You are on page 1of 24

Factors influencing spectator sports consumption: NCAA womens college basketball

Keywords
NCAA basketball constraints motivators hierarchy moderators spectator sports

Abstract
Although the understanding of both positive and negative factors influencing sports consumption is essential, previous research has mainly focused on motivators. The purpose of this study was to examine three different models of constraints and motivators that influence attendance: a correlated model, a hierarchical model and a moderated model. Twenty factors were identified and classified into four main categories. The results indicated that 16 out of 20 motivators and constraints had a significant relationship with attendance in the theoretically expected direction.

Galen. T. Trail
Associate Professor, Centre for the Study of Sport & Exercise Seattle University 901, 12th Avenue P.O. Box 222000, Seattle, WA 98122, USA Email: trailg@seattleu.edu

Yu Kyoum Kim RESEARCH PAPER


Sport and Recreation Management, The Florida State University Tully Gym 1034, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA Tel: + 850 644 7174 Email: ykim6@fsu.edu.

Peer reviewed

Executive summary
An extensive body of research on motivators for sports spectatorship has been accumulated. However, little research has been done on the constraints that prevent people from attending sporting events. Additional research is needed that examines not only motivators but also constraints. This is for several reasons. Firstly, both positive (i.e. motivators) and negative factors (i.e. constraints) that affect individuals leisure choices and behaviours should be examined to more thoroughly understand individuals reasoning for those choices and behaviours. In addition, negative factors are often more influential than positive ones as decision factors for choices and behaviours. Secondly, knowledge of constraints is critical to teams, schools and sports that draw low attendance figures. Low game attendance in these incidences may be influenced more by constraints than by motivators. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to examine three different models of constraints and motivators that influence attendance: a correlated model, a hierarchical model and a moderated model. The survey was designed to examine the motivators and constraints relating to attendance at womens

60

International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship

OCTOBER 2011

NCAA womens basketball

basketball games at a NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) Division I-A university. The questionnaire was comprised of four main categories: internal motivators, internal constraints, external motivators and external constraints. To test the correlated model (Model 1), we conducted a structural model specifying the bivariate correlation between each construct and attendance intention (AI) using Mplus 6.0. To test the hierarchy proposition (Model 2), we compared means on attendance of the groups using one way ANOVA with SPSS 18.0. To test moderating effect of constraints on the relationship between the motivators and attendance, we used latent moderated structural equations (LMS) method using Mplus 6.0. In Model 1, all the internal motivator constructs had positive significant relationships with AI and were explained from 1% to 22% of variances in attendance intentions. Internal constraints - such as Lack of team success, Lack of someone to attend with and No interest from significant others - had significant negative impact on the attendance intention. All external motivators had a significant and positive relationship with attendance intentions. External constraints such as Cost, Parking and Location had significant negative influences on Model 2. Our results suggest that the proposed hierarchy does not exist in spectators decision-making processes. In Model 3, we found some support for constraints moderating the effects of motivators on attendance intentions. The theoretical framework introduced in this study can provide researchers with a conceptual basis for a more systematic and focused investigation on the complex research questions concerning constraints and motivators which are key antecedents to attendance decision-making. In addition, the study challenges (and provides counter-evidence to) the conventional hierarchy proposition. Our findings suggest that uncritical acceptance of the hierarchy proposition is not advisable. Furthermore, these findings open a door for the development of new alternatives to the hierarchy proposition to explain how constraints and motivators influence spectator sports

consumption behaviours. Finally, sports teams have typically focused on motivators to attract potential spectators. However, our results show that there are several constraints preventing people from attending sporting events - and that these are equally, if not more, influential than motivators in attendance decision. Therefore, teams should invest resources to identify crucial constraints for their potential spectators and develop strategies to alleviate these constraints, as well as to strengthen motivators.

Introduction
Spectator sport is one of the most popular leisure activities worldwide. Global television broadcasts attracted a cumulative 4.7 billion viewers worldwide during the 17 days of the 2008 Olympic Games (Nielsen Media Research, 2008). The Vancouver Organising Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games (2010), estimated that 3.5 billion television viewers worldwide watched the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Winter Games. In addition, a total of 3.2 million soccer fans attended 64 matches in 2010 FIFA World Cup, while the average attendance per match was 49,670 (International Federation of Association Football, 2010). Despite the prevalence and immense popularity of sports spectatorship, the competition amongst sports organisations to attract spectators is more intense than ever. In order to out-perform their competitors, development of effective marketing strategies to attract spectators has become a top priority for sport organisations. Thus, understanding the factors that influence spectator sports consumption decisions is essential in building these marketing strategies. Our study investigates motivators and constraints of spectator sports consumption, thereby providing significant strategic value to sports organisations. An extensive body of research on motivators for spectator sport was accumulated for this study (e.g. Fink et al, 2002b; Funk et al, 2003; Milne & McDonald, 1999; Sloan, 1989; Trail & James, 2001;

RESEARCH PAPER

OCTOBER 2011

International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship

61

NCAA womens basketball

Wann, 1995). Although this research on spectator sport motives has provided valuable insight to understanding sports consumption behaviours, both Kim and Trail (2010) and Pritchard et al (2009) noted that motives typically explain little variance of attendance behaviour or behavioural intentions. They suggested that researchers should incorporate constraints into any model explaining sports consumption behaviour. Models including only motivational factors, and not constraints, seem to depart from psychological and behavioural literature available (Anderson, 1971; Carlston, 1980; Tenenbaum & Eklund, 2007; Tversky & Kahneman, 1991; White, 2008). Although less research has been done on the constraints that prevent people from attending sporting events (Casper et al, 2009; Funk et al, 2009; Kim & Trail, 2010; Pritchard et al, 2009; Trail et al, 2008), initial findings show varied impacts on attendance. In some instances, when only constraints are examined (e.g. Trail et al, 2008), little impact is noted. This may be due to the lack of inclusion of motives. Recent research indicates that constraints alone would not be relevant unless motivation for behaviour exists (Kim & Trail, 2010; Pritchard et al, 2009). However, researchers in sport have only recently begun to examine both motives and constraints to attendance behaviour within the same framework (e.g. Kim & Trail, 2010; Pritchard et al, 2009).The aim, therefore, of the present research is to examine how constraints and motivators jointly influence sports consumption behaviour.

Literature review
Motivators Researchers have studied motivation - the influences that account for the initiation, direction, intensity, and persistence of behaviour (Bernstein et al, 2006, p.397) - for over a century. Bernstein et al suggest that motives can be divided into four categories that may overlap: biological, emotional, cognitive and

social. To some extent these four categories are subsumed within Maslows (1943) hierarchy reflecting motives (or needs); which progresses from physiological, to safety, to belongingness, to esteem and, finally, to self-actualisation. Deci and Ryan (2002) have extended research in motivation and suggest that motives could exist on a continuum from amotivation to extrinsic motivation to intrinsic motivation. This distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation reflects a demarcation of the biological, emotional, and cognitive (intrinsic) versus the social (extrinsic) noted by Bernstein et al, but also includes the potential for a lack of motivation. McGuire (1976) proposes a system for classifying motives relative to consumer decision making. He suggests that motives could be distinguished by cognitive-affective factors and by preservation-growth factors. These four classes of motives could be further divided by whether the behaviour is actively initiated or passively responded to. These eight classes could then be further dichotomised by whether the motives were focused internally or externally, thus resulting in 16 general motives. Unfortunately, the research on motives for sports consumption behaviours has been a little piecemeal (Funk et al, 2009; James et al, 2009; Trail et al, 2008; Wann et al, 2008), although progress is being made (Funk, 2010). Harris (1973) uses the somatopsychic theory, to note that individuals attend sporting events because of reinforcing pleasures that result from their involvement in the sport and from the activity. Typically, those pleasures are closely related to fulfillment of social or psychological needs (Robinson & Trail, 2005; Sloan, 1989). Sloan further suggests that several theories explain why people are motivated to attend sporting events: 1) salubrious effects theory; 2) stress and stimulation theories; 3) catharsis and aggression theories; 4) Entertainment theory; and 5) achievement theory. Sloan and Harris note that, combined, these theories reflect the idea of a potential internal-external dimension for motives. Based on the theories noted by Sloan (1989) and Harris (1973), sports researchers have identified

