Florida State University Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations
The Graduate School
2013
Perceived Price Fairness of Sport
Consumers
Ara Jo
Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]
THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
PERCEIVED PRICE FAIRNESS OF SPORT CONSUMERS
By
ARA JO
A Thesis submitted to the
Department of Sport Management
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
Degree Awarded:
Summer Semester, 2013
Ara Jo defended this Thesis on June 13th, 2013.
The members of the supervisory committee were:
Yukyoum Kim
Professor Directing Thesis
Jeffrey James
Committee Member
Janelle Wells
Committee Member
The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and
certifies that the thesis has been approved in accordance with university requirements.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to acknowledge Dr. Yukyoum Kim, my major professor, for all his
assistance and dedicated support in graduate program. The time studying from him were very
meaningful and exciting moments to pursue my academic career. I really appreciate his time and
his directions.
Also, I greatly appreciate Dr. Jeffrey James and Dr. Janelle Wells for advising me with
valuable feedback and insightful comments for my thesis. Moreover, their warm encouragement
I received motivated me to complete the thesis.
A special thanks to my colleagues at Florida State University, including Minjung Kim,
Lucy Jiesun Lee, and Youngdo Kim who spent their time to help me to do research. I great
appreciate my friends, Bonsang Han, Eunjung Lee, and Eunbyul Gho who supported me in
South Korea.
Finally, and most importantly, I would like to express the deepest appreciation to my
family, Hyunchul Jo, Namgi Kim, and Wonsang Jo. Without their consistent support and faith in
me, this thesis could not have been possible.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. vi
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ viii
1.
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
2.
LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................8
2.1
2.1
2.3
2.4
2.5
3.
Introduction ....................................................................................................................8
Price Fairness .................................................................................................................8
2.2.1 Price ...................................................................................................................8
2.2.2 Value ..................................................................................................................9
2.2.3 Fairness ..............................................................................................................9
2.2.4 Price Fairness ...................................................................................................10
Price Change ................................................................................................................13
Reference Points ..........................................................................................................15
Trust .............................................................................................................................19
METHOD ..............................................................................................................................22
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
4.
Background ....................................................................................................................1
Purpose of Study ............................................................................................................4
Research Question .........................................................................................................4
Significance of Study .....................................................................................................5
Definitions of Terms ......................................................................................................6
Overview of Chapters ....................................................................................................7
Introduction ..................................................................................................................22
Participant Characteristics and Data Collection ..........................................................22
3.2.1 Participant Demographic Information .............................................................23
3.2.2 Sampling Procedure .........................................................................................23
3.2.2.1 Sampling Method .................................................................................23
3.2.2.2 Measures ..............................................................................................23
Process .........................................................................................................................24
Instrument ....................................................................................................................26
3.4.1 Introduction of Items........................................................................................26
Data Analysis ...............................................................................................................29
RESULTS ..............................................................................................................................32
4.1
4.2
Introduction ..................................................................................................................32
Data Collection ............................................................................................................32
4.2.1 Process .............................................................................................................32
4.2.2 Data Screening .................................................................................................33
4.3
Data Analysis ...............................................................................................................34
4.3.1 Assessment of Instrument ................................................................................34
4.3.2 Comparison of Results between Survey Types ...............................................37
4.3.3 Participant Demographics ................................................................................38
iv
4.3.4
4.3.5
4.3.6
4.3.7
4.3.8
5.
Past Behavior Information ...............................................................................38
Assumption Tests .............................................................................................40
Trust .................................................................................................................45
Price Fairness of a Single Game Ticket ...........................................................49
Price Fairness of the UF Game Ticket .............................................................51
DISCUSSION........................................................................................................................53
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
Introduction ..................................................................................................................53
Discussion of Results ...................................................................................................53
5.2.1 Price Fairness of a Single Game Ticket ...........................................................55
5.2.2 Price Fairness of the UF Game Ticket .............................................................55
5.2.3 Summary ..........................................................................................................56
Contributions and Implication .....................................................................................57
Limitations and Future Research .................................................................................58
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................61
APPENDICES ...............................................................................................................................63
A.
HUMAN SUBJECTS COMMITTEE APPROVAL .............................................................63
B.
CONSENT FORM ................................................................................................................64
C.
QUESTIONNAIRE ...............................................................................................................66
REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................73
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .........................................................................................................79
v
LIST OF TABLES
3.1 Original Items of Trust.............................................................................................................29
3.2 Modified Items of Trust ...........................................................................................................29
4.1 Courses Distributing the Online Survey ..................................................................................33
4.2 Reliability of a Single Game Ticket Price ...............................................................................35
4.3 Reliability of the UF Game Ticket Price .................................................................................35
4.4 Reliability of Trust ...................................................................................................................35
4.5 Descriptive Statistics: Comparison of Results between Survey Types ...................................37
4.6 t-test: Comparison of Results between Survey Types .............................................................38
4.7 Participant Demographics ........................................................................................................38
4.8 The Number of Attending a Live College Football Sporting Event ........................................38
4.9 The Location of Purchasing a College Football Ticket ...........................................................39
4.10 Average Price of a Live College Football Game Ticket ........................................................39
4.11 Considerations of Purchasing a College Football Ticket .......................................................40
4.12 Price Fairness of Average Ticket Price ..................................................................................40
4.13 Descriptive Statistics of a Single Game Ticket Price ............................................................42
4.14 Descriptive Statistics of a Single Game Ticket Price Fairness ..............................................43
4.15 Descriptive Statistics of the UF Game Ticket Price ..............................................................43
4.16 Descriptive Statistics of the UF Game Ticket Price Fairness ................................................44
4.17 Levene’s Test: a Single Game Ticket Price ...........................................................................45
4.18 Levene’s Test: the UF Game Ticket Price .............................................................................45
4.19 Descriptive Statistics of Trust ................................................................................................47
4.20 Descriptive Statistics of Difference between High and Low Level of Trust .........................47
4.21 t-test: Perceptions of a Single Game Ticket Price .................................................................50
4.22 t-test: Price Fairness of a Single Game Ticket .......................................................................50
vi
4.23 t-test: Perceptions of the UF Game Ticket Price ...................................................................52
4.24 t-test: Price Fairness of the UF Game Ticket .........................................................................52
vii
ABSTRACT
Price fairness is defined as the psychological judgment of the price as reasonable, just,
and acceptable (Bolton, Warlop, & Alba, 2003; Maxwell, 2002; Xia, Monroe, & Cox, 2004).
Although it has been investigated in various service business areas, there has been little research
of price fairness in the sports business (Darke & Dahl, 2003; Kimes, 1994; Kahneman, Knetch,
& Thaler, 1986a, 1986b; Radzi, Zahari, Muhammad, Aziz, & Ahmad, 2011). As sports
consumers show unique consumption patterns, it is necessary to examine price fairness of sports
consumers. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to examine price fairness of the
college football ticket price based on level of trust.
To test the hypothesis, a quantitative method was employed. Two pricing scenarios were
created, and an independent t-test was performed to test the hypothesis. The hypothesis failed to
be rejected, as shown by the inferential statistical results (n=100). It was indicated that
perceptions of price fairness of the college football ticket were not significantly different based
on levels of trust. These findings contributed to an extension of existing research of price fairness.
viii
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Since the Lehman brothers, a large international financial group, filed for bankruptcy
protection in 2008 (New York Times, 2008), the global economic situation has continually
worsened. The effects reached not only the European economic zone, but also impacted the
economic situation in countries around the world. The economic recession started in Spain and
went on to Greece, touched upon Italy as well, and ultimately endangered the world economy
(New York Times, 2012). In order to avoid an expansion of the economic crisis, German leaders
decided to support Italy and Spain by rescuing the countries from bankruptcy (New York Times,
2012).
Similar indicators of economic problems are found in the United States (U.S.). Over a
12 month period, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) increased by 1.7 % (Bureau of Labor Statics,
2012). In simple terms, this means that the typical household income has remained at the same
level, while prices of products or services have increased. Prices are challenging issue for both
consumers and businesses.
Price is an essential resource in business as price drives the direct revenue, which, in
turn, influences the distribution of resources. For this reason, most industries have attempted to
build an effective price strategy in order to maximize profit. For example, price discrimination
is a useful strategy to earn revenue.
In a challenging economic environment, consumers may also have restricted household
incomes, which is a significant factor influencing on their expenditures, and may result in more
thoughtful consumption decision making (Daskalopoulou & Petrou, 2006). Particularly, if a
1
desired item is much more expensive than a consumer’s expectation, then consumers are more
likely to pay attention to the decision-making for that purchase. Moreover, when the price has
increased along with an increase in demand and only regular supply, it is difficult to decide to
buy an expensive item repeatedly. Price is a critical issue for sports consumers as well. In
particular, according to the report by Bill King, sport fans tend to regard ticket prices as the
biggest deterrent in attending sporting events. In addition, most sport fans would prefer to
attend the sporting event in person if a free ticket is given (King, 2012).
Sports fans, however, are different in their consumption behavior. According to
Daskalopoulou and Petrou (2006), income is a significant factor in consumers’ expenditure, so
that consumers are likely to consider their consumption within their income. However, sport
consumers are willing to pay significant amounts of money to purchase a sporting event ticket
despite a restricted house hold budget. For example, the cheapest price for a 2013 Super Bowl
game ticket was 3,250 dollars and these tickets sold out (NFL Football & International Soccer
Tickets, 2012). Even though consumers consider their consumptions within the limited
financial situation, sports consumers are willing to pay premium prices for their favorite
sporting events. Further research is needed to understand this phenomenon.
Price fairness perception is one of the significant elements determining a consumer
purchase decision (Bolton, Warlop, & Alba, 2003; Darke & Dahl, 2003; Haws & Bearden, 2006;
Kahneman, Knetch, & Thaler, 1986a, 1986b; Kimes, 1994; Maxwell, 2002; Monroe & Martin,
1994; Radzi, Zahari, Muhammad, Aziz, & Ahmad, 2011; Urbany, Madden, & Dickson, 1989;
Xia, Monroe, & Cox, 2004). When there is a discrepancy between the actual price and the
expected price, consumers are likely to assess price fairness; this assessment directly influences
willingness to purchase. This inferential process usually is found with an expensive price
2
(Huppertz, Arenson, & Evans, 1978). Previous researchers have found that consumers consider a
variety of factors (e.g., discount, time, brand, etc.) in developing their perception of price
fairness (Bolton et al., 2003; Darke & Dahl, 2004). From a managerial perspective, price fairness
perception is also an issue to consider in pricing strategy.
Price is an essential criterion in consumer decision making. According to Campbell
(1999), price is the value that consumers are willing to pay instead of other offers in order to
obtain more benefit. Furthermore, it is the result of a variety of psychological reflections based
on a consumer’s evaluation of a product or situation (Campbell; Kamen, & Toman, 1970;
Monroe, 1973). When consumers consider the value of a product, they judge the fairness of
prices; past research has confirmed that price fairness influences willingness to purchase
(Huppertz, Arenson, & Evans, 1978; Kahneman, Knetch, & Thaler, 1986a; Maxwell, 2002;
Oliver & Swan, 1989).
Price fairness perception has been referred to as the forerunner of satisfaction (Campbell;
Huppertz et al.; Xia, Monroe, & Cox, 2004), and satisfaction leads to future purchase intention.
For this reason, price fairness perception has been investigated in many business areas (e.g. retail,
automobiles, housing, etc.) to attract more consumers. There is also a great deal of academic and
managerial research reporting on investigations of price fairness perception (Bolton, Warlop, &
Alba, 2003; Campbell, 1999; Darke & Dahl, 2003; Haws & Bearden, 2006; Xia, Monroe, & Cox,
2004).
Perceived price fairness has been determined to be affected by many significant factors
such as price change, a firm’s reputation, trust, and loyalty (Bolton, Warlop, & Alba, 2003;
Campbell, 1999a; Darke & Dahl, 2003; Kimes, 1994; Martin, Ponder, & Lueg, 2009; Maxwell;
Ordóñez, Connolly, & Coughlan, 2000; Radzi, Zahari, Muhammad, Aziz, & Ahmad, 2011;
3
Sirdeshmukh, Singh, & Sabol, 2002; Urbany, Madden, & Dickson, 1989; Xia, Monroe, & Cox,
2004). Among the various factors, a few have been identified as significant. The first factor is
price change (Darke & Dahl, 2003; Kimes, 1994; Radzi et al., 2011; Xia et al., 2004). The next is
reference points, such as physical environment and reputation (Bolton et al., 2003; Huppertz,
Arenson, & Evans, 1978; Ordóñez et al., 2000; Xia et al., 2004). Trust also plays an important
role in how consumers perceive the degree of price fairness. Trust seems to affect loyalty in
various business areas (Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Schurr & Ozanne, 1985; Sirdeshmukh et al.,
2002). Particularly, in the sports context, loyalty is also known as allegiance and holds
remarkable value for sports consumers toward sports teams (Funk & James, 2006). Past studies
looking into price perception, however, have not yet explored the area of sports. Although these
three key factors of price change, reference points and trust have been examined respectively as a
factor in business research, research on these points is quite lacking in the sports context.
Additionally, the perceptions of price fairness have not been examined based on level of trust
toward sports team.
Therefore, it is necessary to deal with these various critical issues in order to understand
the significance of price changes and reference points on the perceptions of price fairness.
1.2 Purposes of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine sport consumers’ perception of price fairness
based on level of trust. Specifically, prices for tickets to college football games were examined in
two different scenarios: a single game ticket and the premium game ticket.
1.3 Research Question
One research question was proposed to examine perception of price fairness:
4
1. Is there a significant difference in perception of price fairness based on level of trust in a
favorite sports team?
1.4 Significance of the Study
The current study is expected to provide meaningful information for understanding sports
consumer behavior regarding the perception of price fairness. The majority of past research has
explored price fairness perception in various service areas, such as restaurants, hotels, and
airlines (Bolton et al., 2003; Darke & Dahl, 2003; Gielissen, Dutilh, & Graafland, 2008; D.
Kahneman, J. L. Knetsch, & R. Thaler, 1986a; Kimes, 1994; Radzi et al., 2011; Urbany et al.,
1989; Vaidyanathan & Aggarwal, 2003). While these studies supported the importance of price
fairness, their foci have not included research in the sprots context.
