From intention to participation: Exploring the moderating role of a voucher-based event leveraging initiative

G Model SMR 544 No. of Pages 13

Sport Management Review xxx (2019) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sport Management Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/smr

From intention to participation: Exploring the moderating role of a voucher-based event leveraging initiative Luke R. Potwarkaa,* , Ryan Snelgrovea , David Drewerya , Jordan Bakhshb , Laura Wooda a b

Department of Recreation and Leisure Studies, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, Canada University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history: Received 23 July 2018 Received in revised form 2 March 2019 Accepted 3 March 2019 Available online xxx

The purpose of this study was to explore relationships between intentions to try a sport after watching an elite sport event and post-event participation, and explore the role exposure to a post-event leveraging initiative plays in facilitating behavior. A field experiment design was employed to test the efficacy of the leveraging initiative among experimental and control condition groups. Data were collected through a questionnaire following an international track cycling competition from spectators (N = 338) who had no prior experience participating in the sport, and then were matched with participation data collected directly from the sport facility. Results demonstrate that post-event intentions were a significant positive predictor of participation. Results also demonstrate that exposure to a leveraging initiative can increase participation in a new sport. Notably, the voucher stimulated participation for spectators with both low intentions and high intentions to participate post-event. Results provide support for the use of leveraging tactics as a means of stimulating sport participation in the context of hosting novel sport events. © 2019 Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Event leverage Demonstration effect Trickle-down effect Sport participation Sport events Field experiment

1. Introduction Public investments into hosting elite sport events are often justified by governments based on positive impacts the events will have for local communities. Impacts claimed by those who support hosting of elite sport events are numerous, including increased spending at local businesses, job creation, increased tourism, improved destination image and notoriety, legacy facilities and programs, and enhanced community pride and socialization (Brown & Massey, 2001; Gursoy & Kendall, 2006; Potwarka & Snelgrove, 2017). Government officials and bid stakeholders have also made claims that staging elite sport events, such as the Olympics/Paralympics or Pan Am/Parapan Am Games, will stimulate increased sport and physical activity participation among host residents (Potwarka & Leatherdale, 2016; Taks, Green, Misener, & Chalip, 2014; Weed et al., 2012). Participation in sport and physical activity resulting from hosting elite sport events are often explained in relation to a demonstration effect (Brown, Essex, & Smith, 2017; Potwarka, Drewery, Snelgrove, Havitz, & Mair, 2017; Weed et al., 2015). The demonstration effect reflects the process by which people become inspired by elite sport, sports people, or sports events to participate themselves (Weed, 2009). This process has been linked to event hosting, sporting success (e.g., winning medals or

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (L.R. Potwarka). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2019.03.002 1441-3523/© 2019 Sport Management Association of Australia and New Zealand. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: L.R. Potwarka, et al., From intention to participation: Exploring the moderating role of a voucher-based event leveraging initiative, Sport Management Review (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2019.03.002

G Model SMR 544 No. of Pages 13

2

L.R. Potwarka et al. / Sport Management Review xxx (2019) xxx–xxx

championships), and sporting role models or personalities of athletes (e.g., Mutter & Pawlowski, 2014; Wicker & Frick, 2016). The demonstration effect can be operationalized as new participants in a sport, an increase to participation frequency, participants returning to a sport after a long hiatus, or participants switching from one sport to another (Weed, 2009). In the present study, we focus on new participants in a sport, particularly in the context of track cycling following the 2015 Pan Am/ Parapan Am Games in Toronto. The majority of research exploring demonstration effects has consisted of secondary data analyses of macro-level (i.e., population-level) participation data such as sport club membership numbers (e.g., Frick & Wicker, 2016; Wicker & Frick, 2016; Kokolakakis, Lera-Lopez, & Ramchandani, 2019). As it relates to sporting success for example, Wicker and Frick (2016), found that German men’s football World Cup title wins had a positive and statistically significant impact on the number of and percentage changes in individual club memberships, clubs, and teams among males. Moreover, in terms of event hosting, Aizawa, Wu, Inoue, and Sato (2018) examined 20 years of individual-level survey data from the Japanese National Sport for Life Survey. The authors found that individuals who experienced the Tokyo 1964 Olympic Games participated in sport more frequently than other generations. Although not all studies relaying on membership data or national representative surveys have shown positive relationships between event hosting or performance success on participation (e.g. Veal, Toohey, & Frawley, 2012), the aim of these studies has been to examine whether and under what circumstances (e.g., demographic, geographic) there might be evidence of a demonstration effect. In addition to understanding circumstances that might best facilitate outcomes associated with a demonstration effect, researchers are also beginning to offer more explanatory and causal insights into the nature of the phenomenon. Unlike many of the cross-sectional or repeat cross sectional studies that exist to date (e.g., Potwarka & Leatherdale, 2016; Ramchandani & Coleman, 2012), Weimar, Wicker, and Prinz (2015), examined panel data for causal and lagged effects of hosting a major sport event on the growth of sport club membership in Germany. The results of their dynamic panel regression models revealed a significant positive effect of hosting a major sport on the growth rate in memberships in the same year and several lagged effects for stars (i.e., personalities of athletes and athletes acting as role models) and sporting success. We advocate that researchers continue to provide explanatory or causal insights into the demonstration effect phenomenon at the level of the individual spectator (Boardley, 2013; Veal et al., 2012). Wicker and Sotiriadou (2013) suggested that, "further research is necessary to illuminate the role of major sport events on people’s decision to start exercise or increase their participation frequency” (p. 27). Indeed, both an individual’s experiences before and during an event can influence post-event participation (Funk, Jordan, Ridinger, & Kaplanidou, 2011). That said, researchers have suggested it is challenging to collect primary data related to the role sport events play in people’s decision to participate in sport “because it is often unlikely that people are aware of or remember the reason why they started participation” (Frick & Wicker, 2016, p. 259). In response to this methodological critique, Frick and Wicker (2016) argued that secondary data should be preferred to allow for more objective analyses of demonstration effects. We argue, however, that primary research employing carefully crafted field experimental designs may provide realistic insights into people’s decision to participate in a sport after watching an event. Field experiments rely on principles of random assignment. This approach helps researchers better demonstrate that it is a mechanism or factor that is influencing people’s post-event participation decisions, and less a function of some extraneous or confounding variable. In this way, field experimental designs such as the one employed in the present study have the potential to offer more causal explanations of the demonstration effect than much of the primary research conducted to date. The majority of primary research exploring demonstration effect phenomena at the level of the individual spectator has employed cross-sectional survey designs. Moreover, researchers have almost exclusively focused on social psychological factors (e.g., attitudes, cognitions, affect) that influence people’s intention to participate after watching elite sport events (e.g., Brown et al., 2017; Mutter & Pawlowski, 2014; Potwarka, 2015; Potwarka et al., 2017; Ramchandani & Coleman, 2012). They have largely failed to consider, however, the extent to which intentions to participate after watching elite sport events translates into actual behavior at the individual-level. Indeed, empirical investigations of intention-behavior relationships represents a critical research gap in this area of inquiry (Ramchandani & Coleman, 2012). Moreover, several population-level explorations of secondary participation data has revealed limited behavioral evidence of any demonstration effect (Weed et al., 2015). For example, population-level data collected after the Manchester 2002 Commonwealth Games revealed no impact on participation in sport-related activities or sport club membership (MORI, 2004). Veal et al. (2012) reported that in the year following the Sydney Olympics, although participation in seven Olympic sports increased, participation decreased in nine others. Bauman, Armstrong, and Davies (2003) reported that Australian levels of physical activity were lower in 2000 (the year of the Olympics) than in 1999 and 1997. Bauman et al. concluded that elite sport events such as the Olympics/Paralympics and Pan Am/Para Pan Am Games have little to no behavioral effect, serving only to increase peoples’ intention to become more active sport participants. That said, some scholars have suggested that a demonstration effect can occur in certain contexts, such as when the sport is relatively novel in a community, in areas surrounding event venues (Potwarka & Leatherdale, 2016; Wicker & Frick, 2016), and when leveraged strategically (Taks, Green, Misener, & Chalip, 2017). Thus, limited behavioral evidence of demonstration effects may be because governments and sport organizations have failed to take advantage of the opportunities provided by events to promote sport (Misener, Taks, Chalip, & Green, 2015). Researchers have argued that a demonstration effect must be leveraged if it is to have a behavioral impact beyond influencing people’s intention to try a sport on display (e.g., Chalip, Green, Taks, & Misener, 2017). Few sport professionals have leveraged sport events by designing, implementing, and evaluating programs that encourage people to try a new sport (Taks et al., 2017). To date, previous researchers have not

