Journal of Sport Management, 2010, 544-566
© 2010 Human Kinetics, Inc.
The Meaning and Measurement
of a Sport Event Experience
Among Active Sport Tourists
Kyriaki Kaplanidou
University of Florida
Christine Vogt
Michigan State University
Destinations use sport events to attract participants and spectators, who then
hold perceptions of both the sport event and destination. This research aimed
to a) understand how active sport tourists perceive the meaning of a sport event
experience and b) develop a scale for that meaning. Both aims are studied in a post
trip context as evaluative research. Two focus groups were used to understand the
meaning of the sport event experience among active sport tourists. Results from
the focus groups suggest participants attribute meanings related to organizational,
environmental, physical, social, and emotional aspects of the sport event experience. Next, semantic differential items were developed to measure the meaning
of a sport event experience in the post trip phase. The items were tested with two
different sport event participant samples using surveys. A uni-dimensionsal scale
of 11 semantic differential items emerged. These items provide a measure for the
evaluative meaning of a sport event experience.
Introduction
Sport events are tourism products for destinations and can vary in size (e.g., small,
large). As tourism products, sport events can generate destination imageries for
their audiences through the media (Chalip, Green, & Hill, 2003) or through direct
experiences (Kaplanidou & Vogt, 2007) and can also have a certain meaning in the
mind of the sport consumer who travels to participate in the event (sport tourist).
Sport tourists attach meanings to a sport event or destination which may influence
their likelihood of revisiting the host destination (Bigne, Sanchez, & Sanjez, 2001)
and stimulate economic impact for the host community (Gratton, Shilbi, & Coleman, 2005). The exploration of meaning of the sport event experience has not been
Kaplanidou is with the Dept. of Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management, University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL. Vogt is with the Dept. of Community, Recreation, Agriculture, and Resource Studies,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI.
544
Meaning of Sport Event Experience 545
examined extensively in the literature and its conceptualization can assist with the
understanding of the relationship between event and destination brand images (e.g.,
Brown, Chalip, Jago, & Mules, 2002; Jago, Chalip, Brown, Mules, & Shameem,
2003), cobranding strategies (e.g., Xing & Chalip, 2006), as well as, the overall
perceptions of the event. This exploration should be considered within the nature
of the event (e.g., small, large), the type of sport tourist (e.g., active, passive) and
the travel or trip stage (either pre trip, during, or post trip).
In the sport management and tourism literature, emphasis has been placed
mainly on mega events that generate worldwide destination awareness (Ritchie
& Smith, 1991; Weed, 2008) and large infrastructure projects in local communities (Essex & Chalkley, 1998; Ritchie, 1984). Large scale sport events such as the
Olympic Games, SuperBowl and World Cup (soccer) can have specific meanings
for sport consumers (Chalip, 2000). While these larger sport events contribute to a
local community’s economy and marketing appeal, smaller recurring sport events
such as local marathons and bicycle tours can generate more sustainable economic
impact (Ritchie, 2004) and could potentially build a more sustainable image for the
community. These smaller events often need relatively low organizing investments
and attract significant (for the region) numbers of participants and spectators on
a regular basis (Crompton, 1999). Smaller scale events have not been extensively
examined in the literature and consequently there is a dearth of information on the
aspects that constitute the meaning of a smaller scale event experience, which will
be the focus of this research.
The type of sport tourists can influence the formation of meaning of sport event
experience. Based on Weed and Bull’s (2004) conceptualization of sport tourism as
a phenomenon arising from the spectrum of unique interactions between people,
place, and activities, the meaning of a sport event experience may vary among
active and passive sport tourists given the different nature of the activity, place,
and people involved (Shamir & Ruskin, 1984). An understanding of the aspects
involved in the meaning of sport event experience as held by different types of
sport tourists may help destinations create a sport tourism image that attracts more
or desirable visitors (i.e., event participants and spectators) to their area (Chalip,
2001). Although spectators have been a focus in the sport and tourism marketing
literature (Kaplanidou, 2007; Lee, Lee, & Lee, 2005) participants have not been
examined extensively. This study focuses on the active sport tourist (participant)
to contribute new understanding of the meanings associated with a sport event
experience.
Sport and tourism activities entail a travel component. The trip or travel stage
plays a role in destination image formation and experience perceptions (Vogt &
Andereck, 2003). In the pretrip phase, the meaning of the sport event experience is
influenced by media coverage, word-of-mouth, or past event or destination experiences (Gartner, 1993) and as a result takes on a variety of forms. The meaning of
a sport event experience when captured during the trip can be somewhat different than the pretrip or post trip phases, because direct experiences with the event
are recorded and could be more vivid in memory. Post trip perceptions about the
meaning of the sport event experience could contain a more holistic memory-based
evaluation of the event and the destination where the experience occurred (MacKay
& McVetty, 2002). Our research was delimited to the understanding of small scale
sport event meaning in the post trip phase among active sport tourists.
546 Kaplanidou and Vogt
In summary, given the importance of sport events as tourist attraction products, few empirical efforts have been made that examine the meaning attached to
the experience of a sport event. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to:
a) understand the meaning active sport tourists attach to the sport event experience in the post trip phase and b) develop a reliable and valid scale that captures
that meaning. To address these gaps in the literature, this paper discusses the
theoretical framework that supports the exploration of the concept of meaning.
After the literature review, the methods used to examine the meaning of sport
event experience are presented, followed by the results, where the meaning
of the sport event experience is proposed, and the discussion of the results is
presented.
Theoretical Frameworks
on Attributions of Meaning
Our intention in this article is to understand what constitutes the meaning of the
experience of a small scale sport event among active sport tourists in the post trip
phase. The concept of meaning finds its origins in the early work of Osgood, Suci,
and Tannenbaum (1957), who examined meaning as a psychological cognitive
state. In their work, Osgood et al. proposed that meaning is a relational or process
concept which suggests each evaluated object may vary in attributions toward their
meaning. The attribution of meaning or the analysis of meaning relates to stored
mental representations otherwise called schemas that are used by the individual to
interpret a stimuli (in this case, a sport event; James & James, 1989). Schemas are
cognitive structures that represent organized knowledge about different categories
such as self, other people, events and objects. For example, a consumer’s schema
about Amazon.com may include product categories and attributes such as wide
assortment, fast service, reliability, recommendations, and overall evaluations.
(Bagozzi, Gurhan-Canli, & Priester, 2002, p. 142)
What is less clear about schemas is the organization of cognitive or affective
structures in a person’s mind. Schema or organizational structure may depend on
processing objectives (Bagozzi et al., 2002). Consumers organize information contingent on the nature of the processing objective (e.g., overall evaluation objective,
attribute based objective; Park & Wyer, 1994). So, when consumers process information in terms of an overall evaluation objective, the organization of information
in memory was found to include attribute-item clusters and a general evaluative
concept of the product (Park & Wyer, 1994).
