse AA Relationships γ = .98, p < .001 γ = .96, p < .001 γ = .99, p < .001 Brand-self distance γ = .66, p < .01 γ = .65, p < .01 γ = .69, p < .001 AA Relationships vs. brand attachment γ = .93 vs. γ = .46; z = 37.43, p < .001 γ = .88 vs. γ = .53; z = 22.43, p < .001 γ = .94 vs. γ = .59; z = 21.76, p < .001 AA Relationships vs. emotional valence γ = .96 vs. γ =.60; z = 18.52, p < .001 γ = .93 vs. γ =.61; z = 17.04, p < .001 γ = .97 vs. γ =.65; z = 17.21, p < .001 AA Relationships vs. attitude strength γ = .92 vs. γ = .54; z = 19.92, p < .001 γ = .90 vs. γ =.55; z = 19.98, p < .001 γ = .98 vs. γ =.55; z = 20.63, p < .001 Table 2
AA%20Model%20of%20Customer_Brand_Relationships%20Jan_09_2013-2.docx