The impact of event prestige on intent to continue sport participation.

Kim, Seungmo ; Liu, Jing Dong ; Love, Adam 等

Physical inactivity has been recognized globally as an important predictor of health risks, as sedentary lifestyles are associated with an increased prevalence of such conditions as cardiovascular and metabolic diseases, obesity, cancer, and psychosocial problems (Tremblay, Colley, Saunders, Healy, & Owen, 2010). According to the World Health Organization (2010), physical inactivity is the fourth leading risk factor for mortality and accounts for 6% of global deaths. However, despite widespread awareness about the benefits of being physically active, less than 40% of the world population participates in a sufficient amount of physical activity (World Health Organization, 2010). Given the situation, many researchers and practitioners have directed their efforts toward exploring and promoting the benefits of physical activity on psychological, physiological, and social health as well as providing more physical activity opportunities for various target groups (e.g., children, elderly people, and people with disabilities). Related to these efforts, numerous studies have examined sport participation motives, because in order to encourage more individuals to be physically active, it is necessary to understand the reasons for their participation (Biddle & Mutrie, 2008).

A Mass Participant Sporting Event (MPSE) can be organized as an effort to enhance a community's overall health by providing an opportunity for a wide range of people to participate in a sport activity (Murphy & Bauman, 2007) in order to promote public health and prevent disease (Porche, 2004). MPSEs involving sports such as running and cycling can provide individuals with opportunities to increase regular physical activity (Bauman, Murphy, & Lane, 2009), not only while they prepare for and participate in the event, but also as they continue physical activity after the event (Bowles, Rissel, & Bauman, 2006). In particular, one of the potential attractions of an MPSE, such as a high-profile running race, may be its status as a prestigious event within the community (Sutton, McDonald, Milne, & Cimperman, 1997). However, despite the potential of population-based interventions like MPSEs to increase physical activity levels in communities, efforts to utilize such interventions have shown limited success (Beaton & Funk, 2008). In addition, there is a lack of evidence regarding the effects of these interventions (Harrison, McElduff, & Edwards, 2006). Given the situation, more research is needed to examine the actual effects of MPSEs on sport participation in communities and maximize the effectiveness of such events through proper management strategies (Funk, Jordan, Ridinger, & Kaplanidou, 2011).

Therefore, the current study was designed to investigate the role of event prestige as a potential factor in attracting individuals to participate in an MPSE and explore the impact of prestige on intent to continue participation based on individuals' levels of sport commitment. The findings of this research are useful for event organizers to better understand the relationship between MPSE image and participant motivation as well as prepare successful marketing strategies to attract both highly-committed and less committed runners to future events.

Sport Participation Motives

Each individual decides to participate in a particular physical activity due to one or more specific reasons or benefits that he or she hopes to achieve via the activity (Lindner & Kerr, 2001; McDonald, Milne, & Hong, 2004; Mullen & Markland, 1997). These reasons and benefits that drive individuals to participate can be labeled Participation Motives. Deci and Ryan's (2002) self-determination theory suggests that individuals are likely to be influenced by psychological processes within social contexts in forming their motives to behave. According to Mclean and Hurd (2012), although motives for leisure activity participation can be divided into four different categories--(a) physical motivators (e.g., control of obesity and preserving cardiovascular health), (b) social motivators (e.g., being with others and reducing loneliness), (c) psychological motivators (e.g., sense of adventure, excitement, challenge, stress management, relaxation and escape, and healthy balance of work and play), and (d) emotional motivators (e.g., happiness and well-being), these motives are not independent, but interdependent of each other. Since each individual will be influenced by a different combination of one or more motive(s), many studies (e.g., Egli, Bland, Melton, & Czech, 2011; Grogan, Conner, & Smithson, 2006; Kilpatrick, Hebert, & Bartholomew, 2005) have been conducted in the participation motivation field examining differences with respect to the characteristics of participants, such as gender, race, and age.

In the context of MPSEs, Funk et al. (2011) examined the potential capacity of an MPSE to increase physical activity for both passive and active participants based on the belief that an MPSE would serve as a catalyst to influence attitude formation and changes, which eventually impact individuals' physical activity behaviors. Among the motives (i.e., challenge, enjoyment, strength and endurance, positive health, competition, weight management, ill-health avoidance, appearance, stress management, social affiliation, and health pressure), the study found that enjoyment, strength and endurance, positive health, competition, ill-health avoidance, stress management, and social recognition positively influenced running commitment, while challenge, weight management, physical appearance, and health pressure had a negative impact. In terms of future exercise intentions, challenge, stress management, health pressure, strength and endurance, social recognition, social affiliation, ill-health avoidance, and weight management were positive predictors, whereas competition was a negative predictor. The research also found that individuals with less running experience had more positive attitudes toward future exercise intentions, while individuals with more running experience were not influenced regarding future exercise intentions.

In the context of distance running, several studies have specifically investigated factors that motivate marathon participants. For example, Masters and Ogles (1995) found that veteran runners were motivated by a social identity as a marathon runner that included both competitive and health aspects, while runners with a moderate level of experience were largely motivated by personal performance enhancement and psychological rewards, and first-time runners were focused more on factors like health, weight, and personal goal achievement. Havenar and Lochbaum (2007) found that successful first-time marathoners rated achievement motives more highly, while those who dropped out of a marathon training program were influenced by extrinsic motivations, such as social recognition and weight loss, to a greater extent. In a qualitative analysis, Jeffery and Butryn (2012) identified improved fitness and mutual training support as being among the major categories of running motivation. While such studies provide important insight regarding the motives of marathon runners, they did not investigate the prestige of the event itself as a factor that may motivate participants. Thus, the current study extends research in this area by examining event prestige as a potential factor that attracts people to participate in an MPSE.

