college football stadium in support of his/her alma mater's ..... (Tech. Rep. No. 23). Florida State. University CAI Center. Leherissey, B.L. (1972). Validation of a.
1
International Journal of Sport Management Volume 9, 2008, 1-17
EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRAIT CURIOSITY AND INITIAL INTEREST IN SPORT SPECTATORSHIP Seong-Hee Park Damon P.S. Andrew Daniel F. Mahony
INTRODUCTION
I
n the increasingly competitive sport marketplace (Mahony & Howard, 2001), sport marketers must work hard to attract and maintain the interest of sport fans. Even in some traditionally successful sports, some teams and organizations have struggled to be profitable (Mahony & Howard, 2001). Prior research has suggested that sport marketers can increase their chances for success by appealing to the motives of sport fans. However, while many sport fan behavior studies have focused on highly identified sport fans, little research has investigated what factors initially attract one to consume sport. In 2001, Funk and James developed a useful conceptual framework, the Psychological Continuum Model (PCM), which helps in understanding the progression of individuals’ psychological connections to sports or sport teams. The PCM describes a fan's ascent from an initial sport consumer to a fiercely loyal sport consumer. Through the inte-
gration of research from disciplines such as consumer behavior, marketing, sociology, and psychology, they developed a framework with four hierarchical levels: Awareness (when an individual knows that sports and teams exist, but s/he is not interested in following a particular team), Attraction (when distinct interest or initial attitude formation toward a sport team has developed), Attachment (when the individual has formed a meaningful psychological connection to a team that is supported by various attitude properties), and Allegiance (when the individual's psychological connection became resistant, persistent, biased cognition and influences behavior). Beyond references to the socialization process, Funk and James (2001) offered limited discussion on how individual processes create distinct outcomes as one progresses up the hierarchy. In response to this limitation, Funk and James (2006) have developed a revised PCM to account for both processes and stage-based hierarchical outcomes. Volume 9, #3, July 2008
2
Despite this new attempt to relate specific outcomes to the stages within the PCM, a limitation of the PCM is that its initial stage of awareness describes a consumer who is already familiar with the existence of a particular sport team. Therefore, the model in its current form does not adequately explain the circumstances that initiated the consumer's familiarity with that sport team. In addition, the PCM only accounts for social situational factors associated with awareness and not individual factors (i.e., personality traits). While research on one’s initial awareness of sports is quite limited, the results indicate both social situational and individual factors likely play prominent roles in the development of allegiance. In support of the social situational factors, Wann, Tucker, and Schrader (1996) observed that people began and continued their support of a sport team due to the success of the team, its geographical location, and peer group support for the team. Further, Kolbe and James (2000) reported the initial decision to become a fan was based upon the importance of family, friends, attending games, and tail-gating. James (2001) later observed that socializing factors (i.e., parents, media, and peers) influenced the initial development of team preference among children. Evidence that individual factors also play an important role in allegiance development was provided by Funk, Haugtvedt, and Howard (2000), who proposed allegiance is characterized by distinct attitude properties such as importance, direct experience, intensity, and personal relevance. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT MANAGEMENT
Sport Spectatorship
An additional individual factor that likely influences one’s initial awareness of sport is one’s personality. An individual’s distinct personality is composed of numerous relatively durable traits that describe particular tendencies a person has to feel, think, and act in certain ways (Weinberg & Gould, 1999). Prior research has suggested that the personality trait of self monitoring could impact fan behavior (Mahony, Howard, & Madrigal, 2000; Mahony, Madrigal, & Howard, 1999). Another personality trait that has potential to explain fan behavior, particularly why some individuals are initially attracted to sports while others are not, is the trait of curiosity. Therefore, in an attempt to fill this notable gap in the literature, the primary purpose of this study was to measure the relationship between trait curiosity and initial interest in sport spectatorship.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE The Concept of Curiosity
Because no attempts have been made to explain and use the concept of curiosity in the field of sport management, an explanation of curiosity needs to be presented first. Curiosity is broadly defined as a “reaction to novel stimuli that involves feelings of interest or uncertainty” (Collins, Litman, & Spielberger, 2004, p. 1128) and a “desire for acquiring new knowledge and new sensory experience that motivates exploratory behavior” (Litman & Spielberger, 2003, p. 75). Initially, curiosity was not re-
Sport Spectatorship
garded as a positive motivator because people believed curiosity impacted many negative human behaviors such as drug/alcohol experimentation and voyeurism (Gentry, Burns, Putrevu, Hongyan, Williams, Bare, & Gentry, 2001). People regarded curiosity as a vice rather than a virtue (Reio, 1997). However, Berlyne (1954, 1960) described curiosity as an important and potential motivator that facilitated human exploratory behaviors and played an important role in motivating learning. After Berlyne’s (1954, 1960, 1962, 1965) studies on curiosity, many researchers followed him and emphasized the importance of curiosity in human behaviors (see Bruner, 1966; Day, 1969; Driscoll, 1994; Necka, 1989; Olson, 1986). They have found that curiosity is an effective variable in learning, thereby facilitating individuals to explore and study stimuli given to them. (Boyle, 1989; Day, 1971; Leherissey, 1971, 1972; Naylor, 1981; Pearson, 1970; Spielberger, Barker, Russell, Silva De Crane, Westberry, Knight, & Marks, 1980; Zuckerman, 1979). This tendency to explore and study suggests that curiosity may have a more positive impact than originally believed. Trait versus State Curiosity