Please cite this article in press as: L.R. Potwarka, et al., From intention to participation: Exploring the moderating role of a voucher-based event leveraging initiative, Sport Management Review (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2019.03.002

G Model SMR 544 No. of Pages 13

L.R. Potwarka et al. / Sport Management Review xxx (2019) xxx–xxx

3

accounted for the potential influence of exposure to event leveraging initiatives deployed before, during, or after events on stimulating sport participation. This study explores the possibility that exposure to an event leveraging initiative (i.e., a voucher to participate in an introductory program for free) might moderate intention-behaviour relationships. Specifically, we theorize that exposure to a leveraging initiative can improve the likelihood of intentions translating into participatory behavior. Thus, the purpose of the present study was twofold: (a) to explore relationships between intentions to try a sport after watching an elite sport event and post-event participation; and (b) to explore the role exposure to a post-event leveraging initiative plays in facilitating behavior. 2. Literature review Psychosocial factors underpinning demonstration effects have been established in previous research. For instance, Potwarka (2015) found that attitude toward the behavior, descriptive norms, and past behavior were significant predictors of people’s intention to increase physical activity levels in response to the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympic Games. Specifically, Potwarka found that respondents with favourable intentions to become more active in response to the Games were more likely to perceive the event as an opportunity to enhance their health and well-being. Moreover, the author reported that respondents with stronger beliefs that other people “like them” would perform the action, were more likely to intend to become more physically active because of the event. Finally, Potwarka found that respondents who held strong beliefs that previous Olympic Winter Games made them more active were more likely to form a favourable intention to become more active after the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Games (i.e., the Olympic Games staged at the time of the study). The author concluded that, future research examining demonstration effects should assess the extent to which people’s intention turns into action. More recently, Brown et al. (2017) explored the influence of event satisfaction on intention to participate in sport after the London 2012 Games. The authors, however, found no relationship between perceived event satisfaction and participation intention in swimming. The authors did, however, find a positive relationship between event satisfaction and intention to watch swimming events in the future (as a spectator and on television). Potwarka et al. (2017) found that cognitive dimensions of spectators’ consumptive experience, including fantasy, flow, evaluation, physical attractiveness, and aesthetics were positively related to feelings of being inspired while watching a sport event. Feelings of being inspired while watching the event, in turn, had a positive effect on intention to try the sport of track cycling after watching 2015 Pan Am Games competitions. Here again, the authors concluded that future research should attempt to model intention-behavior relationships. Extant models of demonstration effects have tended to focus explicitly on predicting people’s intention to participate in sport, and have yet to measure the extent to which these intentions turn into participatory behavior. According to Potwarka et al. (2017), when modeling the demonstration effect process, researchers should “first establish relationships among initial cognitive, affective, and intention-based responses that emerge from the spectator experience. Once empirically demonstrated, efforts can then be made to model more distal intention-behavior relationships” (p. 7). 2.1. Intention-behavior relationships Numerous behavioral theorists have argued that the formation of a behavioral intention is the most proximal predictor of eventual behavior (Ajzen, 1991,2005; Hagger & Chatzisarantis, 2007; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010). For instance, the theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior postulate that “a person’s intention to perform (or not to perform) a behavior is the most important immediate determinant of that action” (Ajzen, 2005, p. 99). Within the theory of planned behavior, intentions are thought to represent “a person’s motivation in the sense of her or his conscious plan or decision to exert effort to enact the behaviour” (Armitage & Conner, 1999, p. 1430). Further, the intention construct has been described as a key index of a person’s mental readiness to perform an action, and it has been used in both theory of planned behaviorbased and non-theory of planned behavior-based social psychological models of behaviour (Sheeran, 2002). According to these theories, a person forms an intention to engage in a certain behavior. This intention remains a behavioral disposition until, at the appropriate time and opportunity, an attempt is made to translate intention into action (Ajzen, 2005). The theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior assume that “barring any unforeseen events, people are expected to do what they intend to do” (Ajzen, 2005, p. 100). There is empirical evidence to support Ajzen (1991, 2005) contention that specific behaviors can be predicted from intentions with considerable accuracy. For example, meta-analyses of studies spanning diverse behavioral domains (e.g., buying stocks, using birth control pills, donating blood, having an abortion, attending church, and using homeopathic medicine) have reported mean intention-behaviour correlations ranging from 0.45 to .63 (Armitage & Conner, 1999; Notani, 1998; Randall & Wolff, 1994; Sheppard, Hartwick, & Warshaw, 1988). Sheeran (2002) conducted meta-analyses of these and other meta-analyses and reported an overall correlation of 0.53 between intention and behavior. However, there is also considerable evidence to suggest that intention-behavior relationships are tenuous, particularly within physical activity and sport-related behavioral domains. For example, a meta-analysis of those with positive physical activity intentions and subsequent failure to enact those intentions has been reported to be as high as 36% (Rhodes & de Bruijn, 2013). The overall lack of intention-behavior associations reported in the sport participation

Please cite this article in press as: L.R. Potwarka, et al., From intention to participation: Exploring the moderating role of a voucher-based event leveraging initiative, Sport Management Review (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2019.03.002