When the meaning of an entity is examined, cognitive and affective components emerge (Echtner & Ritchie, 1991; Gartner, 1993). The latter two components
associate with the conceptualization of attitudes (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993) given
that the concept of attitudes has been defined as an evaluative response toward an
object. When individuals attach meaning to an entity, they provide an evaluation
about the thoughts and feelings they have about that entity (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993).
Attaching meaning to an entity, a sport event in this case, can also be explained by
attribution theory, where the individual makes certain associations about the entity
that explain and support the meaning of sport event experience in their minds (Fiske
& Taylor, 1991). Attributions about the meaning of a sport event experience can be
Meaning of Sport Event Experience 547
different among individuals with direct experience with a sport event, leading to
more complex (Fakeye & Crompton, 1991) and affective perceptions (MacKay &
McVetty, 2002) that are produced using an attitudinal lens assessment (Konecnik
& Gartner, 2007). A sport event may produce more complex perceptions regarding
the meaning of its experience in the post event or post trip phase. According to
Mehrabian (1980), reactions toward a certain entity are mainly emotional in nature
and represent the common core of human response to all types of environments.
Mandler (1982) agrees with Mehrabian in the sense that the objective of the analysis
of meaning is to describe what is found in the environment. These attributions of
meaning are a form of cognition (James & James, 1989) that can feature a descriptive meaning (Mandler, 1982) or denotive meaning (Osgood et al., 1957) among
other explanations. Other research related to the meaning and measurement of
destination image suggests the existence of functional, psychological, attributebased and holistic components that have common and unique aspects (Echtner &
Ritchie, 1991). The destination image meaning was later conceptualized by tourism
researchers to feature cognitive, affective, and conative components (Baloglu &
McCleary, 1999; Beerli & Martin, 2004; Gallarza, Saura, & Garcia, 2002; Gartner,
1993; Pike, 2002; Pike & Ryan, 2004) rendering a more attitudinal structure to the
concept. Recent research regarding the meaning of sport events among participants
in the attachment phase (Funk & James, 2006) of a charity cycling event identified
three types of meaning attached to the event that included functional, psychological,
and symbolic aspects (Filo, Funk, & O’ Brien, 2008). The latter research targeted
a charity event, which can have distinct elements for the participants, thus leading
to different meaning attributions due to the cause associated with the event (Rifon,
Choi, Trimble, & Li, 2004).
Given that this study is focusing on the post trip phase, the direct experience
of the participants of the event should be considered in terms of its contribution to
theoretical approaches related to the creation of meaning of the sport event experience. Active sport tourists recall and process information about the event which
activates a valuation procedure described to include cognitive appraisals in terms
of relevant to the object schemas (Mandler, 1982). These subjective evaluations of
meaning can be affective (connotative) in nature (Osgood et al., 1957) or represent
emotional cognitions (Reisenzein, 1983). Emotional cognitions refer to the conscious processing of an emotion by the individual who can then apply a label to
the notion and intensity of that emotion (James & James, 1989). James and James
suggested that emotional cognitions are represented by a single latent component.
Certainly, the term emotional cognitions can be received as contradictory by attitude
theorists who have tested the tripartite model of attitudes and found discriminant
validity in cognitive and affective responses (Bagozzi, Tybout, Craig, & Sternthal,
1979). However, in the post trip phase, it is plausible that emotional cognitions
dominate the meaning of sport event experience assuming a more evaluative role
(Gardial, Clemons, Woodruff, Schumann, & Burns, 1994).
Following the literature, this study works from the assumption that the meaning of a sport event experience can be encoded as a schema in a consumer’s mind
and the schema formation may include information that is related to cognitive and
affective aspects. Given the importance of sport events for communities as a tourism development tool, this study aims to understand the meaning of a sport event
experience by sport participants who are also tourists. In summary, the meaning
548 Kaplanidou and Vogt
of a sport event experience is examined in the post trip phase from the active sport
tourists’ perspective and within the context of a small scale sport event held in a
tourism destination.
Method: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches
To understand the meaning attached to a sport event by its participants, two methods were used: a qualitative approach (focus groups) for the conceptual development part of this study and a quantitative approach (mail and web surveys) for the
development of the measurement scale. Focus groups were used in the qualitative
phase of the study followed by a pilot test with a convenience sample of active sport
tourists. Following pilot testing, data were collected using mail and web surveys
from two different sport events. For the first sport event, a mail survey was used
with a census sample of event participants to test the scale items. For the second
sport event, mail and web surveys were used with another census sample of sport
event participants to further test the scale. The following sections describe these
procedures in greater detail.
Qualitative Approach
The first step of the research was to understand and identify the meaning of a sport
event experience (Dobni & Zinkhan, 1990). Marketing literature supports qualitative approaches that generate items to construct scales such as literature searches,
experience surveys, insight-stimulating experiences, critical incidents and focus
groups (Bagozzi, 1994; Churchill, 1979). Focus groups “provide preliminary
research on specific issues in a larger project” (Morgan, 1997, p. 17) when combined
with other research methods and they contribute in the creation of survey items
(Morgan, 1997). This study used focus groups to explore the aspects of meaning
attached to sport event experience. The script used in the focus group discussions
can be found in Table 1 and the questions were developed based on propositions
on brand equity by Keller (1993) given that the concept of a brand can associate
with the meaning attached to a product or service/experience.
Two focus groups were used in this research. One focus group consisted of
eight cyclists (six males and two females, ages 19–55) who belonged to a university cycling club. The other focus group consisted of four participants (two males
and two females, ages 30–55) of a cycling multiday event. Focus group sessions
Table 1 Questions Utilized in the Two Focus Groups
Consisting of Cyclists to Examine the Meaning Attached
to a Sport Event Experience
Focus Groups Questions
1. When you think of a sport event as a participant what words come to mind?
2. What are the benefits that you get from participating in a sport tourist event? Any
costs or negative outcomes?
3. What are your overall attitudes toward the event and why?
4. What other emotions do you have of participating in this event?
Meaning of Sport Event Experience 549
occurred in a conference room at a university under the guidance of a moderator and one assistant moderator. The assistant moderator took notes during both
focus groups. The duration of each focus group was one hour and participants
were paid $15 for their participation. The discussion was audio recorded and later
transcribed. Other information recording items included paper and pencil exercises
and flip charts. The discussion was semistructured and the moderator ensured all
participants contributed to the discussion by asking each member of the group to
share their thoughts. One of the discussion segments was a free elicitation of three
words that come to mind about the event which the focus groups participants wrote
down independently. A commentary from each participant on their word choices
followed to understand in depth the meaning of the sport event experience given
that these participants had already participated in that event.