Event Prestige as a Motive

According to the exposure-attitude hypothesis (Zajonc, 1968), people are more likely to be attracted by publicly well-known organizations or events due to potentially positive effects of the heightened exposure on individuals' evaluations of the organizations or events. By the same token, people are more likely to be attracted to and become associated with a mega sporting event due to its history, established public image, and ability to attract 'big names' in the relevant sport (Gwinner & Swanson, 2003; Hansen & Gauthier, 1994). For example, the Olympic Games, perhaps the most highly-publicized mega sporting event in the world, attract many volunteers and other individuals desiring to be involved with the event due to its prestigious status (Fairley, Kellett, & Green, 2007). Further, people may also feel heightened levels of pride while participating in a mega event as compared to a smaller-scale local event (Sutton, McDonald, Milne, & Cimperman, 1997).

The impact of external prestige has been studied in the field of organizational behavior in order to understand the relationships between perceived external prestige of an organization and its employee's self-perception (Ashforth & Mael, 1989), attractiveness to job applicants (Turban, Lau, Ngo, & Chow, 2001), job satisfaction (Bergami & Bagozzi, 2000) and commitment (Hess, Rogoveski, & Dunfree, 2002). In the context of sport, meanwhile, researchers have attempted to apply the concept of external prestige by exploring the potential influences of sporting event prestige on such outcomes as attitudes toward sponsors (Speed & Thomson, 2000), participants' willingness to pay high fees for a charity sporting event, (Bennett, Mously, Kitchen, & Ali-Choudhury, 2007), active sport tourists' participation (Getz & McConnell, 2011), and volunteers' satisfaction and commitment (Kim, Hong, & Andrew, 2013).

Among those studies, Bennett et al. (2007) examined status (prestige) of an event as a participation motive, as was done in the current study. Bennett et al. divided motives to participate in a charity-affiliated mass sporting event into three categories--(a) charity related motives (e.g., desire to help charity, feeling a duty to participate, involvement with a good cause, and helper's high), (b) sports related and/or sporting achievement motives (e.g., desire to improve performance, desire to experience physical or mental stimulation, desire to follow healthy lifestyle, involvement with the sport, and status of sporting event), and (c) motives with a social dimension (e.g., exhibitionism, desire to interact socially, and desire to experience fun and enjoyment) and found that status of the charity event positively influenced participants' willingness to pay a high fee. Although the Bennett et al. study sought to investigate the relative importance of event prestige along with other motives, it did not examine the relationships between participation motives and physical activity related outcomes. Further, the focus of this study was not a pure sporting event, but rather an event that used sport as a tool to raise money for charity.

In addition, although Getz and McConnell (2011) included prestige as a motivator in investigating serious sport tourists, this population is quite different from the regular participants in a local sporting event, which was the focus of the current study. Further, the Funk et al. (2011) study used an MPSE simply as the context in which to explore the relationship between participation motives for physical activity, while the current study was designed to specifically investigate the MPSE itself as a motivational factor due to the fact that many individuals may simply be attracted to participate in a highly-publicized MPSE because of its prestige within the community. Therefore, in the current study, the prestige of a major sporting event (i.e., Standard Chartered Hong Kong Marathon), along with other participant motives previously identified in the literature, was expected to play an important role in attracting participants due to the significant media exposure the event receives in Hong Kong.

Research Model

Given the exploratory nature of the current study, the conceptual model was designed to examine the importance of event prestige relative to other previously-identified motivational factors on runners' behavioral intentions. Thus, in addition to event prestige as a motive, the model included 10 other factors of motivation: (a) affiliation, (b) appearance, (c) challenge, (d) competition, (e) enjoyment, (f) positive health, (g) social recognition, (h) strength and endurance, (i) stress management, and (j) weight management. The other 10 motivational factors were selected from the Exercise Motive Inventory -2 (EMI-2), developed by Markland and Ingledow (1997), which has been used previously in the context of an MPSE (Funk et al., 2011).

Sport Commitment

Sport commitment was utilized to distinguish less committed runners at the attraction stage and highly-committed runners at the attachment stage in order to compare relationships at different stages of the Psychological Continuum Model (Funk & James, 2001). Sport commitment, which is conceptualized as a 'psychological construct representing the desire and resolve to continue sport participation' (Scanlan, Carpenter, Schmidt, Simons, & Keeler, 1993, p.6), leads people to continue their involvement with sport activities and helps them persist as participants in the activities. According to the Sport Commitment Model (Scanlan et al, 1993), sport commitment is proposed to have positive associations with sport enjoyment (e.g., pleasure and fun), personal investments (e.g., effort, time and energy), social constraints (e.g., social expectations and norms), and involvement opportunities (e.g., benefits), while it is expected to have a negative relationship with involvement alternatives (e.g., other activities unrelated to the sport). Experience with running events is likely to increase an individual's level of commitment, which eventually increases frequency of participation (Funk et al., 2011). In fact, studies examining the relationship between sport commitment and participation behaviors have found positive relationships between sport commitment and actual behavior among participants (Casper, Gray, & Stellino, 2007; Wilson, Rodgers, Carpenter, Hall, Hardy, & Fraser, 2004).

