Application of the motivation scale for disability sport consumption: an examination of intended future consumption behavior of collegiate wheelchair basketball spectators.
Cottingham, Michael ; Phillips, Dennis ; Hall, Stacey A. 等
Miles Thompson, head coach of the University of Alabama wheelchair
basketball team, stated that "the biggest reason we don't have
enough [collegiate wheelchair basketball] teams are budgetary
constraints" (personal communication, April 2, 2011). While
wheelchair basketball has grown in popularity, the formation of teams is
hindered by a lack of funding. The 'enough' that Thompson
refers to is number of teams required for NCAA recognition. A number of
coaches and administrators of other collegiate wheelchair basketball
teams believe that this status would bring the sport more credibility
and institutional support.
Only two of the seven men's collegiate wheelchair basketball
teams and one of the four women's wheelchair basketball teams are
housed in university athletic departments, which help support travel
budgets, funding for coaching staff, equipment management, and academic
tutoring. The remaining teams are housed in disability services centers
on campus, adaptive athletic departments, and sports club departments,
which do not offer the same level of financial backing. These teams rely
primarily on funds received from annual fundraising activities, which
requires substantial efforts by staff, volunteers, and students to
procure resources in hopes of offsetting the expenses incurred by the
team. For these programs to survive, and for other universities to
develop new teams, revenue must be increased. This is the only way that
the wheelchair basketball will continue to grow in order to meet the
threshold necessary for NCAA status.
Social Justice and Funding
Oliver (1990) noted that a medical model of disability--the
contemporary perspective that disability was a physical or psychological
limitation within an individual--was flawed in that it did not address
society's responsibility in influencing for better or worse the
impact of that disability. This relationship of a privileged group
oppressing a disadvantaged group either actively or passively warrants
an offset by justification of social justice (Danermark &
Gellerstedt, 2004; Fay, 2011).
Perspectives such as Oliver's led to professionals'
application for social justice in fields related to disability.
Sylvester (1992) stated that those with disabilities have a right to
leisure; Sylvester (2011) also gave a presentation of the benefits and
limitations of resource allocation by way of disability classification
related to social justice. The arguments for allocation of resources to
disability sport have been championed by researchers such as Anderson,
Bedini and Moreland (2005) and Stoll (2011) who claim that athletic
access should be universally applied, regardless of disability. These
arguments have been well received by practitioners, evidenced by the
fact that Great Britain, the United States, and Canada, among many other
nations, have integrated the Paralympics within their respective Olympic
national governing bodies, both organizationally and financially
(Scruton, 1998). While this has been an effective means to increase
revenue for some disability sport organizations, by the International
Paralympic Committee's (IPC) own admission, additional revenue must
be generated by way of ticket sales and sponsorship spurred by increased
viewership (IPC, 2008).
Wheelchair Basketball
Much of the research on wheelchair basketball has focused on the
participants of the sport. Examples include efficiency of wheelchair
basketball movement (Coutts, 1992; Vanlandewijck, Spaepen, & Lysens,
1994), physiological performance of wheelchair basketball players (De
Lira et. al., 2010; Molik, Laskin, Kosmol, Skucas, & Bida, 2010) and
psychological performance of wheelchair basketball players (Ferreira
& Fox, 2008; Robbins, Houston, & Dummer, 2010).
While these studies benefit both researchers and practitioners
looking to advance the performance of wheelchair basketball, they have
not addressed the financial concern of the IPC and program directors of
collegiate wheelchair basketball teams who need to increase revenue.
More recently, several studies examined consumer behavior in the sport,
specifically on motivation (Byon, Carroll, Cottingham, Grady, &
Allen, 2011; Byon, Cottingham, & Carroll, 2010) and points of
attachment (Cottingham, Chatfield, Gearity, Allen, & Hall, 2012).
Each of these studies applied a consumer behavior scale designed for
non-disability sport to a disability sport context. This was
accomplished by examining the model fit by confirmatory or exploratory
factor analysis. Each model showed reasonable but not good fit in this
new context. The instrument was then used to examine reported future
consumption behavior, including repatronage intentions, desire to
purchase merchandise and intended future media consumption.