Price is critical because it is the only factor that has a direct revenue-related value in
business. Previous research (Kimes, 1994; Maxwell, 2002; Oliver & Swan, 1989; Urbany,
Madden, & Dickson, 1989; Xia, Monroe, & Cox, 2004) has provided evidence to support the
premise that price fairness may be a significant factor for future purchase intentions and target
prices, such as with service-related prices such as hotel prices and flight tickets. These prices can
impact business operations as less revenue can cause a financial deficit. Kimes (1994) found that
airlines try to endure economic losses with lower prices in order to fill all the seats. This is a way
to make up for losses that would come from otherwise empty seats. Some studies have included
a focus on efforts by organizations to decrease prices while trying to maintain revenue (Bolton,
Warlop, & Alba, 2003; Darke & Dahl, 2004). Sporting event ticket prices, however, shows a
very different pattern.
According to Forbes (2012), the ticket prices for the Green Bay Packers and Seattle
Seahawks games increased 258% from the average face value during the severe economic
5
conditions. In addition, the ticket price for the game between the New England Patriots and the
Baltimore Ravens games jumped up 174% as well. Likewise, sporting event ticket prices have
risen dramatically based on various reasons (Forbes, 2012). This exponential increase in price is
rarely seen in non-sports related business, and this significant price discrepancy may affect the
perception of price fairness and the willingness to purchase. Therefore, it is necessary to
investigate this phenomenon further. Additionally, the perception of price fairness of sporting
event tickets should be further considered in order to better understand sport consumers behavior,
particularly purchase intention. This study included a test of one important factor, trust that is
expected to give rise to the different consumption patterns between consumers in general and
sports consumers in particular.
1.5 Definitions of Terms
Price
Price is defined as the face value consumers are willing to pay (Campbell, 1999a). It is
showed in various features such as fees, rent, salaries, and commissions.
Fairness
Fairness is defined as the psychological judgment of an outcome whether it is reasonable,
just and acceptable (Bolton et al., 2003; Campbell, 1999a; Kahneman, Knetsch, & Thaler,
1986b)..
Value
Value is an essential concept referring to the perception and abstraction that occur when
consumers judge a product (Martin et al., 2009; Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002; Zeithaml, Berry, &
Parasuraman, 1996).
6
Servicescape
Servicescape is a term that defines surrounding structures (e.g., stadiums, hallways, seats,
and concessions);(Bitner, 1992; Brady& Baker, 2002; Wakefield & Blodgett, 1994).
Reputation
Reputation is defined as “an estimation of consistency over time of an attribute of an
entity (Herbig & Milewicz, 1993).
Trust
Trust is defined as the willingness of one party and the perception of another party’s
confidence meet in the process of exchange reliability and integrity (Garbrino & Johnson, 1999;
Davis & Schoorman, 1995; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Xia, Monroe, & Cox, 2004).
1.6 Overview of Chapters
The current study includes five chapters. The next chapter includes a review of past
research pertaining to price fairness. This review section covers three significant determinants on
price fairness: price change, reference points, and trust. On the basis of the literature review, one
hypothesis was proposed. In the following chapter, methods to test the hypothesis are described.
Specifically, information about data collection and data analysis are presented. In the fourth
chapter, the statistical results are described. This chapter includes descriptive analysis and
inferential data analysis. The last chapter is a discussion of the results. Based on the discussion,
the limitations of the current study are presented, and the document is concluded with
suggestions for further research.
7
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This section presents a review of previous research. First, the theoretical framework of
price fairness is described, followed by a discussion of three significant factors (e.g., price
change, reference points, and trust). Past research is then synthesized to apply a concept of price
fairness to sports consumers. Finally, the literature is used to propose one hypothesis.
2.2 Price Fairness
2.2.1 Price
Price has been defined as the face value consumers are willing to pay in order to gain
benefits (Campbell, 1999a). It is used to refer to the amount of money involved in various
transactions in the form of fees, rent, premiums, salaries, and commissions. When people
exchange a monetary value in the form of currency for a certain product, that amount of money
is defined as price (Schindler, 2011). In such transactions, consumers are likely to judge the
benefits they gain by spending the money as well as what they sacrifice, or the opportunity cost.
Ultimately, consumers tend to evaluate whether this purchase is valuable. The degree of
acceptability concerning the benefit may be a critical determinant in consumers’ decisionmaking concerning actual purchase. At this point, value is a standard that should be considered
in transactions. Although price is a direct revenue-related element among the rest of the
marketing mix (e.g. product, promotion), it is regarded as the value that is different from the
tangible resource of assets (Campbell, 1999a; Schindler, 2011). Therefore, value is a critical
perception despite it being an invisible concept concerning judgment.
8
2.2.2 Value
Value is an essential concept referring to the perception and abstraction that occur when
consumers judge a product (Martin et al., 2009; Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002; Zeithaml et al., 1996),
often considered the result of a mental process of tradeoff between provider and receiver and
involving the personal propensity of consumers (Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002; Zeithaml et al., 1996).
Specifically, value referred to as economic value in pricing strategy comprises two concepts:
reference value and differentiation value (Nagle & Hogan, 2006, p. 28). Reference value is the
price that is deemed as the baseline for the acceptance of the customer, while differentiation
value is the additional value assigned to a commodity based on consumers’ judgment.
Differentiation value plays a significant role in determining customers’ willingness to pay. If the
differentiation value is positive, consumers will consider the economic value to be higher
(Schindler, 2011, p.31). Moreover, consumers are likely to evaluate the degree of value received
through a purchase and compare it with an alternative choice that is regarded as having similar
value. This judgment process is called price sensitivity (Nagle & Hogan, 2006, p.129) and is a
consideration that impacts purchasing decisions. On the other hand, according to Sirdeshmukh et
al. (2002), value is a mediator in the interrelationship between trust and loyalty which plays a
key role in the decision-making process of consumers concerning the actual purchase of their
favorite brands. That is, value serves as another element in the combination of trust and loyalty
that determines consumers’ perceptions of price fairness. Therefore, consumers typically base
purchase choice on the economic value of the product compared to price.
2.2.3 Fairness
Fairness is defined as the psychological judgment of an outcome in regard to whether it
is reasonable, just, and acceptable (Bolton et al., 2003; Campbell, 1999a; Kahneman et al.,
9
1986b). It is established that resources are assigned to others and to self equitably in a transaction
(Kahneman et al., 1986b). That is, when a balance between buyer and seller is built, fairness is
achieved in the exchange relationship. Judgments concerning fairness also involve a cognitive
process that is highly related to emotion. Specifically, perceived unfairness may elicit negative
emotions in consumers, prompting them to seek an alternative provider and lowering future
purchase intentions (Campbell, 1999a; Xia et al., 2004). Thus, fairness serves as a critical issue
for any firm seeking a profitable outcome (Kahneman et al., 1986b; Okun, 1981).
Fairness heuristic theory provides an explanation for the rationale behind the perception
of fairness. According to this theory, people tend to perceive uncertainty and discomfort about
transferring the authority of a relationship from one to another because they feel that such a
transfer would threaten their social identity. To protect self-identification, people begin to judge
the fairness of the outcome (Haws & Bearden, 2006; E. Lind, 1992; E. A. Lind, 1994; Van den
Bos, Lind, Vermunt, & Wilke, 1997). Some researchers have delineated the process of fairness
decisions with the Dual Entitlement (DE) principle, which describes an agreement whereby both
parties involved in a transaction are entitled to a fair outcome (Bolton et al., 2003; Gielissen et al.,
2008; Kahneman et al., 1986b; Vaidyanathan & Aggarwal, 2003). The entitlement of the buyer is
a reference price that indicates market prices, posted prices, and the history of past transactions,
while the entitlement of the seller is a reference profit that does not undermine the buyer’s
entitlement (Kahneman et al., 1986b).
2.2.4 Price Fairness
Price fairness is defined as the psychological judgment as to whether a price is reasonable,
just, and acceptable (Bolton et al., 2003; Campbell, 1999b; Kahneman et al., 1986a), which can
be explained by the DE principle’s assumption that price fairness arises from the interaction
10
between buyer and seller. In particular, the seller attempts to provide the product at a certain
price that maintains reference profits by increased costs; in turn, the buyer would like to pay the
reference price, which is a price similar to the expected price. In this interaction between the
seller and the buyer, the DE principle includes the premise that when the two parties—buyers
and sellers—agree on the same level of entitlement, consumers are more likely to ultimately
recognize fairness. Moreover, when the expectations of the two parties correspond and the rule
of exchange between the buyer and the seller are agreed upon, fairness can be easily established
(Thomas & Soldow, 1988).
It is important to note, however, that the concept of price fairness must be distinguished
from that of satisfaction. Satisfaction is a result of a combination of various factors such as price,
performance, and expectation (Herrmann, Xia, Monroe, & Huber, 2007; Voss, Parasuraman, &
Grewal, 1998). It is referred to as the subsequent outcome of consumers’ level of perceived
fairness (Bei & Chiao, 2001; Bolton et al., 2003; Haws & Bearden, 2006; Herrmann et al., 2007;
Oliver & Swan, 1989; Voss et al., 1998). According to Bei and Chiao (2001), price fairness
directly influences product satisfaction. Moreover, some researchers claimed that fairness is an
antecedent of satisfaction that leads to a final, positive purchase intention (Bolton et al., 2003;
Campbell, 1999a). In other words, once fairness is established in relation to the price, it also
affects the consequences of the purchasing process. Fair pricing, then, is positively related to
customers’ attitudes toward the seller and the price, which determines their willingness to
purchase (Maxwell, 2002), making perceived price fairness is a critical factor in decision-making
with regard to future purchase intention.
The exact criteria used to judge the fairness of outcomes are subjective as the perception
of fairness is a relative cognitive process generated through comparison (Festinger, 1954;
11
Mussweiler, 2003; Xia et al., 2004). In social comparison theory, the tendency to compare is one
of the fundamental characteristics of a human being’s perception (Herr, 1986; Mussweiler, 2003).
According to a study by Festinger (1954), humans have a trigger to assess self-opinion or selfability that affect one’s behavior. At the same time, they form a certain criteria for comparison.
However, as previously mentioned, since comparisons are subjective, determining a standard of
fairness can become a complicated process. The criteria for the assessment of outcomes are
currently constructed based on numerous types of references, including other people and
information related to past experiences (Bolton et al., 2003; Jacoby, 1976; Xia et al., 2004).
Some researchers have suggested that the judgment of fairness is determined by the self-interest
of the buyer (Oliver & Swan, 1989; Xia et al., 2004). Market price and past transactions are
examples of references in a transaction, and consumers are likely to perceive fairness based on
their own criteria. As a result, the psychological process of perceived fairness has been applied to
the pricing strategy. In the business arena, price fairness denotes that consumers are concerned
with how much they can afford to pay in order to obtain benefits (Lichtenstein, Bloch, & Black,
1988; Maxwell, 2002) as well as how consumers react to price(Bolton & Alba, 2006; Campbell,
1999a; Darke & Dahl, 2003; Haws & Bearden, 2006; Kahneman et al., 1986a; Kahneman et al.,
1986b; Thaler, 1985; Urbany et al., 1989; Vaidyanathan & Aggarwal, 2003; Xia et al., 2004) .
To examine perceived price fairness, many researchers have attempted to identify
significant factors that affect the perception of price fairness (Bolton et al., 2003; Campbell,
1999a; Darke & Dahl, 2003; Gielissen et al., 2008; Grewal, Hardesty, & Iyer, 2004; Kimes, 1994;
Maas, Van Rinsum, & Towry, 2011; Maxwell, 2002; Ordóñez et al., 2000; Radzi et al., 2011;
Urbany et al., 1989; Vaidyanathan & Aggarwal, 2003; Xia et al., 2004). Previous studies have
explored some common factors, such as service quality, financial rewards, and so on. Among
12
these various factors, three common factors that influence the perception of price fairness have
been proposed: price change, reference points, and trust.
2.3 Price Change
Price change is a significant element for determining perceived price fairness, and prices
may fluctuate due to a number of both external and internal factors. According to Schindler
(2011), consumers will create a perception of price range in judging their purchases, referred to
as an internal reference price. While the acceptable price range in consumers’ minds is not
obvious, it is intuitively possible to recognize whether a price is worthy of being paid based on
consumers’ internal information. This internal reference price is mostly established by
consumers’ past experiences (Bolton et al., 1999; Darke & Dahl, 2003; Shindler, 2011), and in
fact, some researchers claim that consumers are unlikely to pay attention to economic inflation,
which is a significant element of incremental price increase (Bates & Gabor, 1986; Bolton et al.,
2003). With this in mind, consumers have a tendency to evaluate price based on their own
perceptions. Moreover, repeated purchasing enables consumers to accumulate price information.
Therefore, using one’s own information about past prices is an intuitive method used by
consumers for determining their purchase intention.
On the other hand, an important external factor that may impact consumers’ perception
of price fairness is the ability of sellers to increase prices in order to achieve their goal of
maximizing profit (Kahneman et al., 1986a). There are numerous reasons for incremental price
changes, such as cost increase or price segmentation. In terms of cost, price fairness might be
determined according to whether the cost increase can be justified by consumers (Bolton et al.;
Campbell, 1999; Kahneman et al., 1986b; Vaidyanathan et al., 2003).
Price segmentation is, in turn, another external element determining the perception of
price fairness. The essential goal of marketing is to satisfy consumers’ needs; thus, price
13
segmentation is broadly applied to a single item in order to satisfy different consumers’ needs. In
contrast, due to the popularity of a product, price can also be raised based on the law of supply
and demand. According to Campbell (2007), the price of a single item might even differ based
on whether it is delivered via human or non-human sources (e.g. a store employee, direct mail, or
advertisements). Likewise, it is difficult for prices to be maintained at a fixed value. Much of the
existing research on the relationship between price change and price fairness indicates that price
increase leads to negative feelings regarding price fairness on the part of consumers (Campbell,
1999a, 1999b; Kahneman et al., 1986a; Radzi et al., 2011; Xia et al., 2004). However, these
studies suggested that the reason for the price increase influences the perceived price fairness
among consumers. For instance, if cost increases cause companies to raise prices in order to meet
their break-even point, consumers will accept the price increase and are likely to deem it to be
fair. Conversely, if the reason for the price increase is not obvious, consumers assume that sellers
are profiting excessively, which leads to consumers’ judgment that the price is unfair or less fair.
