I’d like to start by providing a bit of a background of the field of sport management, as I understand that this conference has attracted participants from a wide background of academic disciplines.Sport management scholars are, among other things, interested in managerial functions, ethics, law, finance, facilities and marketing. Our particular interest, and the focus of this presentation lies in marketing.Most marketing research in sport management has focused on collegiate and professional sport, with new streams of research emerging lately toward fantasy gaming and video gaming. These studies are usually geared toward placing more “butts in seats” in stadiums, increasing merchandise sales or sport related consumption of other kinds. Very little, if any research has examined sport participation from a marketing perspective, this despite the long-term trend of increased involvement and academic interest in sport participation – known as the “Sport for All” movement since the 1970’s. Recently troubling signs of citizens living more sedentary lifestyles have emerged, increasing the need to understand why people do (or don’t) choose to participate in sport. Several of our field’s most esteemed scholars including Dr. Chalip and Dr. Zeigler have suggested that the focus of sport management research should realign toward the unique aspects of sport or “Sport for Good” which generally involves active physical participation as opposed to other types of passive involvement such as those just mentioned. Sociological, Psychological and Physiological benefits of sport participation are now well-established, but it’s not clear how important these benefits are to citizens or how they may fit in the greater psychological process of sport participation. Several studies incorporating a Theory of Planned Behavior framework in physical activity settings have examined the determinant role of attitudes – but not specifically in terms of the importance of benefits, and not specifically in terms of sport (as opposed to exercise) participation.
One national sport organization referred to sport participation as “fundamental to human development”.Although this perspective is not held by all, as mentioned there is a body of research that has provided evidence that playing sport is more than just fun. Of the benefits potentially attainable, many require physically active participation. Clearly, psychological and sociological benefits are possible without physically active participation – but an argument can be made that these benefits are enhanced through actual involvement as opposed to vicarious or passive involvement. Dr. Crompton, prominent amongst recreation scholars , has called for a better understanding of the psychological processes associated with sport participation, which will enable more effective marketing practices. Latimer and her colleagues echoed this sentiment, noting that due to increasing inactivity and obesity, our society is in desperate need for effective strategies promoting physical activity to the publicPsychological processes have been examined extensively with regard to physical activity and exercise, but the focus has rarely been on sport. It is not yet clear how exercise and sport participation should be marketed differently, if at all.
I have alluded to the significance of this area of research already – and admittedly some of the rationale is well-known to sport scholars and I’m sure many of you.-The health benefits attainable through sport participation are of particular note and include a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, type-2 diabetes, arthritis and obesity. -Clearly these benefits are not unique to sport, they are related to the physically active component of sport and can be obtained through other means. -They are worth mentioning however, because sport may be perceived as a preferable means to realize these benefits over sometimes monotonous workout routines. -Attempts to promote physical activity and sport, when taken together, are considered by many to be unsuccessful… an increasingly sedentary population is cited as evidence of this. Some have suggested that this may be a result of an over reliance on demographic correlates of physical activity and not a thorough understanding of psychological processes that is preferred by marketers-work in this area is also important because of the formidable opposition that exists through powerful marketing campaigns promoting modern conveniences that can lead to inactivity and sedentary lifestyles.
A body of literature is well-established in mainstream marketing related to social marketing and what can be referred to as a societal orientation. Originally, the idea was conceived that social ideas (in this case “a physically active lifestyle through sport”) could be marketed (or sold) using similar techniques as toothpaste, automobiles or other goods and services. An organization espousing a societal orientation takes into consideration the betterment of society and individuals.Kang, Kaczynski, Coalter and others have theorized that this type of orientation may be a natural fit for those promoting physical activity and sport. With this in mind Kang created an instrument that essentially measured the degree to which organizations espoused a societal orientation. In other words, to what degree an organization was concerned with long-term impacts on individual and societies. -Five dimensions emerged from an exhaustive scale development process that reflected what he called “societal dimensions of quality”… physical, sociological, psychological, environmental and economic-it’s not clear if the latter two dimensions are appropriate in sport participation settings, but that will be discussed further in just a minuteFred Coalter has suggested that citizens concerns for these types of factors may shape sport participation decisions. So, one of the purposes of this study was to measure how important these dimensions (or benefits, as they can be thought of) are in the eyes of both participants and non-participants.