The Motivation Scale for Disability Sport Consumption (Cottingham
et al., 2014); MSDSC) was developed and validated. While establishing
the MSDSC is an important first step, this current study did not apply
the MSDSC in order to examine consumption behavior. The MSDSC may not be
valuable to practitioners as a stand-alone scale, but its application to
future consumption behavior would allow promoters of collegiate
wheelchair basketball to identify which motives were most salient and
presumably most influential in increasing future consumption (Byon et
al. 2011; Byon et al., 2010).
Application of Motivation Studies
Motivation is defined as "the driving force within individuals
that impels them to action" (Schiffman & Kanuk, 2004, p. 87).
Sloan's 1989 manuscript, is widely identified as the preeminent
text that examined motivations influencing consumer behavior in the
context of sport. The study of sport consumer behavior was advanced by
Warm (1995) and Trail and James (2001), who developed motivation scales
which measured the motives of sport spectators. Researchers realized
that these studies were not in and of themselves the means to more
effective marketing but instead a mechanism by which to examine various
aspects of consumer behavior. The relevance of these studies can be
categorized into three functions. The application of motivation can be
used to examine (a) why subjects consume a sport (Dubihlela, Dhurup,
& Surujlal, 2009; Funk, Mahony, & Ridinger, 2002; Seo &
Green, 2008; Wann, Grieve, Zapalac, & Pease, 2008); (b) the process
of market segmentation such as examination of consumption by way of sex
(Trail, Robinson, & Kim, 2008; Wann & Waddill, 2003), gender
(Wann & Waddill, 2003), single game attendees and season ticket
holders (Funk, Ridinger, & Moorman, 2003); and (c) influence on
intended future consumption behavior such as repatronage intentions
(Byon et al., 2011; Byon et al. 2010), merchandise consumption (Andrew,
Kim, O'Neal, Greenwell, & James, 2009) and media consumption
(Byon et al. 2011; Byon et al., 2010; Kim, Greenwell, Andrew, Lee, &
Mahony, 2008). Byon et al. (2011) presented the argument that intended
future consumption behavior is a valuable mechanism to increase
disability sport market share.
While Byon et al. (2011) examined intended future consumption
behavior, the study used a motivation scale designed for non-disability
sport contexts, potentially presenting an incomplete perspective on the
influence of motives on intended future consumption behaviors. To more
accurately study future intended consumption behavior of disability
sport, a motivation study should employ a scale that incorporates
motives unique to disability. The findings could assist practitioners to
increase sport consumption and market share. The purpose of this study
is to utilize the only existing disability sport scale, the Motivation
Scale for Disability Sport Consumption (MSDSC; Cottingham et al., 2014),
to identify which motives are salient in predicting intended future
consumption behaviors, specifically repatronage intentions, future media
consumption, and future merchandise purchases.
Methods
Context
Data were collected at the 2011 Collegiate National Wheelchair
Basketball Championships at the University of Texas at Arlington (UTA).
All games were held at Texas Hall. Seven men's teams and four
women's teams competed in the national championship tournament over
the course of three days.
Participants and Data Collection
Spectators were surveyed at eight of the 13 games. The majority of
surveys were collected at two games involving UTA's men's
team. Surveys were provided before games, during half time and after
games to spectators at entrances. Data was collected from 470
spectators. All subjects who completed the survey were at least 18 years
old and provided with informed consent. Almost half of those in
attendance were 18-22 years old (45.5%; presumably students at UTA), and
46.9% of those in attendance were female.
Instrument
The MSDSC was developed by way of exploratory and confirmatory
factor analysis (Cottingham et al., 2014). The 33-item nine factor scale
demonstrated good model fit ([chi square] = 742.119, p < 0.001; [chi
square]/df = 1.645, CFI = 0.922, and RMSEA = 0.053). The Cronbach alpha
levels of all factors were above .70 and factor loadings were above .40.
In addition, no issues of multicollinearity were present. The MSDSC
utilized modified factors from the Motivation Scale for Sport
Consumption (MSSC, Trail & James 2001; Trail, 2010), including
escape (3 items), social interaction (3 items), acquisition of knowledge
(3 items), physical attractiveness (3 items), drama (3 items), physical
skill/aesthetics (4 items), and aggression/ violence (4 items).
Additionally, two motives specific to the context of disability sport,
supercrip image and inspiration, were tested and found to be viable
motives in the MSDSC. These were supercrip image and inspiration. Items
designed to identify supercrip image (5 items) were based in part off of
Lockwood and Kunda (1997) and Thrash and Elliot (2003). Items designed
to identify inspiration (5 items) were modified from the studies of
Hardin and Hardin (2004), Hartnett (2000), Kama, (2004), and Taub,
Blinde, and Greer (1999).