While the work of Berlyne stimulated a significant growth in the volume of literature dealing with curiosity and related constructs (Ainley, 1987), he did not focus on curiosity as a meaningful personal trait (Reio, 1997). Many scholars have differentiated between an indi-
3
vidual's typical pattern of behavior across situations (i.e., trait) and a particular situation's effect on behavior in human personality (i.e., state) (Weinberg & Gould, 1999). The difference is that state curiosity is a more transient concept and is related to curiosityarousing situations (Cyr, 1996), while trait curiosity is a relatively stable concept related to an individual’s personality (Day, 1971). Often, the impact of a particular situation can have a profound effect on an individual’s typical behavior. For instance, a highly extroverted individual may behave oppositely when in a crowded elevator, and, conversely, a highly introverted individual may behave to the contrary when in a crowded college football stadium in support of his/her alma mater’s team. To account for the varying responses when confronted with unique situations, scholars often distinguish between traits and states in curiosity research. In a sport context, a number of studies have tried to examine what causes people to have special feelings about and loyalty to certain sports, teams, and players. The literature on sport fan behavior has been mainly focused on motivational factors which stimulate spectators to become loyal fans (Kahle, Kambara, & Rose, 1996; Milne & McDonald, 1999; Trail & James, 2001; Wann, 1995). However, the research about what initially motivates individuals to watch sports and teams still remains underexamined. Understanding the fan’s psychological characteristics in a sport context is significant because one’s personality traits could be an imVolume 9, #3, July 2008
4
Sport Spectatorship
portant factor in determining and explaining sport fan behaviors and the fan’s ascent from not being a fan of a team or just being a casual fan to becoming loyal fan. Trait curiosity appears to be a personality trait that could be useful in explaining such behavior. As discussed above, trait curiosity refers to an individual difference that reflects an individual’s unique predisposition to be curious across various situations (cf. Day, 1971). Literature has also shown that trait curiosity motivates people to experience new and novel stimulation. For example, Frenkel-Brunswik (1951) insisted that those with high levels of trait curiosity are more likely to be uncomfortable with uncertain, novel, or strange stimuli. Similarly, Barron (1963) also argued that people having high levels of trait curiosity are likely to experience uncertainty and visual complexity. In other words, individuals who
have a higher level of trait curiosity may be more willing to seek and explore stimulation than those with a lower level of trait curiosity (cf. Kashdan & Roberts, 2004). Therefore, the attributes of trait curiosity could stimulate fans to seek information and knowledge related to a team and/or player, as well as to attend games and events as spectators and participants.
IMPLICATIONS FOR SPORT MARKETERS Two major goals of sport marketers are to create new sport fans and advance casual fans to loyal fans. In order to fulfill these goals, sport marketers need to understand where the sport is positioned on the sport product life cycle (Mullin, Hardy, & Sutton, 2000) and how their sport marketing strategies work in each stage of the life cycle. As detailed by Levitt (1965) and Gorchels (2000), the product life cycle explains
Figure 1. Product Life Cycle (Gorchels, 2000; Levitt, 1965) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT MANAGEMENT
International Journal of Sport Management Volume 9, 2008, 1-17
how products are sold in the market over time. They identified four major stages of a product’s life cycle: Development/Introduction (when a new product is first brought to market), growth (when customers’ demand begins to accelerate), Maturity (when demand mostly levels off or grows only at replacement), and Decline (when the product begins to lose consumer appeal). When applied to the context of a novel sport, this model could be useful in explaining a novel sport’s life cycle along with respective marketing strategies for sports in each stage. When a new sport is launched, the sport is generally at the development/introduction stage (cf. Bernus, Nemes, & Schmidt, 2003) (see Figure 1). This stage is perhaps the most critical for any spectator sport. Most new products in the first stage will descend and disappear from the cycle without any ascending outset thanks to “the product’s complexity, its degree of newness, and its fit into customer needs” (Levitt, 1965, p. 82). The current sport industry has become bigger and more highly competitive (Mahony & Howard, 2001). So, novel sports may have more difficulty in drawing fans' interest when compared to traditionally popular and market-dominant sports. As new products, novel sports must find a way to be included into the fans’ sport-consuming consideration sets in order to increase the fan base to survive against strong competition (Mahony & Howard, 2001). To accomplish this goal, sport marketers must first help people recognize the existence
5
of a novel sport in order for them to become consumers of the sport (cf. Barry, 1987). Consumers typically must learn benefits, attributes, and new technologies to appreciate novel products (Lehmann, 1994; Urban, Weinberg, & Hauser, 1996). Consequently, motivating consumers to become interested in and learn about key benefits and attributes of a novel product is an important goal during product launch (Menon & Soman, 2002). Thus, the current study focuses on how curiosity works during the development/introduction stage in order to consider the way novel sports can succeed in creating new sport fans. This focus should provide sport marketers with some insight on appropriate strategies at the introduction stage (cf. Gorchels, 2000; Levitt, 1965;). Berlyne (1960, 1963) also argued that curiosity can be generated by complexity, novelty, and uncertainty. Based on the curiosity literature, it can be hypothesized that trait curiosity could impact an individual’s desire to seek new information and knowledge related to a novel product. Consequently, based on prior trait curiosity research, the following hypothesis was generated: H1: There will be a positive linear relationship between trait curiosity and interest in watching novel sports.