Whenthis study was developed, we decided to include a simple measure of motives to examine how (if at all) citizens’ attitudes about the importance of individual and societal benefits of sport participation would be linked to motives (which we know lead to intention and action).Examining motivations in physical activity and sport settings have been described as “key” and “basic” to building understandings of behavior.Further, Koivula noted that motivation is linked to adherence in sport settings.-adherence (or consistent immersion of some type) is probably essential to accrue the benefits that we are studying Gill and Overdorf suggested that attitudes about meaningfulness may be linked to motivation. It’s clear that motivation plays a role in the psychological process that leads to sport participation but we are still not clear exactly what it is
So, here is a diagram of the model we utilized in this study. This model does not purport to be a full or complete model of sport participation. As it sits now, it simply depicts how the new societal importance measure may fit with motives and intentions. -The goal of the study was primarily to test the psychometric properties of the importance scale, not structural linkages amongst potentially related constructs.You can see the five sub-dimensions of the societal orientation are modeled as a driver of both motives and intentions.Six sport participation motives were selected for this study, because of their simplicity: SOCIAL CONTACT, BODY IMAGE, COMPETITION, CHALLENGE, PHYSICAL EXERCISE, ENTERTAINMENT
720 community members were approached by trained research assistants and asked to complete a survey. They were approached in various places around the City of Tallahassee.Research assistants were specifically asked to sample a variety of ages, an equitable mix of men and women, as well as a combination of both sport and non-sport participants. As you can see – the average age was just over 30, and slightly more than half of the sample were male.
In addition to a range of demographic and behavioral variables, three constructs of interest were measured through the questionnaire – societal dimension importance, motives and intentions. The importance measure was developed in a procedure I will describe next. Motivates were taken from the work of Caro and Garcia and include the six dimensions seen in the diagram.Finally, participation intentions were measured with an ordinal-level measure asking participants to indicate whether they intended to decrease, maintain or increase their frequency of sport participation.
As mentioned, the societal sub-dimension importance scale was developed from the original work of Kang and was reworded to reflect the importance that participants place on these various benefits. As you can see from the sample item listed on the slide, the word importance was added to items and the context was changed from an organization to sport participation in general.
Exploratory factor analysis was used to examine the items and the way that they were loading. In fact, the items loaded in a very similar fashion as the original work of Kang – which was a promising sign. Oblique (or oblimin, as it’s called in SPSS statistical software) rotation was utilized as is appropriate for this type of social science research in which factors can be expected to correlate with one another
Coefficient alpha’s were calculated for each dimension and the scale as a whole.The values that you see listed are larger then the most popular critera of .70. These values can be interpreted as evidence that the measures utilzed in this research were consistent and stable.
Composite variables were calculated for each of the five sub-dimensions.The purpose was to provide one means of comparison as to the relative importance that the groups placed on the various benefits potentially attainable through sport participation. As you can see, the participants viewed the physical benefits as most important. In fact a series of paired samples t-tests showed that the differences (although not huge) were statistically meaningful.
Next, a series of analyses were conducted in order to test for gender and behavioral differences on the composite variables. Of interest was the fact that women in our sample viewed these benefits as more important than men.There were no differences between participants and non-participants on the importance of the five dimensions. Finally, the youngest age category perceived each of the five dimensions as more important than the older age categories. These differences should be interpreted with caution due to measurement error inherent to the calculation of composite variables as well as the relatively small differences on some of the differences. For example, there is probably no meaningful difference between 6.1 and 5.8 on the 7 point scale. Nevertheless, these preliminary results do provide talking points and are of some interest, at least descriptively.