The following consumption variables were included: three items
measuring repatronage intentions (Soderlund, 2006), three items
measuring intended merchandise consumption (Fink, Trail, & Anderson,
2002), and three items measuring intended online media consumption
(modified from Byon et al., 2010).
Data Modification
Of 470 returned surveys, 418 were fully completed. Of the
incomplete data, 47 surveys were missing a single item and 5 were
missing between 2-4 items. Because most surveys were completed, and very
little data was missing, it was determined that means should be
substituted for subjects with 1-4 missing items (Hair, Black, Babin,
Anderson, & Tatham, 2006).
Analysis
Three multiple regression analyses were conducted to determine the
significance of each of the factors identified in the MSDSC in
predicting the outcome variables of repatronage intentions, intended
merchandise consumption, and intended media consumption.
Results
Assumptions
Before any multiple regression analyses were conducted, relevant
data were examined to determine if the data met the assumptions of
homoscedasticity and normality, and data were also examined for
multicollinearity. The data met all assumptions. Cronbach's alpha
levels of the motives were all above .70, ranging from .727 (drama) to
.873 (supercrip image). The Cronbach's alpha values for intended
future sport consumption were also all above .70, with intention to
consume wheelchair basketball media (.760), intention to consume
merchandise (.773) and repatronage intentions (.869).
Motivation and Intended Wheelchair Basketball Media Consumption of
Wheelchair Basketball Spectators
Examining the model with intended wheelchair basketball media
consumption as a dependent variable and motivation as the independent
variable, a multiple regression analysis demonstrated significant model
fit accounting for 45.8% variance within the model. Acquisition of
knowledge ([beta] = .424, p < .001), escape ([beta] = .241, p <
.001), physical skill/aesthetics ([beta] = .208, p = .002), social
interaction ([beta] = .100, p = .019), and violence ([beta] = -.101, p =
.021) were all predictors of intended wheelchair basketball media. A
presentation of significant factors, significance levels, and
standardized and unstandardized coefficients are located on Table 1.
Motivation and Intended Merchandise Consumption of Wheelchair
Basketball Spectators
Examining the model with intention to consume merchandise as a
dependent variable and motivation as the independent variable, a
multiple regression analysis demonstrated significant model fit
accounting for 32.7% variance within the model. Acquisition of knowledge
([beta] = .208, p < .001), supercrip image ([beta] = .208, p = .001),
escape ([beta] = .130, p < .001), social interaction ([beta] = .148,
p = .001), physical attraction ([beta] = -.102, p = .002), and physical
skill/aesthetics ([beta] = .181, p = .009) were all predictors of
intended merchandise consumption. A presentation of significant factors,
significance levels, and standardized and unstandardized coefficients
are located on Table 1.
Motivation and Repatronage Intentions of Wheelchair Basketball
Spectators
Examining the model with repatronage intentions as a dependent
variable and motivation as the independent variable, a multiple
regression analysis demonstrated significant model fit accounting for
49.4% variance within the model. Physical skill/aesthetics ([beta] =
.278, p < .001), acquisition of knowledge ([beta] = .272, p <
.001), drama ([beta] = .190, p < .001), inspiration ([beta] = .185, p
= .005), escape ([beta] = .079, p = .01), social interaction ([beta] =
.083, p = .02) and physical attraction ([beta] = -.6, p < .028) were
all significant predictors of repatronage intentions. A presentation of
significant factors, significance levels, and standardized and
unstandardized coefficients are located on Table 1.
Discussion
MSDSC Efficacy
The effectiveness of a scale is dependent on the amount of variance
explained by a model, which can be specific to a field and a context. In
order to determine the effectiveness of the MSDSC in explaining intended
future consumption behavior, these results are compared to relevant
studies under each predictor variable.
Intended Media Consumption
Kim et al. (2008) and Andrew et al. (2009) both examined mixed
martial arts (MMA) male and female spectators' intention to consume
media. Kim's study found 53.8% of variance explained for male
spectators and 43% explained for female spectators when examining media
consumption by way of his consumer motivation model. While this is
substantially more variance than explained in this model, some of the
motives identified, such as sport interest and national pride, are more
similar to points of attachment (Robinson, Trail, & Kwon, 2004;
Trail, Robinson, Dick, & Gillentine, 2003). For this reason a more
appropriate comparison would be made with the findings of Andrew et al.