Focus Group Data Analysis
After the completion of the focus groups, note-based analysis of the data were completed (Krueger & Casey, 2000). The moderator prepared a brief written summary
of the key points after the end of the focus groups and discussed the key points
with the assistant moderator to reach agreement. Themes were identified and agreed
upon between the moderator and assistant moderator based on the frequency (how
many times something was said), specificity (detail), emotion (how emotionally
they were expressed), and extensiveness (how many people said something). The
themes derived from the note-based analysis were the following:
a)Organizational aspects (e.g., safer routes, avoid roads/use trails, organized
transportation, convenient, expensive/inexpensive entry fees, registration
deadlines, good services such as showers);
b)Environmental aspects (e.g., beautiful scenery, country side, new places, the
best of an area);
c)Physical activity aspects (e.g., healthy, endurance, perseverance, good physical
condition, training);
d)Social aspects (e.g., socialization, meeting other people, vacation with family
and friends);
e)Emotional aspects (e.g., relaxing, exciting, enjoyment, pride, happy, friendly,
range of emotions before, during and after, self-fulfillment, accomplishment,
challenge).
The theme word descriptors in parenthesis are directly from the focus group
data. Some examples of participants’ comments about selected attributions about
the meaning of the sport event experience included:
Environmental. One participant offered: “The [event] brings in mind images of
enjoying nature …”
Another participant commented on the environment exposure opportunities
the event provided: “When you go on a trail you come to places you do not even
get to when you drive your car.”
Another participant explained: “They [participants] don’t have to drive their
cars everywhere, they can ride their bicycles, enjoy nature …”
550 Kaplanidou and Vogt
Another participant commented: “The sights are just great … the scenery and
seeing places you have never been and get to see different things . . . I have always
enjoyed that as part of a vacation and part of just living . . .”
Physical Activity. For this theme, all participants indicated exercise was the major
benefit they received from participating in these types of events. For example, one
participant commented: “I think it’s a very healthy pastime.”
Social. One participant noted:
You know . . . it is just a great place to meet people because you meet people
basically like-minded. Wanting recreation, wanting some physical activity on
their vacation, so . . . already you are off to a good start, you know, of just
getting along with people. And people do, I mean people can be riding along
and you may not know people around you but all of a sudden you start talking
and it is very friendly.
Another participant offered: “People have time to talk to you or they have time
to help you and nobody is looking at their watch and nobody has an appointment
they had to get to. So, you get quality conversations with people.”
Emotional. Most of the participants commented on the enjoyment they received
from their participation in the event. An assortment of quotations included: “I totally
had fun,” “It was exciting,” “Just go out to ride, physically, emotionally . . . you
know, you might have had a crabby day, but you start biking, big smile on your face,
feeling better.” Another focus group participant discussed the accomplishment he/she
felt completing the event: “It [the event] is an accomplishment . . .Another participant
commented on the preparation for the event and the challenges: “I got more prepared
for them [cycling events] but it is still a challenge to get through some of the days.
But it is a lot of fun there. There is a certain amount of pride for doing it.”
In summary, the focus group data analysis suggested meanings attached to the
experience of a smaller-scale sport event by active sport tourists as captured in the
post event phase. These meanings included organizational, environmental, physical
activity, social, and emotional attributions. (See Figure 1)
Development of a Measurement Scale
Instrumentation
One of the objectives of this study was to develop a reliable and valid measurement
of sport event experience that can be used by event organizers, destination marketers, and academic and marketing researchers. To develop the scale, the DeVellis’s
(2003) protocol was followed. The steps included the following: a) determine
clearly what was going to be measured using theory to delimit the meaning of
the construct, b) generate a large pool of items “that are candidates for eventual
inclusion in the scale” (DeVellis, 2003, p. 63) and reflect the scale’s purpose, c)
determine the format for measurement, d) review by experts of the initial pool of
items, e) include validation items, f) administer the items to a development sample,
g) evaluate the items, and h) optimize scale length. The following section describes
how each step was administered.
Figure 1 — The aspects of meaning attached to a small scale sport event experience by active sport tourists in the post trip phase through a qualitative analysis.
Meaning of Sport Event Experience 551
552 Kaplanidou and Vogt
Step 1. The first step referenced theory to delimit the meaning of the construct.
This was achieved through a thorough literature review that revealed a gap in the
literature and through the qualitative approaches previously discussed. To examine
the meaning of sport event experience, two focus groups were used which led to
the framework that proposed the meanings attached to a sport event experience
(Figure 1).
Step 2. The second step generated a large pool of items to reflect the scale’s
purpose (DeVellis, 2003). This stage of the scale development process requires
redundancy of items in order for the relevant items to come together and “the
irrelevant idiosyncrasies to cancel out”(DeVellis, 2003, p. 65). The initial pool of
items (n = 41), including redundant items, was derived from the theme descriptors that were acquired from the two focus groups and from previous literature
that overlapped with those themes. For example, the measurement of the meaning of destination image uses a set of four semantic differential items that measure emotional aspects of a destination/attraction (e.g., Baloglu & McCleary,
1999).
Step 3. The next step in the scale development process determined the format
for measurement. Semantic differentials were used as suggested by the early work
on the measurement of meaning by Osgood et al. (1957). Semantic differentials
are widely used in attitude measurement as summary evaluative judgments of a
behavior or object (e.g., Ajzen & Driver, 1992) but also in image measurement
(Dickson & Albaum, 1977; Kaid, 2004) which can associate with aspects of the
meaning of sport event experience. The semantic differential measurement format
tends to yield primarily three dimensions (activity, potency, and evaluation) with
a set of opposite adjectives (Osgood, 1953). The scale items included a set of
opposite adjectives that described the phenomenon based on data from the focus
groups. Data analysis from the focus groups yielded aspects of meaning of the sport
event experience, from which the initial adjective list (41 items) was based upon.
Consequently, the words were not developed to match the evaluation, potency,
and activity dimensions; they were based on the qualitative approach. The primary
researcher of this study generated the opposite word and requested feedback from
the study’s coresearchers. Feedback was received and initial changes were made.
The scale adjectives were rated on a seven-point response format. Specifically,
the seven points were labeled as extremely, quite, slightly, neither, slightly, quite,
extremely, and respondents checked a line that represented their perception of the
sport event for all sets of opposite adjectives. The question was worded as follows:
how would you describe all aspects of the [event name] based on how you feel
now [approximately a month after the event] about the event according to the set
of opposite adjectives below? The respondents then saw a statement indicating
“For me the [event name] is …” and then they provided their responses on the set
of opposite adjectives. The seven-point scale format was used in the pilot test and
the two survey studies that followed for validation.