Significant correlations present between societal dimension importance and motive variables, but small effectsLogistic Regression analyses showed poor predictive capacity of both societal dimension importance and the motives on participation intentions On the whole a bit dissapointing but perhaps a revamped research model will provide better results in future.
Although there are economic gains that can accrue from sport participation (i.e. lower health care costs) it’s not apparent that this was considered by the participants in the study. This is an interesting issue that can and should be pursued in alternate research projects. Random sampling – an explicitly defined assumption of EFA proceduresNot a “full” model of sport participationSimple measures of motivation and outcomes
According to prospect theory, and the work of Latimer and her colleagues, physical activity may be most effectively marketed by using gain framed messages as opposed to loss-frame.In this case, some evidence has emerged here regarding the relative importance of these benefits in the eyes of sport participants. So, sport managers should be aware of and highlight benefits of sport participationFor example, a sport marketer attempting to build membership at a new tennis club, could highlight the physiological (get fit!), sociological (make friends!) and psychological (take your mind of work!) benefits possible for new members through creative promotional efforts.
I am pleased to briefly outline the next phase of this research project which will commence next fall.The relative importance that citizens perceive in association with the benefits of sport participation remains of interest and clearly more work needs to be done in this area.Although the environmental and economic sub-dimensions make sense in an organizational context, perhaps they don’t make as much sense in terms of sport participation, and probably won’t add much to the explanatory capacity of a fuller model. Spence and Lee have suggested applying an ecological modeling framework to research in sport participation. -To this end, it probably makes sense to add additional factors to the model that impact the psychological process that leads to sport participation from both an intra-individual and extra-individual level. -A measure of self-efficacy or perceived behavioral control is probably relevant here from an intra-individual perspective, while structural and inter-personal constraints definitely shape participation decisions from an extra-individual perspective. -Finally, the way in which motivation is measured can be approached in another way. Instead of thinking about this in terms of motives like social contact and competition… it could be approached from an intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivational perspective. -Research has shown that intrinsic motivation generally drives sport participation while extrinsic motivation has been generally linked to exercise. In this context however, we would expect that those participation in sport specifically accrue benefits, may be somewhat extrinsically motivated. This examination would have interesting marketing implications.
Here is some of the work we used to shape our research.
Thank you very much for listening!I am eager to discuss any portion of the research or try to answer any questions you may have!
Naylor ISDPA Presentation
Sport Participation as a Mechanism forSocial Change: Consumer Perspectives and Marketing Implications<br />Saturday, June 12th, 2010<br />Michael Naylor<br />Dr. Jeffrey James<br />
Background<br />Field of Sport Management<br />Traditionally focused on collegiate & professional sport, recent emphasis on fantasy gaming/video gaming<br />Lack of attention on sport participation – “sport for all” (Scheerder, Vanreusel & Taks, 2005)<br />Legitimations of sport identified, a shift proposed (Chalip 2006; Zeigler, 2007)<br />Interdisciplinary research called for (Inglis, 2007)<br />
Sport Participation<br />“Fundamental to human development” (Sport Canada, 2002)<br />Significant benefits possible – physically active participation is key (Beaton, Funk & Alexandris, 2009)<br />There is a need to better understand the psychological processes involved with sport participants, so more focused marketing is possible (Crompton, 2008)<br />“desperate need for effective strategies promoting physical activity to the public” (Latimer et. al, 2008)<br />