The Psychological Continuum Model (PCM), proposed by Funk and James (2001) has been utilized to understand the process through which both active and passive recreational sport participants become involved in physical activity (Funk, Ridinger, & Moorman, 2004; Stewart, Smith, & Nicholson, 2003). The model consists of four phases: (a) awareness, (b) attraction, (c) attachment, and (d) allegiance, through which physical activity participants form their attitudes toward activity (Funk, Toohey, & Bruun, 2007). As shown in Figure 1, each stage has its own developmental progression (input [right arrow] process [right arrow] outcomes) of psychological connection between an individual and a recreational activity, involving environmental, psychological, and personal factors. First, at the awareness stage, an individual becomes aware of a recreation activity, primarily through environmental factors like cultural influences and socializing agents (e.g., friends, family, or mass media), and then identifies a participation opportunity as an outcome without any positive or negative affective association with physical activity. Secondly, at the attraction stage, knowledge and realization of a participation opportunity work as inputs along with psychological and peripheral motives from hedonic and dispositional needs and social situational factors. At this stage, an individual develops positive affective association and forms attitudes associated with the activity as outcomes. Third, the outcomes of attraction process and individuals' personal factors (e.g. core values and self-concept) interact together to strengthen positive attitudes toward the activity and assign emotional, symbolic, and functional meanings to the activity. Finally, at the allegiance stage, individuals show high attitudinal and behavioral loyalty toward an activity with consistency and durability. However, based on the PCM, it is important to note that as the psychological connection between an individual and an activity occurs and increases, personal factors become more important than environmental factors in developing and strengthening attitudinal or behavioral loyalty to the activity (Funk et al., 2007). Thus, in the current study, it was expected that event prestige as a factor of environmental attraction would play a more important role for less committed runners than highly-committed runners regarding their future participation intentions.

Method

Participation and Survey Procedure

The population of the current study consisted of participants at the Standard Chartered Hong Kong marathon, held on February 24, 2013. The Hong Kong marathon was chosen for this study because it is considered the largest annual participatory and most prestigious international sporting event in Hong Kong, recognized as a Silver Label Road Race by the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) in 2013. The Standard Chartered marathon has been held annually in the city since 1997. The number of participants for the marathon has increased significantly during its first 17 years, growing from 1,000 runners in 1997 to 72,000 runners in 2013. The 2013 Hong Kong Marathon offered a half marathon, 10 km race, half marathon wheelchair race, and 3km wheelchair race as well as the full course marathon in order to meet the needs of multiple types of participants. Data collection, using convenience sampling, was conducted by distributing questionnaires to participants who completed the race. Among 520 survey questionnaires distributed to participants at the event, 497 questionnaires were returned (95.6% response) and 456 were usable. A total of 304 men (66.7%) and 152 women (33.3%) participated in the survey. The majority of the participants at the event were single (n = 335; 73.5%) and in the 20 to 29 years old age bracket (n = 238; 52.2%). A more complete demographic profile of participants is available in table 1.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Instrumentation

A 57-item survey was designed to assess perceived event prestige (PEP), sport commitment, participation motives (including event prestige as a motive), intent to return, and to collect demographic information (e.g., gender, age, education, marital status, and experience in marathons). The original version of the survey was created in English and translated into Cantonese in order to reduce confusion or misunderstanding by the participants, whose native language was not English. The Cantonese version of the survey was prepared by two individuals with Ph.D. degrees in physical education and one graduate student. The translated version was back-translated by a different graduate student into English to confirm the initial translation. These particular individuals were selected because of their wide knowledge of the related literature as well as their fluency in both English and Cantonese. Finally, 10 students in physical education were invited to check the questionnaire's clarity and ease of use.

Perceived event prestige (PEP). Mael and Ashforth's (1992) scale was utilized to assess PEP for the current study. The reported reliability for the original scale was .77. Although the original scale had eight items, only four modified items were adopted for the current study, as the other four items did not fit the context. The four items included in the current study were: 'The event was highly ranked by people who follow this sport,' 'It was a highly prestigious event,' 'The event has a good reputation among people who follow this sport,' and 'The event does not have a good reputation in my community.' Respondents indicated the extent of their agreement with each item on a seven point Likert-type scale, anchored by 'strongly disagree' (1) and 'strongly agree' (7).

Sport commitment. Sport commitment was assessed using three items. The reported reliability of the scale was .83 (Funk et al., 2011). The three items measuring running commitment were 'It would require major rethinking to change my preference for running,' 'It would be difficult to change my beliefs about running,' and 'My preference for running would not willingly change.' Respondents indicated the extent of their agreement with each item on a seven point Likert-type scale, anchored by 'strongly disagree' (1) and 'strongly agree' (7).