RESEARCH PAPER

62

International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship

OCTOBER 2011

NCAA womens basketball

motives for attendance within various sporting contexts. These include: vicarious achievement, aesthetics, social interaction, drama/excitement, escape and role models, (Fink et al 2002b; Funk et al, 2003; Milne & McDonald, 1999; Sloan, 1989; Trail & James, 2001; Wann, 1995). Most of the aforementioned motive studies have focused on internal motivators. However, Zhang and colleagues (Braunstein et al, 2005; Byun et al, in press; Zhang et al, 1995) focus primarily on external factors that they call market demand variables'. Kim and Trail (2010) have suggested that all of this research combined seems to indicate that an internal-external dichotomy of motives may exist and propose factors representing each. Despite a fair amount of research on the effect of motives on sports attendance behavior; as noted earlier, motives typically explain low amounts of variance in attendance behaviour. Thus, we turn to constraints for additional explanation. Constraints Although termed variously in different areas of study such as economics, marketing, management and sports psychology (George & Zhou, 2007; Gillet et al, 2010; Kanouse, 1984; Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Payne et al, 1980) - there has been a broad range of theoretical work on constraints. This has included investigating negative influences on evaluative judgment, behavioural intention and actual behaviours. Decision-making theory typically acknowledges that, when making an overall judgment about a referent subject, people integrate not only positive but also negative information (Anderson, 1971). In choice behaviour, multiple researchers have found that decision makers are motivated to maximise the overall expected utility of choice by minimising losses, rather than by maximising gains of equivalent magnitude. They do this when the positive attributes of the alternatives are perceived as gains and negative attributes of the alternatives are perceived as losses (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Payne et al, 1980;

Tversky & Kahneman, 1991). In consumer behaviour research, Weinberger and Dillon (1980) report that negative product ratings have a larger effect than positive product ratings on attitude change and purchase intention. In a brand management context, negative information about a brand has more influence than positive information on that brands image (Romeo, 1991). In addition, negatively perceived performance of a products attributes tend to affect the overall satisfaction and repurchase intention more than positively perceived performance (Mittal et al, 1998). Researchers in tourism and recreation have also identified constraints on leisure activity (Alexandris & Carroll, 1997; Crawford & Godbey, 1987; Crawford et al, 1991; Crompton et al, 2005; Hubbard & Mannel, 2001) and other researchers have identified constraints or barriers specific to sports spectatorship as well (Baade & Tiehen, 1990; Carmichael et al, 1999; Hansen & Gauthier, 1989; Kim & Trail, 2010; Pritchard et al, 2009; Trail et al, 2008; Zhang et al, 1995). Conceptual frameworks of constraints and motivators in sport Pritchard et al (2009), based on research by Crompton et al (2005) and Patterson (2004), propose that constraints moderate both the direct effects of motives, for repatronage behavior; and also the indirect effects, through product involvement and media consumption. Pritchard et al found a small negative relationship between motives and repeat patronage (b=-.20), indicating that the motives included in their model did not positively predict repatronage behaviour directly; and may not, therefore, be acting as motivators for attendance. However, they did find that motives were positively related to product attitude (they termed it Involvement; b=.54), which in turn was related to current media consumption (b=.56). Media consumption was related to past attendance behaviour (called Repeat patronage; b=.31). They indicated that these results showed that motives indirectly influenced Repeat patronage. Pritchard et al then found that a no-constraints group

RESEARCH PAPER

OCTOBER 2011

International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship

63

NCAA womens basketball

(M # of games attended=23) differed from an internal-constraints group (M=18) and an externalconstraints group (M=15) on the past-attendance measure. They found that the participants who: a) reported a commitment to personal and other family priorities; b) perceived a high cost of tickets and concessions; and c) perceived limited access to good tickets, seats, parking, and transportation to the venue, attended fewer games than participants without those constraints did. Although this indicates that constraints do have an effect on past attendance, it does not indicate that constraints moderated the relationship between motives and attendance. Pritchard et al also found the groups did not differ on motives or product attitude, but did differ marginally on media consumption. In summary, there is some evidence that motives and constraints may jointly influence consumption behavior. However, the way that motives and constraints interact is less clear. Kim and Trail (2010), based on Crawford et als (1991) work on constraints and Decis (1972) and Gilbert and Hudsons (2000) work on motives, categorise constraints and motivators into four dimensions: internal motivators, internal constraints, external motivators and external constraints. Kim and Trail argue that the internal-external dichotomy of motives is both theoretically and empirically wellsupported within the rich tradition in motivation research (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Based on the previous literature, (Alexandris et al, 2002; Deci, 1975; White, 2008), Kim and Trail claim that considering two dimensions of motivators, instead of a single dimension, might provide further clarification concerning the relationships among motivators, constraints, and leisure participation. Kim and Trail (2010) define internal motivators as internal psychological cognitions that motivate behaviour (e.g. needs, values, beliefs, goals, role identities) (p.194) and external motivators as social or environmental aspects that attract the individual to the behaviour (e.g. promotions, the media, market demand variables, and feature preferences) (p.194). Kim and Trail (2010) also propose an internal-

external dichotomy of constraints, for the following reasons. Firstly, empirical support for Crawford et als three categories of constraints has been inconclusive. Some researchers have found empirical evidence in support of the catagories (Raymore et al, 1993; Pennington-Gray & Kerstetter, 2002) whilst some have not (Gilbert & Hudson, 2000; Hawkins et al, 1999). Secondly, Crawford et als (1991) intrapersonal and interpersonal constraint category can be comfortably combined into internal constraints that are concerned with internal psychological cognitions, while structural constraints would be considered distinct (Kim & Trail, 2010; Trail et al, 2008). Thirdly, the internal-external dichotomy of constraints is theoretically consistent with the dichotomy of motives. Kim and Trail (2010) define internal constraints as internal psychological cognitions that deter behaviour (p.194) and external constraints as social or environmental aspects that prevent or decrease the likelihood of the individual performing the behaviour (e.g. cost, weather, lack of transportation) (p.194). Kim and Trail (2010), using a stepwise regression procedure, determined that an internal motivator (Attachment to the team) explained the most variance (34%) in an attendance variable that included both past attendance and attendance intentions. An internal constraint (Lack of success) explained an additional 10% and an external constraint (Leisure alternatives) explained 3% more unique variance. No external motivator had a unique impact on attendance, contrary to Kim and Trails hypothesis and no other variables contributed any amount of unique variance.

RESEARCH PAPER

Models
Based on the above mentioned theories, and the results from Pritchard et al (2009) and Kim and Trail (2010), the purpose of this research was to explore the relationships among motivators and constraints, and their affects on attendance intentions through three different models and several different statistical techniques.

64

International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship

OCTOBER 2011

NCAA womens basketball

FIGURE 1 A conceptual model of spectator motivators and constraints

EXTERNAL MOTIVATORS

INTERNAL MOTIVATORS

SPORT SPECTATING

EXTERNAL CONSTRAINTS

INTERNAL CONSTRAINTS

FIGURE 2 A hierarchical model of constraints and motivators


LEVEL INTERNAL MOTIVATORS NECESSARY CONDITION FOR ACTIVATION

INITIAL STAGE

RESEARCH PAPER

INTERNAL CONSTRAINTS

PERCEIVE SUFFICIENT LEVEL OF INTERNAL MOTIVATORS

EXTERNAL MOTIVATORS

PERCEIVE NO INTERNAL CONSTRAINTS OR OVERCOME THOSE CONSTRAINTS

EXTERNAL CONSTRAINTS

PERCEIVE SUFFICENT LEVEL OF EXTERNAL MOTIVATORS

ATTENDANCE

PERCEIVE NO EXTERNAL CONSTRAINTS OR OVERCOME THOSE CONSTRAINTS

Model 1 was a general model depicting internal and external motivators, and internal and external constraints, all predicting attendance intentions (Figure 1). No assumption was made relative to relationships among the motivators or constraints in that we did not hypothesise a hierarchy among them or that relationships were moderated. We used this

model as a comparison point and foundation for Model 2 and Model 3. Model 2 was a hierarchical model based on Crawford et als (1991) hierarchical model of leisure constraints which has been basis of leisure research in various related areas including sport (Hubbard & Mannel, 2001; Jackson et al, 1993; Nyaupane et al,

