Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Naylor & James ISDPA Slides
Naylor & James ISDPA Slides
Naylor & James ISDPA Slides
Naylor & James ISDPA Slides
Naylor & James ISDPA Slides
Naylor & James ISDPA Slides
Naylor & James ISDPA Slides
Naylor & James ISDPA Slides
Naylor & James ISDPA Slides
Naylor & James ISDPA Slides
Naylor & James ISDPA Slides
Naylor & James ISDPA Slides
Naylor & James ISDPA Slides
Naylor & James ISDPA Slides
Naylor & James ISDPA Slides
Naylor & James ISDPA Slides
Naylor & James ISDPA Slides
Naylor & James ISDPA Slides
Naylor & James ISDPA Slides
Naylor & James ISDPA Slides
Naylor & James ISDPA Slides
Naylor & James ISDPA Slides
Naylor & James ISDPA Slides
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Naylor & James ISDPA Slides

294

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
294
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Sport Participation as a Mechanism forSocial Change: Consumer Perspectives and Marketing Implications
    Saturday, June 12th, 2010
    Michael Naylor
    Dr. Jeffrey James
  • 2. Background
    Field of Sport Management
    Traditionally focused on collegiate & professional sport, recent emphasis on fantasy gaming/video gaming
    Lack of attention on sport participation – “sport for all” (Scheerder, Vanreusel & Taks, 2005)
    Legitimations of sport identified, a shift proposed (Chalip 2006; Zeigler, 2007)
    Interdisciplinary research called for (Inglis, 2007)
  • 3. Sport Participation
    “Fundamental to human development” (Sport Canada, 2002)
    Significant benefits possible – physically active participation is key (Beaton, Funk & Alexandris, 2009)
    There is a need to better understand the psychological processes involved with sport participants, so more focused marketing is possible (Crompton, 2008)
    “desperate need for effective strategies promoting physical activity to the public” (Latimer et. al, 2008)
  • 4. Significance
    important health benefits attainable through sport participation (Bloom, Grant & Watt, 2005; World Health Organization, 2004)
    Promotional efforts to date have not been effective (perhaps due to an overemphasis on demographic correlates)
    Inactivity is increasing – modern conveniences
  • 5. Societal Orientation
    Relates to the long-term impacts of goods or service provision for both individuals and society (Kang, 2004)
    May be consistent with public mandate for public leisure services (Kaczynski, 2008)
    Increasingly, citizens are showing concern for their health and environment – may shape sport participation decisions (Coalter, 2007)
  • 6. Sport Participation Motivation
    When developing physically active programs – motivational structures are key (Netz & Raviv, 2004)
    There is “hardly anything more basic” than studying motivations in sport settings (Iso-Ahola, 1989)
    Linked to adherence – important to accrue benefits of sport participation (Koivula, 1999)
    Motivation in sport settings may be linked to meaningfulness or importance of benefits (Gill & Overdorf, 1994)
  • 7. Hypotheses
    H1: Those who place high importance on the societal dimensions of sport will be motivated to participate in sport.
    H2: Those who place high importance on the societal dimension of sport will report higher levels of participation intentions.
    H3: Those who are highly motivated to participate in sport will report higher levels of participation intentions.
  • 8. ATTITUDES MOTIVATIONS INTENTIONS
    Importance of Societal Dimensions of Sport Quality
    Sport Participation Motives
    Model of Sport Participation
    Physical
    Social Contact
    Body Image
    Psychological
    Competition
    Sociological
    Participation Intentions
    H2
    Challenge
    H1
    Economical
    Physical Exercise
    H3
    Entertainment
    Environmental
  • 9. Purpose
    Test relationships among constructs
    Assess psychometric properties of the revised SOC*QUAL instrument
    Examine gender, age and participant/non-participant) differences on the revised SOC*QUAL instrument
  • 10. Participants
    Participants (n=720) were intercepted by a team of graduate students
    community members in a variety of venues such as malls, workplaces and various locations around campus.
    variety of ages, an equitable mix of men and women and a combination of both active sport participants and non-participants
    mean age of 30.7, 56 % male
  • 11. Instrument
    demographic variables
    three constructs of interest
    1) the importance of the five societal sub-dimensions (Kang, 2004)
    2) sport participation motivations (Caro & Garcia, 2007)
    3) sport participation intentions.