Significance<br />Important health benefits attainable through sport participation (Bloom, Grant & Watt, 2005; World Health Organization, 2004)<br />Promotional efforts to date have not been effective (perhaps due to an overemphasis on demographic correlates)<br />Inactivity is increasing – modern conveniences<br />
Societal Orientation<br />Relates to the long-term impacts of goods or service provision for both individuals and society (Kang, 2004)<br />May be consistent with public mandate for public leisure services (Kaczynski, 2008)<br />Increasingly, citizens are showing concern for their health and environment – may shape sport participation decisions (Coalter, 2007)<br />
Sport Participation Motivation<br />When developing physically active programs – motivational structures are key (Netz & Raviv, 2004)<br />There is “hardly anything more basic” than studying motivations in sport settings (Iso-Ahola, 1989)<br />Linked to adherence – important to accrue benefits of sport participation (Koivula, 1999)<br />Motivation in sport settings may be linked to meaningfulness or importance of benefits (Gill & Overdorf, 1994)<br />
ATTITUDES MOTIVATIONS INTENTIONS<br />Importance of Societal Dimensions of Sport Quality<br />Sport Participation Motives<br />Model of Sport Participation<br />Physical<br />Social Contact<br />Body Image<br />Psychological<br />Competition<br />Sociological<br />Participation Intentions<br />H2<br />Challenge<br />H1<br />Economical<br />Physical Exercise<br />H3<br />Entertainment<br />Environmental<br />
Hypotheses<br />H1: Those who place high importance on the societal dimensions of sport will be motivated to participate in sport.<br />H2: Those who place high importance on the societal dimension of sport will report higher levels of participation intentions.<br />H3: Those who are highly motivated to participate in sport will report higher levels of participation intentions.<br />
Purpose<br />Test relationships among constructs<br />Assess psychometric properties of the revised SOC*QUAL instrument<br />Examine gender, age and participant/non-participant) differences on the revised SOC*QUAL instrument<br />
Participants<br />Participants (n=720) were intercepted by a team of graduate students<br />Community members in a variety of venues such as malls, workplaces and various locations around campus. <br />Variety of ages, an equitable mix of men and women and a combination of both active sport participants and non-participants<br />Mean age of 30.7, 56 % male<br />
Instrument<br />Demographic variables<br />Three constructs of interest <br />1) the importance of the five societal sub-dimensions (Kang, 2004)<br />2) sport participation motives (Caro & Garcia, 2007)<br />3) sport participation intentions. <br />
Scale Development<br />Societal sub-dimension importance scale was developed for this research project<br /> Kang’s (2004) original (and validated) 37 item SOC*QUAL measure was re-worded <br />Scale alterations simply involved adding the word importance to each item as well as changing the context from an organization to sport participation in general. <br />For example, Kang’s (2004) item reworded to ‘it is important that participating in sport improves physical health’ <br />7 point, likert-type, fully-anchored scale of agreement. <br />
Scale Development<br />Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)<br />Five initial Eigenvalues were more than one, meaning the factors they represented were kept Nunnally (1978).<br />5 factors emerged as theorized on five sub-dimensions (Physiological, Psychological, Sociological, Economic, Environmental)<br />
Scale Development<br />Cronbach’s alpha reliability analysis <br />Criteria is greater than 0.70 (Kline, 2005)<br />physical (α=.86) <br />sociological (α=.94) <br />psychological (α=.95) <br />economic (α=.94) <br />environmental (α=.89) <br />scale as a whole (α=.96) <br />*indication of internal consistency<br />
Composite Variables<br /><ul><li> Hierarchical order of importance is statistically significant – physical dimension is most important</li></li></ul><li>Composite Variables<br />GENDER<br />Women viewed the physical, psychological and sociological sub-dimensions as more important than the men<br />PARTICIPANTS & NON-PARTICIPANTS<br />No statistically significant differences were found for any of the five sub-dimensions (F=.17-3.8, p>.05).<br />AGE<br />24 and younger (n=251),<br />25-40 (n=322)<br />42 and over (n=119)<br />The youngest age category perceived each of the dimensions as more important than the oldest age groups<br />