G Model SMR 544 No. of Pages 13

4

L.R. Potwarka et al. / Sport Management Review xxx (2019) xxx–xxx

and physical activity-related literature may be due to some of the methodological challenges of designing studies to capture these relationships. For instance, it is often difficult to track respondents’ behavior after initially measuring their intentions to perform an action (Ajzen, 2005). Researchers have argued that initial responses to event stimuli (i.e., the formation of a behavioral intentions) represent key constructs upon which to further our understanding of the demonstration effect (Potwarka, 2015; Potwarka et al., 2017). Measures of intention captured immediately following an event are more likely to stem from the nature of the spectator experience itself than intentions assessed at more distal post-event time intervals. Thus, we developed the following research question: Research Question 1: To what extent do intentions to participate in a new sport opportunity after watching an elite sport event translate into participation? 2.2. Role of event leveraging Event leveraging is based on the premise that participation impacts from sport events are more likely to result from hosting an event when targeted strategies are utilized to promote sport participation (Frawley, Toohey, & Veal, 2013; Mahtani et al., 2013; Weed et al., 2012). To date, the majority of event leveraging research has focused on supply-side issues. In other words, researchers have largely explored the concept of event leverage from organizational perspectives. For example, researchers have made numerous claims about the importance of developing and implementing event leveraging initiatives to better capitalize on the ability of sport events to increase participation in host communities (Chalip, 2004; Misener et al., 2015; Taks et al., 2014). Additionally, researchers have developed strategic frameworks (e.g., Chalip et al., 2017) and identified factors critical to the success or failure of implementing leveraging initiatives (Taks et al., 2017). However, the “demand” or consumer side of event leveraging has received minimal attention. Few, if any, researchers have offered empirical insights into the efficacy of exposure to specific leveraging initiatives on spectators’ post-event participatory behavior. Evidence of inconsistent intention-behavior relationships in sport participation and physical activity-related domains may stem from individuals not being prompted to form an implementation intention (Gollwitzer, 1999). Implementation intentions are based on the idea that simply educating people about where, when, and how they could carry out their intentions can greatly increase the likelihood they will perform the action (Orbell, Hodgkins, & Sheeran, 1997). For example, exposure to event leveraging initiatives (e.g., a voucher for complimentary participation in an introductory sport program, a program brochure, social media engagement, etc.) might help facilitate the formation of an implementation intention, whereby spectators become aware of opportunities and perceive fewer constraints to participate. By doing so, sport organizations might greatly increase the likelihood of sport participation inspired from spectator experiences. Knowledge about where and when programs are offered, or complimentary access for a trial session or membership can help individuals formulate a clear activity plan or pathway for post-event participation in the sport on display (Carraro & Gaudreau, 2013). Meta-analyses of intention-behavior relationships in sport participation and physical activity contexts have revealed that only 2% of non-intenders eventually participate in a particular sport of PA-related opportunity (Rhodes & de Bruijn, 2013). This finding from Rhodes and de Bruijn (2013) underscores the important role exposure to leveraging initiatives might play in moving spectators with low intentions to try a sport to actual participation after watching an event. For instance, receiving a voucher for complimentary participation in an introductory sport program might be a strong enough incentive for people to overcome their lack of desire and actually participate in the sport on display. To this end, Potwarka et al. (2017) argued that researchers should pay particular attention to the role post-event leveraging initiatives might play in moderating the intention-behavior relationship. Exposure to leveraging initiatives might be critical to moving some individuals from the formation of a behavioral intention to action (Potwarka et al., 2017). We advance the position that exposure to an event leveraging initiative (i.e., receiving a voucher for complimentary participation in an introductory sport program) might help facilitate an appropriate time and opportunity necessary for intentions to translate into action (Ajzen, 2005). Indeed, exposure to event leveraging initiatives’ has the potential to negotiate constraints to participation, such as lack of awareness, cost, and so on. For instance, an individual might form an intention to participate in a sport after watching a competition. However, some individuals may never act on their intention and actually participate because of a lack awareness of participation opportunities (e.g., when, how, and where to join a program) or because of other structural constraints related to issues such as time, money, or transportation (Godbey, Crawford, & Shen, 2010). In response, researchers have speculated that exposure to on-site event leveraging initiatives such as a voucher to try an introductory sport program for free might help remove constraints to participation, and help individuals execute a desired behavior after the formation of a behavioral intention (Locke & Latham, 2002; Misener et al., 2015). Intentions that are formed immediately following spectator experiences may represent a key time to deploy event leveraging strategies aimed at maximizing participation impacts of events (Taks et al., 2017). For example, offering a voucher for complimentary participation in an introductory sport program when desire to participate is strong, may be more likely to translate into actual behavior than if spectators are engaged at a much later time, when enthusiasm and excitement to try the sport on display may have diminished (Bauman et al., 2003). Support for the role event leveraging initiatives play in moderating intention-behavior relationships can be can also be found by exploring theories of goal setting and task motivation (Locke & Latham, 2002). These theories posit that external

Please cite this article in press as: L.R. Potwarka, et al., From intention to participation: Exploring the moderating role of a voucher-based event leveraging initiative, Sport Management Review (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2019.03.002

G Model SMR 544 No. of Pages 13

L.R. Potwarka et al. / Sport Management Review xxx (2019) xxx–xxx

5

monetary incentives, such as a voucher to participate in an introductory sport program free of charge, can play an important role in goal attainment (Locke & Latham, 2002). In particular, researchers have found receiving monetary incentives can mediate relationships between goal setting and goal attainment-related behaviors (Locke & Latham, 2002). Indeed, monetary costs have long been identified as one of the biggest constraining factors to participation in sport (Alexandris & Carroll, 1999). In response, voucher-based financial incentives are a commonly employed leveraging strategy to maximize participation impacts from sport events, particularly among non-participants. These approaches to event leveraging can remove initial costs and trial fees that might impede participation in a sport for the first time. Further, receiving vouchers for free participation trials can reduce non-monetary costs associated with cognitive efforts required to search for available program opportunities and make particular programmatic decisions (e.g., when and where to participate, and in what particular program). Empirical evidence of the behavioral efficacy of exposure to this commonly employed event leveraging initiatives should be explored to justify the commitment of financial and human resources necessary to implement such initiatives. Thus, we developed the following research question: Research Question 2: To what extent does receiving a voucher for complimentary participation in an introductory sport program moderate the intention-to-behavior relationship? 2.3. Other factors affecting sport participation: demographics and pre-event engagement Sport participation depends on a variety of other individual (e.g., age, gender, income, education, time) and environmental-level factors (e.g., access to sport facilities and government policies). Thus, it can be challenging for researchers to isolate the unique effect of hosting elite sport events on people’s post-event participation decisions. In particular, sport participation generated from demonstration effects may be dependent on personal characteristics of those watching the event. Spectators’ demographics and the extent of their pre-event engagement with the sport may help explain sport participation following exposure to an event. With respect to demographic characteristics, variables such as age, gender, education, and income are particularly relevant to post-event participation decisions (Wicker & Sotiriadou, 2013). Researchers have shown that compared to younger individuals, older individuals may be less likely to take up a new sport following event spectatorship (Frawley & Cush, 2011; Kokolakakis et al., 2019). For example, Kokolakakis et al. (2019) reported that the youngest cohort in their study (16–24 years old) were most likely to increase sport participation following the London 2012 Olympic Games. As it relates to gender, Wicker and Frick (2016) examined whether role models are gender-specific and what genders are inspired by what role models in the context of German amateur football. The authors found that the achievements of the 2006–2010 male national teams had a significant positive effect on the number of female club memberships and teams only. Likewise, Potwarka and Leatherdale (2016) found increased participation in leisure-time physical activity among female youth living following the Vancouver 2010 Olympic Games. However, there were not significant changes in participation among male youth in their study (Potwarka & Leatherdale). The authors attributed this finding to record number of Canadian female athletes that medalled at these Games. In terms income and education, Wicker and Sotiriadou (2013) found the people with no formal education were more likely to take up a new sport after the 2006 Melbourne Commonwealth Games. Conversely, Kokolakakis et al. (2019) found that income and employment classification were positively associated with increased frequency of sport participation among people after the London 2012 Olympic Games. The extent of spectators’ prior engagement with the sport on display may also play an important role in understanding demonstration effects (Potwarka, 2015; Weed, 2009). Individuals engaged with a sport on display before attending a sport event may be more likely to participate in that sport after the event has concluded (Funk et al., 2011; Potwarka, 2015; Ramchandani & Coleman, 2012). For instance, spectators who are already active participants, possess sport-related skills and abilities, possess knowledge and interest in the sport on display, or watched similar events prior to attending might be more susceptible to a demonstration effect (Kokolakakis et al., 2019; Potwarka, 2015). Moreover, individuals who are aware of programs and available participation opportunities may be more likely to participate in the sport on display post-event. Frick and Wicker (2016) argued that multivariate statistical tests that allow controlling for these other factors should be preferred over bivariate correlations or descriptive analysis. Indeed, researchers examining demonstration effects should attempt to control for confounding factors where appropriate. By doing so, researchers can better illustrate the influence of event hosting, performance success or role models in post-event participation decisions. Thus, we control for both demographic characteristics and pre-event engagement factors in subsequent statistical analysis. 2.4. Theoretical and methodological contributions In this study, we address important theoretical and methodological gaps in demonstration effect and related literature. Previous researchers (e.g., Brown et al., 2017; Ramchandani & Coleman, 2012; Potwarka, 2015; Potwarka et al., 2017) exploring spectator’s decision to participate in sport after watching an event have relied heavily on cross-sectional survey methodology deigned to model antecedents of spectators’ intention to participate in sport post-event. Indeed, this line of research has been useful in identifying cognitive, attitudinal and emotional factors of the spectator experience contributing to a post-event intention to participate. To date, however, scholars seeking to understand decisions to participate after watching a particular sport event have yet to employ field experimental methodology to establish relationships between