Participation motives. Participation motives were assessed using the Exercise Motivation Inventory (EMI)-2 (Markland & Ingledow, 1997). Of the 14 motivational factors in the original scale, 10 factors, including (a) affiliation, (b) appearance, (c) challenge, (d) competition, (e) enjoyment, (f) positive health, (g) social recognition, (h) strength and endurance, (i) stress management, and (j) weight management, were chosen for the current study, which focused on motives for participation in a specific event rather than motives for exercise in general. In addition, three items were added to measure event prestige as a motive. The three items were developed based on Mael and Ashforth's (1992) organizational prestige scale. The items included: 'Because the event was highly ranked by people who follow this sport,' 'Because it was a highly prestigious event,' and 'Because the event has a good reputation among people who follow this sport.' Thus, a total of 42 items, with slight contextual modifications of the original items, were used to assess participation motives. Seven point Likert-type scales, anchored by 'strongly disagree' (1) and 'strongly agree' (7), were incorporated to assess the motives.

Intent to return. One item was created by the researchers to measure intent to continue participation at the following year's event. The item was 'I intend to participate in this marathon event next year' and was measured using a seven point Likert-type scale, anchored by 'strongly disagree' (1) and 'strongly agree' (7).

Data Analysis

First, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with all motivational factors was conducted using AMOS 19.0 to evaluate construct validity of the proposed measurement model. Second, Cronbach internal consistency analyses for each variable were conducted to confirm inter-item reliabilities for the collected data. Third, descriptive statistics (e.g., means and standard deviations) and One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were performed to explore different participation motives between highly-committed and less committed participants. In order to make this comparison, the sample was divided into three groups according to factor scores for the commitment construct. The middle group was then dropped in order to create the two distinct groups: (a) a group with low running commitment (n = 161; M = 3.42) and (b) a group with high running commitment (n = 153; M = 6.09). Fourth, two separate backward-deletion multiple regression analyses were performed in order to compare the impacts of participation motives on intent to return to the following year's event by level of sport commitment. The researchers chose a backward-deletion stepwise multiple regression method over standard multiple regression for the current study because stepwise multiple regressions allow the researchers to examine which variables make more meaningful contributions among a large number of potential predictor variables (Andrew, Pedersen, & McEvoy, 2011). This particular analysis sequentially removes the weakest variable if the variable is not significant and identifies contributing values of the remaining variables to each regression equation. The procedure continues until all remaining variables significantly contribute to the equation.

Results

Scale Validity/Reliability

The results of the CFA indicated a reasonable fit of the model to the data ([chi square] / df = 1183.387/377 = 3.139, CFI = .902, SRMR = .055, and RMSEA = .069). During the process of refining the data, 10 weak items were eliminated from further analysis due to low factor loadings based on a recommended cut-off value of .50 (Ford, MacCallum, & Tait, 1986). Accordingly, deleting these items substantially improved reliabilities for the constructs. In terms of reliabilities of motives, as shown in Table 2, the results of Cronbach Alphas for each construct ranged from [alpha] = 0.639 to [alpha] = 0.886, which satisfied the recommended benchmark of .70 for internal consistency (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994) with the exceptions of challenge ([alpha] = 0.656) and strength and endurance ([alpha] = 0.639). In fact, Funk et al. (2011) using EMI-2 for the MPSE context also reported a figure below .70 for challenge ([alpha] = 0.64) and strength and endurance ([alpha] = 0.65). The researchers of the current study decided to retain the two motivational factors for further analyses, as did Funk et al., because the EMI-2 scale has been proven reliable in the literature. In addition, according to Cortina (1993), an alpha value of greater than .60 is acceptable for a scale with fewer than six items.

All motivational factors were significantly correlated with each other. Although all correlation coefficients were below the suggested .85 threshold (Anderson & Gerbing, 1988), the researchers checked tolerance and variance inflation factors (VIF) concerning multicollinearity issues among the motivational factors due to relatively high correlations among several factors, such as the associations between 'positive health' and 'strength and endurance' (r =.800), 'appearance' and 'weight management' (r = .675), and 'challenge' and 'competition' (r = .665). However, the results revealed that minimum tolerance was .302 and VIF ranged from 1.62 to 3.31 for the current data. A multicollinearity issue exists only if a value of tolerance is less than 0.20 (Menard, 1995) and/or a VIF is 10 and above (O'Brien, 2007).

Participation Motives

Table 2 shows the overall means and standard deviations of the 11 motivational factors to participate in the current event. According to these data, the participants reported values above the scale's midpoint for all motivational factors except 'appearance' (M = 3.76). As shown in Table 3, for the group with high running commitment, 'enjoyment' (M = 5.84) was the most highly-rated motivational factor, followed by 'positive health' (M = 5.83), 'strength and endurance' (M = 5.81), and 'challenge' (M = 5.47). For the group with low running commitment, 'strength and endurance' (M = 5.23) was the most highly-rated motivational factor, followed by 'positive health' (M = 5.20), 'enjoyment' (M = 4.92), and 'challenge' (M = 4.73). To explore the differences of participation motives between the two groups, a one-way ANOVA was calculated, and significant differences were found in the following seven motivational factors: 'affiliation' [F(1, 312) = 4.78, p < .05], 'challenge' [F(1, 312) = 41.94, p < .001], 'competition' [F(1, 312) = 24.08, p < .001], 'enjoyment' [F(1, 312) = 70.31, p < .001], 'positive health' [F(1, 312) = 27.00,p < .001], 'strength and endurance,' [F(1, 312) = 28.31, p < .001], and 'stress management' [F(1, 312) = 27.40, p < .001], In fact, the highly-committed runners reported higher scores for all motivational factors except appearance.