Step 4.The fourth step included a review of the initial item pool (n = 41) by
experts. Four doctoral candidates from the sport, tourism, and recreation field and
two tourism faculty members were asked to confirm or invalidate the definition of
the phenomenon and evaluate the items’ clarity and conciseness (DeVellis, 2003,
p. 86) by providing comments. After adjusting some of the items based on their
comments, the items were pilot tested with a small purposive sample of active sport
Meaning of Sport Event Experience 553
tourists using a web survey including the 41 items and a few demographic questions. The aim of the pilot test was to reveal discrepancies and further purify the
measure. The sample for this pilot web survey was achieved by snowball sampling.
According to Babbie (2001), “this procedure is appropriate when the members of a
special population are difficult to locate” (Babbie, 2001, p. 180). The requirement
for completing the web survey was active participation in an organized sport event
which required travel away from home during the past year. As such, people who
participated in a sport event told friends who participated in an event to complete
the scale evaluation and so on and so forth. Forty-four sport tourists of various
events (e.g., marathons, triathlons, golf tournaments, cycling events) participated
in the pilot testing of the scale. Participants rated the scale items and provided
qualitative comments on the content validity of the scale items. After this phase of
the study, 13 items were dropped because of poor comprehension and four items
were reworded, yielding 28 items for the next step.
Next, three sport management and sport tourism faculty were asked to check
face validity of the items in relationship to the focus groups findings. One item was
dropped due to disagreement by the reviewers on the wording.
Step 5. The next step in scale development involved the inclusion of validation items. This was achieved by including five items in the survey that supported
the construct validity of the measurement. These items were borrowed from the
brand personality scale developed by Aaker (1997) and used by researchers (e.g.,
Musante, Milne, & McDonald, 1999) to measure the brand personality of sport
events from the spectators’ perspective. Brand personality and the meaning of sport
event experience were expected to correlate since they both measure some aspect
of a product or service encounter.
Step 6. In the sixth step, the items were administered to a development sample.
Twenty-seven items remained at this step (see Table 2 for the list of items). The list
of final scale items (purification of the measure) was yet to be determined with the
mail survey, which was administered to the development sample (i.e., participants of
an annual cycling event held in a tourism destination). The cycling event was staged
on long distance trails in a midwest state in the United States and had two “legs.”
The first leg was a two-day bicycling tour and covered a distance of approximately
35 miles per day and attracted largely novice riders. This leg included a night’s stay
in a community considered to be a tourism destination. The second leg consisted
of five days (cyclists who participated in this leg also participated in the first leg).
It included accommodations along the designated route, covered approximately
320 miles, and attracted largely seasoned riders. The event occurs annually and has
been staged for the past 11 years as an event that promotes trails and raises funds
for the sponsoring nonprofit organization.
The study’s population included active sport tourists who registered and paid
for either the two- or seven-day bicycling tour (the seven-day included the two-day
event). The contact information for the population (N = 981) was obtained from
the event organizers at the beginning of October 2005. The statistical analysis of
this study required independent observations which led to the refinement of the
population to study households (N = 720) and not individuals (one person per
household was selected randomly). The measurement instrument for the survey
was a self-administered four-page questionnaire. A modified Dillman (2000)
mailing procedure was used excluding the prenotice letter and a final third contact
554 Kaplanidou and Vogt
by certified mail. To achieve a high response rate, an incentive was offered to the
recipients of the questionnaires. The incentive was the chance to win one of two
$50 discounts from next year’s event registration fee. In total, 720 questionnaires
were mailed on November 1, 2005 along with a detailed personalized cover letter.
One week later, a reminder postcard was mailed to the entire sample to thank
those who already responded and to remind nonrespondents that their responses
were important to the research project. Two weeks after the postcard, a second
mailing to the nonrespondents occurred. The modified Dillman survey administration method yielded a satisfactory response rate (n = 495, 70.3%) minimizing the
potential impact of nonresponse error. Nonresponse bias checks were performed
between respondents and nonrespondents on demographic data and no significant
differences between the two groups were found.
Step 7. The seventh step in scale development evaluated items in terms of their
discriminant and convergent validity and the eighth step was to optimize scale
length. These two steps are reported in the results section of this study.
Results
The following section provides the results of this research. The description of the
sample is presented followed by factor analysis results and construct validity tests.
A validation of the results provided by the initial sample with another sample of
event participants is also presented in this section.
Description of Initial Sample
The initial sample’s primary purpose of the trip was to attend the sport event. The
sample consisted of 54% males and 46% females. The average age of the sample
participants was 50 years old. Most of the participants (91%) came from the state
where the event took place, but not the communities involved in the sport event.
The annual household income distribution of the respondents featured 47% above
$80,000, 21% between $60,000 and $79,999, 19% between $40,000 and $59,999,
and 13% below $39,999.
Development of the Scale With the Initial Sample
of Active Sport Tourists (Participants)
The first step in the evaluation of the 27 items from the survey sample involved
the estimation of frequencies and descriptive statistics to check for missing data
patterns and the means associated with each of the items. These results are shown
in Table 2. Those items which featured means close to the middle of the scale (4.0)
at the “neither” label and those items with 5% or more missing data were dropped
from the analysis (four items). The range of responses for the items featured 450
people for the lowest number of responses per item and 487 people for the highest. The actions taken for the scale items based on missing data and means are
depicted in Table 2.