The DE principle can once again be used to explicate the determination of price fairness
in relation to price change (Bolton et al., 2003; Kahneman et al., 1986a; Kahneman et al., 1986b;
Xia et al., 2004). When the entitlement of both parties is not equal, consumers perceive
unfairness. That is, if the reason for the price increase is not justified in the social situation, the
entitlement between the parties involved in a transaction will be unbalanced. Consequently,
consumers will perceive that the price is unfair. Xia et al. (2004) also emphasized the need for
symmetrical entitlement between sellers and buyers, finding that the perception of price fairness
is determined by consumers’ understanding of the basis for the price setting.
A price decrease, on the other hand, results in price fairness regardless of the reason for
the discount. Offering discounts in which the price is lower than the reference price favorably
14
affects the judgment of price fairness; this, in turn, leads to increased satisfaction (Darke & Dahl,
2003; Huppertz et al., 1978; Thaler, 1985). There is no doubt that a price discount benefits
consumers in terms of saving money. While a “cheap” price does not necessarily mean a “fair”
price, consumers more readily perceive fairness when the price is lower (Huppertz et al., 1978).
Moreover, consumers are likely to perceive fairness if they receive a non-financial reward
(Darke & Dahl, 2003). If the cost is decreased and the price is maintained, consumers might
perceive that the price is unfair. However, if the seller provides extra services or benefits,
consumers will view this to be fair in that they have been compensated for a loss. Under the DE
principle, as this non-financial reward compensates for disagreement over entitlement on the
buyer’s side, an overall agreement between both parties can be achieved. Hence, consumers are
likely to judge the price to be fair when such a price change occurs.
2.4 Reference Points
According to social comparison theory, a “reference point” needs to be considered when
identifying related influencers of price fairness (Mussweiler, 2003). This reference point plays
the role of a baseline in making comparisons, and the types of the reference points can vary
considerably. For instance, a famous celebrity can serve as a reference point that is compared to
oneself. In practical research, Mussweiler and Strack (2000) studied self-evaluation comparisons
to Gwyneth Paltrow, who is one of the most popular celebrities in the United States. Participants
would compare their appearance to that of Gwyneth Paltrow and were likely to judge their
appearances according to factors such as the degree of beauty or height.
Some of the same principles applied in this study can be extended to price fairness.
Particularly, consumers judge price fairness by comparing the reference price—including market
price and posted price—to other prices. That is, one of various price options is another reference
15
point. Likewise, in accordance with the transaction utility theory, it has been found that internal
and external reference points determined by the seller are the standards used in judging price
fairness (Thaler, 1985). As researchers have suggested, this is because customers are concerned
with how they evaluate the value of a service they have experienced in relation to the amount of
money they spent or are willing to spend (Campbell, 1999a; Hightower, Brady, & Baker, 2002;
Kahneman et al., 1986a; Thaler, 1985).
To assess price fairness, a multitude of internal and external reference points, such as
physical environment factors and financial reward, have been proposed in previous research
(Baker, Levy, & Grewal, 1992; Bitner, 1992; Garbarino & Johnson, 1999; Haws & Bearden,
2006; Hightower et al., 2002; Kahneman et al., 1986a; Kahneman et al., 1986b; Thaler, 1985;
Urbany et al., 1989; Wakefield & Blodgett, 1994; Wakefield, Blodgett, & Sloan, 1996; Xia et al.,
2004).
Reputation is one of reference points. It is defined as “the estimation of the consistency
over time of an attribute of an entity” (Herbig & Milewicz, 1993). It is another element by which
to determine price fairness in a business area. According to Campbell (1999a), the firm’s
reputation plays the role of mediator between inferred motive and inferred relative profit in the
model of relations among antecedents and consequences of perceived unfairness. The effect of
reputation is determined by the expression of reputation (e.g., positive and negative). Specifically,
if the firm has a positive reputation, it affects the inferred motive of consumers in a positive way.
Consequently, they are likely to perceive less unfairness, which leads to future purchase. To a
great extent, this reputation is based on the firm’s history of achievements and past behaviors,
but perhaps just as importantly, the reputation of a firm is built by Word of Mouth (WOM)
marketing.
16
In the business context, a reputation affects perceived price fairness indirectly (Campbell,
1999a), and the reputation of a firm is influenced by a competitor because reputation acts as a
barrier to the admittance of a competitor. It is noteworthy that the reputation of a firm is regarded
as the standard by which to predict the competitor’s plan and behavior (Campbell, 1999a; Herbig
& Milewicz, 1993). The competition among firms in the same industry evaluates one firm’s
achievement in the past and its impact on consumers’ perception toward that firm. If a certain
product has a good reputation, the price of that product can be regarded as fair for consumers.
This is because the reputation can serve as a differentiated value and is positively related to the
inferred motive of consumers. In turn, consumers start to perceive price fairness by capturing the
additional value coming from the reputation, which exceeds their expectations.
While price fairness is determined indirectly by reputation, it is an integrated
phenomenon determined by competitors. As price is a direct signal when customers judge
fairness, price can be set by a firm’s own reputation and by a competitor’s reputation. According
to the supply and demand principle, price is increased when consumers demand more than the
typical amount. Conversely, when a competitor enters into the same market, the demand is
distributed to the original firm and the competitor. Thus, this competition causes an increase in
supply, and the price eventually decreases. However, in the sporting event scenario, the
competitor plays a role opposite to that of a competitor in the business context. The price of the
sporting event against the competitor might be increased, although it depends on the competitor.
The stronger the competitor is, the more the price of the sporting event increases. According to a
case study conducted by Gratton, Dobson, and Shibli (2000), the stronger competitor is likely to
generate significant economic impact on sporting events. Therefore, by repeated remarkable
matches against a strong competitor over a prolonged period the sporting event against the
17
stronger competitor is considered as the big game that attracts more sport consumers and,
ultimately, the reputation of the sporting event is established. This positive reputation inspires
consumers to infer motive to perceive fairness toward the price of the sporting event. Because of
the unique nature of this relationship, the reputation of the sporting event should also be explored
as a factor influencing sport consumers’ perceptions of price fairness.
If the service transaction is assessed to be of reasonable quality compared to other
transactions, consumers will be more likely to perceive price fairness (Kahneman et al., 1986a;
Kimes, 1994; Thaler, 1985; Urbany et al., 1989). Equality of reference point is a pivotal factor in
the perception of price fairness. A study by Ordóñez et al. (2000) tested reference points by to
determine the levels of perceived fairness by subjects toward an objective. The researchers
suggested that both advantageous and disadvantageous inequalities concerning the reference
points led to subjects’ perception of reduced fairness. For instance, in the empirical research of
Ordóñez et al. (2000), non-MBA graduates felt that their salaries were less fair because they
were offered less than MBA graduates who were regarded as having similar status. According to
the social comparison theory, people evaluate themselves by comparing themselves to others
who hold a similar status (Mussweilder, 2003). In the sporting event context, sport consumers
can evaluate their status in a physical setting through the judgment of other similar physical
conditions such as physical environment factors (e.g., seat level) and the reputation of a sporting
event against the strong rival. When consumers perceive a higher degree of similarity with others
when attending sporting events, they perceive fairness (Mussweilder, 2003; Xia, Monroe, & Cox,
2004).
To sum up, different reference points may impact sport consumers’ perceptions of price
fairness. Thus far, this study has been limited to mainly exploring price fairness in relation to
18
non-sports businesses, such as retail stores or the automobile service industry. As the ticket price
of sporting events indicates patterns that differ from other product prices, price fairness should
be specifically explored with regard to sport consumers. Therefore, in this study, price fairness
will be examined in different reference points (e.g., a servicescape and reputation of a service)
based on the factor of level of trust toward the Florida State University football team.
2.5 Trust
Another factor influencing the perception of price fairness is trust, a term that refers to
the stage in which the willingness of the party and the perception of another party’s confidence
meet in exchange for another party’s reliability and integrity (Garbarino & Johnson, 1999; Mayer,
Davis, & Schoorman, 1995; Moorman, Deshpande, & Zaltman, 1993; Morgan & Hunt, 1994;
Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002; Xia et al., 2004). In marketing, trust is regarded as the essential
platform from which a strong connection is built with customers not only to maintain stable
profits, but also to contribute to potential purchase intention (Garbarino & Johnson, 1999;
Lewicki, McAllister, & Bies, 1998; Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002; Urban, Sultan, & Qualls, 2000).
As the relationship between buyer and seller becomes stronger based on trust, the outcome might
be positively enhanced. Given this benefit, firms should emphasize trust in any marketing
strategy.
Through repeated transactions with the same party, trust can be established between
buyer and seller (Xia et al., 2004) and several experimental studies have provided evidence that
trust plays an important role in the price fairness perception process. Garbarino and Johnson
(1999) investigated the satisfaction, trust, and commitment of movie consumers, finding that
consumers (i.e., consistent subscribers) who had higher level of trust were more likely to have
higher levels of repurchase intentions. The authors used seven items to measure trust toward the
19
performance of a New York off-Broadway repertory theater company. The questionnaire items
included, “The performances at this theater always meet my expectation,” and, “The quality of
the productions at this theater is consistently high.” Furthermore, other researchers have reported
that trust is a key element to achieving success in an industry (Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Schurr &
Ozanne, 1985; Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002; Xia et al., 2004).
Trust is also highly associated with a psychological connection between buyers and
sellers (James, Kolbe, & Trail, 2002). Prior researchers have suggested that trust is a
fundamental element when it comes to influencing the psychological connection known as
loyalty (Macintosh & Lockshin, 1997; Reichheld & Schefter, 2000; Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002).
The relationship between trust and a psychological connection with an object is described in the
relational exchange model of Sirdeshmukh et al. (2002). Based on this model, trust is an
antecedent that determines the strength of a psychological connection with an object. The
strength of the relationship results in positive behavior that influences future purchase intention
(Martin et al., 2009; Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002).
In the sports context, a high degree of psychological connection not only maintains the
relationship between a fan and his or her favorite team but also improves the degree of
involvement with the favorite team in the long term (Funk & James, 2006; James et al., 2002).
Consequently, this phenomenon has provided statistically significant evidence determining
consumer decision-making related to repurchase intentions. Non-sport consumers, on the other
hand, usually build trust through direct transactions that lead to a high level of psychological
connection with products (Sirdeshmukh et al., 2002; Zeithaml et al., 1996). This is not
comparable to the strength of the psychological connection found in hard-core sports fans. Sport
consumers can possess a high level of the robust psychological connection with a sport team
20
through multiple stages (Funk & James, 2001; Funk & James, 2006). This strong attachment
between sports consumers and sport team influences the perception of price fairness of
consumers in a positive way (Xia et al., 2004). As a result, the different level of trust for sports
consumers toward their favorite sport team may lead to different perceptions of price fairness
about the service.
In summary, there are significant factors involved in decisions related to the perception
of price fairness. The first factor is price change; the second is reference point; and the third is
trust. While previous research has identified each factor separately in non-sport areas, few
studies have included an examination of the significance of price change and reference points in
relation to level of trust in the perception of price fairness. Given that trust is believed to play a
unique role for sport consumers, the perception of price fairness based on level of trust may be
different in a sport context. Therefore, it is necessary to explore perception of fairness based on
two factors—price change and reference points—as they relate to trust. Based on the summary,
one hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 1: Consumers who have different levels of trust toward the college football team will
report that they perceive different degrees of price fairness.
21
CHAPTER THREE
METHOD
3.1 Introduction
The overall objective of this research was to examine the degree of price fairness of sport
consumers based on level of trust toward the college football team. To achieve this objective, the
first step was to measure the level of trust sport consumers have in the college football team. The
second step was evaluating the perception of fairness regarding college football ticket prices
based on that level of trust. This study included a scenario-type survey (Kahneman et al., 1986a).
The chapter is made up of the following sections: 1) participant characteristics and data
collection, 2) instrument, 3) procedures and 4) data analysis.
3.2 Participants and Data Collection
The target sporting event was a college football game. Courty (2000) investigated ticket
price in the entertainment industry because of the popularity in the press and the unique nature of
its pricing system. In a sports context, the college football game had a great detail of attention
from a broad range of consumers. In addition to the popularity of college football, there is a
relatively simple ticket price system when compared to professional football games. For example,
according to the official athletic department website of Florida State University (FSU), there
were five price levels for home games (i.e., reserved, student, season, family, young alumni,
visitor) (Seminoles.com, 2012). In comparison to the professional football league, the Green Bay
Packers playoff game in 2011 had eight price levels (NFL ticket exchange, 2012). Therefore, the
ticket prices of college football games for the FSU football team were used in the study.
22
3.2.1 Participants
The participants for this study were selected from college students at FSU who were
officially enrolled at the school in sport management or physical activity courses in the Spring or
Summer semesters of 2013. Existing perceived price fairness research has included participants
who had experience with the target business included in the study (Bei & Chiao, 2001; Darke &
Dahl, 2003; Martin et al., 2009; Radzi et al., 2011). In Radzi et al. (2011), they collected
information from hotel guests who stayed at the hotel when examining the hotel price fairness
perception. Likewise, college students who have attended at least one previous college football
game comprised the sample of sport consumers.
3.2.2 Sampling Procedure
3.2.2.1 Sampling method In terms of participant demographic information, there were
no gender and race limitations. Since participants were selected with the specific purpose of
focusing on sport consumers, non-probability sampling was applied. Among four different nonprobability sampling techniques, convenience sampling was selected. The intended sample size
was approximately 200, based on past research about perceived price fairness (Campbell, 1999a;
Martin et al., 2009; Radzi et al., 2011; Vaidyanathan & Aggarwal, 2003).
3.2.2.2 Measures Prior studies have been designed as experimental studies in order to
examine the degree of price fairness in a particular situation (Darke & Dahl, 2003; Kahneman et
al., 1986a). For example, some researchers created scenarios offering different prices given a
certain situation in the target business based on previous literature (Darke & Dahl, 2003;
Ferguson, 2009; Kahneman et al., 1986a). These studies included focus on degree of price
fairness without considering group characteristics. Therefore, in this project sports consumers
23
were grouped based on their level of trust toward a specific college football team, and then each
group assessed perceptions of price fairness for a certain sporting event ticket.