Please cite this article in press as: L.R. Potwarka, et al., From intention to participation: Exploring the moderating role of a voucher-based event leveraging initiative, Sport Management Review (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2019.03.002

G Model SMR 544 No. of Pages 13

6

L.R. Potwarka et al. / Sport Management Review xxx (2019) xxx–xxx

intention to participate and actual participatory behaviour, particularly in the context of decisions to try a sport for the first time. Few researchers have offered evidence related to whether the formation of a behavioral intention to try a sport translates into actual participation, and the particular mechanisms that might be involved in this relationship. We argue that employing field experiments can offer realistic insights and more causal explanations of the decision making process than what has been offered in many previous investigations. Specifically, field experiments can better demonstrate the unique effect that exposure to particular leveraging initiatives might have in the intention-behaviour relationship. Indeed, exposure to promotional efforts such a complimentary voucher to try a particular sport may be instrumental in translating spectators’ intention to try a sport into actual behavior. As discussed, there is research (e.g., Alexandris & Carroll, 1999; Carraro & Gaudreau, 2013; Locke & Latham, 2002) to support the role of event leveraging in moderating intention-behavior relationships. However, the claim that exposing sport spectators to certain promotional efforts such as a complementary voucher to participate will increase the likelihood of post-event participation in a new sporting activity remains largely anecdotal. Researches (Chalip et al., 2017; Taks et al., 2017) continue to make calls for sport managers to leverage events to achieve participation outcomes. However, previous scholars have offered limited empirical evidence of the efficacy of particular leveraging initiatives tied to particular types of sport events (Derom & VanWynsberghe, 2015). The results of field experiments can provide researchers and practitioners with sound evidence from real world settings about whether or not particular leveraging approaches might be worth the investment of organizational resources. Such evidence can extend knowledge beyond speculation and correlational-based data. Moreover, evidence generated from field experiments may be particular useful to sport organizations who often lack resources and capacity to effectively leverage events (Misener et al., 2015; Wood, Snelgrove, Legg, Taks, & Potwarka, 2018). We advocate that field experiments be conducted and replicated in relation to multiple leveraging initiatives and sport event contexts. By doing so, researchers can begin to build a robust body of evidence to inform event leveraging strategy and advance our theoretical understanding of the role of event leveraging initiatives play in spectators’ decisions to engage in post-event sport participation. 3. Method 3.1. Study context In 2015, The Town of Milton, Ontario, Canada constructed the $56 million Mattamy National Cycling Centre. This facility hosted the Toronto 2015 Pan Am/Parapan Am Games’ track cycling competitions. At these competitions, cyclists from more than a dozen countries raced around an indoor track at speeds of up to 50 miles per hour, in both individual and team pursuit events. The Mattamy National Cycling Centre is the only indoor 250 m cycling track velodrome in Canada and one of only two in North America. As such, staging the Games in this venue was believed to provide a unique, once in a lifetime opportunity to enhance the visibility of track cycling, and improve access to this sporting opportunity. Indeed, Milton hoped that staging the Pan Am/ Parapan Am Games would “inspire future generations of track cyclists of all ages and abilities, thereby creating a track cycling culture for years to come” (S. Palmer, Director, Community Services, Town of Milton, personal communication, September 1, 2013). Track cycling is unique in the sense that a facility must be present for the sport to exist. Prior to the construction of the Mattamy National Cycling Centre, the sport of track cycling was largely inaccessible for people in the surrounding region. Track cycling programs offered at the Mattamy National Cycling Centre are designed to encourage participants to progress from initial learning and trial (i.e., “first contact”) opportunities to more competitive recreational and high-performance opportunities. None of the people in our sample had prior experience participating in the sport of track cycling. Individuals with no prior experience track cycling are required to enroll in a two-hour introductory “Try the Track” session before being able to join a drop-in program, or more committed recreation or elite membership programs. The session first teaches participants basic skills necessary to safely maneuver around the track in a classroom setting and then allow participants to ride on the track on their own. Try the track sessions do not require participants to bring any cycling gear or equipment. 3.2. Data collection Data were collected from spectators attending 2015 Pan Am Games track cycling competitions taking place at the Mattamy National Cycling Centre. Research assistants intercepted spectators on buses that took them back to the facility parking lot after watching competitions. This bus trip took approximately 15 min. Data collection took place after a total of seven events spanning all four days of track cycling competitions at the Mattamy National Cycling Centre. Research assistants asked for one person per household to participate in a study about track cycling participation. This person was selected by asking the person with the birthday closest to the current date to complete the survey. Once this person had been identified, research assistants began a series of screening questions to fulfill the aims of the current research. Researchers confirmed that participants had (a) just watched a Pan AM track cycling competition taking place at the Mattamy National Cycling Centre; (b) had not track cycled before; (c) lived within 60 km of the Mattamy National Cycling Centre; (d) had not participated in this study previously; and (e) had no prior knowledge of the study. Those who did not fulfill any of the screening criteria were thanked for their time. Those who did fulfill the screening criteria were asked to complete a questionnaire. The questionnaire assessed demographic characteristics of participants (e.g., age, gender, personal annual income, and education) and pre-event engagement measures (e.g., non-track cycling ability, interest in the sport of

Please cite this article in press as: L.R. Potwarka, et al., From intention to participation: Exploring the moderating role of a voucher-based event leveraging initiative, Sport Management Review (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2019.03.002