Relationships between Motives and Intent to Return

First, backward-deletion stepwise multiple regressions were performed for the less committed group. The initial model for the group including all predictors was significant [F(11, 149) = 5.025, p < .001, Adjusted [R.sup.2] = .217], After removing all non-contributing variables through backward-deletion procedures, only 'positive health' and 'event prestige' remained as significant predictors of intent to return for the following year's event in the final equation. The model reflecting the remaining variables was significant [F (2, 158) = 19.936, p < .001, Adjusted [R.sup.2] = .191], indicating 19.1% of the variance in intent to return was explained by these two predictors. The Standardized Coefficient ([beta]) indicated 'positive health' ([beta] = .288) explained the most variance, followed by 'event prestige' ([beta] = .277).

Next, for the highly-committed group, the initial model with all predictors was also significant [F(11, 141) = 3.409, p < .001, Adjusted [R.sup.2] = .148], After nine deletion processes via the backward-deletion method, 'enjoyment' and 'strength and endurance' remained as significant predictors of intent to return for the following year's event [F (2, 150) = 15.773, p < .001, Adjusted [R.sup.2] = .162]. The final model accounted for 16.2% of the variance in intent to return. According to the Standardized Coefficient ([beta]), 'enjoyment' ([beta] = .275) was the most important predictor, followed by 'strength and endurance' ([beta] = .194).

Discussion

Given the many benefits of physical activity, it is important for practitioners not only to understand why people are motivated to participate in particular physical activities, but also to know how motivation is related to sustaining participation. However, no study had previously considered the status of a sporting event itself as a factor in attracting people to participate and encouraging their continued participation. Thus, the current study was designed to examine the impact of the prestige of a major sporting event on intent to return to the event the following year. In exploring this topic, the current study also included other typical motivational factors in order to compare the relative impact of event prestige along with other motives. Therefore, the results of this study yielded insight regarding the impact of event prestige on sport participation and also highlighted relevant implications for public health strategies.

First, the results of descriptive statistics found that participants in the current study perceived the Standard Charted Hong Kong Marathon to be a highly prestigious event, as the mean score for perceived event prestige (M=5.68) was well above the mid-point of the scale (M = 4.00). In fact, the Hong Kong Marathon has become arguably the most prestigious sporting event in Hong Kong since the event was started in 1983, attracting approximately 72,000 runners in 2013. Due to such a high demand from the community to join this prestigious event, the Hong Kong Amateur Athletic Association (HKAAA) has continuously increased its quota (e, g., 65,000 in 2011, 70,000 in 2012, and 72,000 in 2013). For the actual event on February 24, 2013, the HKAAA began accepting registrations on October 24, 2012, and all events, with the exception of wheelchair races, had filled up by November 1. Because the event frequently reaches its maximum number of registrants within one or two weeks, there is an urgency for individuals to register if they wish to participate. Given the overwhelming demand for this event in Hong Kong, it was not surprising that the participants in this survey reported high levels of perceived event prestige.

The results of descriptive statistics also revealed that participants rated 'enjoyment,' 'positive health,' 'strength and endurance,' and 'challenge' as the four most important motives for participation, although the order of these motives differed between the highly-committed and less committed group. These findings were consistent with the findings of Funk et al.'s (2011) study, which identified those motives as being among the first tier that would direct sport participation across 95% of the population. Other studies in the context of distance running also have identified similar factors, such as improved fitness (Jeffery & Butryn, 2012) and health (Masters & Ogles, 1995), as being among the primary items that motivate marathon runners.

Perhaps the most important findings of the current study were that future intentions to return of the two groups based on level of sport commitment were influenced by different motives. Participants with high running commitment were more likely to return for the following year's event when they participated for reasons of enjoyment and strength and endurance, while individuals with low running commitment were more likely to return when they participated due to motives related to positive health and event prestige. Funk et al. (2011) found that participants with higher levels of running commitment were less likely to report intentions to exercise because of an MPSE, which may be due to the fact that those individuals already possessed healthier bodies before the event, indicating that the event might only provide an opportunity to sustain, rather than increase, their physical activity levels. According to the PCM (Funk & James, 2001), environmental factors would be expected to play a more important role in developing attitudes and behaviors at the early stages of the model. The findings of the current study support that proposition since intent to return for the following year's event was influenced by event prestige only for the less committed runners.

In a practical sense, these findings have notable implications for event marketers/ managers seeking to host successful events as well as for officials hoping to encourage public health. With respect to less committed runners, the results found event prestige to be a significant predictor of future intent. Therefore, it is vital for event marketers/managers to build or strengthen the popularity, reputation, and prestige of MPSEs among people in the community by providing interesting publicity material and information to various media. Given the fact that different generations of people may consume different types of media (Dou, Wang, & Zhou, 2006; Dutta-Bergman, 2004), it may be wise for event marketers to utilize new media outlets (e.g. Internet and social network services) rather than solely rely on traditional outlets (e.g. television, radio, newspapers, and magazines).

For officials who hope to improve public health through population-based interventions, the findings also have important implications. If promoting an MPSE as being prestigious helps attract less committed runners and encourage them to return the following year, a meaningful benefit on their health would be expected, as training regularly to prepare for the event would likely result in a substantial increase in their level of physical activity (Bowles et al., 2006). Furthermore, it is expected that repeated participation would increase an individual's running commitment (Funk et al., 2011). As a result, the individual would be likely to continue increasing his or her participation level, possibly reaching the allegiance stage of the PCM, which would result in more consistent participation regardless of the context (Beaton, Funk, Ridnger, & Jordan, 2011). Further, given the important role of event prestige in attracting participants, combined with the increased levels of physical activity that may accompany participation, not only public health officials, but also managers and marketers of MPSEs can play an important role in improving levels of physical activity in a community.