After this first evaluation, 23 items remained. Exploratory factor analysis
was applied to evaluate the factor structure of the scale items. Given the selection
of semantic differential as a measurement item, the concept of meaning of sport
Meaning of Sport Event Experience 555
Table 2 Initial Evaluation of the Items Generated to Measure
the Meaning of Sport Event Experience: Means, Missing Data,
and Actions Taken
Items
Safe
Unsafe (R)*
Friendly
Unfriendly(R)
Unhealthy
Healthy
Unsupportive
Supportive
Disorganized
Organized
Clean
Polluted(R)
Sad
Joyful
Not Stimulating
Stimulating
Unfulfilling
Fulfilling
Ugly
Beautiful
Easy
Challenging
Stressful
Carefree
Gloomy
Cheerful
Poor
Excellent
Inspiring
Uninspiring(R)
Unadventurous
Adventurous
Expensive
Inexpensive(R)
Boring
Exciting
Distressing
Relaxing
Active
Inactive(R)
Inefficient
Efficient
Worthless
Valuable
Passive
Competitive
Artificial
Natural
Unappealing
Appealing
Individualistic
Collective
Mental
Physical
Missing
data
1.61%
3.03%
3.03%
3.23%
3.23%
3.23%
3.23%
3.23%
3.23%
3.43%
3.63%
3.63%
3.63%
3.63%
3.83%
3.83%
3.83%
4.04%
4.24%
4.64%
4.64%
4.64%
4.84%
6.06%
7.47%
7.47%
9.09%
Mean
(1 = low, 7 = high)
5.95
6.07
6.42
6.15
6.11
5.69
6.09
6.03
6.33
6.19
4.78
5.50
6.21
6.13
5.85
5.88
4.41
5.95
5.81
5.80
5.58
6.22
3.82
5.80
6.13
4.91
5.66
Action
Retained
Retained
Retained
Retained
Retained
Retained
Retained
Retained
Retained
Retained
Retained
Retained
Retained
Retained
Retained
Retained
Retained
Retained
Retained
Retained
Retained
Retained
Retained
Dropped**
Dropped**
Dropped**
Dropped**
*R: recoded items (1 = low end of the scale, 7 = high end of the scale)
**Dropped due to item mean being in the middle of the scale, more than 5% missing data and written
comments
Note: The items presented in this table were generated based on the focus group data and past related
literature
event experience was expected to emerge through the dimensions of evaluation,
potency, and activity, although all three dimensions do not emerge consistently
across samples and concepts (e.g., Xing & Chalip, 2006). Principal axis factoring
was used with varimax rotation (uncorrelated or orthogonal factor assumption)
and eigenvalues set to 1. Varimax rotation was used to identify the factor structure
of the items independent of each other. The KMO test (.92) and the Bartlett test
556 Kaplanidou and Vogt
of sphericity (p < .05) indicated the data were suitable for structure detection. The
initial analysis yielded four factors. The communalities analysis revealed that 12
items had values less than .50 and as a result were dropped from the analysis. The
remaining items were factor analyzed again to examine the factor structure. The
results revealed a one factor structure related primarily to the evaluation aspect of
the semantic differential space (Table 3) suggesting the evaluative meaning associated in the post trip phase by the participants. This one factor structure is further
To further test the reliability of the factor, a reliability test was estimated with
SPSS, using Cronbach’s α as the reliability coefficient (DeVellis, 2003). The results
supported the reliability of a one factor dimension (α =.92).
Construct Validity
To test the construct validity of the scale, a brand personality scale was used (Aaker,
1997) in the survey instrument. The brand personality concept was selected due to
its semantic relevance to attitudinal aspects that could relate to the evaluative meaning of sport event experience. “To establish the construct validity of a measure, the
analyst must determine: 1) the extent to which the measure correlates with other
measures designed to measure the same thing, and 2) whether the measure behaves
as expected” (Churchill, 1979, p. 70). Construct validity consists of convergent and
discriminant validity (Churchill, 1979). Convergent validity is whether the scale
highly correlates with scales that measure similar concepts (Shadish, Cook, &
Campbell, 2002). Discriminant validity refers to the extent to which the measure
is novel and not a reflection of some other variable (Churchill, 1979; Shadish et al.,
2002). Convergent validity was tested with CFA (using EQS 6.1 robust statistical
analysis) and was compared with the brand personality scale (Aaker, 1997).
Discriminant and convergent validity were tested simultaneously during a
measurement model evaluation which used other variables that were included in
the survey but were not part of this analysis. For discriminant validity, the variables
included in the model were satisfaction with the event (three items) and behavioral
intentions (three items) that semantically should not correlate highly with evaluation aspects of the meaning of sport event experience. The covariance between
the evaluation factor and satisfaction with the sport event construct was significant
at p < .05 and of moderate strength (r = .54), while the covariance between the
evaluation factor and behavioral intentions was significant at p < .05 but lower in
strength (r = .21). These results discriminated the derived evaluation factor from
the other two variables.
For convergent validity, the Aaker (1997) brand personality scale was used
[five Likert scale items where the subjects had to provide how much the brand personality items (rugged, sophisticated, sincere, spirited, reliable) described the event].
To test convergent validity of the scale, the covariance between the evaluation factor
(11 items) and the brand personality factor (five items) was significant and above average
(r = .61, p < .05) which supports the convergent validity of the scale. The goodness of
fit measures for this model were close to the acceptable threshold (χ2 =596.68, df
= 203, NFI=.85, NNFI=.88, CFI=.89, RMSEA=.07 with 90% confidence interval
between .06 and .07). In addition, convergent validity was demonstrated by the
factor loadings of the 11 items on the evaluation factor. All loadings were significant
at p < .05 and were between .59 and .82 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
0.56
0.53
0.52
0.51
0.51
0.50
0.42
0.39
0.47
0.09
Disorganized/organized
Inefficient/efficient
Unsupportive/supportive
Inexpensive/expensive
.25
.50
.56
.57
.71
.68
.70
.68
.68
Factor 2 loadings
(a=.61)
.57
First Factor Analysis
Extracted
Factor 1 loadings
Communalities
(α =.92)
0.68
.79
0.67
.81
0.65
.76
0.63
.78
0.60
.62
Unfulfilling/fulfilling
Poor/excellent
Not stimulating/stimulating
Sad/joyful
Unadventurous/adventurous
Distressing/relaxing
Boring/exciting
Worthless/valuable
Gloomy/cheerful
Ugly/beautiful
Unhealthy/healthy
Items
Dropped
Dropped
Dropped
Dropped
Retained
Retained
Retained
Retained
Retained
Retained
Action
Retained
Retained
Retained
Retained
Retained
0.33
0.52
0.47
0.50
0.47
0.47
(continued)
0.57
0.72
0.69
0.71
0.69
0.69
Second Factor Analysis
Extracted
communalities
Factor loadings
0.63
0.80
0.67
0.82
0.59
0.77
0.61
0.78
0.38
0.62
Table 3 Rotated Component Matrix and Communalities of the 23 Remaining Items Designed
to Measure the Meaning of Sport Event Experience Based on 403 Cases
Meaning of Sport Event Experience 557
0.24
0.32
0.34
0.35
0.20
0.25
0.39
Passive/competitive
Stressful/carefree
Inactive/active
Unfriendly/friendly
Polluted/clean
Unsafe/safe
Uninspiring/inspiring
44.41%
Cross-loaded on factor
1 and 4
*
.37
.36
Dropped
Dropped
Dropped
Dropped
Dropped
Factor 4 loadings
(a=.57)
.55
.55
Dropped
Dropped
Dropped
.43
.47
Factor 3 loadings
(a=.48)
.58
*Note: Eigenvalues for the first factor analysis were: for Factor 1 = 7.94, for Factor 2 = 2.08, for Factor 3 = 1.39, for Factor 4 = 1.12
Cronbach’s α
Rotated variance explained
Eigenvalue
0.37
Easy/challenging
Table 3 (continued)
6.12
.92
51.38%
558 Kaplanidou and Vogt
Meaning of Sport Event Experience 559
Further Validation of the Scale as One Factor Structure
To validate the one factor structure with another sample of active sport participants,
data were collected from a multisport event. The event takes place annually in a
university city in a south state of the United States and attracts approximately 300
senior participants. Two methods were used to collect data from the population of
event participants (N = 292). A mail and web survey were used to collect information on questions related to event perceptions, as well as other questions that were
part of the larger project. Most of the participants responded (n = 168) resulting
in a response rate of 62%.