(2009) who used a more strict interpretation of motives. Andrew's
model explained 41.8% of variance of intended media consumption for
males and 44.4% for females.
This study explained more variance than the Andrew's study.
However, this comparison may not be appropriate as Andrew et al. studied
desire to consume media by way of television viewership; disability
sport is visible almost exclusively on webcasts. Even studies in
non-adaptive settings such as Seo and Green (2008), who measured online
viewership, considered consumption of website for information by way of
articles and results rather than webcasted games. For this reason, the
Byon et al. (2011) and Byon et al. (2010) studies are unique in their
examination of media consumption as they examined viewership of live
streaming disability sport.
Byon et al. (2010) explained 51% of variance of intended online
viewership; Byon et al. (2011) explained 54% and 41% of intended online
viewership for males and females respectively. This study explained
modestly less variance (45.8%) than the Byon studies, due to the
application of vicarious achievement, whose operational definition
contains limitations (Cottingham et al., 2014).
Most importantly, knowledge was consistently a significant and
impactful variable for media consumption in this study as well as the
previous Byon studies, bringing further credibility to the theory that
knowledge may be the most important motive in the context of disability
sport.
Intended Merchandise Consumption
The Andrew et al. (2009) study showed 29.7% of variance explained
for males and 33% for females of MMA spectators. This study showed 32.7%
of variance explained by the model, comparable to Andrew's study.
Andrew's study examined some of the same motives but the scales
were different enough that a comparison of specific motives would not be
fruitful, so instead comparisons should be made with Byon et al. (2011),
the only study to examine motivations' ability to explain variance
of intended merchandise consumption.
Like Andrew's study, Byon et al. (2011) examined gender
differences. Byon's study used the MSSC and explained 40% of
variance for males and 33% for females. More interestingly, knowledge,
the strongest predictor in the current study, was only impactful for
male spectators and not as impactful as physical skill. For females,
drama was the most impactful variable followed by vicarious achievement.
Cottingham et al. (2014) identified the concern with application of
vicarious achievement in this context and drama was not a significant
predictor in the present study.
To note, this study identified supercrip image (a previously
unidentified factor unique to disability sport) as a significant
predictor of future merchandise consumption intentions. Because the
MSDSC identifies supercrip image as a motivation and correctly
recommends the removal of vicarious achievement due to the operational
definition limitations identified in Cottingham et al., 2014), the MSDSC
would seem to be a more accurate scale at explaining variance in
intention to purchase merchandise compared to Byon et al (2011)., even
if it explains moderately less variance.
Repatronage Intentions
A number of studies have examined attendance and its influence on
motivation (Dubihlela et al., 2009; Funk et al., 2003; Wann et al.,
2008), with an explicit or implicit inference that motivations by
spectators can be applied to determine future attendance. Repatronage
intentions have been examined in other consumer behavior studies, for
example to service quality (Theodorakis & Alexandris, 2008).
However, due to the limited measurements of repatronage intentions in
motivation studies, it is most important to compare this study to Byon
et al. (2011) and Byon et al. (2010).
Byon et al. (2010) explained 40% of repatronage intentions, and
Byon et al. (2011) identified 65% and 49% of variance explained of
repatronage intentions for males and females respectively. In contrast,
the MSDSC explained 49.4% of variance of repatronage intentions in this
study; this finding was comparable to the Byon studies. Knowledge was
again one of the most impactful predictor variables both in this study
and the Byon studies, strengthening the case that knowledge is the most
important motive when considering repatronage intentions.
Primary Themes Identified
First, the MSDSC explains comparable variance related to intended
media and merchandise consumption when compared to non-adaptive sport
contexts. It also seems to be a more appropriate option than the direct
application of the MSSC, which includes the vicarious achievement motive
and excludes the disability specific motives inspiration and supercrip
image. While there was some variation among the Byon et al. studies
(2010, 2011) and the current study in specific predictor motives and
variance explained, the most important theme identified in this study is
the impact of knowledge. Knowledge was a strong predictor variable in
each regression analysis, consistent with the findings of the Byon
studies. The practical application of this finding will be presented
below.