Finally, given the findings that an MPSE with high levels of prestige could influence the behavioral intentions of participants, particularly less committed runners, the HKAAA should consider creating another MPSE of similar scale to the Hong Kong Marathon. Although there are numerous MPSEs throughout the year in Hong Kong, none of the events receive as much attention from the media and public as does the Hong Kong Marathon. In addition, the short amount of time in which the event reaches its registration quota indicates the existence of a strong demand for participation in such a prestigious event. Therefore, a new MPSE with a high level of prestige could attract less committed runners to participate in more running events, further increasing their levels of physical activity before and after the event. Considering the Hong Kong Marathon is held in February or March every year, it may be possible to host an additional highly reputed and prestigious running MPSE in October or November without overcrowding the road racing schedule in Hong Kong. In developing a new major MPSE, the HKAAA should make continuous efforts to foster awareness and develop a sense of prestige in the community through effective marketing strategies, which should strengthen the event's ability to attract more participants based on Zajonc's (1968) exposure-attitude hypothesis.

Limitations and Future Research

While the current study expanded the existing sport participation literature by exploring the impact of MPSE prestige in conjunction with other motivational variables on intent to return to the event in the following year, there is still a strong need for further research on the topic.

First, the current study had a somewhat modest sample of 456 participants from approximately 72,000 runners at the 2013 Standard Chartered Hong Kong Marathon and did not assess differential outcomes based on type of race (e.g., full marathon, half marathon, 10 km, half marathon wheelchair race, and 3km wheelchair race). Therefore, future studies might utilize comparative approaches to examine potential differences based on categories of participation.

Second, the current study only collected data from an MPSE with a high level of prestige. Future studies might investigate MPSEs with relatively low levels of prestige in order to compare the contributing effects of MPSEs based on differing prestige levels. According to the exposure-attitude hypothesis (Zajonc, 1968), it is expected that MPSEs with low levels of prestige would have less power to attract people, particularly less committed runners. As a result, contributing effects of event prestige on future sport participation might vary for different MPSEs.

Third, future studies could utilize qualitative approaches to better understand the impacts of event prestige on sport participation. Indeed, qualitative methods could provide richer, more in-depth data to help illuminate the specific processes through which event prestige influences passive and active participants' attitudes and behaviors based on the PCM.

Conclusion

This exploratory study investigated the impact of event prestige on sport participants at a nationally high-profile sporting event and contributed to the sport participation literature by introducing a new motive for participation. Findings revealed a positive relationship between event prestige as a motive and intent to return to a future event for less committed runners. This finding has practical relevance both for public health officials, who hope to improve public physical activity levels, and sport marketers, who hope to host successful events. Further, given the important role of event prestige in attracting participants and sustaining their participation, combined with the increased levels of physical activity that may coincide with participation in an event, sport managers and marketers can play an important role in improving levels of physical activity and, in turn, public health via MPSEs. Although the current study has limitations given its exploratory nature, we hope that the findings may stimulate further research to explore the role of event prestige on participation in numerous sporting event contexts.

References

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411

Andrew, D. P. S., Pedersen, P. M., & McEvoy, C. (2011). Research methods and design in sport management. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14 (1), 20-39. doi: 10.2307/258189

Bauman, A., Murphy, N., Lane, A. (2009). The role of community programs and mass events in promoting physical activity to patients. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 43, 44-46 doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2008.054189

Beaton, A., Funk, D. (2008). An evaluation of theoretical frameworks for studying physically active leisure. Leisure Sciences, 50(1)53-70. doi: 10.1080/01490400701756410

Beaton, A., Funk, D., Ridnger, L., & Jordan, J. (2011). Sport involvement: A conceptual and empirical analysis. Sport Management Review, 14 (2), 126-140. doi: 10.1016/j. smr.2010.07.002

Bennett, R., Mousley, W., Kitchin, P., & Ali-Choudhury, R. (2007). Motivations for participating in charity-affiliated sporting events. Journal of Customer Behavior, 6(2), 155-178. doi: 10.1362/147539207x223375

Bergami, M & Bagozzi, T. P. (2000). Self-categorization, affective commitment and group self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 59(4), 555-577. doi: 10.1348/014466600164633

Biddle, S. J. H. & Mutrie, N. (2008). Psychology of Physical Activity: Determinants, Weil-Being and Interventions (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Bowles, H., Rissel, C., & Bauman, A. (2006) Mass community cycling events: Who participates and is their behavior influenced by participation? International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 3, 39. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-3-39

Casper, J. M., Gray, D. P., & Stellino, M. B. (2007). A sport commitment model perspective on adult tennis players' participation frequency and purchase intention. Sport Management Review, 10, 253-278. doi: 10.1016/S1441-3523(07)70014-1

Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1), 98-104. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective. In E.L. Deci & R.M. Ryan (Eds.), The handbook of self-determination (pp. 3-35). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Dou, W., Wang, G., & Zhou, N. (2006): Generational and regional differences in media consumption patterns of Chinese generation X consumers, Journal of Advertising, 35(2), 101-110. doi:10.1080/00913367.2006.10639230

Dutta-Bergman, M. J. (2004). Complementarity in consumption of news types across traditional and new media, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48(1), 41-60. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4801_3

Egli, T., Bland, H. W., Melton, B. F., & Czech, D. R. (2011). Influence of age, sex, race on college students' exercise motivation of physical activity. Journal of American College Health, 59(5), 399-406. doi:10.1080/07448481.2010.513074

Fairley, S., Kellett, P., & Green, B. C. (2007). Volunteering abroad: Motives for travel to volunteer at the Athens Olympic games. Journal of Sport Management, 21(1), 47-57.