The majority of participants (70.9%) were male. They ranged in age from 51
to 88 years old. The average age was around 69 years old (SD = 8.81). Slightly
more than a third of participants (37.0%) were between 60 and 69 years old and
48 people (33.0%) were between 70 and 79 years old, whereas around a fifth of
the respondents (18.0%) were between 51 and 59 years old, and 19 participants
(13.0%) were between 80 and 88 years old. Nearly a quarter of the participants
(24.5%) earned a household income in 2006 between $40,000 and $59,999, and
33 respondents (23.1%) indicated their income between $20,000 and $39,999.
One in five (21.0%) reported household income between $60,000 and $79,999.
Thirty respondents (21.0%) indicated their income was above $80,000, whereas
15 participants (10.5%) reported household income less than $20,000.
The factor analysis of the 11 scale items using principal axis factoring, varimax
rotation and eigenvalues set to 1, revealed a single factor structure which explained
68% of the variance and a reliability coefficient of .95. These results are depicted
in Table 4.
Discussion
The study aimed to understand the meaning attached to a small scale sport event
experience among active sport tourists after the event took place. The results from
the qualitative study suggested that the meaning of sport event experience evolves
around the organizational, environmental, physical activity, social and emotional
aspects of the sport event experience such as fulfillment. These aspects of meaning of a sport event experience can relate to cognitive and affective components
expressed through an evaluative approach (Park & Wyer, 1994). Certainly, these
results could also relate to functional and psychological aspects of meaning attached
to an event (Filo et al., 2008).
The results from the quantitative study yielded a one-factor scale that relates
to the evaluation component of the semantic differential space and reflects aspects
of meaning attached to the sport event experience. The one-factor scale could
imply that in the post trip phase of a small scale sport event, active participants
used a global evaluative approach when they retrieved information from their
event experience schema (Park & Wyer, 1994). The latter suggestion is also supported by MacKay and McVetty (2002), who in the context of tourism, suggest
that actual experience with a destination creates a more affective disposition
toward it.
The emergence of the evaluative meaning of the sport event experience in
this research may suggest that the size of the event, the type of participants, and
560 Kaplanidou and Vogt
Table 4 Validation of the One Factor Structure With Participants
From Another Multisport Event: Factor Loadings and Communalities
Based on 116 Cases
Items
Unfulfilling/fulfilling
Poor/excellent
Not stimulating/stimulating
Sad/joyful
Unadventurous/adventurous
Distressing/relaxing
Boring/exciting
Worthless/valuable
Gloomy/cheerful
Ugly/beautiful
Unhealthy/healthy
Eigenvalue
Factor loadings
.89
.83
.87
.88
.83
.65
.87
.85
.81
.70
.82
7.49
Rotated variance explained
68.13%
Cronbach’s α
Communalities
.79
.69
.76
.78
.70
.42
.76
.72
.67
.49
.66
.95
the trip phase could influence the respondents to offer an evaluative approach to
the concept of sport event experience. The one viable factor structure (evaluation)
that emerged from this study seemed to combine all attributions of meaning of the
sport event experience. All three dimensions proposed by Osgood et al. (1957)
were not supported by this study, a finding which could be anticipated given that
the initial item development did not match these dimensions but rather relied on
the qualitative data. Although the semantic differential measurement format tends
to yield primarily three dimensions (activity, potency, and evaluation) with a set of
opposite adjectives (Osgood, 1953), other factors structures have also been identified in the literature. Research on psychology, sociology, and marketing that used
semantic differentials to measure a concept has yielded other factor structures than
the evaluation, potency, and activity that were created to describe concepts such
as resilience, maternal roles, personality, store image, self image, and images of
presidential candidates (e.g., Dolich, 1969; Flagler, 1989; Friborg, Martinussen,
& Rosenvinge, 2006; Kaid, 2004).
Ajzen and Fishbein (1980) advocated the use of good-bad semantic differentials to measure evaluations and such items are the most frequently used in practice
(Bagozzi et al., 2002). A limitation of semantic differentials has been that affective
words have been used to measure attitudes and can sometimes confound evaluation
and affect constructs. The use of semantic differentials requires respondents to rate
an attitude object on general attributes on a “good to bad” continuum that are presumably synonymous with evaluation itself (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Consequently
and in combination with the post trip phase where affective dispositions are evident
(MacKay & McVetty, 2002), evaluation emerged as the dominant dimension of the
sport event experience. This explanation can also be supported by schema theory.
Potentially, after the end of the event, the knowledge structure (schema) of the
Meaning of Sport Event Experience 561
event is activated through memory, which results in the formation of an evaluation
of the event in the mind of the consumer. If the evaluative dimension dominates
the thought process of the individuals when asked about the event in the post trip
phase, then other dimensions such as activity and potency that relate to the use of
semantic differentials could be suppressed.
An interesting observation about the results of the qualitative and quantitative
parts of this research is that all items that loaded on the evaluation factor had some
connection with each of the aspects of meaning associated with the sport event experience as evident through the data from the focus groups. For example, poor/excellent can
associate with the organization of the event, ugly/beautiful with the environment of the
event, unhealthy/ healthy with physical activity, and boring/exciting, gloomy/cheerful,
distressing/relaxing and sad/joyful, worthless/valuable, unfulfilling/fulfilling, not stimulating/stimulating, and unadventurous/adventurous with the emotional meaning.
The latter results suggest that the scale could have an emotional orientation, which
relates to the affective nature of evaluation (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Mehrabian
(1980) indicated that “emotional (affective, connotative, feeling) reactions represent
the common core of human response to all types of environments” (p. 7).
The one factor structure could further be explained by schema theory (Anderson, 1977; Markus & Zajong, 1985; Olson & Zanna, 1993) suggesting consumers
hold pieces of knowledge or schemata about an entity that are closely associated.
Although we do not know how the information related to the event schema was
organized in the minds of the active sport tourists in the post trip consumption
phase, one assumption that can be made could relate to the instructions related to
the question (e.g., For me the [event name] is . . . which was followed by the set of
semantic differentials). Based on these instructions, the respondents could have been
functioning under an evaluative information processing mode. As such they could
have organized the information in memory in terms of both a general evaluative
concept and attribute item clusters (Park & Wyer, 1994). Another explanation of the
one factor evaluative measurement of meaning is related to the direct experience
that the active sport tourists had with the event. Direct experiences are known to
create complex strongly associated perceptions (Fakeye & Crompton, 1991) and
prepare the consumer to respond in an evaluative manner.