Discussion on Motives Specific to Disability
Perhaps the most curious finding of this study was that the motives
unique to disability sport, the supercrip image and inspiration--the
most commonly used presentations of disability in the media--were not as
impactful as more traditional motives across multiple consumption
variables. Hardin and Hardin (2004) surmise that the
'supercrip,' or a person with a disability achieving more than
is expected of him/her, is the most common image of an athlete with a
disability. Schantz and Gilbert (2001) note that athletes with
disabilities are the most commonly used symbols to discuss inspiration
in the context of disability. These studies indicate that both supercrip
image and inspiration are commonly used by media to promote disability
sport. However, our research demonstrates that factors such as escape,
acquisition of knowledge, and social interaction are more impactful
across multiple measures of consumption compared to the supercrip image
and inspiration motives, which are significantly less effective at
promoting sport consumption of wheelchair basketball. In fact, only
violence/agression was less impactful at determining intended future
consumption of online media, merchandise consumption and repatronage
intentions (Table 2).
It should be recognized that this study did not assess what
motivated people to attend the event, but instead examined their future
consumption. As Cottingham, Gearity and Byon, (2013) noted after
discussions with disability sport practitioners, inspiration and the
supercrip image may initially attract people to the event, but if there
are no compelling factors to retain their attention, they will leave.
The findings of this study are focused on examining intended future
consumption behavior, not why the spectators were initially in
attendance. This will be addressed in future research.
Practical Implications
The MSDSC is a highly effective scale in that each of the nine
motives identified in the scale helped to explain at least one of the
outcome variables. However, these findings provide unique challenges to
practitioners. Specifically, practitioners may find the attempted
application of nine motives to be overwhelming. For this reason, we
strongly encourage sport practitioners to develop marketing strategies
which revolve around the most effectual factors in order to promote
their sport most efficiently, which would subsequently increase revenue
for their programs. The following section is designed to assist
practitioners with strategies related to the four most salient
variables, all of which are significant predictor variables for the
three consumption variables of intended future online sport consumption,
intended merchandise consumption and repatronage intentions (Table 2).
Acquisition of knowledge is the most impactful predictor variable,
consistent with motivation studies where the MSSC was used (Byon et al.
2011; Byon et al. 2010). Thus, a more knowledgeable consumer will be a
more frequent consumer. Event coordinators should strongly consider
developing an event program which explains specific rules of wheelchair
basketball (e.g., the travel rule and the disability classification
rule), unique strategies of the sport (e.g., the back pick strategy) and
an introduction to valuable players on the team. This should be provided
to spectators attending the event and featured on relevant websites.
Secondly, event coordinators should consider providing demonstrations to
fans explaining the unique aspects of the game, including chair skills
and strategies, before the games and after games. Most teams have a
substantial number of 'spare' wheelchairs and may consider
allowing spectators to try the equipment in order to increase their
experiential knowledge.
Escape is the next most influential predictor variable. While
escape might seem an amorphous experience to provide, these authors
recommend using escape as a mechanism to attract a specifically
motivated spectator. In other words, if spectators motivated by escape
are more likely to re-attend, it would be logical to attract spectators
to whom escape was important. These authors would recommend that
practitioners use imagery which promotes escape in its advertisements.
If they attract spectators motivated by escape, then these spectators
might be better candidates to be more invested consumers.
Physical skill of the athletes/aesthetics of the game, the third
most effective predictor variable, can be promoted in three ways. First,
event coordinators should infuse any online promotions with videos that
show the physical skill of the athletes. Second, images on all still
promotions (such as posters) should focus on a skill component of the
sport. Third, it is important to allow spectators an opportunity to try
the equipment. In order to fully appreciate the physical skill of a
sport, some tactile experience is necessary.
Finally, socialization is the fourth most powerful predictor
variable and the last variable which influences all three intended
future consumption measures. We suggest two mechanisms to increase
socialization. First, disability sporting events are beginning to charge
ticket fees; we would recommend a promotion of two for one. While there
might be a loss of immediate revenue, a longer term investment in a
viable fan base may be more important. Secondly, event coordinators
should consider in-game promotions that involve interaction between
spectators. These can be done during half-time and time outs. Additional
efforts might include increased uses of social networking, list serve
announcements and online fan clubs to increase the experience of
socialization.