OCTOBER 2011

International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship

65

NCAA womens basketball

FIGURE 3 Moderator models of constraints and motivators

INTERNAL CONSTRAINTS

INTERNAL CONSTRAINTS

INTERNAL MOTIVATORS

ATTENDANCE INTENTIONS

EXTERNAL MOTIVATORS

ATTENDANCE INTENTIONS

EXTERNAL CONSTRAINTS

EXTERNAL CONSTRAINTS

INTERNAL MOTIVATORS

ATTENDANCE INTENTIONS

EXTERNAL MOTIVATORS

ATTENDANCE INTENTIONS

2004; Pennington-Gray & Kerstetter, 2002; Raymore et al, 1993; among others). Crawford et al proposed a sequential order of constraints and argued that an individual must overcome higher order constraints to maintain motivation for participation before facing potential lower order constraints. Crompton et al (2005) also suggest a similar idea, specific to benefits and constraints in a tourism context. They suggest that individuals focus on benefits in the initial stages of decision-making process and ton constraints in the later stages. We proposed to test a hierarchical model using the four dimensions proposed by Kim and Trail (2010), in which internal motivators must exist in order for internal constraints to be relevant. We also proposed that external motivators would then be activated. All three must be activated, before external constraints would be relevant (Figure 2). Model 3 was a variation of the moderated model that Pritchard et al (2009) proposed. Pritchard et al combined all of their motives (we would consider them all to be internal motivators) into one dimension and then proposed that constraints (both internal and external) would moderate the relationship between those motivators and attendance. Using the four dimensions proposed by Kim and Trail (2010), we

RESEARCH PAPER

examined four moderated relationships. Firstly, we examined whether both internal and external constraints would moderate the internal motivatorattendance relationship. Then we examined whether internal and external constraints would moderate the external motivator-attendance relationship (Figure 3).

Methodology
Participants and procedures We proposed a research project on motives and constraints to the athletic department of a NCAA Division I-A university in the Southeastern United States. The athletic department informed us that they wanted their booster club members (boosters) to be the focal group of the study in order to determine what influenced club members decisions to attend or not to attend womens basketball games. The booster club consisted of supporters for the athletic department and club membership was not sport specific. The booster clubs financial contribution to the athletic department was over $30million annually, which accounted for more than 30% of total annual revenue of the athletic department. All booster club members had a fairly

66

International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship

OCTOBER 2011

NCAA womens basketball

RESEARCH PAPER

FIGURE 4 Empirical test of the hierarchy proposition


G

OCTOBER 2011

International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship

67

NCAA womens basketball

high level of interest in sport in general and showed adequate variations in levels of motivation and constraint with regard to attending womens basketball games at the university. These characteristics of the sample population made selection of the womens basketball more appropriate for the purpose of this study than other widely-studied sports such as football and mens basketball. Football and mens basketball were by far the most popular sports at the university and, therefore, those sports did not appear to be appropriate points of interest to obtain valid responses on constraints. The athletic department sent out the invitation requesting completion of the online-survey by an email to all members of the booster club. The participants were informed that the study was about the womens basketball team at the university. They were told the purpose of the study was to investigate their motivators and constraints with regard to attending the womens basketball games in order to gain insight, resulting in more effective marketing and management of the womens basketball program. Brief instructions for the completion of the survey were provided in the first part of the questionnaire. Then, the typical informed-consent procedure was followed. A follow-up email was sent to the whole group again two weeks after the initial email and an additional reminder was then sent out two weeks later. Participants received a thank you notice after the completion of the survey. The survey was closed two weeks after the final invitation was sent. Over 17,000 emails were sent out requesting completion of the on-line survey and 416 usable questionnaires were completed, which resulted in a response rate of 2.5%. Although the response rate was low, those that completed the questionnaire after the first contact were compared to those who completed the questionnaire after the third contact and no significant differences were found on the mean scores of 19 out of the 20 constructs. In addition, a series of regressions was run using days to respond as an independent variable and the research variables as dependent variables in the regression equations. The days to respond variable did not significantly

influence the research variables without any standardised regression coefficients () greater than .08. These results imply that there was no significant non-response bias (Armstrong & Overton, 1977; Dooley & Lindner, 2003). The sample was 63% male and 37% female and the majority of participants (63%) were married. Approximately, 21.7% of participants were between 40-49 years old, 20.2% were 30-39, and 20% were 20-29. The respondents were relatively well educated, as 65.2% of total participants had at least attended college. Approximately 90% of participants indicated that they had watched at least one womens basketball game of this university?] on TV. More than 60% of participants reported that they had attended at least one of this universitys womens basketball teams games at some point previously. Among those, 90% had typically attended the game in a group rather than alone.

RESEARCH PAPER

Instrumentation
The questionnaire was comprised of four main categories: Internal motivators, Internal constraints, External motivators and External constraints. Internal motivators consisted of seven subscales with 21 items: five subscales (Vicarious achievement, Aesthetics, Drama, Escape, and Social interaction) from the motivation scale for sport consumption behaviour (MSSC; Trail & James, 2001) and a slight modification of the 3-item Support for womens sport opportunities subscale and the 3-item Role model subscale from sport interest inventory (SII; Funk et al, 2003). Internal constraints contained four subscales with 12 items: the Lack of team success subscale (Trail et al, 2008) and the Lack of knowledge subscale (modified from the MSSC). The Lack of someone to attend with subscale and a No interest from significant other subscale were utilised from Kim and Trails (2010) work. External motivators were comprised of three subscales with eight items measuring Events, Advertisements, and Promotions derived from Fink et

68

International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship

OCTOBER 2011

NCAA womens basketball

al (2002a). External constraints included six subscales with 18 items: two subscales (Parking and Location) from the venue service experience survey (VSES; Trail et al, 2002), and four subscales (Cost, Commitments, Sport alternatives, and Leisure alternatives) from Trail at al (2008). These subscales have shown good psychometric properties in terms of Cronbachs alpha values (=.78 to .93) and average variance explained values (.51 to .84) in previous research (Fink et al, 2002a; Funk et al, 2003; James & Ridinger, 2002; Robinson & Trail, 2005; Robinson et al, 2005; Trail & James, 2001; Trail et al, 2003; Trail at al, 2008). We included an open-ended question to measure the number of games that the participant intended to attend during the following season. We also gave the participants information regarding the number of games in the season to aid their recall and to reduce response error (Groves et al, 2004).

constructs noted above which were represented by their associated items (59). Goodness of fit indices were used to evaluate the overall fit of the model in the current study; CFI, standard root mean squared residual (SRMR) and the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA). Furthermore, we used the weighted mean square residual (WRMR), which is more appropriate with categorical data or non-normal continuous data (Yu & Muthn, 2002). WRMR values close to 1.0 indicate good fit and smaller values demonstrate better fit (Yu & Muthn). Test of relationship between model constructs and attendance (Model 1) To test Model 1, we examined the relationship between motivators and constraints, and attendance by analysing a structural model specifying the bivariate correlation between each construct and attendance intention (AI) using Mplus 6.0. Test of the hierarchy model (Model 2) As explained previously, if a hierarchy exists, internal motivators must be present first. If present, then these internal constraints may reduce or eliminate attendance behaviour. If the individual is able to negotiate past the internal constraints, then external motivators may increase the likelihood of attendance in the third stage. Finally, in the fourth stage of the hierarchical model, the individual must negotiate any external constraints to attend a sporting event. Therefore, if the hierarchy exists, the following conditions should be satisfied. Firstly, internal constraints will have no significant influence on attendance for the group of respondents who perceive a low level of internal motivation. Secondly, external motivators will not have a significant influence on attendance for the group of respondents who perceive a high level of internal constraints. Thirdly, external constraints will have no significant influence on attendance for the group of respondents who perceive a low level of external motivators. To statistically test if the above conditions were met, we split the sample at the 50th percentile based on
RESEARCH PAPER

Data analysis
Test of assumptions We assessed the missing data pattern by testing (ttest) each variable if cases with missing and nonmissing values on the variable showed mean differences from the other variables. To evaluate normality, we performed the Shapiro-Wilks test (Shapiro & Wilks, 1965) and the modified Kolmogorov-Smirov test (D'Agostino et al, 1990) using the Explore analysis available in SPSS 18.0. We obtained Mardias (1985) multivariate skewness and kurtosis coefficients to evaluate multivariate normality; these were available through PRELIS 2.80 (Jreskog, & Srbom, 2006). We examined randomly selected pairs of scatterplots using SPSS Graphs to assess linearity of the variables. Measurement model A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to evaluate the measurement model using the Mplus 6.0 program (Muthn & Muthn, 2010). The measurement model consisted of the 20 first-order