The data collected consisted of demographic information, past behavior information,
perceptions of price fairness, and trust. The perceptions of price fairness were adapted from the
study by Ferguson (2009) and measured two different scenarios regarding two different prices of
the college football games. In the first scenario, perceptions of price fairness of a single game
ticket were evaluated. In the second scenario, perceptions of price fairness of the premium price
of the game ticket against in-state rival UF were assessed. Trust toward the FSU football team
was, in turn, measured with six items that were developed from Garbrino and Johnson (1999).
Specifically, participants evaluated the performance of the FSU football team and the quality of
the FSU football team’s play. In the data analysis, an independent t-test was administered to
compare perceptions of fairness for the two different trust groups.
3.3 Process
The current study was conducted as a paper and pencil form survey as well as an online
survey. The appropriate approvals were received in order to collect the data. The instructors in
charge of a sport management courses or physical activity classes who agreed to participate were
asked for access to the respective classes. The data collection took place near the end of a
semester; not all classes had full attendance, and many students declined to participate. To
increase the sample size an online survey was conducted. According to Wright (2006), online
surveys have advantages such as access to a sample, saving time to collect the data, and saving
cost on distribution of a paper format questionnaire. For the online survey, the researcher asked
instructors to distribute the online survey link to students.
24
Participants who were officially enrolled in the college were recruited for the study.
Particularly, they were selected from sport management or physical activity classes in the Spring
or Summer semesters of 2013. For the paper and pencil survey, the researcher visited each class
in which permission had been given by instructor. Once participants were identified, they were
provided with a brief explanation of the research topic. At the same time, participants were
informed that the survey was anonymous. Prior to the start of the survey, all participants from the
classes who agreed to participate were asked to sign a voluntary consent form. The consent form
consisted of an introduction to the research and brief remarks regarding how the survey process
was created. Once participants agreed to participate, they started to complete the survey.
There were four sections in the questionnaire. Participants were asked about
demographics, past behavior information of purchasing the FSU football game ticket, price
fairness of tickets, and trust toward the FSU football team. In conducting the survey, if a
participant asked a question, the researcher gave an answer. If a participant encountered any
discomfort while completing the survey, he or she could withdraw.
To conduct the online survey, Qualtrics software was used. This software program
enables the researcher to build the online survey, and the researcher could access this program
through the FSU online site named as Blackboard. In Qualtrics program, the researcher could
create survey based on existing survey. The questionnaires were copied from existing survey,
and the item types were selected. The format of the questionnaire was the same as the paper and
pencil form. The online survey also had a brief instruction of this research on the first page, and
the questionnaire followed. Once the survey was created, the access link was provided. Subjects
accessed the survey via this address. The online survey process followed a similar pattern. The
researcher asked instructors to give permission to conduct the survey. If instructors permitted the
25
online survey, the researcher sent an e-mail with the introduction of the research and the online
survey address to instructors. Then, the instructor forwarded the researcher’s e-mail to his or her
class. If participants had a question about the study, they could contact the researcher via e-mail.
Once participants accessed the survey site, they first read the instructions for completing the
questionnaire. After reading the consent form, participants clicked one of the statements: “I
consent to participate in this study” or “I would not like to participate in this study.” This choice
was regarded as their signature. Those agreeing to participate then proceeded to the first section.
Prior to release of the survey the IRB approved the study.
3.4 Instrument
3.4.1 Introduction of Items
In the demographic section, fill-in-the-blank type questions were given. Participants
reported their demographic information including age, gender, and race. This information was
not associated with any bias in the data analysis. The next section was comprised of questions
about past experiences attending college football sporting events. The questions covered
frequency of attendance, location of purchasing a ticket, the average price that participants had
paid, what participants considered when purchasing a ticket, and perceptions of price fairness in
relation to the previous ticket prices. The purpose of these questions was to investigate the basic
information in which participants purchase sporting event tickets and judge the price. The third
part was included to assess the perceptions of price in two different ticket options (i.e., the single
game ticket and the premium game ticket). The last item in this section was a measure of the
degree of perceived price fairness of the college football ticket price for a FSU football game. In
the fourth part, participants responded to questions about their level of trust toward the FSU
football team.
26
Two different scenarios were created in short story form regarding the regular single
game price of the FSU college football game ticket and the premium price of the UF game ticket.
In past research, Kahneman et al. (1986a) created a scenario that suggested different wages for
an employee and they asked how fair the employee perceived that wage. The two scenarios in
the current study included different ticket prices based on a certain situation; respondents
provided answers to 10-questions relating to the perceptions of ticket price. The perceptions of
price questions included seven positive statements and three negative statements (e.g., price is
questionable, price may not be worth it, and price is a rip-off). These negative statements were
included in order to maintain consistent responses in questions.
In the first scenario, participants read about the FSU ticket office offering youth tickets
for $25 per person, while the tickets for adults who are over 18-years of age are $45. Participants
then rated their agreement with the price. These questions were modified from Ferguson (2009)’s
instrument to measure perceptions about college football ticket prices. The first price option was
a single game ticket price. The second scenario dealt with the ticket price for a game against instate rival, UF, and was presented as a premium priced game. Based on these price options,
respondents were asked their perceptions of ticket price fairness with 10 questions fully anchored
1 for “Strongly Disagree,” 2 for “Disagree,” 3 for “Neutral,” 4 for “Agree,” and 5 for “Strongly
Agree.”
The 10 questions were created in order to assess high price point (e.g., HDTV) and low
price point (e.g., banana (Ferguson, 2009; Martin et al., 2009; Vaidyanathan & Aggarwal, 2003).
Even though these questions were based on research in a non-sports context, previous research
supported the possibility of various contexts, and should be adequate for application to the sports
context (Ferguson, 2009; Martin et al., 2009; Vaidyanathan & Aggarwal, 2003). Subsequently,
27
participants were asked about the degree of price fairness for the given ticket price option. This
question was also fully anchored 1 for “Very Unfair,” 2 for “Unfair,” 3 for “Neutral,” 4 for “Fair,”
and 5 “Very Fair.” Therefore, a total of eleven questions were developed for this section. The
various price options are from the official athletic ticket site at FSU (Seminoles.com, 2012).
In the last section, participants were asked to report their level of trust toward the FSU
football team. Sport consumers are expected to have strong trust toward their favorite sports
team (Hightower et al., 2002; Wakefield & Blodgett, 1994). To assess the level of trust toward
the FSU college football team, Garbrino and Johnson’s (1999) scale was adopted and adapted for
sport consumers (See Table 3.1). Garbrino and Johnson (1999) evaluated trust through
confidence of a partner’s integrity, for example, by asking about the reliability of the movie
theater company using the following question, “This theater is a reliable off-Broadway theater
company” (p. 84). In another approach, they attempted to assess trust with the following question,
“This theater can be counted on to produce a good show.” This question format was revised for
the FSU football team. In addition, Garbrino and Johnson (1999) measured trust with the
following negative questions such as, “I cannot always trust performances at this theater to be
good,” and, “I worry that the performance will be waste of time.” These questions were also
revised to fit the sports context. Also, Garbrino and Johnson (1999) dealt with consistency and
belief toward the target object and these items were also modified to a sports event context (See
Table 3.2). Therefore, based on existing research, six items were modified. All questions were
fully anchored using a five-point Likert-scale in which 1 was “Strongly Disagree,” 2 for
“Disagree,” 3 for “Neutral,” 4 for “Agree,” and 5 for “Strongly Agree.” The data for the two
negatively worded questions were reversed-coded.
28
Table 3.1
Original Items of Trust
Items
1. The performance at this theater always meet my expectations.
2. This theater can be counted on to produce a good show.
3. I cannot always trust performances at this theater to be good.
4. This theater is a reliable off-Broadway theater company.
5. The quality of the productions at this theater is consistently high.
6. I am concerned that the performance will not be worth the money.
Table 3.2
Modified Items of Trust
Items
1. The performance of the FSU football team always meets my expectation.
2. The FSU football team can be counted on to produce an exciting game experience.
3. I cannot always trust the performance of the FSU football team to be good.
4. The performance of the FSU football team is reliable.
5. The quality of the FSU football team’s play is consistently high.
6. I am concerned that the performance of the FSU football team will not be worth the money.
To provide evidence of face and content validity, all the items were reviewed by experts.
Evidence of internal consistency was obtained by computing the correlations among items. A
SPSS program was used for the data analysis.
3.5 Data Analysis
Using IBM SPSS 20.0, collected data of the positive items were coded while the negative
items were reversed-coded. Descriptive analysis was used to assess the participant demographic
information. This descriptive analysis involved age, race, and past experiences in attending
college football games. After assessing the characteristics of respondents, the participants were
separated into two groups, high-trust and low-trust, using an average score of trust toward the
FSU football team.
An independent t-test was used to test for group differences. Prior to the independent ttest, the assessment of assumptions was performed (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2009). The normality
29
of distribution was assessed by reviewing histograms and using skewness and kurtosis. The
homogeneity of variance for two groups being compared was also assessed by conducting
Levene’s test. Once the data were collected, the sample was divided into two different groups by
level of trust (e.g., high trust and low trust); a cutoff point was the average of all trust scores.
According to Morgan and Hunt (1994), trust is referred to as an asymmetric term that can be
determined by various dimensions and the data collected has its own interval property that is able
to be interpreted identically. Thus, it is hard to decide the cutoff point with the absolute value.
Based on a distribution of the data obtained, the mean score for trust was used as the cutoff point.
For example, all respondents above the mean were assigned to the high trust group. Then, the
null hypothesis is built in price. The null hypothesis was set as follows:
H0: There is no mean difference of the perceived price fairness of the college football
ticket between the high-trust group and low-trust group.
The mean scores for perception of price fairness for each group were compared in
relation to each scenario. For instance, the mean scores for perception of price fairness for the
two trust groups who read the single game ticket scenario were computed. For scenario one, the
mean scores for the high-trust group and low-trust group were compared. Based on a
significance level (α = .05), a two tailed t-test was administered. When the statistical result of
the test is less than the critical value (p < .05), the null hypothesis is rejected. Based on the
results, the researcher concludes whether there is a difference in perception of price for a single
game ticket between two different levels of trust groups. Although t-test could provide the mean
difference between two groups, the results are not shown which group mean is higher.
30
This chapter described the research design, including sampling procedure, process of
conducting survey, introduction of instrument, and data analysis. The following chapter provides
the results of the study.
31
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS
4.1 Introduction
In Chapter 1, a rationale for investigating perceived price fairness of sport consumers was
presented and an overview of the current study was provided, helping to establish the purpose of
this research. By exploring one research question, the researcher examined perception of price
regarding a sporting event ticket. Subsequently, relevant past literature was articulated in Chapter
2, leading to the creation of the following hypothesis: Sport consumers who have different levels
of trust toward a college football team will report different degrees of price fairness. The
statistical methods used to test the hypothesis were presented in Chapter 3. In this current chapter,
the results of the statistical data analysis are presented, including descriptions of data collection,
descriptive statistics, and inferential data analysis.
4.2 Data Collection
4.2.1 Process
Participants were students taking physical activity classes or sport management courses
selected on campus in the Spring and Summer semesters of 2013. To accommodate the paper
and pencil survey format, participants were recruited from the classroom during official class
time. Prior to conducting the survey, the researcher asked an instructor for permission to conduct
the survey. Once the instructor permitted the in-class survey distribution, a researcher visited a
class, briefly introduced the current study, and asked students to participate. The researcher
visited five physical activity classes and 66 usable surveys were collected. Students who
consented were given extra credit in the class as compensation. The survey took approximately
32
10 to 15 minutes to complete, and the researcher remained in the room to answer questions from
the participants. The online survey was conducted with the instructors’ permission. The online
questionnaires were sent to 143 students taking three sport management courses (i.e., Human
Resource Management in Sport and Marketing Sport) and one physical activity class (i.e.,
Stretch and Relaxation) via email, as described in the preceding chapter (See Table 4.1). Of 143
questionnaires, forty-three usable surveys were collected from the online survey. The response
rate of online survey was 30.07%.
PEL 1121-10
SPM 5308-01
SPM 5308-02
SPM 4124-02
Total
Table 4.1
Courses Distributing the Online Survey
Course
Stretch and Relaxation
Marketing Sport
Marketing Sport
Human Resource Management in Sport
n
23
44
39
37
143
4.2.2 Data Screening
The total number of participants in this research included 109 students who were
officially enrolled in Lifetime Activity Program (LAP) or sport management courses at FSU in
the Spring and Summer semester of 2013. The total sample size of 109 was much lower than the
expected sample size (200). Upon screening, three surveys (2.7%) that had blank items on price
fairness of both a single game ticket and the UF game ticket were eliminated. Of the 106 surveys,
some participants did not respond to both scenarios. As a result, the sample size of each scenario
was 100.
33
4.3 Data Analysis
4.3.1 Assessment of Instrument
The scenario type questions had been reviewed by experts in order to provide evidence of
content validity before conducting the survey. The final questions of level of trust were revised
based on comments of experts, and the reliability of items was assessed by examining
correlations. To test internal consistency, the correlations among 10 items in each scenario were
assessed. Table 4.2 shows the correlations of all 10 items in the single game ticket price. All
items except item 6 showed significant correlations (p<.05), ranging from .218 to .800. Most
notably, the correlation between happiness with the price and price satisfaction was very high,
leading to the conclusion that caution is needed when interpreting information relating to these
items.
As shown in Table 4.3, the correlations of the UF game ticket price scenario followed a
similar pattern as the single game ticket price scenario. In this correlation matrix, all correlations
of nine items were significant (p<.05) except item 6, and they ranged from .213 to .820. The
correlations among the trust items are presented in Table 4.4. The correlations for the trust items
ranged from .307 to .667, and all were significant at the 0.05 level.
34
Table 4.2
Reliability of a Single Game Ticket Price
Construct
1. Happy with price.
2. Satisfied with price.
3. Price is expected.
4. Pleasantly surprised by price.
5. Price is questionable.
6. Price is not worth price.
7. Price is a rip-off.
8. Price feels right.
9. Price is justified.
10. Price is reasonable.
*
p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01 (2-tailed).