Some considerations about the generalizability of the results should be discussed. This scale was derived from the focus group participants of one type of
event (i.e., cycling) and validated on a larger scale with samples from two different sport events: a) cycling and b) a multisport event. Both events were of a
smaller scale. As such, attention should be paid to the application of this scale to
other events of different nature (e.g., different sport, different size of sport event).
However, attempts should also be made to examine whether this scale still holds
as a unidimensional event evaluation tool to be generalizable to a wider spectrum
of events. Greater generalizability will require more psychometric testing which
should be addressed through future research.
Implications and Limitations
The contribution of this study relates to the conceptual understanding of the meaning of sport event experience and the development of a valid and reliable measurement tool that captures the evaluation of a sport event experience. The attributions
562 Kaplanidou and Vogt
associated with the sport event experience could be used by both event and destination marketers in efforts of providing highly favorable meanings to the participants
of a sport event. The goal would be to attract more people to the sport event who
identify with certain meanings attached to a sport event and consequently increase
the participation numbers. In addition, destination and event marketers could use
promotional images related to fulfillment and healthy activities that promote both
the event and the destination. If a match between activity levels offered in a destination and an event exists, then the probability of active sport tourists drawn to the area
increases (Xing & Chalip, 2006). Events are branded products through marketing
communications (e.g., brochures, websites, magazines, word-of-mouth) where the
meaning of the sport event can be controlled to ensure high evaluation of the sport
event among target markets. Jago et al. (2003) suggested sport event marketers and
destination marketers should work together to capitalize on sport events as poles
of tourism attraction. The meaning of sport event experience as proposed in this
study can also be used to attract sponsoring companies that strive to offer similar
experiences with the event that will enhance their company’s image depending on
their sponsor objectives and the size of the sport event (Gwinner & Eaton, 1999).
For practical implications, event marketers can focus on the needs of spectators
and participants to capture repeat behaviors of these target markets. Participants and
families who accompany them are guaranteed visitors to the destination that hosts
a sport event of small or large scales. Understanding the meaning of the sport event
experience that active sport tourists (participants) attach to the event can help event
marketers to better target participants’ needs. Furthermore, the scale proposed in
this study can be used as a global evaluative tool to compare the perceptions of an
event’s target markets. Chalip and McGuirty (2004) revealed the formation of four
clusters of runners (who could have been potential participants to the Old Coast
marathon event in Australia): dedicated runners, running tourists, active runners,
and runners who shop; and they concluded each group prefers different activities
offered at the destination to be bundled with the event (e.g., dedicated runners
preferred marathon official parties as an activity bundled with the event). These
results are examples of event marketing customization for participant clusters.
These clusters could be segmented based on their event evaluation perceptions.
For example, dedicated runners may have higher event evaluation perceptions than
running tourists. Based on these perceptions, target marketing approaches can be
customized to fit the needs and perceptions of each segment. This scale could be
further used to provide comparison of overall event evaluation among different
active sport tourist groups such as males and females, novice versus seasoned
participants, and participants from different socioeconomic groups.
Future Research
Future research should aim to test the sport event evaluation scale among different
sizes of sport events as larger events may be evaluated on different aspects than small
scale. Future research efforts should also examine professional athletes’ perceptions and evaluations of a sport event which will allow the sport event organizers to
gain immediate feedback from their own “customers.” Further testing of the scale
with active participants from other sport events such as running, golfing, soccer, or
basketball should be undertaken to further validate the sport event evaluation scale
Meaning of Sport Event Experience 563
and show robust application across various types of sports. More research is also
needed to understand spectators’ attributions of meaning to a sport event experience.
Spectators may attach different meanings to a sport event than participants given
their different profiles as sport consumers (Shamir & Ruskin, 1984).
References
Aaker, J.L. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34,
347–356.
Ajzen, I., & Driver, B.L. (1992). Application of the theory of planned behavior to leisure
choice. Journal of Leisure Research, 24, 207–224.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Anderson, R.C. (1977). The notion of schemata and the educational enterprise: General discussion
of the conference. In R.C. Anderson, R.J. Spiro, & W.E. Montague (Eds.), Schooling and
the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 415–431). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Babbie, E. (2001). The practice of social research (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
Thomson Learning.>
Bagozzi, R.P. (1994). Advanced methods of marketing research. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell
Business.
Bagozzi, R.P., Gurhan-Canli, Z., & Priester, J.R. (2002). The social psychology of consumer
behavior. New York: Open University Press.
Bagozzi, R.P., Tybout, A.M., Craig, C.S., & Sternthal, B. (1979). The construct validity
of the tripartite classification of attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 88–95.
Baloglu, S., & McCleary, K.W. (1999). A model of destination image formation. Annals of
Tourism Research, 26, 868–897.
Beerli, A., & Martin, J.D. (2004). Factors influencing destination image. Annals of Tourism
Research, 31, 657–681.
Bigne, E.J., Sanchez, I.M., & Sanjez, J. (2001). Tourism image, evaluation variables and
after purchase behavior: Inter-relationship. Tourism Management, 22, 607–616.
Brown, G., Chalip, L., Jago, L., & Mules, T. (2002). The Sydney Olympics and brand Australia. In N. Morgan, A. Pritchard, & R. Pride (Eds.), Destination branding: Creating
the unique destination proposition (pp. 163–185). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Chalip, L. (2000). Polysemy and Olympic audiences: Lessons for sports marketing. Barcelona: Centre d’Estudis Olímpics UAB Retrieved September 28, 2009, from http://
olympicstudies.uab.es/pdf/wp097_eng.pdf
Chalip, L. (2001). Sport and tourism: Capitalizing on the linkage. In D. Kluka & G. Schilling
(Eds.), The business of sport (pp. 71–90). Oxford: Meyer and Meyer.
Chalip, L., Green, B.C., & Hill, B. (2003). Effects of sport event media on destination image
and intention to visit. Journal of Sport Management, 17, 214–234.
Chalip, L., & McGuirty, J. (2004). Bundling sport events with the host destination. Journal
of Sport & Tourism, 9, 267–282.
Churchill, G.A.J. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs.
Journal of Marketing Research, 16, 64–73.
Crompton, J.L. (1999). The economic impact of sports tournaments and events. Parks &
Recreation, 34, 142–150.
DeVellis, R.F. (2003). Scale development. Theory and application (Vol. 26, 2nd ed.). Newberry Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Dickson, J., & Albaum, G. (1977). A method for developing tailormade semantic differentials for specific marketing content areas. Journal of Marketing Research, 14, 87–91.
Dillman, D. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New
York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
564 Kaplanidou and Vogt
Dobni, D., & Zinkhan, G.M. (1990). In search of brand image: A foundation analysis.
Advances in Consumer Research. Association for Consumer Research (U. S.), 17,
110–119.