  • 12. Scale Development
    societal sub-dimension importance scale was developed for this research project
    Kang’s (2004) original (and validated) 37 item SOC*QUAL measure was re-worded
    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.
    For example, Kang’s (2004) item reworded to ‘it is important that participating in sport improves physical health’
    7 point, likert-type, fully-anchored scale of agreement.
  • 13. Scale Development
    Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)
    Five initial Eigenvalues were more than one, meaning the factors they represented were kept Nunnally (1978).
    5 factors emerged as theorized on five sub-dimensions (Physiological, Psychological, Sociological, Economic, Environmental)
  • 14. Scale Development
    Cronbach’s alpha reliability analysis
    Criteria is greater than 0.70 (Kline, 2005)
    physical (α=.86)
    sociological (α=.94)
    psychological (α=.95)
    economic (α=.94)
    environmental (α=.89)
    scale as a whole (α=.96)
    *indication of internal consistency
  • 15. Composite Variables
    • Hierarchical order of importance is statistically significant – physical dimension is most important
  • Composite Variables
    GENDER
    Women viewed the physical, psychological and sociological sub-dimensions as more important than the men
    PARTICIPANTS & NON-PARTICIPANTS
    No statistically significant differences were found for any of the five sub-dimensions (F=.17-3.8, p>.05).
    AGE
    24 and younger (n=251),
    25-40 (n=322)
    42 and over (n=119)
    The youngest age category perceived each of the dimensions as more important than the oldest age groups
  • 16. Relationships Among Constructs
    Significant correlations present between societal dimension importance and motive variables, but small effects
    Logistic Regression analyses showed poor predictive capacity of both societal dimension importance and the motives on participation intentions
  • 17. Discussion
    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.
    Why don’t they participate? Constraints or exercise?
    The sample rated the physical, sociological and psychological importance of sport participation more highly than the economic and environmental sub-dimensions.
    Are these dimensions appropriate in sport participation settings?
    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.
    Further testing needed in fuller models and alternate settings.
  • 18. Limitations
    Conceptual issue with measuring economic sub-dimension
    Random sampling – an explicitly defined assumption of EFA procedures
    Not a “full” model of sport participation
    Simple measures of motivation and outcomes
  • 19. Managerial Implications
    Sport managers should be aware of and highlight benefits of sport participation
    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.
  • 20. Next Phase
    Data Collection – Fall 2010
    Three dimensions only – discard environmental & economic
    Ecological Model (Spence & Lee, 2003)
    Add complexity to motivation measurement
    Add constraints to model
    Add a measure of self-efficacy
    Add complexity to outcome measures
  • 21. Selected References
    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.
    Bloom, M., Grant, M. & Watt, D. (2005). Strengthening Canada: The socio-economic benefits of Sport Participation in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Conference Board of Canada.
    Chalip, L. (2006). Toward a distinctive sport management discipline. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 1-21.
    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.
    Kaczynski, A, T. (2008). A more tenable marketing for leisure services and studies. Leisure Sciences, 30, 253-272.
    Kang, G. D. (2004). Soc*Qual: The development of a scale to measure a societal marketing dimension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois, Urbana.
    Koivula, N. (1999). Sport participation: Differences in motivation and actual participation due to gender typing. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22, 360-380.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    Spence, J. C. & Lee, R. E. (2003). Toward a comprehensive model of physical activity. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4, 7-24.
    Sport Canada. (2002). The Canadian Sport Policy. Ottawa, ON: Sport Canada.
    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
    Zeigler, E.F. (2007). Sport management must show social concern as it develops tenable theory. Journal of Sport Management, 21, 297-318.
  • 22. Questions or Comments?

×