1
1.00
2
.800**
1.00
3
.572**
.501**
1.00
Correlation Matrix (n=100)
4
5
6
**
**
.546
.589
.392**
**
**
.600
.523
.385**
.315** .460**
.245*
1.00
.364**
.295**
1.00
.520**
1.00
7
.612**
.488**
.492**
.410**
.555**
.450**
1.00
8
.629**
.630**
.647**
.482**
.449**
.171
.397**
1.00
9
.612**
.570**
.533**
.521**
.519**
.239*
.583**
.595**
1.00
10
.479**
.362**
.534**
.392**
.363**
.218
.552**
.514**
.613**
1.00
Table 4.3
Construct
1. Happy with price.
2. Satisfied with price.
3. Price is expected.
4. Pleasantly surprised by price.
5. Price is questionable.
6. Price is not worth price.
Reliability of the UF Game Ticket Price
Correlation Matrix (n=100)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
**
**
**
**
**
1.00 .820
.474
.528
.411
.295
.432**
1.00
.442**
.583**
.323**
.280**
.330**
1.00
.314**
.441**
.245*
.367**
1.00
.213*
.229*
.300**
1.00
.369**
.473**
1.00
.460**
35
8
.530**
.495**
.368**
.395**
.253*
9
.533**
.466**
.651**
.399**
.376**
10
.404**
.329**
.617**
.300**
.323**
.324**
.317*
.195
Table 4.3-continued
Construct
1
2
Correlation Matrix (n=100)
4
5
6
7
1.00
3
7. Price is a rip-off.
8. Price feels right.
9. Price is justified.
10. Price is reasonable.
*
p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01 (2-tailed).
8
.406**
1.00
9
.510**
.520**
1.00
10
.321**
.355**
.683**
1.00
Table 4.4
Reliability of Trust
Construct
1
1.00
1. Always meets expectations
2. Can be counted on to produce an exciting game experience
3. Cannot always trust to be good
4. Reliable
5. Consistently high quality
6. Not be worth the money.
*
p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01 (2-tailed).
36
2
.491**
1.00
Correlation Matrix (n=106)
3
4
5
**
**
.628
.667
.483**
.307**
.535**
.535**
1.00
.582**
.403**
1.00
.665**
1.00
6
.472**
.547**
.524**
.563**
.485**
1.00
4.3.2 Comparison of Results between Survey Types
The results of each survey type (i.e., an online survey and a paper and pencil survey)
were compared in order to test whether there was a significant difference between the two
questionnaire types. All mean scores of variables (i.e., trust, perception of price, and price
fairness) between the survey types are presented in Table 4.5. The mean scores of the variables
were not significantly different (p>.05) (See Table 4.6); therefore, the results of the two
questionnaire types were not significantly different. As a result, the data from two questionnaire
types were combined for the data analysis.
Table 4.5
Descriptive Statistics: Comparison of Results between Survey Types
Survey type
n
Mean
Online
43
3.27
Trust
Paper and Pencil
63
3.38
Online
42
2.96
Perception of price of a single game
Paper and Pencil
58
3.11
Online
42
3.24
Price fairness of a single game
Paper and Pencil
58
3.40
Online
42
2.46
Perception of the UF game
Paper and Pencil
58
2.50
Online
42
2.60
Price fairness of the UF game
Paper and Pencil
58
2.40
Table 4.6
t-test: Comparison of Results between Survey Types
df
Trust
104
Perception of price of a single game
98
Price fairness of a single game
98
Perception of price of the UF game
98
Price fairness of the UF game
98
*
p < 0.05 (2-tailed).
37
t
-1.841
-1.099
-.879
-.261
1.012
SD
.9838
1.0690
.7092
.6484
.9830
.8150
.6599
.6293
.912
1.008
Sig.
.068
.275
.381
.794
.314
4.3.3 Participant Demographics
The average age of participants was 21.38 year-old and the range of age was from 18 to
37 (SD=3.03). As shown in Table 4.7, there were 67 females (63.2%) and 39 males (36.8%). The
majority of individuals identified themselves was Caucasian (n=65, 61.3%), followed by
Hispanics (n=18, 17.0%) and African American (n=10, 9.4%), and multiracial (n=8, 7.5%).
Variable
Sex
Race
Table 4.7
Participant Demographics
Categories
Frequency
Female
67
Male
39
Total
106
American Indian or Alaskan Native
0
Asian
4
African American
10
Caucasian
65
Hispanic
18
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
1
Other
8
Total
106
Percent (%)
63.2
36.8
100.0
0.0
3.8
9.4
61.3
17.0
.9
7.5
100.0
4.3.4 Past Behavior Information
Most respondents had attended a live college football game over 11 times while a student
at FSU (44.3%; See Table 4.8). Only 6.6% of respondents had never attended a live college
football game. A majority purchased the college football sporting event ticket via an on-line
official ticket site (n=78, 73.6%), followed by “other” (n=14, 13.2%), then “ticket agency” and
“from a family member” (See Table 4.9).
Variable
None
1-3
4-6
7-10
Table 4.8
The Number of Attending a Live College Football Sporting Event
Frequency
Percent (%)
7
6.6
18
17.0
17
16.0
17
16.0
38
Variable
11+
Total
Table 4.8 - continued
Frequency
47
106
Percent (%)
44.3
100.0
Table 4.9
The Location of Purchasing a College Football Ticket
Variable
Frequency
Ticket office
5
On-line official ticket site
78
Ticket agency
6
Scalpers
3
From a friend
6
From a family member
7
Others
14
Total
120
Percent (%)
4.7
73.6
5.7
2.8
5.7
6.6
13.2
100.0
The average ticket price was $8.26 (See Table 4.10). The highest price was $70 and the
lowest price was $0. The majority of participants reported paying nothing for a college football
ticket. Through the open-ended questions, some respondents explained that they have used a free
student ticket for the FSU football game.
Variable ($)
0
20
23
25
30
40
43
45
48
50
70
Missing
Total
Table 4.10
Average Price of a Live College Football Game Ticket
Frequency
Percent (%)
80
75.5
3
2.8
1
.9
1
.9
2
1.9
3
2.8
1
.9
1
.9
2
1.9
7
6.6
1
.9
4
3.8
106
100.0
39
In terms of considerations for purchasing the ticket, the most frequently cited reasons
were a favorite team and a particular game, as shown in Table 4.11. An opponent was the next
highest consideration (31.1%), followed by price and an environmental condition. 81.1% of
participants responded “Yes” to indicate their past ticket price was fair, while 15.1% gave “No”
as an answer (See Table 4.12).
Table 4.11
Considerations of Purchasing a College Football Ticket
Variable
Price
Environmental condition (e.g., stadiums, or special promotion of
tickets)
Favorite team
Game itself
An opponent
Others
Total
Variable
Yes
No
Missing
Total
33
Percent
(%)
31.1
22
20.8
45
45
35
4
184
42.5
42.5
33.0
3.8
100.0
Frequency
Table 4.12
Price Fairness of Average Ticket Price
Frequency
86
16
4
106
Percent (%)
81.1
15.1
3.8
100.0
4.3.5 Assumption Tests
The normal distribution of each data set of two scenarios for an independent t-test was
assessed using histograms and through skewness and kurtosis. First, the data set of each scenario
was evaluated to be normally distributed based on reviews of the histograms. Also, the normality
was evaluated through skewness and kurtosis. According to West, Finch, and Curran (1995), if
40
the skewness is less than absolute two, the data is assumed to be normal. In addition, if the
kurtosis is less than absolute seven, the data is assumed to be normal as well. As shown in Tables
4.13 to 4.20, all values of skewness were less than absolute value two, and all values of kurtosis
were also less than absolute value seven. Therefore, all scores in two scenarios were normally
distributed.
Homogeneity of variances was assessed by Levene’s Test. Both in the single game ticket
scenario and the UF game ticket scenario, all items except item 3 were not significant at the 0.05
level (See Table 4.17 and 4.18). It is indicated that the variances of nine items were equal.
Therefore, the homogeneity of variances of nine items was met with equal variances assumed.
While the result of item 3 was significant, if the alternative formula of degree of freedom was
utilized, the homogeneity of variance for item 3 was met (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2009). Therefore,
the adjustment of equal variances of item 3 was used in the t statistic. As a result, homogeneity
of variances for all items both in the single game ticket scenario and in the UF game scenario
was met.
41
1. Happy with price.
2. Satisfied with price.
3. Price is expected.
4. Pleasantly surprised by price.
5. Price is questionable.
6. Price is not worth price.
7. Price is a rip-off.
8. Price feels right.
9. Price is justified.
10. Price is reasonable.
Table 4.13
Descriptive Statistics of a Single Game Ticket Price
Range
Group
n
Mean SD
Minimum Maximum
Low
54 2.76 1.045
1
5
High
46 3.22 .892
2
5
Low
54 2.39 .960
1
5
High
46 2.93 .879
2
5
Low
54 3.11 1.040
1
5
High
46 3.37 .771
2
5
Low
54 2.56 1.076
1
5
High
46 2.80 1.025
1
5
Low
54 2.81 .933
1
4
High
46 3.02 .906
2
5
Low
54 2.87 1.010
1
5
High
46 3.13 1.046
2
5
Low
54 3.28 .998
1
5
High
46 3.63 .853
2
5
Low
54 2.65 .781
1
4
High
46 3.09 .755
2
5
Low
54 3.13 .825
1
4
High
46 3.43 .720
2
5
Low
54 3.39 .787
1
5
High
46 3.67 .871
1
5
42
Skewness
Statistics S.E.
-.008
.325
-.060
.350
.462
.325
.540
.350
-.543
.325
-.454
.350
.606
.325
.023
.350
-.049
.325
.330
.350
.041
.325
.338
.350
-.594
.325
-.090
.350
-.022
.325
.177
.350
-.668
.325
-.136
.350
-.823
.325
-.776
.350
Kurtosis
Statistics S.E.
-.975
.639
-1.074
.688
-.116
.639
-.569
.688
-.873
.639
-.656
.688
-.248
.639
-.378
.688
-1.145
.639
-.956
.688
-.690
.639
-1.167
.688
-.248
.639
-.531
.688
-.369
.639
-.422
.688
-.112
.639
-.208
.688
1.768
.639
1.031
.688
Table 4.14
Descriptive Statistics of a Single Game Ticket Price Fairness
Range
Skewness
Group n
Mean SD
Minimum Maximum Statistics S.E.
Low
54 3.26 .975
1
5
-.552
.325
11. Price fairness of a single game ticket
High 46 3.41 .777
2
5
-.589
.350
1. Happy with price.
2. Satisfied with price.
3. Price is expected.
4. Pleasantly surprised by price.
5. Price is questionable.
6. Price is not worth price.
7. Price is a rip-off.
8. Price feels right.
9. Price is justified.
Table 4.15
Descriptive Statistics of the UF Game Ticket
Range
Group n
Mean SD
Minimum Maximum
Low
55
1.84 0.811
1
4
High
45
2.22
.927
1
4
Low
55
1.71
.762
1
4
High
45
2.11
.885
1
4
Low
55
2.76 1.201
1
5
High
45
2.91
.949
1
5
Low
55
1.89
.896
1
5
High
45
2.18 1.007
1
4
Low
55
2.60 1.029
1
5
High
45
2.58
.941
1
5
Low
55
2.45 1.068
1
5
High
45
2.78 1.126
1
5
Low
55
2.67 1.072
1
5
High
45
2.91
.996
1
5
Low
55
2.24
.769
1
4
High
45
2.42
.866
1
4
Low
55
2.78
.854
1
4
High
45
2.91
.925
1
5
43
Skewness
Statistics
S.E.
.961
.322
.608
.354
1.074
.322
.599
.354
-.056
.322
-.150
.354
1.183
.322
.606
.354
.250
.322
.621
.354
.690
.322
.361
.354
-.048
.322
.329
.354
.576
.322
.414
.354
-.113
.322
-.178
.354
Kurtosis
Statistics S.E.
-.077
.639
-.595
.688
Kurtosis
Statistics S.E.
.876
.634
-.296
.695
1.275
.634
-.126
.695
-1.247
.634
-.514
.695
1.843
.634
-.601
.695
-.807
.634
-.274
.695
.045
.634
-.482
.695
-.931
.634
-.389
.695
.333
.634
-.535
.695
-.706
.634
-.294
.695
10. Price is reasonable.
Group
n
Low
High
55
45
Table 4.15 - continued
Range
Mean SD
Minimum
Maximum
3.05
.911
1
5
3.13
.842
1
5
Skewness
Statistics
S.E.
-.263
.322
-.262
.354
Table 4.16
Descriptive Statistics of the UF Game Ticket Price Fairness
Range
Skewness
Group n
Mean SD
Minimum Maximum Statistics S.E.
Low 55 2.35 .927
1
4
.256
.322
11. Price fairness of the UF game ticket
High 45 2.69 1.019
1
5
.134
.354
44
Kurtosis
Statistics
S.E.
-.699
.634
.938
.695
Kurtosis
Statistics S.E.
-.703
.634
-.735
.695
Table 4.17
Levene’s Test: A Single Game Ticket Price
F
1.768
.941
5.814
.508
.655
.438
1.251
1.321
.038
.225
1.486
1. Happy with price.
2. Satisfied with price.
3. Price is expected.
4. Pleasantly surprised by price.
5. Price is questionable.
6. Price is not worth price.
7. Price is a rip-off.
8. Price feels right.
9. Price is justified.
10. Price is reasonable.
11. Price fairness of a single game ticket
*
p < 0.05 (2-tailed).
df
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
Sig.
.187
.334
.018*
.478
.420
.510
.266
.253
.846
.636
.226
df
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
Sig.
.334
.749
.006*
.266
.388
.745
.240
.123
.956
.242
.394
Table 4.18
Levene’s Test: the UF Game Ticket Price
F
.943
.103
7.784
1.252
.752
.107
1.399
2.416
.003
1.387
.732
1. Happy with price.
2. Satisfied with price.
3. Price is expected.
4. Pleasantly surprised by price.
5. Price is questionable.
6. Price is not worth price.
7. Price is a rip-off.
8. Price feels right.
9. Price is justified.
10. Price is reasonable.
11. Price fairness of a single game ticket
*
p < 0.05 (2-tailed).