Ford, J. K., MacCallum, R. C., & Tait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39, 291-314. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1986.tb00583.x

Funk, D. C., & James, J. D. (2001). The psychological continuum model: A conceptual framework for understanding an individual's psychological connect to sport. Sport Management Review, 4, 119-140. doi: 10.1016/S1441-3523(01)70072-1

Funk, D. C., Jordan, J., Ridinger, L.L., & Kaplanidou, K. (2011). Capacity of mass participant sport events for the development of activity commitment and future exercise intention. Leisure Science, 33 (3), 250-268. doi: 10.1080/01490400.2011.564926

Funk, D. C., Ridinger, L.L., Moorman, A. M. (2004). Exploring the origins on involvement: Understanding the relationship between consumer motives and involvement with professional sport teams, Leisure Sciences, 26(1), 35-61. doi: 10.1080/01490400490272440

Funk, D. C., Toohey, K., & Bruun, T. (2007). International sport event participation: Prior sport involvement; destination image; and travel motives. European Sport Management Quarterly, 7(3), 227-248.

Getz, D. & McConnell, A. (2011). Serious sport tourism and event travel careers. Journal of Sport Management, 25, 326-338.

Grogan, S., Conner, M., & Smithson, H. (2006). Sexuality and exercise motivations: are gay men and heterosexual women most likely to be motivated by concern about weight and appearance? Sex Roles, 55, 567-572. doi: 10.1007/s11199-006-9110-3

Gwinner, K. & Swanson, S. (2003). A model of fan identification: Antecedents and sponsorship outcomes, Journal of Services Marketing, 77(3), 275-294. doi: 10.1108/08876040310474828

Hansen, H. & Gauthier, R. (1994). The professional golf product: spectators' views. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 3(4), 9-16.

Harrison, R. A., McElduff, R, Edwards, R. (2006). Planning to win: Health and lifestyles associated with physical activity amongst 15,423 adults, Public Health, 120, 206-212. doi:10.1016/j.puhe.2005.08.021

Havenar, J., & Lochbaum, M. (2007). Differences in participation motives of first-time marathon finishers and pre-race dropouts. Journal of Sport Behavior, 30(3), 270-279.

Henderson, K. A., & Bialeschki, M. D. (2005). Leisure and activity lifestyle: Research reflections. Leisure Sciences, 27(5), 355-365. doi: 10.1080/01490400500225559

Hess, D., Rogovsky, N., & Dunfree, T. W. (2002). The next wave of corporate community involvement: Corporate social initiatives. California Management Review, 44(2), 110-125.

Jeffery, K. A., & Butryn, T. M. (2012). The motivations of runners in a cause-based marathon-training program. Journal of Sport Behavior, 55(3), 300-319.

Kilpatrick, M., Hebert, E., & Bartholomew, J. (2005). College students' motivation for physical activity: differentiating men's and women's motives for sport participation and exercise. Journal of American College Health, 54(2), 87-94. doi: 10.3200/JACH.54.2.87-94

Kim, S., Hong, S., & Andrew, D. P. S. (2013). Sustainable volunteerism at a major international sporting event. Journal of Applied Sport Management, 5(4), 49-72.

Lindner, K., & Kerr, J. (2001). Predictability of sport participation motivation from meta-motivational dominances and orientations. Personality and Individual Differences, 30 (6), 759-773. doi: 10.1016/SO191-8869(00)00068-4

Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. (1992). Alumni and their alma maters: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 75(2), 103-123. doi: 10.1002/job.4030130202

Markland, D., & Ingledew, D. K. (1997). The measurement of exercise motives: Factorial validity and invariance across gender of a revised Exercise Motivations Inventory. British Journal of Health Psychology, 2, 361-376. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8287.1997.tb00549.x

Masters, K., & Ogles, B. (1995). An investigation of the different motivations of marathon runners with varying degrees of experience. Journal of Sport Behavior, 75(1), 69-79.

Mclean, D & Hurd, A. (2012). Kraus 'Recreation and Leisure in Modern Society (9th.ed.) Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Menard, S. (1995). Applied logistic regression analysis: Sage university series on quantitative applications in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

McDonald, M., Milne, G., & Hong, J. (2004). Motivational factors for evaluating sport spectator and participant markets. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 5(3), 15-22.

Mullen, E., & Markland, D. (1997). Variations in self-determination across the stages of changes for exercise in adults. Motivation and Emotion, 21, 349-362. doi:10.1023/A:1024436423492.

Murphy, N. M & Bauman, A. (2007). Mass sporting and physical activity events: Are they 'Bread and Circuses' or public health interventions to increase population levels of physical activity? Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 4, 193-202.