G Model SMR 544 No. of Pages 13

L.R. Potwarka et al. / Sport Management Review xxx (2019) xxx–xxx

7

track cycling, knowledge of the sport of track cycling, awareness of post-event programs offered at the facility, previous live/inperson track cycling spectatorship, previous television/online track cycling viewership). Additionally, the questionnaire assessed participants’ intentions to participate in the sport of track cycling. At the end of the questionnaire, participants were asked to provide their name, address, email, phone number, and date of birth. All questionnaires were administered and returned face-toface and participants completed the questionnaire in paper-and-pencil format on a clipboard. 3.3. Measures Four demographic and six pre-event engagement measures were collected. These measures were included as control variables in subsequent analysis. Participants first wrote in their age. They also provided their gender, which was coded as 0 = female and 1 = male. Education was measured with five categories, coded as 1 = elementary or less, 2 = high school, 3 = college, 4 = undergraduate, and 5 = postgraduate. Personal annual income (CAD) was measured with six categories, in increments of $20,000, from 1 = less than $20,000 to 6 = over $100,000. Participants reported their general (i.e., non-track) cycling ability on a four-point scale coded as 1 = beginner, 2 = intermediate, 3 = advanced, and 4 = expert. Participants also responded to three statements about their interest in track cycling (“I am interested in the sport of track cycling”), awareness of programs at the venue (“I am aware of programs available after the Pan Am Games at the MNCC”), and knowledge of track cycling (“I know a lot about the sport of track cycling”) using seven-point Likert scales, where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree. Two additional questions (“Have you ever watched a live cycling event in person before today?” and “Have you ever watched a cycling on event on tv/online before today?”), coded as 0 = no and 1 = yes, measured live spectatorship and TV/online viewership, respectively. Intention to track cycle was measured using three items (“I intend to track cycle in the coming months”; “I intend to track cycle at the Mattamy National Cycling Centre (Milton Velodrome) when it opens to the public in the coming months (rental bikes available)”; and, “I intend to register for an introductory Try-the-Track session offered at the Mattamy National Cycling Centre in the coming months”). These items were based on previous assessments of intentions in sport event contexts (e.g., Funk et al., 2011; Potwarka, 2015). Participants responded to each item using a sevenpoint Likert-type scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree. An overall score was calculated by finding the mean of the items (M = 3.42, SD = 2.09). The scale demonstrated good reliability (α = .96). Track cycling participation was measured using data collected from the venue (facility) manager. It was coded as 0 = did not participate and 1 = did participate. For liability reasons, personal information (e.g., names, emails, addresses, and phone numbers) of all individuals who participate in track cycling at the velodrome is collected by venue managers. This information was cross-referenced against information collected on questionnaires to determine who had participated. The Try-the-track program was made available to participants in the study from shortly after the Games (September 1, 2015) to the end of April 2016, a period of eight months. Information collected by the venue manager during this time was used to determine who among the study participants eventually track cycled. 3.4. Field experimental design After returning the questionnaire, participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The group to which they were assigned was determined by the roll of a dice. Those who rolled an even number were assigned to the control group (n = 163, 48.1%) and those who rolled an odd number were assigned to the voucher group (n = 176, 51.9%). Those in the control group received five dollars and were thanked for their participation. Those in the voucher group received a voucher (depicted in Fig. 1) for a free Try-the-Track session at the event venue. Participants in the voucher group were provided

Fig. 1. A voucher-based leveraging initiative.

Please cite this article in press as: L.R. Potwarka, et al., From intention to participation: Exploring the moderating role of a voucher-based event leveraging initiative, Sport Management Review (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2019.03.002

G Model SMR 544 No. of Pages 13

8

L.R. Potwarka et al. / Sport Management Review xxx (2019) xxx–xxx

instructionsabout how to contact the facility manager to register for one of the Try-the-Track sessions between September 1, 2015 (when the velodrome was open for public use) through April 2016. No other onsite or post-event leveraging initiatives took place during the timeframe of the study (S. Palmer, Director, Community Services, Town of Milton, personal communication, May 1, 2016). Participants who contacted the facility manager were presented with available session dates and chose which session to enroll in. All participants who made initial contact with the facility manager to redeem a voucher participated in a session. 3.5. Data analysis The focus of the analysis was on the effects of the voucher and intention to track cycle on likelihood of participation. Two models were tested to examine these effects. The first model (model 1) examined the direct effects of the voucher and intention to track cycle on likelihood of participating in track cycling while controlling for all other demographic and preevent engagement measures. The second model (model 2) examined the conditional effects of the voucher and intention to track cycle on track cycling participation and, more importantly, the interaction effect of the product of these two variables on track cycling participation. Model 2 was tested using Hayes (2013) PROCESS macro (model 1) in SPSS. This analysis determined the extent to which the effect of the voucher on track cycling participation varied according to participants’ intention to participate in track cycling at the velodrome. All of the control variables from model 1 were also included in model 2. The model was estimated using 10,000 bootstrapped samples. 4. Results 4.1. Description of sample and measures A total of 338 participants provided usable survey data. Participants were on average 45.05 years of age (SD = 13.93) and a slight majority (59.0%) were male. Almost two-thirds (63.4%) of participants had an undergraduate degree or higher education. Fewer than 10% of participants reported a personal annual income of less than $20,000 (CAD) and over 40% of participants reported a personal annual income of over $100,000 (CAD). On average, participants reported moderate levels of awareness of the programs available to them at the event venue following the games (M = 3.30, SD = 2.06). Participants were interested in track cycling (M = 4.89, SD = 2.12) and somewhat knowledgeable about the sport (M = 2.97, SD = 1.57). The majority (76%) of participants had never seen a live track cycling event prior to the study, but 86% had seen a track cycling event on TV or online prior to the study. Most participants self-rated their cycling ability as beginner (22.4%) and intermediate (42.5%), while fewer self-reported as advanced (27.6%), and expert (7.1%). Participants’ intentions to track cycle varied from low to high (M = 2.42, SD = 2.09) and were normally distributed (skewness = .21, kurtosis = -1.37). Of those sampled, 40 participants (11.80%) eventually track cycled at least once during the 8 months following the Pan Am Games. More specifically, of those 40 who participated in the sport of track cycling, 31 came from the voucher (i.e., experimental) group and 9 came from the control group. 4.2. Binary logistic regression analysis Two binary logistic regression models were tested. Results of both models are presented in Table 1. The first model (model 1) contained the ten control variables, participants’ intentions to track cycle, and study condition (control vs. voucher). The model explained a significant amount of variation in track cycling participation, χ2 (12) = 49.91, p < .001, Nagelkerke R2 = .25. There were four significant predictors of track cycling participation in the model. Awareness of programs available after the Games at the venue was associated with a greater likelihood of track cycling, B = .22, SE = .10, p < .05. Interest in track cycling was also associated with a greater likelihood of track cycling, B = .16, SE = .074, p < .05. Intention to track cycle was associated with a greater likelihood of track cycling, B = .26, SE = .11, p < .05. Participants in the voucher condition were 3.55 times more likely than those in the control condition to participate in track cycling, B = 1.27, SE = .41, p < .01. These results suggest that the direct effect of both intention to track cycle and receiving a voucher were positively associated with track cycling behavior. The second model that was tested (model 2) was the same as model 1 except for the addition of the interaction term between intention to track cycle and study condition (control vs. voucher). Model 2 tested whether there was a significant interaction effect between intention to track cycle and voucher condition. Specifically, it tested whether the effect of receiving the voucher on track cycling participation is moderated or changes in relation to a one unit change in intention to track cycle (see Hayes, 2013). Model 2 was also significant, χ2 (13) = 52.10, p < .001, Nagelkerke R2 = .26. Four variables in the model were significant predictors of track cycling participation. Consistent with model 1, interest in track cycling was associated with a greater likelihood of track cycling participation, B = .20, SE = .08, p < .05. In model 2, intention to track cycle, B = .82, SE = .29, p < .01, and the voucher, B = 3.78, SE = 1.41, p < .01 were also significant predictors of track cycling participation. These are significant conditional effects (see Hayes, Glynn, & Huge, 2012). The effect of intention to track cycle on track cycling participation is conditional on the voucher variable being equal to zero, and the conditional effect of the voucher on track cycling participation is conditional on intention to track cycle being equal to zero. The interaction between intention to track cycle and receiving the voucher was significant in model 2, B = -.64, SE = .30, p < .01. This interaction

Please cite this article in press as: L.R. Potwarka, et al., From intention to participation: Exploring the moderating role of a voucher-based event leveraging initiative, Sport Management Review (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2019.03.002