4.3.6 Trust
Table 4.19 shows the mean of level of trust; all scores of trust were normally distributed
around the mean. The mean score for the trust items ranged from 3.04 to 3.58, and the mean
score for all trust items was 3.30. Based on this result, the data was divided into two groups: low
level of trust group and high level of trust group (See Table 4.20). Specifically, one who reported
45
low level of trust toward the FSU football team had weak trust, while the other who showed high
level of trust had strong trust (Garbrino & Johnson, 1999). Respondents with a total mean score
for all trust items below 3.30 were assigned to the low level of trust group, while those with a
mean score for all the trust items greater than 3.30 were assigned to the high level of trust group.
Of the 106 surveys, there were 48 in the high level of trust group and 58 in the low level of trust
group. The mean of the high level of trust group was 3.95 (SD = 0.52), while the mean of the low
level of trust group was 2.73 (SD = 0.38). The data that was assigned into the low level of trust
were coded as 1, and the data in the high level of trust group were coded as 2. The sample size in
each trust group was different based on the response rate in each scenario.
46
Table 4.19
Descriptive Statistics of Trust
1. Always meets expectations
2. Can be counted on to produce an exciting game
experience
3. Cannot always trust to be good
4. Reliable
5. Consistently high quality
6. Not be worth the money.
Total
n
Mean SD
106
3.10
Range
Skewness
Kurtosis
Minimum Maximum Statistics S.E. Statistics S.E.
1.077
1
5
.116
.235
-.925
.465
106
3.58
.966
1
5
-.477
.235
-.250
.465
106
106
106
106
106
3.04
3.34
3.39
3.38
3.30
1.050
.945
.911
1.046
.075
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
.326
.027
-.388
-.252
.432
.235
.235
.235
.235
.235
-.653
.385
-.792
-.539
-.205
.465
.465
.465
.465
.465
Table 4.20
Descriptive Statistics of Difference between High and Low Level of Trust
Skewness
Range
Group n
Mean SD
Maximum
Statistics
S.E.
Minimum
1. Always meets expectations
2. Can be counted on to produce
an exciting game experience
3. Cannot always trust to be good
4. Reliable
5. Consistently high quality
Kurtosis
Statistics
S.E.
Low
High
Low
High
58
48
58
2.43
3.83
3.02
.728
.883
.868
1
2
1
4
5
5
.248
-.626
-.200
.314
.343
.314
-.099
-.068
-.442
.618
.674
.618
48
4.25
.526
3
5
.229
.343
-.219
.674
Low
High
Low
High
Low
High
58
48
58
48
58
48
2.5
3.65
2.76
4.04
2.90
3.94
.778
.934
.683
.683
.765
.697
1
2
1
2
1
2
5
5
4
5
4
5
.695
-.363
.005
-.470
-.794
-.309
.314
.343
.314
.343
.314
.343
.966
-.641
-.253
.678
.914
.214
.618
.674
.618
.674
.618
.674
47
6. Not be worth the money.
Total
Group
n
Low
High
Low
High
58
48
58
48
Table 4.20 - continued
Range
Mean SD
Minimum
Maximum
2.79
.894
1
5
4.00
.772
2
5
2.73
.382
1.67
3.17
3.95
.518
3.33
5
48
Skewness
Statistics
S.E.
-.031
.314
.-.579
.343
-.833
.314
.888
.343
Kurtosis
Statistics
S.E.
-.255
.618
.341
.674
.023
.618
-.186
.674
4.3.7 Price Fairness of a Single Game Ticket Scenario
In the next step, the perceptions of price fairness of a single game ticket were assessed.
The total sample size of the single game ticket price scenario was 100 without missing data. The
group size of low level of trust was 54 and the high trust group size was 46. The mean scores for
perceptions of price of the low level of trust group ranged from 2.39 (SD=0.960) to 3.13
(SD=0.825), while the mean score for perception of price for the high level of trust group ranged
from 2.80 (SD = 1.025) to 3.67 (SD = 0.871), as can be seen Table 4.13. In addition, as shown in
Table 4.14, the mean score for price fairness of the single game ticket of the low level of trust
group was 3.26 (SD=0.975), and the mean score of the high level of trust group was 3.41 (SD =
0.777).
For hypothesis testing, the results of the t-test are presented in Table 4.21. The degree of
freedom was 98. The mean scores for perception of price for all but three items were not
statistically significant (p>.05). The significant differences between the two groups for
perceptions of price were found with happiness with the price, price satisfaction, and feeling
right about the price (p<.05) In terms of price fairness, as presented in Table 4.22, the perception
of price fairness for the single game ticket scenario was not statistically significant (p>.05)
between the two groups. Therefore, the hypothesis was not supported in the single game ticket
price scenario.
49
Table 4.21
t-test: Perceptions of a Single Game Ticket Price
1. Happy with price.
2. Satisfied with price.
3. Price is expected.
4. Pleasantly surprised by price.
5. Price is questionable.
6. Price is not worth price.
7. Price is a rip-off.
8. Price feels right.
9. Price is justified.
10. Price is reasonable.
*
p < 0.05 (2-tailed).
df
t
Sig.
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
-2.335
-2.945
-1.424
-1.178
1.120
1.262
1.881
-2.844
-1.954
-1.719
.022*
.004*
.158
.242
.266
.210
.063
.005*
.054
.089
C.I. (95%)
Lower
Upper
-.847
-.069
-.914
-.178
-.619
.102
-.668
.170
-.574
.160
-.669
.149
-.725
.019
-.745
-.133
-.615
.005
-.614
.044
Table 4.22
t-test: Price Fairness of a Single Game Ticket
11. Price fairness of a single game ticket
*
p < 0.05 (2-tailed).
50
df
t
Sig.
98
-.862
.391
Lower
-.508
C.I. (95%)
Upper
.200
4.3.8 Price Fairness of UF Game Ticket Scenario
The price of the UF game ticket was much more expensive than the single game ticket
price. The sample size of the UF game ticket scenario was 100 without missing data. The group
size of low level of trust was 55 and the high trust group size was 45. The mean score for
perception of price for the the low level of trust group ranged from 1.71 (SD = 0.762) to 3.05
(SD = 0.911) and the mean score for the high level of trust group ranged from 2.11 (SD = 0.885)
to 3.13 (SD = 0.842) (See Table 4.15). In addition, as shown in Table 4.16, the mean score of
price fairness of the low level of trust group in the UF game scenario was 2.35 (SD = 0.927),
much lower than the mean of the single game ticket scenario. The mean score of price fairness of
the high level of trust group was 2.69 (SD = 1.019).
All but two perceptions of price scores were not statistically significant (p>.05) as shown
in Table 4.23; happiness with the price and price satisfaction were significant (p<.05). The
results were the same as the perception of price of the single game ticket scenario. Moreover, as
presented in Table 4.24, the perception of price fairness of the UF game ticket was not
statistically different, the same results found for the single game ticket price (p>.05). Therefore,
the hypothesis was not supported. That is, there was no mean difference of the perceived price
fairness of the college football game ticket between the high-trust group and low-trust group.
51
Table 4.23
t-test: Perceptions of the UF Game Ticket Price
1. Happy with price.
2. Satisfied with price.
3. Price is expected.
4. Pleasantly surprised by price.
5. Price is questionable.
6. Price is not worth price.
7. Price is a rip-off.
8. Price feels right.
9. Price is justified.
10. Price is reasonable.
*
p < 0.05 (2-tailed).
df
t
Sig.
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
-2.220
-2.441
-.686
-1.507
.112
-1.469
-1.142
-1.136
-.726
-.445
.029*
.016*
.495
.135
.911
.145
.256
.259
.470
.657
C.I. (95%)
Lower
Upper
-.731
-.041
-.729
-.075
-.574
.279
-.665
.091
-.373
.417
-.760
.113
-.653
.176
-.510
.139
-.483
.224
-.430
.273
Table 4.24
t-test: Price Fairness of the UF Game Ticket
11. Price fairness of the UF game ticket
*
p < 0.05 (2-tailed).
52
df
t
Sig.
98
-1.763
.081
C.I.
Lower
-.730
Upper
.043
CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION
5.1 Introduction
The current study included one research question and one hypothesis based on the review
of literature. In Chapter 4, the data analysis and its statistical interpretations were presented
including the descriptive statistics (i.e., participants’ demographics and past behavior
information) and inferential statistics. In particular, the interpretations of two different scenario
questions were articulated. The current chapter includes the discussion of the statistical results
and their implications. Subsequently, the contributions of this study are illustrated not only in
academic areas, but in the practical area of sport management. The limitations of the current
study are addressed, and further research is recommended in turn. Lastly, the key findings of this
study are described in the conclusion.
5.2 Discussion of Results
The purpose of the current study was to examine the perception of ticket price of a
college football game based on level of trust in the football team. As there are various situations
when sports consumers purchase a game ticket, the perception of price fairness might be
different among sports consumers. Price fairness in two different ticket options was examined: a
single game ticket for a FSU football game and the ticket for FSU’s biggest rivalry game against
the University of Florida. According to Xia, Monroe, and Cox (2004), price fairness is
determined based on level of trust. In other words, the degree of price fairness could depend on
the level of trust between the buyer and the seller. In particular, Huppertz, Arenson, and Evans
(1978) found that if the level of trust between the buyer and the seller is high, the buyer
perceives less fairness in response to the increased price. However, the results of the current
53
study showed that there were no differences in price perception between two levels of trust
toward the college football team in both ticket options.
One reason for the non-significant results may be the sample size in the statistical
analysis. Based on the law of large numbers, a large sample size is required to represent the
population (Gravetter & Wallnau, 2009). The actual sample size of this study was 100 in each
scenario, which is considered medium-sized. This sample size could increase the variances of
price fairness, and the error could also rise on statistical analysis. Thus, a larger sample size
greater than 300 is required to obtain accurate results.
The unequal samples sizes for the two groups could be another reason for non-significant
results. Unequal samples sizes in the two groups caused problem of bias in analyzing the data
(Gravetter & Wallnau, 2009), and it is hard to estimate accurate results. In Huppertz et al.’s
(1978) study, the sample sizes of two groups were equal, so they could obtain significant results
despite the small sample size (n=80). However, in the current study, the sample sizes of the two
groups were not equal. These unequal sizes have caused the bias to estimate the price fairness,
resulting in non-significant statistics.
The mean score of trust level may be another reason for the non-significant results. In
Kahneman, Knetch, and Thaler’s (1986a) study, price fairness was evaluated by four choices:
completely fair, acceptable, unfair, and very unfair. The current study utilized a 5-point Likert
scale that was fully anchored, with one scale item labeled “Neutral.” That is, if “Neutral” was
selected to assess the level of trust toward the college of football team, it is hard to judge the
exact the level of trust. As can be seen in Table 4.16, the mean score of the low level of trust
group was 2.95, which was close to “Neutral”. Participants may not have any level of trust
54
toward the college football team. Therefore, if the exact level of trust is measured, the result of
price fairness could be significantly different.
5.2.1 Price Fairness of a Single Game Ticket
The first scenario included a description of the ticket price for the single FSU football
game. Perception of price was not significantly different between the two trust groups. A reason
for this non-significant result could be misperception of ticket price. More than 75% of
participants responded that they have never paid for college football ticket price due to free
student tickets. Although the actual ticket prices are included in their tuition fee, they are not
likely to recognize the ticket price as not being free because they have never paid directly when
they have purchased the ticket. Since they do not pay actual money for tickets and therefore have
no need to pay attention to price, it is possible that they are not likely to assess price fairness
carefully regardless of level of trust.
These results were also related to the standard of the perception of price. By the dual
entitlement principle, a baseline or standard should exist for determining price fairness.
According to Bolton, Warlop, and Alba (2003), consumers were likely to perceive price fairness
by using internal criteria that were established based on past experiences. However, participants
were not likely to perceive the reasons for the ticket price, and they did not have a standard for
how much a single game ticket should be.
5.2.2 Price Fairness of UF Game Ticket
The second scenario included a description of ticket price fairness for the UF game ticket,
which is considered one of the biggest games against FSU’s in-state rival. The findings were
reported that there was no significant difference in perception of price between the two trust
groups for the UF game scenario. Contrary to past research, sports consumers did not report
55
different degrees of fairness toward the highest college football game ticket price. According to
Xia, Monroe, and Cox (2004), there are different degrees of price fairness depending on the level
of trust toward an expensive price. However, even though the ticket price of the UF game was
four times more expensive than that of the single game, the result was not significant.
One reason for the non-significant result is the financial restriction for participants. All
the participants were students, and they have limited financial resources compared with nonstudents who have a regular annual income. Therefore, the price of the UF game ticket could be
regarded as a financial burden for them. Daskalopoulou and Petrou (2006) found that income
was a significant factor on perceived price fairness. Furthermore, based on past behavior
information, more than 31% of participants consider the price when they purchase a ticket. As
much as they consider price, it is worthwhile to note that, given their restricted financial situation,
the price of the UF game seems to be too high. Therefore, respondents could assess the price
fairness based on the price regardless of level of trust. In addition, as mentioned previously in the
single game case, most participants were not likely to recognize the reasons for the ticket price
being how much it is. This perception could lead participants to feel that the UF game ticket
price is much more expensive regardless of the level of trust. Based on social comparison theory
(Mussweiler, 2003), as a human being is always likely to compare his or her situation to others,
participants may compare the UF game ticket price to their free ticket price. Thus, the price of a
UF game ticket could be judged as a very expensive price for both levels of trust groups.
5.2.3 Summary
The price fairness of neither the single game ticket nor the UF game ticket was
significantly different between the two levels of trust groups. While differences of price
perceptions (i.e., happiness with the price and price satisfaction) were observed, most results
56
showed that there were no differences concerning the perceptions of price. Some past behavior
information was possibly supported by these results. The biggest reason was the existence of a
“free student ticket.” While the student ticket is not free at all, most participants are likely to be
aware of the value of a free ticket due to the inclusion of this price in the tuition fee. Furthermore,
financial limitation could be another reason that price could have an effect on determining the
similar price fairness between the two different levels of trust.