OCTOBER 2011

International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship

69

NCAA womens basketball

TABLE 1 Correlation matrix of factors and attendance intention


VARIABLES 1.ACHIEVEMENT 2.AESTHETICS 3.DRAMA 4.ESCAPE 5.SOCIAL 6.ROLE 7.WOMEN 8.LACK OF SUCCESS 9.NO INTEREST FROM OTHERS 10.LACK OF SOMEONE TO ATTEND WITH 11.LACK OF KNOWLEDGE 12.PROMOTIONS 13.EVENTS 14.ADVERTISEMENT 15.LOCATION 16.PARKING 17.COST 18.SPORT 19.LEISURE 20.COMMITMENT 21.ATTENDANCE 1 1.00 .61 .19 .65 .46 .45 .48 -.13 -.24 1.00 .27 .64 .60 .67 .74 -.22 -.36 1.00 .28 .42 .33 .38 -.08 -.11 1.00 .63 .57 .54 -.10 -.26 1.00 .59 .63 -.16 -.24 1.00 .77 -.18 -.34 1.00 -.23 -.50 1.00 .22 1.00 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

-.05 .10 .20 .28 .28 -.23 -.21 -.09 .20 .10 .06 .26

-.13 .01 .21 .28 .37 -.24 -.23 -.09 .07 -.04 -.06 .37

-.05 -.16 .18 .13 .19 -.22 -.16 -.13 .10 .11 .10 .22

.01 .08 .29 .34 .37 -.32 -.29 -.15 .15 .07 .10 .25

-.07 .01 .25 .37 .34 -.30 -.22 -.12 .14 .10 .10 .30

-.05 .04 .22 .25 .32 -.29 -.23 -.14 .05 .04 -.02 .30

-.12 -.03 .23 .27 .44 -.26 -.26 -.19 .06 -.08 -.01 .47

.45 .01 -.10 -.10 -.10 -.06 -.07 -.01 .25 .26 .26 -.18

.40 .06 -.15 -.11 -.15 .20 .26 .15 -.02 .15 .11 -.43

1.00 .11 .04 -.03 .01 -.03 -.02 -.09 .31 .32 .47 -.16 1.00 .07 .12 .10 -.10 -.10 -.02 .12 .11 -.04 .01 1.00 .70 .61 -.52 -.42 -.36 .17 .18 .21 .31 1.00 .73 -.59 -.40 -.26 .17 .13 .16 .23 1.00 -.61 -.45 -.27 .24 .02 .07 .29 1.00 .88 .41 -.10 -.10 -.15 -.25 1.00 .39 -.09 .02 -.11 -.26

RESEARCH PAPER

the latent variable scores of constraints and motivators (e.g. a high internal motivator group and a low internal motivator group) and compared means on attendance of the groups using one way ANOVA with SPSS 18.0 (see Figure 2). Test of moderator model (Model 3) We tested moderating effects of constraints on the relationship between the motivators and attendance using the latent moderated structural equations (LMS) method with Mplus 6.0. The LMS method is well suited to conduct the analyses of moderating effects in which to all independent variables (i.e. internal and

external moderators) and moderators (i.e. internal and external moderators) are continuous latent constructs (Marsh et al, 2006). The LMS method yields efficient parameter estimates and relatively unbiased standard errors (Kline & Moosbrugger, 2000; Schermelleh-Engel et al, 1998). We conducted four separates analyses to test whether both internal and external constraints would moderate the internal motivator-attendance relationship and whether internal and external constraints would moderate the external motivatorattendance relationship (Figure 3).

70

International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship

OCTOBER 2011

NCAA womens basketball

Results
Test of assumptions No variables existed that had greater than 15% missing data, nor did any case have greater than 10% missing data. The test for missing data patterns indicated that no significant mean differences (p > .05) existed for any group comparison. These results indicated that a non-random pattern of missing data was statistically unlikely to be present (Hair et al, 2006). Therefore, imputation of missing data by using replacement values was a suitable missing data treatment. Following Baker and Siryk (1999), we replaced the missing value for a case on a variable with the cases mean value of the variables measuring the same factor as the variable with the missing value. We found no evidence of apparent nonlinear relationships between any pair of variables in the examination of scatter plots. However, the data did not meet the normality assumption. All the variables significantly deviated from normality in both the Shapiro-Wilks test (Shapiro & Wilks, 1965) and the modified Kolmogorov-Smirov test (D'Agostino et al, 1990). In addition, the standardised Mardias coefficient of skewness and kurtosis were 73.77 and 27.98 respectively. To alleviate the problems associated with the non-normality, we used the Satorra-Bentler (1994) scaling method to obtain model 2. We also adjusted the Satorra-Bentler scaled 2 (S-B 2) following Satorra and Bentler (2001) to perform the 2 difference tests.

Lack of success. We also found an evidence for discriminant validity (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988) as pairwise 2 difference tests showed that all correlations between the factors were significantly different from 1.0 (see Table1). In summary, the results provided empirical support for the statistical validity of motivators and constraints measures in the current study.

Measurement model The measurement model fit the data well (S-B 2/df=2377.41/1462=1.63, RMSEA=.04, CFI=.94, SRMR=.04, WRMR=1.12). Factor loadings, Cronbachs alpha coefficients, and AVE values for the measurement model are reported in the Appendix. All the measured items significantly loaded on their theorized latent factor. Cronbachs alpha coefficients of the factors ranged from .73 for No interest from others to .93 for Achievement. The AVE values ranged from .49 for Commitments to .82 for

Relationship between model constructs and attendance (Model 1) The structural model specifying bivariate correlation between each construct and the attendance intentions (AI) fit the data well (S-B 2/df=2413.62/1501=1.61, RMSEA=.04, CFI=.94, SRMR=.04, WRMR=1.11). Table 1 presents the bivariate correlation matrix of factors and the AI. Firstly, all the internal motivators were positively and significantly correlated with the AI. The correlation between each internal motivator and the AI ranged from .22 for Drama to .47 for Support for womens opportunity. Secondly, three of the four internal constraints (i.e. Lack of success, No interest from significant others, and Lack of someone to attend with) were negatively and significantly correlated with AI; however, Lack of knowledge was not. Thirdly, all external motivators showed significant positive correlation with AI. The correlation coefficients ranged from .23 for Events to .31 for Promotions. Lastly, the external constraints of Cost, Parking, and Location had significant negative correlations with AI, but Sports alternatives was significantly and positively correlated with AI. Leisure alternatives and Commitments had no statistically significant correlation with AI.

RESEARCH PAPER

Test of the hierarchy proposition (Model 2) Figure 2 displays the comparison of attendance means of the groups. However, based on the factor correlations (Table 1), it was evident that there was not sufficient commonality among the constructs in each dimension to support higher order factor models. Thus, creating a variable to represent higher order constructs (e.g. internal motivators) by summing the categories, or by creating a mean score, would not be

OCTOBER 2011

International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship

71

NCAA womens basketball

a valid measure of the construct. Therefore, we used the factors that had the strongest relationship with attendance for each dimension to divide the group at each level. For example, Support for women had the highest correlation with Attendance intentions within the internal motivators dimension; thus, we split the sample into two groups by those highly motivated by Support for women and those not motivated by Support for women. After the first split, the high internal motivator group intended to attend significantly more games than the low internal motivator group (Group1 vs. Group 2, M=3.78; F1, 414=92.14, p < .001). After the second division using No interest from others as the most influential internal constraint within the high internal motivators group, the low internal constraints group intended to attend more games than the high internal constraints group (Group 3 vs. Group 4, M=2.62, F1, 198=11.35, p=.001). Within the low internal motivators group, the low internal constraints group intended to attend significantly more games than high internal constraints group (Group 5 vs. Group 6, M=0.91, F1, 214=.002, p=.002). After the third split using Promotions as the most influential external motivator, all the high external motivator groups, except Group 11, intended to attend significantly more games than the respective low external motivators group (Group 7 vs. Group 8, M=2.32, F1, 66=4.57, p=.036; Group 9 vs. Group 10, M=2.85, F1, 130=8.85, p=.003; Group 13 vs. Group 14, M=1.37, F1, 89=7.15, p=.009) regardless of level of internal constraints. Furthermore, all groups (G7-G10) that were originally in the highinternal motivators group, intended to attend more games than all groups (G11-G14) that were originally in the low-internal motivators group, with the exception of G8. After the final split, only the low external constraints group within the high internal motivator, low internal constraints and low external motivators group (M=5.23) significantly differed from the high external constraints group (Group 21 vs. Group 22, M=2.60, F1, 48=4.23, p=.045) on attendance intentions.