G Model SMR 544 No. of Pages 13

L.R. Potwarka et al. / Sport Management Review xxx (2019) xxx–xxx

9

Table 1 Results of binary logistic regression analysis predicting track cycling behavior from control and focal variables without (model 1) and with (model 2) voucher by intention interaction (n = 338). Model 1 Variables Constant Control Variables Age Gender Education Income Awareness of programs at venue Interest in track cycling Knowledge of track cycling Cycling ability Previously watched live Previously watched on TV/online Focal variables Intention to track cycle Voucher (0 = control, 1 = voucher) Intention X voucher interaction Pseudo R2

Model 2

b

se 7.39

.02 .34 .37 .09 .22 .16 .16 .21 .06 .61 .26 1.27 – .24

b

se

***

1.76

* *

.02 .45 .20 .14 .10 .07 .15 .26 .46 .57

.02 .52 .32 .06 .39 .20 .11 .22 .03 .48

.11 .41 –

.82 3.78 .64 .26

** ** ***

8.64

***

*

** ** * ***

2.37 .02 .46 .19 .14 .49 .08 .14 .26 .46 .88 .29 1.41 .30

Notes. * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

suggests that the effect of receiving the voucher on track cycling participation decreases in strength as intention to track cycle increases. This interaction was further examined in three ways. First, output regarding the conditional effects of the voucher at different levels of intention to track was examined. The pick-a-point method (Aiken & West, 1991) was used to simplify the intention to track cycle into two meaningful levels. Plus- and minus-one standard deviation from the mean of intention to track cycle were used to represent relatively low and relatively high levels of intention, respectively. Results suggest that the effect of receiving the voucher on track cycling participation was significant at low levels of intention to track cycle, B = 3.52, SE = 1.30, p < .01, but was not significant at high levels of intention to track cycle, B = .84, SE = .44, p > .05. Second, the JohnsonNeyman technique (see Hayes et al., 2012) was used to determine at what level of the moderator (intention to track cycle) the effect of the voucher on track cycling participation became non-significant. Results show the effect of the voucher is significant for those participants who scored below the 77th percentile of intention to track cycle. That is, receiving the voucher had a positive effect for all those participants who did not intend to track cycle or whose intention was wavering, but had no significant effect for those who had strong intentions to track cycle. Third, the nature of the interaction between intention to track cycle and the voucher was probed and presented graphically, as shown in Fig. 2. The figure graphs the probability of participating in track cycling at the velodrome based on participants’ intentions to track cycle and whether they received a voucher to participate in the Try-the-Track program. Consistent with the pick-a-point method described earlier, “low” and “high” levels of intention to track cycle represent minus and plus one standard deviation from the mean. The estimated probability of participation for participants who did not receive a voucher and who had low intentions to track cycle was 0%. The estimated probability of participation for those who had low intentions to track cycle and did receive a voucher was 11%. The estimated probability of participation for those who had high intentions to track cycle and did not receive a voucher was 10%. Finally, the estimated probability of participation for those who had high intentions to track cycle and did receive a voucher was 21%.

Fig. 2. Probability of track cycling behavior based on participants’ intention to track cycle (low vs. high) and experimental condition (voucher vs. control).

Please cite this article in press as: L.R. Potwarka, et al., From intention to participation: Exploring the moderating role of a voucher-based event leveraging initiative, Sport Management Review (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2019.03.002

G Model SMR 544 No. of Pages 13

10

L.R. Potwarka et al. / Sport Management Review xxx (2019) xxx–xxx

5. Discussion Results from the current study demonstrate that exposure to an event leveraging initiative can stimulate participation in a new sport. Our first research question was: to what extent do intentions to participate in a new sport opportunity after watching an elite sport event translate into participation? Results indicated that intentions to track cycle formed because of watching competitions was a significant positive predictor of track cycling participation. Regardless of whether one received a voucher, those with stronger intentions to track cycle due to watching the event were significantly more likely to participate in one of the introductory Try the Track sessions. This result is consistent with previous meta-analyses of intention-behaviour relationships in physical activity related domains (e.g., Sheeran, 2002). For example, meta-analyses of health and leisure-related research has revealed favourable intention–behavior correlations in a variety of behavioral domains (Sheeran, 2002). Indeed, results support Ajzen (2005) contention regarding the process by which an intention turns into action. Ajzen argued that intention is the most important and proximal predictor of behavior, and for the most part, “barring any unforeseen events, people are expected to do what they intend to do” (p. 100). With our second research question, we asked: to what extent does receiving a voucher for complimentary participation in an introductory sport program moderate intention-behavior relationships? Our results suggest that those spectators who were assigned to the voucher condition were significantly more likely to participate in the sport of track cycling after watching the event. Indeed, our findings demonstrate the efficacy of this type of leveraging initiative, particularly among those who indicated low intentions to participate in the sport as a result of watching the event. It was not surprising to observe that those with high intentions and who received a voucher had the strongest likelihood of participation. This group of people were almost twice as likely to participate as people in the high intention-control group. As suggested, it is possible that receiving a voucher may have influenced participation via the development of an implementation intention (Orbell et al., 1997). In this way, receiving a voucher may have helped negotiate constraints among these individuals by providing them with an effective and convenient activity plan to begin participating in the sport (Carraro & Gaudreau, 2013). Thus, the removal of everyday constraints to participation (e.g., time and effort required to search for program information, price, etc.) may play a powerful role in maximizing participation impacts from elite sport events. Interestingly, receiving a voucher had a powerful effect on those who reported little to no desire to participate in the sport as a result of watching the event (i.e., those who received a voucher and who indicated low intentions to participate in the sport post-event). In fact, the likelihood of those spectators in this group participating in track cycling post-event was one percentage point higher than those who held strong intentions to participate in the sport as a result of watching the event, but did not receive a voucher. As well, those who received a voucher and who reported low intentions to participate were almost 11 percentage points more likely to participate than those with low intentions and who did not receive a voucher. These results contrast Rhodes and de Bruijn (2013) finding from their meta-analysis that only 2% of non-intenders participated in physical activities. From a theoretical perspective, distributing vouchers among those with low intentions to participate may have led to the formation of a spontaneous intention (Ajzen, 2005). Spontaneous intentions are thought to form under conditions of exposure to some external cue such as a behavioral incentive (Ajzen, 2005). According to Ajzen (2005), “in the presence of these cues, the behavior is automatically activated without cognitive intervention” (p. 113). Although typically used to understand more habitual behaviors, receiving a voucher may have influenced the formation of a spontaneous intention, whereby those who previously did not desire to participate, were suddenly moved to action, simply by being presented with the opportunity. Several implications for sport organizations seeking to leverage sport events can be drawn from the study. First, results suggest that the use of vouchers to “try a sport” can be an effective leveraging tactic. This initiative was undertaken in the context of a high-profile event, which may have worked alongside the voucher to stimulate interest. Thus, replicating this approach seems justified given the results of this study. This could be done in a random manner as undertaken here to minimize costs, or it could be provided to all spectators through the redemption of their paid ticket if capacity allows. Sport organizations may also be tempted to target non-attendees given that some low intention spectators who received a voucher also participated, believing a voucher may also work to stimulate action outside of a demonstration effect. However, it is unclear whether exposure to the event serves other functions aside from stimulating intentions. For example, witnessing the event may create an awareness of the sport and instill a belief that participating is possible for an individual, despite the development of an intention. Thus, witnessing an event may serve as a necessary but insufficient stimulus for some individuals. It seems likely that the voucher worked, in part, because it helped spectators negotiate constraints. Thus, as those constraints in this particular context become known, sport organizations would be well served to actively reduce their negative impact by creating additional initiatives beyond the voucher (e.g., create awareness, provide transportation, reduce costs). Once participants do engage with the sport organization to “try the sport,” the organization will need to develop that relationship in an attempt to stimulate repeat engagement and longer-term commitment. Moreover, the strong effect of the voucher on participation we observed may be explained, in part, by the novelty of the sport opportunity of interest in the present investigation. As noted, prior to the construction of the MNCC, the sport of track cycling was largely inaccessible for people in the surrounding region. As well, all participants in the study had never track cycled previously. Several studies (e.g., Aasak, er, Esposito, & O’Connor, 2011; Keaveney, 1995; Kim & Kim, 2015; Lee & Crompton, 1992; van Trijp, Hoyer, & Inman, 1996; Yoshida, James, & Cronin, 2013) in the sport consumer behavior and