5.3 Contributions and Implications
The current study has made several contributions to the academic field of sports
management and to the actual practice of sports management in the business world. Above all,
this study has expanded the price fairness concept to sports management. Previous studies have
focused on non-sports areas, such as the hotel business, retail stores, and the airline business
(Darke & Dahl, 2003; Kimes, 1994; Radzi, Zahari, Muhammad, Aziz, & Ahmad, 2011). Even
though Hightower, Brady, and Baker (2002) attempted to investigate a servicescape factor that
influences price fairness in a hedonic service area (i.e., minor league baseball), their approach is
limited to dealing with price fairness for sports consumers. To focus on price fairness for sport
consumers, the current study attempted to examine price fairness of specific price for a college
football game. This finding in the business of sports management could inspire a researcher to
explore ticket prices related to a wider variety of sports.
This study has also contributed to the academic field by investigating a factor (i.e., trust)
believed to impact the buying behavior of sports consumers. Sport consumers are likely to show
a unique pattern of consumption decisions as illustrated in the example of purchasing tickets for
professional football games. Furthermore, according to Hightower et al. (2002), sports fans are
used to interacting with a physical environmental factor compared to non-sports consumers, an
57
interaction could influence the consumption of sports consumers. Sports consumers also have a
strong emotional connection to a sports team and that association affects the sports consumers’
perceptions in a positive way. In particular, the interesting finding of the current study is that
different perceptions of trust for sports consumers exist on the same college football team.
The current study has also provided empirical evidence for price fairness. Although Xia,
Monroe, and Cox (2004) provided a clear model of price fairness, their model was a conceptual
model. In particular, they categorized the level of trust and they assumed that the perception of
price fairness could be different depending upon the level of trust. To support this idea, statistical
details were presented. Some researchers attempted to examine dichotomous price fairness
(Kahneman, Knetch, & Thaler, 1986a, 1986b), showing the percentage of fairness or unfairness
based on a certain price. This study, however, applied the 5-point Likert scale for fairness to
different prices, so that it could specifically evaluate price fairness. As a result, these statistics
have been shown that there could be a threshold of price range that determines whether a sports
consumer will purchase the ticket based on different levels of trust. In addition, with descriptive
statistics, sports marketers could predict an acceptable range for ticket prices. Specifically, they
could reflect the sports consumers’ reactions to each price option when they establish the pricing
strategy. In the academic context, this could also be used to anticipate the perception of the
sports consumers’ decision-making behaviors.
5.4 Limitations and Future Research
The current study contributed to expanding the concept of price fairness into a sports
context. However this study has some limitations. The following content will address those
limitations and present recommendations for further research.
58
First of all, a student sample was selected as its target subject using the convenience
sampling technique. Even though students are both current sports consumers and future sports
consumers, the sample is limited because it does not represent the entire population of sports
consumers. Moreover, students have restricted financial resources, which can create a challenge
when they decide to purchase a sporting event ticket. In particular, the FSU athletic department
is offering cheaper tickets for students and the overall ticket price is included in the students’
tuition fees. This fact might confuse students who might misunderstand the pricing strategy and
think that the ticket is free. Moreover, students have fewer experiences of purchasing tickets than
do non-students, so they have fewer standards by which to judge price fairness. Therefore, it is
necessary to conduct a survey on a non-student sample.
Another limitation of the current study is its choice of the target sporting event. The
current study was focused on a college football sporting event, which is one of the most popular
sporting events in the community. In spite of the popularity of a college football sporting event,
different results can be found depending on the specific college. There are 238 college football
teams in Division I, out of a total of 9,443 universities and colleges in the U.S. (NCAA, 2013;
US College and University Directory, 2013). This study is limited to investigating the price of
college football tickets for two college football game tickets. Thus, further studies could
investigate various sporting events—ranging from other college sports to professional sports—in
order to assess the specific perceptions of sports consumers.
In addition, the usable sample size (N=106) was less than the expected sample size
(n=200). There was a time challenge to collect the target subjects in the period of data collecting.
In addition, there was some missing data from participants who had not completed the survey.
Therefore, the current study has been limited to estimate accurate mean score of price fairness. In
59
order to overcome this problem, subsequent research could gather the data in the middle of
regular semester in which many students could participate. Then, reliable findings of price
fairness could be obtained.
A further study could examine the different factors that influence price fairness. Fairness
is a psychological concept, so there might be more useful factors to consider than were addressed
by this study. In particular, Xia et al. (2004) suggested four different levels of trust and the
impact of these on ticket price fairness for sports consumers could be examined. Although only
two groups were divided based on the level of trust, the more particular criteria of level of trust
could help to understand the perception of sports consumers in details. Also, the threshold that
transfers the perception of price fairness for sports consumers could be provided. Therefore,
differences in the trust stage might lead sports consumers to have different perceptions about the
price of tickets. In addition, an additional study could investigate the other possible factors that
determine price fairness such as a popular athlete and various types of sporting events.
Furthermore, although the researcher examined the price of sporting event tickets, a
future study could investigate different sports products, such as sports equipment and sports
media contracts. In particular, the price of sports media has been an issue. Many broadcasting
networks have offered various price options for a particular sporting event, attempting to attract
sports consumers by suggesting various deals that enable consumers to watch that sporting event.
If the sports consumers’ perceptions of the price fairness of sporting event media are examined,
the findings might be helpful for setting an appropriate deal for many media-related
organizations.
Lastly, the perception of price fairness can be changed based on socio-economic status.
This study focused on students who share a similar economic status, and there are few studies
60
that deal with price fairness related to socio-economic status. According to Daskalopoulou and
Petrou (2006), socio-economic status (e.g., age, gender, marital status, and annual income) is a
significant factor impacting price fairness. Therefore, the status of sports consumers could
influence their perceptions of the price fairness of a sporting event ticket price. Therefore, an
exploration of the relationship between socio-economic status and price fairness in a sports
context is required.
5.5 Conclusion
Price fairness has been an issue in business, and it has been investigated by many
researchers (Bolton, Warlop, & Alba, 2003; Kahneman, Knetch, & Thaler, 1986a; Xia, Monroe,
& Cox, 2004). It is mainly explained by the dual entitlement principle and the social comparison
theory (Kahneman et al., 1986a; Mussweiler, 2006). However, it is merely discussed in the
sports business arena. Since sports consumers show unique consumption patterns from nonsports business consumers, it is necessary to explore price fairness of sports consumers in
particular. The current study was attempted to identify level of trust of sports consumers, and to
understand sports consumers’ behavior based on different perceptions of price fairness toward a
college football game ticket. To achieve these objectives, two groups who were identified based
on the level of trust toward the college football team evaluated the perceptions of price fairness
in two different ticket price options (i.e., the single game ticket and UF game ticket). Based on
statistical results, there were no significant differences in perception of price based on level of
trust toward the college football team. These findings indicated that the perceptions of price
fairness of the college football game ticket were similar regardless of level of trust.
The current study contributed to extending the price fairness concept in various ways. By
applying its concept to sports consumers, it could be helpful to investigate specific characteristics
61
of consumer behavior in details. The current study, however, has limitations. The lack of actual
sample size made it difficult to find the expected result, and the participants who were students
were also restricted to recognizing the price in terms of its relationship to a student ticket that
was included in tuition fees. Further studies are recommended in order to examine price fairness
thoroughly. Future research that could supplement limitations of the current study is suggested to
investigate a variety of price options in sports business context with diverse factors (i.e., socioeconomic factor and specified level of trust). It is hoped that this study helps to contribute to
pricing strategy for sports business and to further understand consumer behavior.
62
APPENDIX A
HUMAN SUBJECTS COMMITTEE APPROVAL
The Florida State University
Office of the Vice President For Research
Human Subjects Committee
Tallahassee, Florida 32306-2742
(850) 644-8673 · FAX (850) 644-4392
APPROVAL MEMORANDUM (for change in research protocol)
Date: 5/1/2013
To: Ara Jo
Address: Tully Gym 1020 Tallahassee, FL 32306-4280
Dept.: SPORT MANAGEMENT
From: Thomas L. Jacobson, Chair
Re: Use of Human Subjects in Research (Approval for Change in Protocol)
Project entitled: Perceived price fairness of sport tickets for sport consumers
The form that you submitted to this office in regard to the requested change/amendment to your
research protocol for the above-referenced project has been reviewed and approved.
If the project has not been completed by 10/31/2013, you must request a renewal of approval for
continuation of the project. As a courtesy, a renewal notice will be sent to you prior to your expiration
date; however, it is your responsibility as the Principal Investigator to timely request renewal of your
approval from the Committee.
By copy of this memorandum, the chairman of your department and/or your major professor is reminded
that he/she is responsible for being informed concerning research projects involving human subjects in
the department, and should review protocols as often as needed to insure that the project is being
conducted in compliance with our institution and with DHHS regulations.
This institution has an Assurance on file with the Office for Human Research Protection. The Assurance
Number is FWA00000168/IRB number IRB00000446.
Cc: Yu-Kyoum Kim, Advisor
HSC No. 2013.10405
63
APPENDIX B
CONSENT FORM
Perceived Price Fairness of Sports Tickets for Sport Consumers
Florida State University
You are invited to participate in research that investigates the perceived price fairness of
football tickets. Your cooperation is a very important resource in understanding the behavior of
sport consumers. I would like you to read this consent form before completing any questions you
may have. This study is being conducted by Ara Jo, who is a masters student in the Department
of Sport Management at Florida State University.
The purpose of this research is to identify significant factors that influence the perceived
price fairness of sports tickets. The results from this study are expected to provide information to
advance our understanding of sport consumer behavior related to the pricing of sports tickets.
Also, the information will be useful for sport marketers and other decision makers who manage
price strategy.
You are asked to complete a questionnaire about the perception of price fairness of
sports tickets. It will take 10-15 minutes to complete the questionnaire. Participation is
anonymous. Please do not write your name on the survey.
The possible physical or psychological risks involved from participating in this survey
are rare; however, if you feel discomfort, you may not answer a question or you may stop the
survey at any time. Your assistance is entirely voluntary, so you may withdraw from completing
the survey at any time. Also, there are no direct benefits or compensations to you for
participating in the study.
A record of this survey will be kept private and confidential to the extent permitted by
law. In any sort of report that I might publish, I will not include any information that is able to
identify subjects who complete the survey. All information will be kept securely on a password
protected computer. Only researchers will be able to access to the records.
If you have any questions about the survey, you may ask me now. If you want to ask
later, please contact me. You may also contact my educational advisor, Dr. Kim, Yu-Kyoum, at
the Department of Sport Management.
For questions about your rights as a research participant, contact the IRB at the FSU IRB
at 2010 Levy Street, Research Building B, Suite 276, Tallahassee, FL 32306-2742, or 850-6448633, or by email at [email protected].
64
Statement of Consent:
I have read the above information. I have asked questions and have received answers. I consent
to participate in this research.
Signature
Date
Signature of Investigator
Date
65
APPENDIX C
QUESTIONNAIRE
Part I. Demographic information
1. What is your age in years? Please write the number of years below.
Years old
2. What is your gender? (Please check the appropriate answer)
A. Male
B. Female
3. What is your race? (Please check all that apply)
A. American Indian or Alaskan Native
B. Asian
C. African American
D. Hispanic
E. Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
F. Caucasian
G. Other (Please specify)
Go to the next page.
66
Part II. Perceived Price Fairness for Sport Consumers
The statement below relates to your past ticket purchasing behavior. Please read each statement
carefully and respond honestly to the items.
1. How many live college football games have you attended while a student at FSU? (Pleas
e check the appropriate answer)
1) None
2) 1-3
3) 4-6
4) 7-10
5) 11+
2. How do you usually purchase a college football game ticket? (Please check all that apply)
1) At a ticket office
2) On-line official ticket site
3) Ticket agency
4) Scalpers
5) From a friend
6) From a family member
7) Others
3. On average, how much did you pay for a college football game ticket?
dollars
Go to the next page.
67
4. Which one of following elements below do you think about the most when you decide to
purchase a ticket to a college football game? (Please check all that apply)
1) Price
2) Environmental condition (e.g. stadium, special promotion of ticket)
3) Favorite team
4) Game itself
5) An opponent
6) Others
5. Do you think that the ticket price on average has been fair?
(Please check the appropriate answer)
1) Yes
2) No
Go to the next page.
68
Part III. Price Fairness
In this section, you will respond to items assessing your perception of price fairness of
tickets to a college football game.
The Florida State University football team had seven home games and five away games in
2012 season.
Please read each item carefully and circle the appropriate number in the scale beside each
statement.
If you have not purchased a college football game ticket, answer as you think a person who
has purchased a ticket would answer. There is no right or wrong answer.
69
1. The FSU athletic ticket office is offering single game tickets priced at $25 for youth (under 18
years-old) and $45 for adults (over 18 years-old).
Imagine you have graduated from FSU. You want to go watch a FSU football game, and you
decide to purchase a single game ticket for an adult. Based on the information above, think about
how much you agree or disagree with each item below, and circle the appropriate number in the
scale beside each statement.
1. Strongly Disagree
2. Disagree
3. Neutral
4. Agree
5. Strongly Agree
1. I’d be happy with the price.
1
2
3
4
5
2. I’d be completely satisfied with this price.
1
2
3
4
5
3. This is the price that I would expect to pay.
1
2
3
4
5
4. I am pleasantly surprised with the price.
1
2
3
4
5
5. This price is questionable.
1
2
3
4
5
6. The value of the product may not be worth
the price.
7. This price is a rip-off.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
8. This price just feels right.
1
2
3
4
5
9. All things considered, this price is justified.
1
2
3
4
5
10. People who know the market would find this
to be a reasonable price.
1
2
3
4
5
Please indicate your perception of fairness regarding the ticket price.
1. Very unfair
2. Unfair
3. Neutral
11. What is your perception of the fairness of the ticket
price?
70
4. Fair
1
5. Very fair
2
3
4
5
2. According to the secondary ticket provider StubHub, depending on competitors, the ticket
prices for college football games can be different. The single game ticket prices against the
University of Florida, FSU’s biggest competitor, range from $165 to $317.
Imagine you have graduated from FSU. You want to go watch the FSU football game against the
UF Gators, and you want to purchase a single game ticket. Based on price information above,
think about how much you agree or disagree with each item below, and circle the appropriate
number in the scale beside each statement.
1. Strongly Disagree
2. Disagree
3. Neutral
4. Agree
5. Strongly Agree
1. I’d be happy with the price.
1
2
3
4
5
2. I’d be completely satisfied with this price.
1
2
3
4
5
3. This is the price that I would expect to pay.
1
2
3
4
5
4. I am pleasantly surprised with the price.
1
2
3
4
5
5. This price is questionable.
1
2
3
4
5
6. The value of the product may not be worth
the price.