RESEARCH PAPER

Moderated model (Model 3) In the first LMS analysis, the direct path from interaction term of Support for women and No interest from others to attendance was significant at the .05 level (= -.28, S.E.=.07). This result indicates the No interest from others moderates the relationship between Support for women and attendance. In the second analysis, the direct path from interaction term of Support for women and Parking to attendance was not significant at the .05 level (= -.14, S.E.=.08). This result indicates the Parking does not have significant moderating effects on the relationship between Support for women and attendance. In the third analysis, the direct path from interaction term of Promotions and No interest from others to attendance was significant at the .05 level (= -.25, S.E.=.08), indicating the Promotions is a significant moderator of the relationship between Promotions and attendance. In the fourth analysis, the direct path from interaction term of Promotions and Parking to attendance was significant at the .05 level (= -.15, S.E.=.07), indicating the Parking has a significant moderating effects on the relationship between Promotions and attendance.

Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships between motivators and constraints and their affects on attendance intentions within a sports spectatorship context. We used three different models, and several different statistical techniques, to accomplish this. In Model 1, we found that all of the internal motivators (Vicarious achievement, Escape, Social interactions, Drama, Aesthetics, Role model, and Support for womens sports opportunities) were positively correlated with attendance intentions and explained from 5% to 22% of the variance in attendance intentions. Our results add to a body of research that offers support for a role of internal motivators on spectators attendance decisions

72

International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship

OCTOBER 2011

NCAA womens basketball

(Fink et al, 2002b; Funk al, 2001, Funk et al, 2003; Milne & McDonald, 1999; Sloan, 1989; Trail & James, 2001; Wann, 1995), but also indicates that internal motivators, in and of themselves, do not explain sufficiently the amount of variance in attendance intentions. Secondly, we found that internal constraints (Lack of team success, Lack of someone to attend with, No interest from significant others, and Lack of knowledge) had a significant negative impact on AI, except for Lack of knowledge, explaining up to 18% of the variance. This supports previous research specific to other leisure activities, which indicated that people felt that they were prevented from participating in leisure activities if they did not have someone to participate with, or if significant others were not interested in participating in the same leisure activity (Carroll & Alexandris, 1997; Nyaupane et al, 2004; Raymore at al, 1993). Our result is also consistent with the previous research reporting that team performance is a major antecedent of attendance in various sporting events (Baade & Tiehen, 1990; Pan & Gabert, 1997; Whitney, 1988; Zhang et al, 1997). However, our result was inconsistent with the previous research suggesting Lack of knowledge would have a negative influence on leisure participation (Carroll & Alexandris, 1997; Nyaupane et al, 2004; Raymore at al, 1993). External motivators (Events, Advertisement and Promotions) accounted for 5% to 9% of variance in AI. This finding supports previous research that found external motivators such as in-game promotions, preand post-game events and advertising had a positive impact of on attendance (Hansen & Gauthier, 1989; McDonald & Rascher, 2000; Zhang et al, 1995), but also indicates that minimal variance is explained. The results also show that external constraints such as Cost, Parking, and Location had a significant, but small, negative influence on AI, explaining only 3% to 7% of the variance in AI. This finding is consistent with the previous research findings (Carmichael et al, 1999; Hansen & Gauthier, 1989; Nyaupane & Anderek, 2008; Shores et al, 2007; White, 2008;

Zhang et al, 1997). However, the results also indicate that Sports alternatives, Leisure alternatives, and Commitments were not constraints for attendance intentions with this sample, which is inconsistent with some previous research (Kim & Trail, 2010; Trail et al, 2008). In summary, the information from Model 1 indicates that, typically, motivators (both internal and external) have at least some small positive effect on attendance intentions. It also indicates that most constraints, with some exceptions, have small negative associations with attendance intentions. However, we found that, within each of the four dimensions, there was a lot of variation. Correlations among the factors also varied greatly, indicating that one could not necessarily assume that all factors in a dimension would affect attendance intentions in the same way. The results from Model 2 indicate that, as we proposed, a strict hierarchy probably does not exist. Firstly, internal constraints significantly influenced the attendance of people who were not internally motivated. According to the hierarchy proposition, people who do not perceive sufficient internal benefits of participating in a leisure activity should not assess the constraints of participation and thus, constraints should not influence their participation decision (Crawford et al, 1991; Jackson, 2005). However, this was not the case in this study. Secondly, we found that external motivators had a significant impact on attendance intentions of people who reported a high level of internal constraints; and also on people who indicated a low level of internal motivation. This finding is contradictory to the hierarchy proposition that internal motivators must exist, and internal constraints must be overcome, before external motivators can even be considered to influence the attendance decision. Thirdly, we also found that external constraints did not differentiate groups on attendance intentions. However, this is probably due to the small subsample size and should be reexamined. Nevertheless, the results show almost no support for a hierarchy as depicted. However, alternate

RESEARCH PAPER

OCTOBER 2011

International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship

73

NCAA womens basketball

explanations for our finding might also exist. Firstly, in our study, each dimension was not comprehensively represented by the higher-order constructs and, thus, we used a single variable as a segmenting variable at each level. It is possible that some people who were in one group (e.g. low internal motivators group), because of the single variable, would have actually belonged to another group (e.g. high internal motivators group) if a composite variable had been able to be used. Secondly, it is also possible that the hierarchical order might differ by an individuals psychological or demographic characteristics, and individual differences might be compounded in our results. Thirdly, there are differences between our hierarchical model and Crawford et als (1991) or Crompton et als (2005) models. Therefore, our findings should be further tested in different sports spectatorship contexts using various samples and empirical methods. Although no hierarchy was apparent, what we did find was that people who were internally motivated intended to attend more games than people who were solely externally motivated. However, external motivation did impact all groups, except those who had low internal motivation and high internal constraints. In addition, internal constraints seemed to have greater impact than external constraints for this sample. This seems to indicate a moderated model might be feasible. In our test of Model 3, we did find some support for constraints moderating the effects of motivators on attendance intentions. The internal constraint of having No interest from significant others, relative to the sport or team, significantly decreased the effect of the internal motivator of Supporting womens opportunities in sport. However, the impact of the external constraint of Parking did not significantly decrease the relationship between Support for womens opportunities and attendance intentions. Furthermore, the internal constraint of No interest from others significantly decreased the effect of the external motivator of Promotions on attendance intentions; almost totally eliminating the effect of the promotions.

This indicates that, if individuals do not have an association with others who have similar interests in the particular sport or team, promotions are not sufficiently enticing to overcome the internal constraint and draw people to the games. Finally, although the potentially negative effects of Parking do decrease the positive effect of promotions on attendance intentions, it does not totally overwhelm them. This indicates that, if the promotion is attractive enough, people will still come even if parking is difficult or not close to the venue. In summary, there is support for constraints moderating the effect of motives on attendance intentions. This supports the suppositions of Crompton et al (2005) and the propositions of Pritchard et al (2009).

Implications
Our study has some theoretical implications. Firstly, we examine three theoretical models containing constraints and motivators and empirically investigated their relationship with attendance intentions in a sports spectatorship setting. Our models also provide researchers with guidance for planning and carrying out more theoretically guided and focused inquiry of motivators and constraints in the future. Secondly, we empirically test a hierarchy proposition. Although the hierarchical proposition has been highly influential in building the constraints theory for more than three decades, rigorous empirical evidence to support the proposition has not been provided. Therefore, the validity of the proposition has been called into question by this study. This study challenges the conventional hierarchy proposition and provides counter-evidence to the proposition. Our findings suggest that the uncritical acceptance of the hierarchy proposition is not advised. Furthermore, these findings open a door for the development of new alternatives to the hierarchy proposition to explain how the constraints and motivators influence spectator sport consumption behaviours.