Please cite this article in press as: L.R. Potwarka, et al., From intention to participation: Exploring the moderating role of a voucher-based event leveraging initiative, Sport Management Review (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2019.03.002

G Model SMR 544 No. of Pages 13

L.R. Potwarka et al. / Sport Management Review xxx (2019) xxx–xxx

11

tourism-related literature have explored the concept of novelty seeking behavior. This body of research suggests that decisions to participate in a particular activity may be associated with important novel attributes of the activity (Yoshida et al., 2013). For instance, novelty seeking behavior can reflect people’s need for stimulation by switching to a different activity from a previous one (van Trijp et al., 1996). In other words, novelty seeking behavior can result from either curiosity, or the need for change in an attempt to resolve the boredom associated with previous activities or experiences (Kim & Kim, 2015). As it relates to the present study, for example, people who chose to try track cycling may have done so because they may have been growing tired of traditional road cycling opportunities in their communities. Track cycling may have provided individuals with an exciting and thrilling way to engage in cycling indoors, which may been a particularly attractive opportunity for cyclists wishing to train for upcoming road endurance events during the cold Canadian winter months. Study participants’ decisions to try track cycling (e.g., redeem the voucher) might also be a function of strong curiosityoriented dispositions. Kashdan, Gallagher, and Silvia, (2009) suggested that curiosity might be relatively enduring dimension of one’s personality. In particular, trait curiosity refers to the tendency for people to seek out new knowledge and experiences, as well as a willingness to tolerate novel and uncertain situations (Kashdan et al., 2009). Trait curiosity has also been linked to a propensity to experience flow-like states and to strong desires to seek out personal growth opportunities (Kashdan, Rose, & Fincham, 2004). It is possible that some participants in the present study might have high trait curiosity. Future research should continue to explore the role of personality in people’s decisions to try a new sport opportunity after watching an event. We discuss further avenues for future research below. 5.1. Limitations and future research Our study is not without limitations. First, the present study has relatively limited generalizability beyond the specific sport and spectator context under investigation. Our investigation demonstrated the efficacy of the role of the voucher in predicting participation in a novel sport. Future research would benefit from exploring the moderating role of different forms of event leveraging initiatives (e.g., social media campaigns, brochures, on-site participation trials) in moving people from intention to participation in different sports (both novel and more traditional, culturally established sports) and among more diverse samples of spectators. Moreover, it would be interesting to explore the efficacy of the voucher in predicting participation among samples of non-followers (i.e., people that have never been exposed to the sport). Second, our investigation measured intention at only one point in time. As such, we advocate that future research monitor intentions at multiple time points before, during, and after events. Third, future research should continue to employ experimental designs when testing the efficacy of leveraging efforts tied to sport events. When doing so, however, researchers should continue to consider extraneous variables to better isolate the unique effect exposure to leveraging initiatives have on participation. Finally, the current study explores mechanisms explaining initial participatory responses to elite sport events. However, future research would benefit from explorations that focus more on long-term participation outcomes stimulated by elite sport events. Although exposure to elite sport events and voucher-based leveraging initiatives may be effective at getting people “through the door,” little is known about the experiences of these individuals as they enter and become members of a new sporting culture. Indeed, it is important for sport organizations to develop capacity and polices to nurture these newly formed relationships. 5.2. Conclusion To our knowledge, this study is the first to empirically demonstrate the efficacy of an on-site leveraging initiative designed to stimulate participation in the context of an elite sport event. Although our results apply to one particular sport context, they do provide initial support for the use of leveraging tactics to stimulate participation in the context of hosting sport events. Notably, the voucher stimulated participation for spectators with both low intentions and high intentions to participate post-event. Future research should continue to partner with sport organizations and employ experimental designs to further explore this study’s research questions in various sport contexts. References Aasaker, G., Esposito, V. E., & O’Connor, P. (2011). Examining the effect of novelty seeking, satisfaction, and destination image on tourist’s return pattern: A two factor, non-linear latent growth model. Tourism Management, 32(4), 890–901. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage. Aizawa, K., Wu, J., Inoue, Y., & Sato, M. (2018). Long-term impact of the Tokyo 1964 Olympic Games on sport participation: A cohort analysis. Sport Management Review, 21(1), 86–97. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality, and behaviour, (second edition)) New York, NY: Open University Press. Alexandris, K., & Carroll, B. (1999). Constraints on recreational sport participation in adults in Greece: Implications for providing and managing sport services. Journal of Sport Management, 13, 317–332. Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (1999). Distinguishing perceptions of control from self-efficacy: Predicting consumption of a low-fat diet using the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 72–90.

Please cite this article in press as: L.R. Potwarka, et al., From intention to participation: Exploring the moderating role of a voucher-based event leveraging initiative, Sport Management Review (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2019.03.002