Limitations and Future Research
This study represents a finding related to a single disability
sport. For the MSDSC to truly be a comprehensive motivation study of
disability sport, it needs to be tested in a number of disability sport
contexts. Efforts should be made to survey more varied disability sport
contexts such as goal ball for the blind, deaf sports and power soccer
for those with more impactful mobility impairments. In addition, this
event was a collegiate basketball championship but less than 5% of teams
registered with the NWBA are college teams. These findings may be
applicable to other collegiate wheelchair basketball settings but if
organizations such as the NWBA or the International Wheelchair
Basketball Association are to use these findings, they may want to
consider a replication study in an alternate noncollegiate setting.
Finally, Byon et al. (2011) stated that online viewership is
substantially higher than live viewership. While these findings are
beneficial in helping to understanding how to attract additional
spectators and market to them, studies should be conducted on those who
view online webcasts, as this is where a more consolidated fan base
consumes disability sport.
References
Anderson, D. M., Bedini, L. A., & Moreland, L. (2005). Getting
all girls into the game: physically active recreation for girls with
disabilities. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 25(4),
78-103.
Andrew, D., Kim, S., O'Neal, N., Greenwell, T. C., &
James, J. D. (2009). The relationship between spectator motivations and
media and merchandise consumption at a professional mixed martial arts
event. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 18(4), 199-209.
Byon, K. K., Cottingham II, M., & Carroll, M. S. (2010).
Marketing murderball: The influence of spectator motivation factors on
sports consumption behaviours of wheelchair rugby spectators.
International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 12(1),
76-94.
Byon, K.K., Carroll, M.S., Cottingham II, M., Grady, J., &
Allen, J.T. (2011). Examining gender differences in the effect of
spectator motivation on sport consumption behaviors at collegiate
wheelchair basketball games. Journal of Venue & Event Management,
5(1), 11-28.
Cottingham II, M., Carroll, M., Phillips, D. Karadakis, K.,
Gearity, B.T. & Drane, D. (2-14). Development and validation of the
motivation scale for disability sport consumption. Sport Management
Review, 17(1), 49-64
Cottingham II, M., Chatfield, S., Gearity, B.T., Allen, J.T. &
Hall, S.A. (2012). Using points of attachment to examine repatronage and
online consumption of wheelchair rugby spectators. International Journal
of Sport Management, 13(2), 1-13.
Cottingham II, M., Gearity, B.T., & Byon, K. K. (2013). A
qualitative examination of disability sport executives' perceptions
of sport promotion and the acquisition of sponsors. Sport Marketing
Quarterly, 22(2), 92-100.
Coutts, K. D. (1992). Dynamics of wheelchair basketball. Medicine
& Science in Sports & Exercise, 24(2), 231-234.
Danermark, B., & Gellerstedt, L. C. (2004). Social justice:
Redistribution and recognition of a non-reductionist perspective on
disability. Disability and Society, 19(4), 339-353.
De Lira, C., Vancini, R., Minozzo, F., Sousa, B., Dubas, J.,
Andrade, M., et al. (2010). Relationship between aerobic and anaerobic
parameters and functional classification in wheelchair basketball
players. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports,
20(4), 638-643.
Dubihlela, J., Dhurup, M., & Surujlal, J. (2009). Motivational
factors affecting fan decisions to attend Premier Soccer League (PSL)
games in South Africa. African Journal for Physical, Health Education,
Recreation and Dance, 15(4).
Fay, T. (2011). Disabiltiy in sport it's our time; From the
sidelines to the frontlines (Title IXB). Journal of Intercollegite
Sport, 4(1), 63-94.
Ferreira, J. P., & Fox, K. R. (2008). Physical self-perceptions
and self-esteem in male basketball players with and without disability:
A preliminary analysis using the physical self-perception profile.
European Journal of Adapted Physical Activity, 7(1), 35-49.
Fink, J., Trail, G., & Anderson, D. (2002). An examination of
team identification: Which motives are most salient to its existence?
International Sports Journal, 6(2), 195-207.
Funk, D., Mahony, D., & Ridinger, L. (2002). Characterizing
consumer motivation as individual difference factors: Augmenting the
Sport Interest Inventory (SII) to explain level of spectator support.
Sport Marketing Quarterly, 77(1), 33-43.