Dolich, I.J. (1969). Congruence relationships between self images and product brands. JMR,
Journal of Marketing Research, 6, 80–84.
Eagly, A.H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt
Brace College Publishers.
Echtner, C.M., & Ritchie, B.J.R. (1991). The meaning and measurement of destination
image. Journal of Tourism Studies, 2, 2–12.
Essex, S., & Chalkley, B. (1998). Olympic Games: Catalyst of urban change. Leisure Studies, 17, 187–206.
Fakeye, P.C., & Crompton, J.L. (1991). Image differences between prospective, first-time, and
repeat visitors to the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Journal of Travel Research, 30, 10–16.
Filo, K.R., Funk, D.C., & O’ Brien, D. (2008). It’s really not about the bike: Exploring
attraction and attachment to the events of the Lance Armstrong Foundation. Journal
of Sport Management, 22, 501–525.
Fiske, S.T., & Taylor, S.E. (1991). Social cognition. Reading, MA: Addison-Weasley.
Flagler, S. (1989). Semantic differentials and the process of developing one to measure
maternal role competence. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 14, 190–197.
Fornell, C.R., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables
and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
Friborg, O., Martinussen, M., & Rosenvinge, J.H. (2006). Likert-based vs. Semantic
differential-based scorings of positive psychological constructs: A psychometric
comparison of two versions of a scale measuring resilience. Personality and Individual
Differences, 40, 873–884.
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, 189–217.
Gallarza, M.G., Saura, I.G., & Garcia, H.C. (2002). Destination image: Towards a conceptual
framework. Annals of Tourism Research, 29, 56–78.
Gardial, S.F., Clemons, D.S., Woodruff, R.B., Schumann, D.W., & Burns, M.J. (1994).
Comparing consumers’ recall of prepurchase and postpurchase product evaluation
experiences. The Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 548–560.
Gartner, W.C. (1993). Image formation process. In M. Uysal & D.R. Fesenmaier (Eds.),
Communication and channel systems in tourism marketing (pp. 191–215). New York:
The Haworth Press.
Gratton, C., Shilbi, S., & Coleman, R. (2005). The economics of sport tourism at major
sports events. In J. Higham (Ed.), Sport tourism destinations: Issues, opportunities and
analysis (pp. 233–247). Burlington, MA: Elsevier, Butterworth Heinemann.
Gwinner, K.P., & Eaton, J. (1999). Building brand image through event sponsorship. Journal
of Advertising, 28, 74–58.
Jago, L., Chalip, L., Brown, G., Mules, T., & Shameem, A. (2003). Building events into
destination branding: Insights from experts. Event Management, 8, 3–14.
James, L.A., & James, L.R. (1989). Integrating work environment perceptions: Explorations into the measurement of meaning. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 739–
751.
Kaid, L.L. (2004). Measuring candidate images with semantic differentials. In K.L. Hacker
(Ed.), Presidential candidate images (pp. 231–236). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Kaplanidou, K. (2007). Affective event and destination image: Their influence on Olympic
travelers’ behavioral intentions. Event Management, 10, 159–173.
Kaplanidou, K., & Vogt, C. (2007). The interrelationship between sport event and destination image and sport tourists’ behaviours. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 12, 183–
206.
Meaning of Sport Event Experience 565
Konecnik, M., & Gartner, W.C. (2007). Customer-based brand equity for a destination.
Annals of Tourism Research, 34, 400–421.
Krueger, R.A., & Casey, M.A. (2000). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research
(3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Lee, C-K., Lee, Y-K., & Lee, B. (2005). Korea’s destination image formed by the 2002 world
cup. Annals of Tourism Research, 32, 839–858.
MacKay, K., & McVetty, D. (2002). Images of first-time visitors to Queen Charlotte Islands
and Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 20, 11–30.
Mandler, G. (1982). The structure of value: Accounting for taste. In M.S. Clark & S.T. Fiske
(Eds.), Affect and cognition (pp. 3–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Markus, H., & Zajong, R.B. (1985). The cognitive perspective in social psychology. In G.
Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., pp. 137–230).
New York: Random House.
Mehrabian, A. (1980). Basic dimensions for a general psychological theory: Implications
for personality, social, environmental and developmental studies. Cambridge, MA:
Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain, Publishers, Inc.
Morgan, D.L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). London: Sage Publications, Inc.
Musante, M., Milne, G.R., & McDonald, M.A. (1999). Sport sponsorship: Evaluating the
sport and brand image match. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 1, 32–47.
Olson, J.M., & Zanna, M.P. (1993). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 117–154.
Osgood, C.E. (1953). Method and theory in experimental psychology. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Osgood, C.E., Suci, G., & Tannenbaum, P.H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Chicago:
University of Illinois Press.
Park, J-W., & Wyer, R.S.J. (1994). The cognitive organization of product information: Effects
of attribute category set size on information recall. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
2, 329–357.
Pike, S. (2002). Destination image analysis- a review of 142 papers from 1973 to 2000.
Tourism Management, XXX, 23.
Pike, S., & Ryan, C. (2004). Destination positioning analysis through a comparison of
cognitive, affective and conative perceptions. Journal of Travel Research, 42, 333–342.
Reisenzein, R. (1983). The schacter theory of emotion: Two decades later. Psychological
Bulletin, 94, 239–264.
Rifon, N., Choi, M., Trimble, C., & Li, H. (2004). Congruence effects in sponsorship: The
mediating role of sponsor credibility and consumer attributions of sponsor motive.
Journal of Advertising, 33, 30–42.
Ritchie, B., & Smith, B.H. (1991). The impact of a mega-event on host region awareness:
A longitudinal study. Journal of Travel Research, 31, 3–10.
Ritchie, B.J.R. (1984). Assessing the impact of hallmark events: Conceptual and research
issues. Journal of Travel Research, 23, 2–11.
Ritchie, B.W. (2004). Exploring small scale sport event tourism: The case of Rugby Union
and the Super 12 competition. In B.W. Ritchie & D. Adair (Eds.), Sport tourism: Interrelationships, impacts and issues. Buffalo, N.Y.: Channel View Publications.
Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental
designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Shamir, B., & Ruskin, H. (1984). Sport participation vs. Sport spectatorship: Two modes of
leisure behavior. Journal of Leisure Research, 16, 9–21.
Vogt, C., & Andereck, K. (2003). Destination perceptions across a vacation. Journal of
Travel Research, 41, 348–354.
566 Kaplanidou and Vogt
Weed, M. (2008). Olympic tourism. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Ltd.
Weed, M., & Bull, C. (2004). Sport tourism: Participants, policies and providers. Oxford,
UK: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Xing, X., & Chalip, L. (2006). Effects of hosting a sport event on destination brand: A test
of co-branding and match-up models. Sport Management Review, 9, 49–78.