7. This price is a rip-off.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
8. This price just feels right.
1
2
3
4
5
9. All things considered, this price is justified.
1
2
3
4
5
10. People who know the market would find this
to be a reasonable price.
1
2
3
4
5
Please indicate your perception of fairness regarding the ticket price.
1. Very unfair
2. Unfair
3. Neutral
11. What is your perception of the fairness of the UF
ticket price?
Go to the next page.
71
4. Fair
1
5. Very fair
2
3
4
5
Part IV. Trust toward the FSU Football Team
Please read each statement below, and indicate the extent to which you disagree or agree with
each statement by circling the number in the scale next to each item.
1. Strongly Disagree
2. Disagree
3. Neutral
4. Agree
1. The performance of the FSU football team always
meets my expectations.
2. The FSU football team can be counted on to produce
an exciting game experience.
3. I cannot always trust the performance of the FSU
football team to be good.
4. The performance of the FSU football team is reliable.
5. The quality of the FSU football team’s play is
consistently high.
6. I am concerned that the performance of the FSU
football team will not be worth the money.
5. Strongly Agree
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Thank you very much for your participation in this research.
72
REFERENCES
Baker, J., Levy, M., & Grewal, D. (1992). An experimental approach to making retail store
environmental decisions. Journal of Retailing, 68(4), 445-460.
Bates, J. M., & Gabor, A. (1986). Price perception in creeping inflation: Report on an enquiry.
Journal of Economic Psychology, 7(3), 291-314.
Bei, L. T., & Chiao, Y. C. (2001). An integrated model for the effects of perceived product,
perceived service quality, and perceived price fairness on consumer satisfaction and
loyalty. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 14,
125-140.
Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers and
employees. the Journal of Marketing, 56, 57-71.
Bolton, L. E., & Alba, J. W. (2006). Price fairness: Good and service differences and the role of
vendor costs. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(2), 258-265.
Bolton, L. E., Warlop, L., & Alba, J. W. (2003). Consumer perceptions of price (un) fairness.
Journal of Consumer Research, 29(4), 474-491.
Campbell, M. C. (1999a). Perceptions of price unfairness: antecedents and consequences.
Journal of Marketing Research, 36(2), 187-199.
Campbell, M. C. (1999b). PRICING STRATEGY & PRACTICE “Why did you do that?” The
important role of inferred motive in perceptions of price fairness. Journal of Product &
Brand Management, 8(2), 145-153.
Campbell, M. C. (2007). “Says who?!” How the source of price information and affect influence
perceived price (un) fairness. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(2), 261-271.
Courty, P. (2000). An economic guide to ticket pricing in the entertainment industry. Louvain
Economic Review, 66(2), 167-192.
Darke, P. R., & Dahl, D. W. (2003). Fairness and discounts: the subjective value of a bargain.
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13(3), 328-338.
Daskalopoulou, I. & Petrou, A. (2006). Consumers’ expenditure and perceived price fairness.
International Journal of Social Economics, 33(11), 766-780.
Elliott, S. (2012, January). M&M’s to Unveil New Speaking Role at Super Bowl. The New York
Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/business/media/mms-tounveil-a-new-speaking-role-at-super-bowl.html?_r=1.
Ewing, J. & Jolly, D. (2012, August). Merkel Seems to side With E.C.B. on Spain and Italy. The
New York Times. Retrieved from
73
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/18/business/global/merkel-backs-european-centralbank.html?ref=economy.
Ferguson, J. L. (2009). Fair or foul? Determining the rules of the fair pricing game. Marketing
Dissertations, 13.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human relations, 7(2), 117-140.
Funk, D. C., & James, J. (2001). The psychological continuum model: A conceptual framework
for understanding an individual's psychological connection to sport. Sport Management
Review, 4(2), 119-150.
Funk, D. C., & James, J. D. (2006). Consumer loyalty: the meaning of attachment in the
development of sport team allegiance. Journal of Sport Management, 20(2), 189-217.
Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and
commitment in customer relationships. the Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 70-87.
Gielissen, R., Dutilh, C. E., & Graafland, J. J. (2008). Perceptions of Price Fairness An Empirical
Research. Business & Society, 47(3), 370-389.
Gratton, C., Dobson, N., & Shibli, S. (2000). The economic importance of major sports events: a
case-study of six events. Managing Leisure, 5(1), 17-28.
Grewal, D., Hardesty, D. M., & Iyer, G. R. (2004). The effects of buyer identification and
purchase timing on consumers' perceptions of trust, price fairness, and repurchase
intentions. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(4), 87-100.
Gravetter, F. J., & Wallnau, L. B. (2009). Statistics for the behavioral sciences (8th ed.).
Belmont, NA: Wadsworth.
Haws, K. L., & Bearden, W. O. (2006). Dynamic pricing and consumer fairness perceptions.
Journal of Consumer Research, 33(3), 304-311.
Herbig, P., & Milewicz, J. (1993). The relationship of reputation and credibility to brand success.
Journal of Consumer Marketing, 10(3), 18-24.
Herr, P. M. (1986). Consequences of priming: Judgment and behavior. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1106-1115.
Herrmann, A., Xia, L., Monroe, K. B., & Huber, F. (2007). The influence of price fairness on
customer satisfaction: an empirical test in the context of automobile purchases. Journal of
Product & Brand Management, 16(1), 49-58.
Hightower, R., Brady, M. K., & Baker, T. L. (2002). Investigating the role of the physical
environment in hedonic service consumption: an exploratory study of sporting events.
Journal of Business Research, 55(9), 697-707.
74
Huppertz, J. W., Arenson, S. J., & Evans, R. H. (1978). An application of equity theory to buyerseller exchange situations. Journal of Marketing Research, 250-260.
IEG Sponsorship Report. (2011). Sponsorship Spending: 2010 Proves Better Than Expected;
Bigger Gains Get For 2011. Retrieved from
http://www.sponsorship.com/IEG/files/fc/fcbe683b-d2a8-4f0b-9b35-121a86ab3a2b.pdf
Jacoby, J. (1976). Consumer and industrial psychology: Prospects for theory corroboration and
mutual contribution. Handbook of organisational psychology, 1031-1061.
James, J., Kolbe, R., & Trail, G. (2002). Psychological connection to a new sport team: Building
or maintaining the consumer base? Sport marketing quarterly, 11(4), 215-225.
King, B. (2012, March). Ticket challenge: Getting the price right. Sports Business Journal.
Retrieved from http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2012/03/19/InDepth/Ticket-pricing.aspx
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. (1986a). Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking:
Entitlements in the market. The American Economic Review, 76(4), 728-741.
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1986b). Fairness and the assumptions of
economics. Journal of Business, 59(4), 285-300.
Kimes, S. E. (1994). Perceived fairness of yield management. The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant
Administration Quarterly, 35(1), 22-29.
Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and
realities. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 438-458.
Lichtenstein, D. R., Bloch, P. H., & Black, W. C. (1988). Correlates of price acceptability.
Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 243-252.
Lind, E. A. (1992, March). The fairness feuristic: Rationality and "relationality" in procedural
evaluations. Paper presented at the Fourth International Conference of the Society for the
Advancement of Socio-Economics, Irvine, CA.
Lind, E. A. (1994). Procedural justice, disputing, and reactions to legal authoritie. In Sarat, A.,
Constable, M., Engel, D., Hans, V., & Lawrence, S.(Eds.), Everyday Practices and
Trouble Cases (pp. 177-198). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
Maas, V. S., Van Rinsum, M., & Towry, K. L. (2011). In search of informed discretion: an
experimental investigation of fairness and trust reciprocity. The Accounting Review, 87(2),
617-644.
Macintosh, G., & Lockshin, L. S. (1997). Retail relationships and store loyalty: a multi-level
perspective. International Journal of Research in marketing, 14(5), 487-497.
75
Martin, W. C., Ponder, N., & Lueg, J. E. (2009). Price fairness perceptions and customer loyalty
in a retail context. Journal of Business Research, 62(6), 588-593.
Maxwell, S. (1995). What makes a price increase seem “fair”. Pricing Strategy & Practice, 3(4),
21-27.
Maxwell, S. (2002). Rule-based price fairness and its effect on willingness to purchase. Journal
of Economic Psychology, 23(2), 191-212.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational
trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709-734.
Monroe, K. B., & Martins, M. (1994). Perceived price fairness: a new look at an old construct.
Advances in Consumer Research, 21(1), 75-78.
Moorman, C., Deshpande, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors affecting trust in market research
relationships. the Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 81-101.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing.
the Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20-38.
Mussweiler, T. (2003). 'Everything is relative': Comparison processes in social judgment The
2002 Jaspars Lecture. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(6), 719-733.
Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2000). The" relative self": Informational and judgmental
consequences of comparative self-evaluation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 79(1), 23.
Nagle, T. T., & Hogan, J. E. (4th Ed.). (2006). The Strategy and Tactics of Pricing: A Guide to
Growing More Profitably. New Jersey, U.S.: Pearson Education, Incorporated.
NCAA Division I. (2013). Division I Facts and Figures. Retrieved from
http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/divisioni/di+facts+and+figures
NFL Football and International Soccer Tickets. (2012). Super Bowl Tickets; Mercedes-Benz
Superdome New Orleans, Louisiana. Retrieved from
http://www.footballtickets.com/super_bowl_tickets.html
NFL Ticket Exchange. (2012). Green Bay Packers. Retrieved from
http://www.ticketexchangebyticketmaster.com/nfl/InventoryBrowse/Green-Bay-PackersTickets-at-Lambeau-Field-in-Green-Bay-9-152013?PID=1404377&intcmp=tm101754&wt.mc_id=NFL_LEAGUE_TIX_GB_HOME3
_BUY
Oliver, R. L., & Swan, J. E. (1989). Consumer perceptions of interpersonal equity and
satisfaction in transactions: a field survey approach. the Journal of Marketing, 53(2), 2135.
76
Ordóñez, L. D., Connolly, T., & Coughlan, R. (2000). Multiple reference points in satisfaction
and fairness assessment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(3), 329-344.
Rishe, P. (2012, September 21). NFL's Week 3 Secondary Ticket Price Trends: Seahawks Prices
Flying High for Monday Night Versus Packers. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/2012/09/21/nfls-week-3-secondary-ticket-pricetrends-seahawks-prices-flying-high-for-monday-night-versus-packers/
Radzi, S. M., Zahari, M. S. M., Muhammad, R., Aziz, A. A., & Ahmad, N. A. (2011). The effect
of factors influencing the perception of price fairness towards customer response
behaviors. Journal of Global Management, 2(1), 22-38.
Reichheld, F. F., & Schefter, P. (2000). E-loyalty: your secret weapon on the web. Harvard
Business Review, 78(4), 105-113.
Schindler, R. M. (2011). Pricing Strategies: A Marketing Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA, U.S.:
Sage Publications, Incorporated.
Seminole.com (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.seminoles.com/tickets/marketplace.html
Stubhub.com (2012) Florida State Seminoles Football Tickets. Retrieved November, 2012 from
http://www.stubhub.com/florida-state-seminoles-football-tickets/
Schurr, P. H., & Ozanne, J. L. (1985). Influences on exchange processes: Buyers' preconceptions
of a seller's trustworthiness and bargaining toughness. Journal of Consumer Research,
11(4), 939-953.
Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. (2002). Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relational
exchanges. the Journal of Marketing, 66(1), 15-37.
Thaler, R. (1985). Mental accounting and consumer choice. Marketing Science, 4(3), 199-214.
Thomas, G. P., & Soldow, G. F. (1988). A rules-based approach to competitive interaction. the
Journal of Marketing, 52(2), 63-74.
Trochim, W. M., & Donnelly, J. P. (2008). Research methods knowledge base. Retrieved from
http://anatomyfacts.com/Research/ResearchMethodsKnowledgeBase.pdf
US College and University Directory. (2013). Colleges and University in the United States of
America (USA) by State/ Possession. Retrieved from
http://www.univsearch.com/state.php
Urban, G. L., Sultan, F., & Qualls, W. J. (2000). Placing trust at the center of your Internet
strategy. Sloan Management Review, 42(1), 39-48.
Urbany, J. E., Madden, T. J., & Dickson, P. R. (1989). All's not fair in pricing: an initial look at
the dual entitlement principle. Marketing Letters, 1(1), 17-25.
77
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012). Consumer Price Index Summary.
Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm
Vaidyanathan, R., & Aggarwal, P. (2003). Who is the fairest of them all? An attributional
approach to price fairness perceptions. Journal of Business Research, 56(6), 453-463.
Vohra, R. V., & Krishnamurthi, L. (2012). Principles of Pricing: An Analytical Approach. New
York, U.S. Cambridge University Press.
Van den Bos, K., Lind, E. A., Vermunt, R., & Wilke, H. A. M. (1997). How do I judge my
outcome when I do not know the outcome of others? The psychology of the fair process
effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1034.
Voss, G. B., Parasuraman, A., & Grewal, D. (1998). The roles of price, performance, and
expectations in determining satisfaction in service exchanges. the Journal of Marketing,
62(4), 46-61.
Wright, K. B. (2006). Researching internet-based populations: Advantages and disadvantages of
online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web
survey services. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10(3), DOI: 10. 1111/j.
1083-6101.2005.tb00259.x.
West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues
and applications (pp.56-75). Newbery Park, CA: Sage.
Wakefield, K. L., & Blodgett, J. G. (1994). The importance of servicescapes in leisure service
settings. Journal of Services Marketing, 8(3), 66-76.
Wakefield, K. L., Blodgett, J. G., & Sloan, H. J. (1996). Measurement and management of the
sportscape. Journal of Sport Management, 10(1), 15-31.
Xia, L., Monroe, K. B., & Cox, J. L. (2004). The price is unfair! A conceptual framework of
price fairness perceptions. Journal of Marketing, 68(4), 1-15.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of
service quality. the Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 31-46.
78
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Ara Jo was born and raised in Seoul, South Korea. She earned Bachelor’s degree in
Economics and in Exercise Science from Ewha Womans University. During college, she went to
Japan as an exchange student and she studied global business for a year. She enrolled in the
masters program at the Florida State University in the spring, 2011.
79