Funk, D., Ridinger, L., & Moorman, A. (2003). Understanding
consumer support: Extending the Sport Interest Inventory (SII) to
examine individual differences among women's professional sport
consumers. Sport Management Review, 6(1), 1-31.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., & Tatham,
R.L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hardin, M., & Hardin, B. (2004). The "supercrip" in
sport media: Wheelchair athletes discuss hegemony's disabled hero.
Sociology of Sport Online, 7(1).
Hartnett, A. (2000). Escaping the 'Evil Avenger' and the
'Supercrip': Images of disability in popular television. The
Irish Communications Review, 8, 21-29.
International Paralympic Committee. (2008). International
Paralympic Committee annual report, 2008. Retrieved from:
http://www.paralympic.org/export/sites/default/IPC/Reference_Documents/2009_05_Annual_Report_2008_web.pdf
Kama, A. (2004). Supercrips versus the pitiful handicapped:
Reception of disabling images by disabled audience members.
Communications, 29(4), 447-466.
Kim, S., Greenwell, T., Andrew, D., Lee, J., & Mahony, D.
(2008). An analysis of spectator motives in an individual combat sport:
a study of mixed martial arts fans. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 17(2),
109-119.
Lockwood, P., & Kunda, Z. (1997). Superstars and me: Predicting
the impact of role models on the self. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 73(1), 91-103.
Molik, B., Laskin, J. J., Kosmol, A., Skucas, K., & Bida, U.
(2010). Relationship between functional classification levels and
anaerobic performance of wheelchair basketball athletes. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 81(1), 69-73.
Oliver, M..(1990). The politics of disablement: A sociological
approach. New York: St. Martin's.
Robbins, J., Houston, E., & Dummer, G. (2010). Philosophies and
expectations of wheelchair and stand-up collegiate basketball coaches.
Journal of Sport Behavior, ii(1), 42-62.
Robinson, M. J., Trail, G. T., & Kwon, H. (2004). Motives and
points of attachment of professional golf spectators. Sport Management
Review, 7(2), 167-192.
Schantz, O., & Gilbert, K. (2001). An ideal misconstrued:
newspaper coverage of the Atlanta Paralympic Games in France and
Germany. Sociology of Sport Journal, 75(1), 69-94.
Scruton, J. (1998). Stoke Mandeville--Road to the Paralympics.
Aylesbury, Bucks: Peterhouse Press.
Schiffman, L. G., & Kanuk, L. L. (2004). Consumer behavior (8th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Seo, W. J., & Green, B. C. (2008). Development of the
motivation scale for sport online consumption. Journal of Sport
Management, 22(1), 82-109.
Sloan, L. R. (1989). The motive of sport fans. In J. H. Goldstein
(Eds.), Sports, games and play: Social and psychological viewpoints (2nd
ed., pp. 175-240). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Soderlund, M. (2006). Measuring customer loyalty with multi-item
scales: A case for caution. International Journal of Sendee Industry
Management, 17, 76-98.
Stoll, S. K. (2011). Social justice: An historical and
philosophical perspective. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation
& Dance, 52(8), 1-60.
Sylvester, C. (1992). Therapeutic recreation and the right to
leisure. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 26(2), 9-20.
Sylvester, C. (2011). A virtue-based approach to therapeutic
recreation practice. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 43(3).
Taub, D. E., Blinde, E. M., & Greer, K. R. (1999). Stigma
management through participation in sport and physical activity:
experiences of male college students with physical disabilities. Human
Relations, 52(11), 1469-1484.
Theodorakis, N. D., & Alexandris, K. (2008). Can service
quality predict spectators' behavioral intentions in professional
soccer? Managing Leisure, 72(3-4), 162-178.
Thrash, T., & Elliot, A. (2003). Inspiration as a psychological
construct. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(4), 871-889.
Trail, G. (2010, June 4). Manual for the Motivation Scale for Sport
Consumption (MSSC). Center for Sport Consumer Research, pp. 1-9.
Trail, G., & James, J. (2001). The Motivation Scale for Sport
Consumption: Assessment of the scale's psychometric properties.
Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 108-127.
Trail, G., Robinson, M., Dick, R., & Gillentine, A. (2003).
Motives and points of attachment: Fans versus spectators in
intercollegiate athletics. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 72(4), 217-227.
Trail, G. T., Robinson, M., & Kim, Y. (2008). Sport consumer
behavior: A test for group differences on structural constraints. Sport
Marketing Quarterly, 77(4), 190-200.