RESEARCH PAPER

74

International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship

OCTOBER 2011

NCAA womens basketball

Thirdly, both the proposed hierarchy model and the moderator model indicate that constraints and motivators interact to impact attendance intentions. Although the extent of their interactions, and all of the potential ways that they could interact, are not entirely clear, it is clear that both motivators and constraints need to be included in any model to explain sports consumer behaviour. Fourthly, our study continues to extend the current knowledge of constraints on sports consumer behaviour started by Trail et al (2008), Pritchard et al (2009) and Kim and Trail (2010). Jackson (2005) argued that the knowledge from constraints research has become a conceptually common language and can be a useful tool for researchers of diverse disciplines to enhance communication across those disciplines. Our study also has some industry implications. Firstly, sports teams have typically focused on motivators to attract potential spectators. However, our results show that there are several constraints preventing people from attending sporting events and that these are equally influential in attendance decisions. Therefore, teams should invest resources to identify crucial constraints for their potential spectators and to develop strategies to alleviate those constraints, as well as to strengthen motivators. Secondly, our study helps marketers make better diagnoses of problems that sports consumers face in attending a sporting event and can guide the development of strategies to address the problems. The models introduced in this study offer a conceptual basis for a more systematic and integrative investigation on complex process concerning constraints and motivators, which are key antecedents to attendance decision-making. In addition, the multiple-item scales provide marketers with a reliable means to quantify the constraints for the diagnosis. Thus, a more effective remedial strategy can be developed based on this enhanced diagnostic information. Thirdly, our results suggest that sport teams should develop strategies that encourage people who typically

do not attend, due to lack of accompaniment, to match-up with others of the same ilk and come together. For example, strategic development of an online team community using social media such as Facebook and MySpace can be an effective way to alleviate interpersonal constraints. Effective social media strategies can help sports consumers share team-related information, discuss opinions and build relationships with other sport consumers in cyberspace. This can cultivate sense of belonging and encourage offline social interaction within the online community members. Thus, a well-developed online community can provide friends for interpersonallyconstrained individuals to attend a game with. The team can further facilitate finding friends by offering group tickets, featuring designated areas and discounts for the online team community members. Fourthly, our findings provide potential insight into sponsorship strategies and implementations. They suggest that constraints can be a critical component in the evaluation of value of current and potential sponsors. Attendance levels are closely related to expected sponsorship outcomes, because a considerable proportion of sponsors marketing messages is delivered to target consumers (fans) while they are attending a game. Constraints are found to be significant factors in predicting attendance intentions. Thus, sponsors can estimate future attendance levels by analysing constraints, in conjunction with motivators, and using the information to assess the anticipated effectiveness of the sponsorship. This assessment can then be utilised as a basis for a continuance decision for the current sponsor; or an initial selection by a potential sponsor.

RESEARCH PAPER

Limitations and future research


As with all research, our study has some limitations and areas for suggested further research. Firstly, we encourage additional research investigating different sports (e.g. baseball, football, soccer, golf, etc.), different levels of competition (major league, club

OCTOBER 2011

International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship

75

NCAA womens basketball

level, minor league, high school, etc.) and different cultures (e.g. European, Asian, etc.) with more randomised samples to enhance generalisability. The sampling procedure employed in this study posed a limitation regarding generalisability because the data was collected using a sampling frame that might not be a representative of the population. For example, the results showed that the external constraints (i.e. Financial cost, Parking, and Location) did significantly influence the attendance intentions of participants in this study. However, those constraints might be even more of a concern for the general population than they were for the boosters. The boosters are generally deemed to be affluent and a number have exclusive parking. This might explain why external constraints had statistically significant, but practically marginal, effects on their attendance intentions. Therefore, the results of this research should be interpreted with caution due to the specific population investigated in this study. In addition, constraints and motivators found in this study might be confined to only the team and the sports examined in the present study. Secondly, we encourage additional studies investigating potential moderators that alter the strength, or even direction, of the influence of motivators and constraints on attendance. For example, loyalty to the team or sport may be a moderator for the relationship between constraints and attendance. We suspect that constraints may have a smaller negative impact on attendance decisions of people who have higher loyalty to the team than people who have lower loyalty. Thus, further research on potential moderators could provide a clearer understanding of how moderators and constraints influence attendance across various conditions. Thirdly, we make no claim that the motivators and constraints constructs we have identified in this study cover the complete range of possible elements. Further research should attempt to find additional factors playing crucial roles in attendance decisions and to provide valuable explanations for missing components of the complex relationship among constraints, motivators, and attendance. This could be

RESEARCH PAPER

accomplished by incorporating an even broader range of theoretical works on motivators and constraints. Lastly, we also recommend additional research on investigating constraints of various sports consumption behaviours, such as licensed merchandise consumption, word of mouth and media consumption. Our study helps understand what the constraints are, and how they influence sportd consumption behaviours. Our study, however, only focuses on attendance intentions. Although constraints of attendance behaviours and other sports consumption behaviours might overlap to some extent, each sports consumption behaviour has distinct features. Accordingly, decisions on each behaviour might be guided by different important factors and through distinct decision making process. To the best of our knowledge, there is no sports management research examining constraints of licensed merchandise consumption, word of mouth or media consumption. Therefore, research on constraints of these sports consumption behaviours will contribute to better understanding of determinants of various sport consumption behaviours.
2011 International Marketing Reports

Biographies
Galen T Trail is Associate Professor and MSAL Coordinator at the Centre for the Study of Sport and Exercise, Seattle University. His research focuses on how knowledge of consumer behaviours can determine the marketing of products and on the strategic management of sports organisations. Yu Kyoum Kim is with the Department of Sport Management, Recreation Management and Physical Education at the Florida State University. He conducts research in the field of marketing and sponsorship applied to the field of sport. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dr Kim.

76

International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship

OCTOBER 2011

NCAA womens basketball

Appendix
Factor loadings (), alpha coefficient (), and average variance extracted values (AVE).

DIMENSION INTERNAL MOTIVATORS

FACTOR AND ITEM ACHIEVEMENT IT INCREASES MY SELF-ESTEEM. IT ENHANCES MY SENSE OF SELF-WORTH. IT IMPROVES MY SELF-RESPECT. AESTHETICS I ENJOY THE ARTISTIC VALUE. I LIKE THE BEAUTY AND GRACE OF THE SPORT. IT IS A FORM OF ART. DRAMA I PREFER CLOSE GAMES RATHER THAN ONE-SIDED GAMES. I LIKE GAMES WHERE THE OUTCOME IS UNCERTAIN. A TIGHT GAME BETWEEN TWO TEAMS IS MORE ENJOYABLE THAN A BLOWOUT. ESCAPE IT PROVIDES ME WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO ESCAPE THE REALITY OF MY DAILY LIFE FOR A WHILE. I CAN GET AWAY FROM THE TENSION IN MY LIFE. IT PROVIDES ME WITH A DISTRACTION FROM MY DAILY LIFE FOR A WHILE. SOCIAL I LIKE TO SOCIALISE WITH OTHERS. I LIKE HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO INTERACT WITH OTHER PEOPLE. THE POSSIBILITY OF TALKING TO OTHER PEOPLE. ROLE MODEL THE PLAYERS PROVIDE INSPIRATION FOR GIRLS. THE PLAYERS ARE GOOD ROLE MODELS FOR YOUNG GIRLS. THE PLAYERS SHOULD BE EMULATED BY YOUNG WOMEN. SUPPORT WOMENS OPPORTUNITY I BELIEVE ITS IMPORTANT TO SUPPORT WOMENS SPORT. I SEE MYSELF AS A MAJOR SUPPORTER OF WOMENS SPORT. ATTENDING A GAME DEMONSTRATES MY SUPPORT FOR WOMENS SPORT IN GENERAL.

.83 .96 .92

.93

AVE .82

.89 .88 .83 .85 .88 .80 .82 .91 .92 .87 .90 .92 .92 .89 .91 .88 .86 .80 .90 .78 .80 .80 .77 .72 .93 .86 .92 .94 .73 .75 .73 .61 .89 .91 .92 .74 .88 .85 .89 .80

.72

.71

.80

.80

RESEARCH PAPER

.69

.58

INTERNAL CONSTRAINTS

LACK OF SUCCESS IF THE (TEAM NAME) BASKETBALL TEAM LOSES MORE GAMES THAN THEY WIN. IF THE (TEAM NAME) BASKETBALL TEAM IS IN THE BOTTOM HALF OF THE CONFERENCE. IF THE (TEAM NAME) BASKETBALL TEAM DOESN'T WIN MANY GAMES. NO INTEREST FROM SIGNIFICANT OTHERS MY FAMILY IS NOT INTERESTED IN GOING TO A (TEAM NAME) BASKETBALL GAME. MY SPOUSE/SIGNIFICANT OTHER IS NOT INTERESTED IN GOING TO A (TEAM NAME) GAME. MY FRIENDS ARE NOT INTERESTED IN GOING TO A (TEAM NAME) BASKETBALL GAME. LACK OF SOMEONE TO ATTEND WITH LACK OF SOMEONE TO GO TO THE GAME WITH ME. LACK OF FRIENDS TO GO TO THE GAME WITH ME. LACK OF SPOUSE/SIGNIFICANT OTHER TO GO TO THE GAME WITH ME. LACK OF KNOWLEDGE I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF BASKETBALL. I DON'T UNDERSTAND BASKETBALL STRATEGY. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE RULES OF THE GAME OF BASKETBALL.