Nunally, J. C., & I. H. Bernstein (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

O'Brien, R. M. (2007) A caution regarding rules of thumb for Variance Inflation Factors, Quality and Quantity, 41(5), 673-690. doi: 10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6

Porche, D. J. (2004). Public and Community Health Nursing Practice: A Population-Based Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Scanlan, T. K, Carpenter, P. J., Schmidt, G. W, Simons, J. P., & Keeler, B. (1993). An introduction to the sport commitment model. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 15, 1-15.

Stewart, B., Smith, A. C. T., & Nicholson M. (2003). Sport consumer typologies: A critical review. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12, 206-216.

Sutton, W., McDonald, M., Milne, J., & Cimpennan, C. (1997). Creating and fostering fan identification in professional sports. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 6(1), 15-22.

Tremblay, M. S., Colley, R. C., Saunders, T. J., Healy, G. N., & Owen, N. (2010). Physiological and health implications of a sedentary lifestyle. Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 35, 725-740. doi: 10.1139/H10-079

Turban, D. B., Lau, C. M., Ngo, H. Y., & Chow, I. H. S. (2001). Organizational attractiveness of firms in the People's Republic of China: A person-organization fit perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 194-206.

Wilson, P. M., Rodgers, W. M., Carpenter, P. J., Hall, C., Hardy, J., & Fraser, S. N. (2004). The relationship between commitment and exercise behavior. Psychology' of Sport and Exercise, 5, 405-421.

World Health Organization (2010). Global Recommendation on physical activity for health. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/9789241599979/en/ index.html

Zajonc, R. B. (1968). The attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9, 1-27. doi: 10.1037/h0025848

Seungmo Kim

Jing Dong Liu

Hong Kong Baptist University

Adam Love

Mississippi State University

Address correspondence to: Seungmo Kim Assistant Professor, Centre for Global Sport and Recreation Studies, Hong Kong Baptist University. Email: kimsm@hkbu.edu.hk

Table 1
Demographic Profile of Participants

                                             Participation
                    Marital/                 in the
                    Household                Hong Kong
Age    N     %      Status      N     %      Marathon        N     %

10-19  52    11.4   Single      335   73.5   First time      223   48.9

20-29  238   52.2   Married/    117   25.7   2 times         83    18.2
                    Partner

30-39  108   23.7   Divorced    2     0.4    3 times         53    11.6

40-49  39    8.6    Widowed     1     0.2    4 times         38    8.3

50-59  18    3.9    Others      1     0.2    5 times         28    6.1

60+    1     0.2                             More than       31    6.0
                                             5 times

Table 2
Overall Means (M), Standard Deviation (SD), Cronbach's Alpha (a), and
Correlations among Motives

                            Correlations

Motivation     M      SD     [alpha]       1         2

1      A     4.46    1.12      .721        1
2      AP    3.82    1.40      .831     .387 *       1
3      C     4.56    1.23      .804     .499 *    .391 *
4      CH    5.06    1.07      .656     .406 *    .376 *
5      E     5.34    1.02      .751     .346 *    .221 *
6      P     4.49    1.32      .848     .502 *    .292 *
7      PH    5.49    1.07      .767     .299 *    .336 *
8      SE    5.52    .978      .639     .274 *    .334 *
9      SM    4.63    1.29      .864     .443 *    .475 *
10     SR    4.01    1.30      .733     .440 *    .653 *
11     WM    4.23    1.55      .886     .240 *    .675 *

                              Correlations

Motivation      3         4         5         6         7

1      A
2      AP
3      C        1
4      CH    .665 *       1
5      E     .507 *    .650 *       1
6      P     .466 *    .445 *    .398 *       1
7      PH    .420 *    .538 *    .569 *    .299 *       1
8      SE    .473 *    .600 *    .597 *    .283 *    .800 *
9      SM    .503 *    .482 *    .562 *    .397 *    .568 *
10     SR    .560 *    .482 *    .344 *    .524 *    .297 *
11     WM    .238 *    .299 *    .241 *    .292 *    .376 *

                         Correlations

Motivation      8         9        10      11

1      A
2      AP
3      C
4      CH
5      E
6      P
7      PH
8      SE       1
9      SM    .499 *       1
10     SR    365 *     .438 *       1
11     WM    .343 *    .462 *    .386 *     1

Note: A = Affiliation, AP = Appearance, C = Competition, CH =
Challenge, E = Enjoyment, P= Event Prestige, PH = Positive Health, SE
= Strength & Endurance, SM = Stress Management, SR = Social
Recognition, WM = Weight Management, * p < .001.

Table 3
Means and Standard Deviations of Motives by Level of Sport Commitment

                           High (n = 153)     Low (n = 161)

M                            SD       M             SD

Motives
  Affiliation               4.63     1.24     4.34     1.11
  Appearance                3.76     1.47     3.79     1.45
  Competition               4.91     1.31     4.22     1.21
  Challenge                 5.47     .94      4.73     1.06
  Enjoyment                 5.84     .87      4.92     1.06
  Event Prestige            4.63     1.46     4.33     1.28
  Positive Health           5.83     .91      5.20     1.20
  Strength and Endurance    5.81     .86      5.23     1.08
  Stress Management         5.11     1.28     4.35     1.31
  Social Recognition        4.15     1.39     3.87     1.29
  Weight Management         4.41     1.53     4.07     1.59
Intent to return            6.38     1.01     5.86     1.19