G Model SMR 544 No. of Pages 13

12

L.R. Potwarka et al. / Sport Management Review xxx (2019) xxx–xxx

Bauman, A., Armstrong, T., & Davies, J. (2003). Trends in physical in physical activity participation and the impact of integrated campaigns among Australian Adults, 1997-1999. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 27, 76–79. Boardley, I. D. (2013). Can viewing London 2012 influence sport participation? A viewpoint based on relevant theory. International Journal of Sport Policy, 5(2), 245–256. Brown, A., & Massey, J. (2001). Literature review: The impact of major sporting events. Manchester: Manchester Institute for Popular Culture, Manchester Metropolitan University, for UK Sport. Brown, G., Essex, S. A., & Smith, A. (2017). Event satisfaction and behavioural intentions: Examining the impact of London 2012 Olympic Games on participation in sport. European Sport Marketing Quarterly, 17(2), 331–338. Carraro, N., & Gaudreau, P. (2013). Spontaneous and experimentally induced action planning and coping planning for physical activity: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 228–248. Chalip, L. (2004). Beyond impact: A general model of host community event leverage. In B. W. Ritchie, & D. Adair (Eds.), Sport tourism: Interrelationships, impacts and issues (pp. 226–252). Clevedon, England: Chanel View.. Chalip, L., Green, B. C., Taks, M., & Misener, L. (2017). Creating sport participation from sport events: Making it happen. International Journal of Sport Policy, 9, 257–276. Derom, I., & VanWynsberghe, R. (2015). Extending the benefits of leveraging cycling events from the Tour of Flanders. European Sport Marketing Quarterly, 15 (1), 111–131. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York: Psychology Press. Frawley, S., & Cush, A. (2011). Major sport events and participation legacy: The case of the 2003 Rugby World Cup. Managing Leisure, 16(1), 65–76. Frawley, S., Toohey, K., & Veal, A. J. (2013). Managing sport participation of the Olympic Games. In S. Frawley, & D. Adir (Eds.), Managing the Olympics (pp. 66–83). UK: Palgrave MacMillan. Frick, B., & Wicker, P. (2016). The trickle-down effect: How elite sporting success affects amateur participation in German football. Applied Economics Letters, 26(4), 259–263. Funk, D., Jordan, J., Ridinger, L., & Kaplanidou, K. (2011). Capacity of mass participation sport events for the development of activity commitment and future exercise intention. Leisure Sciences, 33, 250–268. Godbey, G., Crawford, D. W., & Shen, X. S. (2010). Assessing hierarchical leisure constraints theory after two decades. Journal of Leisure Research, 42(1), 111–134. Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. The American Psychologist, 54, 493–503. Gursoy, D., & Kendall, K. W. (2006). Hosting mega events: Modeling locals’ support. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(3), 603–623. Hagger, M. S., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (Eds.). (2007). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in exercise and sport. Leeds, United Kingdom: Human Kinetics Europe. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Methodology in the social sciences. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press. Hayes, A. F., Glynn, C. J., & Huge, M. E. (2012). Cautions regarding the interpretation of regression coefficients and hypothesis tests in linear models with interactions. Communication Methods and Measures, 6(1), 1–11. Kashdan, T. B., Gallagher, M. W., & Silvia, P. J. (2009). The curiosity and exploration inventory-II: Development, factor structure, and psychometrics. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(6), 987–998. Kashdan, T. B., Rose, P., & Fincham, F. D. (2004). Curiosity and exploration: Facilitating positive subjective experiences and personal growth opportunities. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82(3), 291–305. Keaveney, S. (1995). Customer switching behaviour in service industries: An exploratory study. Journal of Marketing, 59(2), 71–82. Kim, S., & Kim, H. (2015). Moderating effects of tourists’ novelty-seeking tendencies on the relationship between satisfaction and behavioral intention. Tourism Analysis, 20, 511–522. Kokolakakis, T., Lera-Lopez, F., & Ramchandani, G. (2019). Did London deliver a sports participation legacy? Sport management review. (in press). . Lee, T. H., & Crompton, J. (1992). Measuring novelty seeking in tourism. Annals of Tourism Research, 19, 732–751. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. The American Psychologist, 57 (9), 705–717. Mahtani, K. M., Protheroe, J., Slight, S. P., Pive Demarzo, M. M., Blackman, T., Barton, C. A., . . . Roberts, N. (2013). Can the London 2012 Olympics’ inspire a generation’ to do more physical or sporting activities? An overview of systematic reviews. British Medical Journal1–8. Misener, L., Taks, M., Chalip, L., & Green, B. C. (2015). The elusive ‘trickle-down effect’ of sport events: Assumptions and missed opportunities. Managing Sport and Leisure, 20(2), 135–156. MORI (2004). The sports development impact of the Commonwealth Games (2002): Post-Games research. Research study conducted for UK Sport in Greater Manchester, Blackburn. Congleton and Liverpool: MORI. Mutter, F., & Pawlowski, T. (2014). Role models in sports – Can success in professional sports increase the demand for amateur sport participation? Sport Management Review, 17(3), 324–336. Notani, A. S. (1998). Moderators of perceived behavioral control’s predictiveness in the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7, 242–272. Orbell, S., Hodgkins, S., & Sheeran, P. (1997). Implementation intentions and the theory of planned behavior. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 945–954. Potwarka, L. R. (2015). Exploring physical activity intentions as a response to the Vancouver Olympics: An application and extension of the theory of planned behaviour. Event Management, 19, 73–92. Potwarka, L. R., & Leatherdale, S. T. (2016). The Vancouver 2010 Olympics and leisure-time physical activity rates among youth in Canada: any evidence of a trickle-down effect? Leisure Studies, 35(2), 241–257. Potwarka, L. R., & Snelgrove, R. (2017). Managing sport events for beneficial outcomes: Theoretical and practical insights. Event Management, 21, 135–137. Potwarka, L. R., Drewery, D., Snelgrove, R., Havitz, M., & Mair, H. (2017). Modeling a demonstration effect: The case of spectators’ experiences at 2015 Pan Am Games’ track cycling competitions. Leisure Sciences. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2017.1325796. Ramchandani, G. M., & Coleman, R. J. (2012). The inspirational effects of three major sport events. International Journal of Event and Festival Management, 3(3), 257–271. Randall, D. M., & Wolff, J. A. (1994). The time interval in the intention-behaviour relationship: Meta-analysis. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 405–418. Rhodes, R. E., & de Bruijn, G. J. (2013). What predicts intention-behavior discordance? A review of the action control framework. Exercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, 41, 201–207. Sheeran, P. (2002). Intention-behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. European Review of Social Psychology, 12, 1–36. Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick, J., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988). The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. The Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 325–342. Taks, M., Green, B. C., Misener, L., & Chalip, L. (2014). Evaluating sport development outcomes: The case of a medium-sized international sport event. European Sport Management Quarterly, 14, 213–237. Taks, M., Green, B. C., Misener, L., & Chalip, L. (2017). Creating sport participation from sport events: Making it happen. International Journal of Sport Policy, 9 (2), 257–276. van Trijp, H. C. M., Hoyer, W. D., & Inman, J. J. (1996). Why switch? Product category-level explanations for true variety-seeking behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 33(3), 281–292.

Please cite this article in press as: L.R. Potwarka, et al., From intention to participation: Exploring the moderating role of a voucher-based event leveraging initiative, Sport Management Review (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2019.03.002

G Model SMR 544 No. of Pages 13

L.R. Potwarka et al. / Sport Management Review xxx (2019) xxx–xxx

13

Veal, A. J., Toohey, K., & Frawley, S. (2012). The sport participation legacy of the Sydney 2000 Olympic games and other international sporting events hosted in Australia. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism Leisure and Events, 4(2), 155–184. Weed, M. (2009). The potential of the demonstration effect to grow and sustain participation in sport. A Review Paper for Sport England. Centre for Sport, Physical Education and Activity Research (SPEAR) – Canterbury Christ Church University. Weed, M., Cohen, E., Fiore, J., Mansfield, L., Wellard, I., Chatziefstathiou, D., . . . Dowse, S. (2012). Developing a physical activity legacy from the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games: A policy-led systematic review. Perspectives in Public Health, 132(2), 75–80. Weed, M., Coren, E., Fiore, J., Wellard, I., Chatziefstathiou, D., Mansfield, L., . . . Dowse, S. (2015). The Olympic Games and raising sport participation: A systematic review of evidence and an interrogation of policy for a demonstration effect. European Sport Management Quarterly, 15(2), 195–226. Weimar, D. P., Wicker, P., & Prinz, J. (2015). Membership in sports clubs: A dynamic analysis of external organizational factors. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44, 417–436. Wicker, P., & Frick, B. (2016). The inspirational effect of sporting achievements and potential role models in football: A gender-specific analysis. Managing Sport and Leisure, 21(5), 265–282. Wicker, P., & Sotiriadou, P. (2013). The trickle-down effect: What population groups benefit from hosting major sport events. International Journal of Event Management Research, 8(2), 25–40. Wood, L., Snelgrove, R., Legg, J., Taks, M., & Potwarka, L. R. (2018). Perspectives of event leverage held by local restaurants and city officials. International Journal of Event and Festival Management, 9(1), 34–50. Yoshida, M., James, J. D., & Cronin, J. J. Jr. (2013). Sport event innovativeness: Conceptualization, measurement, and its impact on consumer behavior. Sport Management Review, 16, 68–84.

Please cite this article in press as: L.R. Potwarka, et al., From intention to participation: Exploring the moderating role of a voucher-based event leveraging initiative, Sport Management Review (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2019.03.002