.82

.49

.74

.73

OCTOBER 2011

International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship

77

NCAA womens basketball

DIMENSION EXTERNAL MOTIVATORS

FACTOR AND ITEM EVENTS HALFTIME EVENTS. PRE-GAME EVENTS. POST-GAME EVENTS. ADVERTISEMENT (TEAM NAME) BASKETBALL TELEVISION COMMERCIALS. (TEAM NAME) BASKETBALL BILLBOARD ADS. RADIO ADS FOR (TEAM NAME) BASKETBALL GAMES. PROMOTION SPECIAL PROMOTIONS. GIVEAWAYS DURING THE GAME.

.80 .89 .78

86

AVE .67

.88 .74 .87 .86 .80 .80 .83 .79 .58 .73 .86 .86 .70 .82 .93 .86 .72 .95 .80 .84 .92 .95 .58 .74 .60 .80 .75 .74 .62 .71 .77

.69

.67

EXTERNAL CONSTRAINTS

LOCATION AREA OR NEIGHBORHOOD SURROUNDING ARENA. ARENA LOCATION. ACCESSIBILITY OF ARENA. PARKING. ACCESSIBILITY OF PARKING FOR THE ARENA. EASE OF PARKING AT THE ARENA. CLOSENESS OF PARKING TO THE ARENA. COST THE FINANCIAL COST OF GOING TO A GAME. THE COST OF ATTENDING THE GAMES THE PRICE OF SINGLE GAME TICKETS.

.54

.68

.69

RESEARCH PAPER

SPORT ALTERNATIVES EXERCISING. WORKING OUT. PLAYING RECREATIONAL SPORTS. LEISURE ALTERNATIVES ATTENDING MOVIES. GOING TO A BAR. ATTENDING A CONCERT. COMMITMENTS WORK COMMITMENTS. FAMILY COMMITMENTS. COMMITMENTS TO FRIENDS.

.70

.52

.49

78

International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship

OCTOBER 2011

NCAA womens basketball

References
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980) Understanding attitudes and predicting social behaviour. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Alexandris, K., Tsorbatzoudis, H. & Grouis, G. (2002) Perceived constraints on recreational sport participation: Investigating their relationship with intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and amotivation. Journal of Leisure Research, 34, 233-252. Anderson, N. H. (1971) Integration theory and attitude change. Psychological Review, 78, 171-206. Anderson, J. C. & Gerbing, D. W. (1988) Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423. Armstrong, J. S. & Overton, T. S. (1977) Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 396-402. Baade, R. A. & Tiehen, L. A. (1990) An analysis of major league baseball attendance. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 14, 1432. Baker, R. & Siryk, B. (1999) SACQ: Student adaptation to college questionnaire manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services. Braunstein, J. R., Zhang, J. J., Trail, G. T. & Gibson, H. (2005) Dimensions of market demand associated with major league baseball spring training: Development of a scale. Sport Management Review, 8, 271 - 295. Brown, M. W. & Cudeck, R. (1992) Alternatives ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods and Research, 21, 230-258. Byon, K. K., Zhang, J. J. & Connaughton, D. P. (In press) Dimensions of general market demand associated with professional team sports: Development of a scale. Sport Management Review. Carmichael, F., Millington, J. & Simmons, R. (1999) Elasticity of demand for rugby league attendance and the impact of BskyB. Applied Economics Letters, 6, 797-800. Carlston, D. E. (1980) The recall and use of traits and events in social inference processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 303-328. Carroll, B. & Alexandris, K. (1997) Perception of constraints and strength of motivation: Their relationship to recreational sport participation in Greece. Journal of Leisure Research, 29, 279299.

Casper, J. M., Kanters, M. A. & James, J. D. (2009) Perceptions of constraints to NHL spectatorship. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 5, 55-72. Crawford, D. W. & Godbey, G. (1987) Reconceptualising barriers to family leisure. Leisure Sciences, 9, 119-127. Crawford, D. W., Jackson, E. L. & Godbey, G. (1991) A hierarchical model of leisure constraints. Leisure Sciences, 13, 309-320. DAgostino, R. B., Belanger, A. and D'Agostino, R. B. (1990) A suggestion for using powerful and informative tests of normality. American Statistician, 44, 316-321. Deci, E. L. (1975) Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum. Dooley, L. M. & Lindner, J. R. (2003) The handling of nonresponse error. Human Resources Development Quarterly, 14, 99-110. ESPN (2010). Attendance. Retrieved July 23, 2010, from http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance. Ferreira, M. & Armstrong, K. (2004) An exploratory examination of attributes influencing students decisions to attend college sport events. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 13, 194-208. Hoye, R. & Lillis, K. (2008). Travel motivations of Australian Football League fans: An exploratory study. Managing Leisure, 13, 13-22. International Fdration of Association Football (2010). South Africa 2010 in numbers. Retrieved from http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/statistics/news/newsid=1273493/i ndex.html#south+africa+2010+numbers Fink, J. S., Trail, G. T. & Anderson, D. F. (2002a) Environmental factors associated with spectator attendance and sport consumption behaviour: Gender and team differences. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11, 8-19. Fink, J. S., Trail, G. T. & Anderson, D. F. (2002b) An examination of team identification: Which motives are most salient to its existence? International Sports Journal, 6, 195207. Fiske, S. T. (1980) Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 889-906. Fulks, L. D. (2009) Revenues/Expenses: 2004-2008 NCAA revenues and expenses of divisions I intercollegiate athletics programs report. Indianapolis, IN: National Collegiate Athletic Association.

RESEARCH PAPER

OCTOBER 2011

International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship

79

NCAA womens basketball

Funk, D. C., Alexandris, K, & Ping, Y. (2009) To go or stay home and watch: Exploring the balance between motives and constraints for major events: A case study of the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11, 41-53. Funk, D. C., Filo, K., Beaton, A. A. & Pritchard, M. (2009) Measuring the motives of sport event attendance: Bridging the academic-practitioner divide to understanding behaviour. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 18, 126-138. Funk, D. C. & James, J. D. (2001) The psychological continuum model: A conceptual framework for understanding an individuals psychological connection to sport. Sport Management Review, 4, 119-150. Funk, D. C., Mahony, D. F., Nakazawa, M. & Hirakawa, S. (2001) Development of the sport interest inventory (SII): Implications for measuring unique consumer motives at team sporting events. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 3, 291-316. Funk, D. C., Ridinger, L. L. & Moorman, A. M. (2003). Understanding consumer support: Extending the sport interest inventory (SII) to examine individual differences among womens professional sport consumers. Sport Management Review, 6, 1-32.

Hair, J. F., Black, B., Babin, B., Anderson, R. E. & Tatham, R. L. (2006) Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hansen, H. & Gauthier, R. (1989) Factors affecting attendance at professional fan events. Journal of Sport Management, 3, 15-32. Harris, D.V. (1973) Involvement in sport: A somatopsychic rationale for physical activity. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger. Hawkins B. A., Peng, J., Hsieh, C. & Eklund, S. (1999) Replication and extension of construct development. Leisure Sciences, 21, 179-192. Higgs, C. & Mckinley, B (2005) Why sport management matters. In A. Gillentine & R. B. Crow (Eds.) Foundations of sport management (pp. 11-19). Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology. Howard, J. A. & Sheth, J. N. (1969) The theory of buyer behaviour. New York: Wiley. Hu, L. & Bentler, P.M. (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. Jackson, E. L. (2005). Leisure constraints research: Overview of a developing theme in leisure studies. In E. L. Jackson (Ed.) Constraints to leisure (pp.4-19). State College, PA: Venture Publishing. James, J. D. & Ridinger, L. L. (2002) Female and male sport fans: A comparison of sport consumption motives. Journal of Sport Behaviour, 25, 260-278. James, J. D., Trail, G. T., Wann, D. L., Zhang, J. J. Funk, D. C. (2006, May). Bringing parsimony to the study of sport consumer motivations: Development of the big 5. Paper presented at the annual conference of North American Society for Sport Management, Kansas City, KS. Jreskog, K. G. & Srbom D. (2006) PRELIS (Version 2.80) [Computer software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc. Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision making under uncertainty. Econometrica, 47, 263-291. Kanouse, D. E. (1984) Explaining negativity biases in evaluation and choice behaviour theory and research. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 703-708. Kim, Y. K. & Trail, G. T. (2010) Constraints and motivators: A new model to explain sport consumer behaviour. Journal of Sport Management, 24, 190-210.