Relationships Among Constructs<br />Significant correlations present between societal dimension importance and motive variables, but small effects<br />Logistic Regression analyses showed poor predictive capacity of both societal dimension importance and the motives on participation intentions <br />
Discussion<br />Evidence that sport participants and non-participants do not differ in the importance they attribute to societal benefits attainable through sport participation is promising to the extent that non-participants do view these benefits as important.<br />Why don’t they participate? Constraints or exercise?<br />The sample rated the physical, sociological and psychological importance of sport participation more highly than the economic and environmental sub-dimensions.<br />Are these dimensions appropriate in sport participation settings?<br />The fact that the new instrument was found to be reliable and internally consistent (α=.96) is promising. In addition, the sub-dimensions showed discriminant validity, and the factor structure determined through an EFA was consistent with what was theorized. These are all signs that participants were able to interpret the items effectively and that the construct is multi-dimensional.<br />Further testing needed in fuller models and alternate settings.<br />
Limitations<br />Conceptual issue with measuring economic sub-dimension<br />Random sampling – an explicitly defined assumption of EFA procedures<br />Not a “full” model of sport participation<br />Simple measures of motivation and outcomes<br />
Managerial Implications<br />Sport managers should be aware of and highlight benefits of sport participation<br />For example, a sport marketer attempting to build membership at a new tennis club, could highlight the physiological (get fit!), sociological (make friends!) and psychological (take your mind of work!) benefits possible for new members through creative promotional efforts.<br />
Next Phase<br />Data Collection – Fall 2010<br />Three dimensions only – discard environmental & economic<br />Ecological Model (Spence & Lee, 2003)<br />Add complexity to motivation measurement<br />Add constraints to model<br />Add a measure of self-efficacy<br />Add complexity to outcome measures<br />
Selected References<br />Beaton, A. A., Funk, D. C., Alexandris, K. (2009). Operationalizing a theory of participation in physically active leisure. Journal of Leisure Research, 44, 177-203.<br />Bloom, M., Grant, M. & Watt, D. (2005). Strengthening Canada: The socio-economic benefits of Sport Participation in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Conference Board of Canada.<br />Chalip, L. (2006). Toward a distinctive sport management discipline. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 1-21.<br />Crompton, J. L. (2008). Evolution and implications of a paradigm shift in the marketing of leisure services in the USA. Leisure Studies, 27, 181-206.<br />Kaczynski, A, T. (2008). A more tenable marketing for leisure services and studies. Leisure Sciences, 30, 253-272.<br />Kang, G. D. (2004). Soc*Qual: The development of a scale to measure a societal marketing dimension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois, Urbana.<br />Koivula, N. (1999). Sport participation: Differences in motivation and actual participation due to gender typing. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22, 360-380.<br />Latimer, A. E., Rench, T. A., Rivers, S. E., Katulak, N. A., Materese, S. A., Cadmus, L., Hicks, A., Hodorowski, J. K., Salovey, P. (2008). Promoting participation in physical activity using framed messages: An application of prospect theory. British Journal of Health Psychology, 13, 659-681.<br />Netz, Y. & Raviv, S. (2004). Age differences in motivational orientation toward physical activity: An application of social-cognitive theory. The Journal of Psychology, 138, 35-48.<br />Scheerder, J., Vanreusel, B. & Taks, M. (2005). Leisure-time sport among physical education students. A time trend analysis of sport participation styles. European Sport Management Quarterly, 5, 415-441.<br />Spence, J. C. & Lee, R. E. (2003). Toward a comprehensive model of physical activity. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4, 7-24.<br />Sport Canada. (2002). The Canadian Sport Policy. Ottawa, ON: Sport Canada.<br />World Health Organization (2004). Global Strategy on Diet, Physical Activity; and Health. Retrieved April 15th, 2010 from the World Health Organization website: http://who.int/diet/phsicalactivity/strategy/eb11344/en/index.html<br />Zeigler, E.F. (2007). Sport management must show social concern as it develops tenable theory. Journal of Sport Management, 21, 297-318.<br />