Vanlandewijck, Y., Spaepen, A., & Lysens, R. (1994). Wheelchair
propulsion: Functional ability dependent factors in wheelchair
basketball players. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine,
26(1), 37-48.
Wann, D. (1995). Preliminary validation of the sport fan motivation
scale. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 19(4), 377-396.
Wann, D. L., Grieve, F. G., Zapalac, R. K., & Pease, D. G.
(2008). Motivational profiles of sport fans of different sports. Sport
Marketing Quarterly, 17(1), 6-19.
Wann, D. L., & Waddill, P. J. (2003). Predicting sport fan
motivation using anatomical sex and gender role orientation. North
American Journal of Psychology, 5(3), 485-498.
Michael Cottingham
University of Houston
Dennis Phillips
Stacey A. Hall
Brian T. Gearity
University of Southern Mississippi
Michael S. Carroll
Troy University
Address correspondence to: Michael Cottingham, Health and Human
Performance, University of Houston, 4800 Calhoun Road 104P Houston,
Texas 77004 email: mcotting@central.uh.edu
Table 1
Multiple Regression Analyses Examining the Relationship between the
Spectator Motives and Intended Future Consumption Factors
Consumption Predictors B SE.B R2
Factors
Online Media 0.677
Consumption
Acquisition of Knowledge 0.424 0.031
Escape 0.241 0.036
Physical Skill / 0.215 0.070
Aesthetics
Social Interaction 0.100 0.042
Violence / Aggression -0.101 0.044
Merchandise 0.327
Consumption
Acquisition of Knowledge 0.208 0.032
Supercrip Image 0.208 0.061
Physical Skill / 0.187 0.071
Aesthetics
Social Interaction 0.148 0.043
Escape 0.130 0.036
Physical Attractiveness -0.102 0.033
Repatronage 0.494
Intentions
Physical Skill / 0.278 0.059
Aesthetics
Acquisition of Knowledge 0.272 0.026
Drama 0.190 0.050
Inspiration 0.133 0.047
Social Interaction 0.083 0.036
Escape 0.079 0.031
Physical Attractiveness -0.060 0.027
Consumption Predictors [DELTA] [DELTA]
Factors R2
Online Media 0.458
Consumption
Acquisition of Knowledge 0.531
Escape 0.254
Physical Skill / 0.140
Aesthetics
Social Interaction 0.090
Violence / Aggression -0.091
Merchandise 0.313
Consumption
Acquisition of Knowledge 0.288
Supercrip Image 0.190
Physical Skill / 0.135
Aesthetics
Social Interaction 0.147
Escape 0.152
Physical Attractiveness -0.128
Repatronage 0.484
Intentions
Physical Skill / 0.208
Aesthetics
Acquisition of Knowledge 0.391
Drama 0.161
Inspiration 0.133
Social Interaction 0.086
Escape 0.095
Physical Attractiveness -0.077
Consumption Predictors t P
Factors
Online Media
Consumption
Acquisition of Knowledge 13.519 0.000
Escape 6.644 0.000
Physical Skill / 3.059 0.002
Aesthetics
Social Interaction 2.362 0.019
Violence / Aggression -2.313 0.021
Merchandise
Consumption
Acquisition of Knowledge 6.588 0.000
Supercrip Image 3.422 0.001
Physical Skill / 2.642 0.009
Aesthetics
Social Interaction 3.482 0.001
Escape 3.563 0.000
Physical Attractiveness -3.138 0.002
Repatronage
Intentions
Physical Skill / 4.692 0.000
Aesthetics
Acquisition of Knowledge 10.307 0.000
Drama 3.793 0.000
Inspiration 2.850 0.005
Social Interaction 2.341 0.020
Escape 2.575 0.010
Physical Attractiveness -2.198 0.028
Table 2
Frequency of Motives as Predictor Variables in Examining Future
Intended Consumption Behavior
Factor
Motives Repatronage Merchandise Media
Intentions
Acquisition of Knowledge *** *** ***
Escape ** *** ***
Physical Skill / Aesthetics *** ** **
Social Interaction * ** *
Physical Attractiveness * **
Drama ***
Inspiration * *
Supercrip Image **
Violence / Aggression *
* Significance = 0.05-0.01; ** significance = 0.01-0.001;
*** significance < 0.001.