RESEARCH PAPER

Funk, D. C., Ridinger, L. L. & Moorman, A. M. (2004) Exploring origins of involvement: Understanding the relationship between consumer motives and involvement with professional sport teams. Leisure Sciences, 26, 36-61. George, J. M. & Zhou, J. (2007) Dual tuning in supportive contexts: Joint contributions of positive mood, negative mood and supervisory behaviours to employee creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 605-622. Gilbert, D. & Hudson, S. (2000) Tourism demand constraints: A skiing participation. Annals of Tourism Research, 27, 906-925. Gillet, N., Vallerand, R. J., Amoura, S. & Baldes, B. (2010) Influence of coaches autonomy support on athletes motivation and sport performance: A test of the hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 155-161. Gillum, J., Upton, J. & Berkowitz, S. (2010, January 15) Amid funding crisis, college athletics soak up subsidies, fees. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/2010-01-13-ncaaathletics-funding-analysis_N.htm Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E. & Tourangeau, R. (2004) Survey Methodology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

80

International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship

OCTOBER 2011

NCAA womens basketball

Klein, A. & Moosbrugger, H. (2000). Maximum likelihood estimation of latent interaction effects with LMS method. Psychometrika, 65, 457-474. Mardia, K. V. (1985). Mardias test of multinormality. In S. Kotz & N. L. Johnson (Eds.) Encyclopedia of statistical sciences (Vol. 5, pp.217-221). New York: Wiley. Marsh, H. W., Wen, Z. & Hau, K. (2006) Structural equation models of latent interaction and quadratic effects. In G. R. Hancock & R. D. Mueller (Eds.) Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp.225-265). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing. Masteralexis, L. P, Barr, C. A. & Hums, M. A. (2008) Principles and practices of sport management. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. McDonald, M. A., Rascher, D. (2000) Does bat day make cents? The effect of promotions on the demand for major league baseball. Journal of Sport Management, 14, 8-27. Milne, G. R. & McDonald, M. A. (1999) Sports marketing: Managing the exchange process. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Mittal, V., Ross, W. T. & Baldasare, P. M. (1988) The asymmetric impact of negative and positive attribute-level performance on overall satisfaction and repurchase intention. Journal of Marketing, 62(1), 33-47. Mullin, B. J., Hardy, S. H. & Sutton, W. A. (2007) Sport Marketing (3rd. ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Muthn, L. K., & Muthn, O. M. (2010). Mplus (Version 6.0)[Computer software]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthn & Muthn. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2010) College Sports Statistics and Records. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Resources/St ats/ Neale, L. & Funk, D. C. (2006) Investigating motivation, attitudinal loyalty and attendance behaviour with fans of Australian Football. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 7, 307-331. Nielsen Media Research (2008, September 5) The final tally 4.7 billion tunes in to Beijing 2008: More than two in three people worldwide. Retrieved from http://www.nielsen.com/media/2008/pr_080905.html Nunnally, J.C. & Bernstein, I.H. (1994) Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nyaupane, G. P. & Andereck, K. L. (2008) Understanding travel constraints: Application and extension of a leisure constraints model. Journal of Travel Research, 46, 433-439 Nyaupane, G. P., Morais, D. B. & Graefe, A. R. (2004) Nature tourism constraints: A cross-activity comparison. Annals of Tourism Research, 31, 540-555. Pan, D. W. & Gabert, T. E. (1997) Factors and differential demographic effects on purchases of season tickets for intercollegiate basketball games. Journal of Sport Behaviour, 20, 447-464. Payne, J. W., Laughhunn, D. J. & Crum, R. (1980). Translation of gambles and aspiration level effects in risky choice behaviour. Management Science, 26, 1039-1060. Pennington-Gray, L. A. & Kerstetter, D. K. (2002) Testing a constraints model within the context of nature-based tourism. Journal of Travel Research, 40, 416-423. Pritchard, M. P., Funk, D. C. & Alexandris, K. (2009). Barriers to repeat patronage: The impact of spectators constraints. European Journal of Marketing, 43, 169-187. Raymore, L. A., Godbey, G. C., Crawford, D. W. & von Eye, A. (1993) Nature and process of leisure constraints: Empirical test. Leisure Sciences, 15, 99-113. Ridinger, L. & Funk, D.C. (2006) Looking at gender differences through the lens of sport spectators. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 15, 155-166. Robinson, M. & Trail, G. T. (2005) Relationships among spectator gender, motives and points of attachment in selected intercollegiate sports. Journal of Sport Management, 19, 58-80. Robinson, M. Trail, G. T. Dick, R. & Gillentine, A. (2005) Fans vs. Spectators: An analysis of those who attend intercollegiate football games. Sport Marketing Quarterly. 14, 43-53. Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2000) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54-67. Romeo, J. B. (1991) The effects of negative information on the evaluations of brand extensions and the family brand. Advances in Consumer Research, 18, 399-406. Satorra, A. & Bentler, P. M. (2001) A scaled difference chisquare statistics for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507-514. Satorra, A. & Bentler, P. M. (1994) Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In A. von Eye & C. C. Clogg (Eds.) Latent variables analysis: Applications for developmental research (pp.399-419). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

RESEARCH PAPER

OCTOBER 2011

International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship

81

NCAA womens basketball

Schermelleh-Engel, K., Klein, A. & Moosbrugger, H. (1998) Estimating nonlinear effects using a latent moderated structural equations approach. In R. E. Schumacker & G. A. Marcoulides (Eds.) Interaction and nonlinear effects in structural equation modeling (pp.203-238). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Shapiro, S. S. & Wilk M. B. (1965) An analysis of variance test for normality (Complete samples). Biometrika, 52, 591-611. Shores, K., Scott, D. & Floyd, M. (2007) Constraints to outdoor recreation: A multiple hierarch stratification perspective. Leisure Sciences, 29, 227-246. Sloan, L. R. (1989) The motives of sports fans. In J. H. Goldstein (Ed.) Sports, games, and play; Social & psychological viewpoints (2nd ed., pp.175-240). Hillsdale, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Snyder, C. R., Lassegard, M. & Ford, C. E. (1986) Distancing after group success and failure: Basking in reflected glory and cutting off reflected failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 382-388. SPSS, Inc. (2009) SPSS (Version 18.0) [Computer software]. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc. Tenenbaum, G. & Eklund, R. (2007) Handbook of sport psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Trail, G. T., Anderson, D. F. & Fink, J. S. (2002) Examination of gender differences in importance and satisfaction with venue factors at intercollegiate basketball games: Effects on future spectator attendance. International Sports Journal, 6, 51-64. Trail, G. T. & Chelladurai, P. (2002) Perceptions of intercollegiate athletic goals and processes: The influence of personal value. Journal of Sport Management, 16, 289-310. Trail, G. T., Fink, J. S. & Anderson, D. F. (2003) Sport spectator consumption behaviour. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12, 8-17. Trail, G. T. & James, J. D. (2001). The motivation scale for sport consumption: Assessment of the scales psychometric properties. Journal of Sport Behaviour, 24, 108-127.

Trail, G. T., Robinson, M. & Kim, Y. K. (2008) Sport consumer behaviour: A test for group differences on structural constraints. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 17, 190-200. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1991) Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 1039-1061. Vancouver Organising Committee for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games (2010). The Vancouver 2010 Olympic Winter Games: By the numbers. Retrieved from http://www.vancouver2010.com/olympic-news/n/news/thevancouver-2010-olympic-winter-games-by-thenumbers_297556Ko.html Wann, D. L. (1995) Preliminary validation of the sport fan motivation scale. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 19, 377-396. Weinberger, M. G. & Dillon, W. R. (1980) The effects of unfavorable product rating information. Advances in Consumer Research, 7, 528-532. White, D. D. (2008) A structural model of leisure constraints negotiation in outdoor recreation. Leisure Sciences, 30, 342359. Whitney, J. D. (1988) Winning games versus winning championships: The economics of fan interest and team performance. Economic Inquiry, 26, 703-724. Yu, C., & Muthn, B. O. (2002, April) Evaluation of model fit indices for latent variable models with categorical and continuous outcomes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Education Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Zhang, J. J., Pease, D. G., Hui, S. C. & Michaud, T. J. (1995) Variables affecting the spectator decision to attend NBA games. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 4, 29-39. Zhang, J. J., Pease, D. G., Smith, D. W., Lee, J. T., Lam, E. T. C. & Jambor, E. A. (1997) Factors affecting the attendance of minor league hockey games. International Sports Journal, 1, 39-49.

RESEARCH PAPER

82

International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship

OCTOBER 2011

Copyright of International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship is the property of International Marketing Reports Ltd. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

You might also like