Volume 9, #3, July 2008
6
METHOD Instrument
Two scales were used to measure trait curiosity and the intention to watch novel sports. Trait curiosity. The Melbourne Curiosity Inventory (MCI; Naylor, 1981) was used with a 7-point Likert type scale ranging from 1 (Never) to 7 (Always). The MCI has a 20-item measure of trait curiosity and a 20-item measure of state curiosity (Reio, Petrosko, Wiswell, & Thongsukmag, 2006), and it has exhibited good reliability in previous research. Cronbach alpha coefficients of the MCI ranged from .84 to .93 for the Trait scale and .87 to .92 for the State scale. In addition, test-retest reliability scores were .83 (25-day interval) and .77 (5-week interval) (Naylor, 1981). Given the purpose of the current study, only the 20 items relating to trait curiosity were used. Consistent with the literature, the MCI demonstrated high interitem reliability (_ = .92) in our sample. Novel sports index (NSI). This instrument was developed specifically for this study based on discussions with sport fan behavior experts who were sport management faculty. It measured: (1) one’s interest in watching ten novel sports (i.e., sports that are relatively new and do not have a long history of fan interest) as measured on a 7-point Likert type scale (ranging from “not interested” to “very interested”), and (2) whether or not the individual already considered him/herself a fan of those particular novel sports. This was measINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT MANAGEMENT
Sport Spectatorship
ured on a dichotomous scale (1 = yes and 0 = no) (see Appendix). Demographics. In addition to the aforementioned instruments, the questionnaire also gathered some background demographic variables and sport-spectatorship information in order to identify the participants in this study. These variables included gender, ethnicity, age, school years, and time to watch sport channels. Participants and Procedures
Data were collected for this study during the fall 2005 semester. Undergraduate and graduate students at a large urban university in the Midwest United States who volunteered to participate were asked to complete a survey questionnaire containing demographic variables, the MCI, and the NSI. A total of 140 (66 females, 74 males) students were asked to complete the questionnaire, and the total number of usable questionnaires was 128 (91.4% response rate). Of the sample, 55.5% of respondents were male and 45.5% were female. A majority of the participants were Caucasian (78.1%) and more than 38% of the participants watch sport channels 1-2 hours every day (see Table 1). According to Ferber (1977), student sampling is valid when the study is exploratory in nature. Because no study had investigated the impact of curiosity in novel sports and sport spectatorship, this study was deemed to be exploratory in nature.To investigate how non-sport fans are initially attracted to sports, ten novel sports (i.e., characterized as not
7
International Journal of Sport Management Volume 9, 2008, 1-17
Table 1 Descriptive Statistics for Study Participants (N=128) Variables Gender Male Female Ethnicity African American Asian Caucasian Other Age (Years) School Year Freshmen Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate Time to Watch Sport Channel per Day Less than 30 minutes 30 minutes - 1 hour 1 - 2 hours More than 2 hours Trait curiosity
having a long history of fan interest in the United States) were selected based on discussions with experts on sport fan behavior. Due to the novelty of each sport analyzed in this study, a brief explanation of each sport was provided to the participant on the questionnaire so participants had a minimum level of exposure to the novel sport (see Cyr, 1996). This is also effective in controlling for extraneous variables (i.e., state curi-
n
%
71 57
55.5% 44.5%
20 5 100 3
15.6% 3.9% 78.1% 2.4%
15 17 38 31 27
11.7% 13.3% 29.7% 24.2% 21.1%
30 25 49 24
23.4% 19.5% 38.3% 18.8%
Mean
SD
22.8
4.9
5.29
.79
osity). For example, because state curiosity is sensitive to curiosity-arousing situations (Cyr, 1996), the novelty of the selected sports could generate a situation in which state curiosity influenced the participant. The brief explanation of the sport minimized the potential effect of state curiosity by preventing the participants from imagining or guessing the sports without correct definitions. In order to solely investigate the effect of Volume 9, #3, July 2008
8
Sport Spectatorship
trait curiosity on one’s initial interest in sport, data from respondents were eliminated when the respondents selfidentified as a fan of a particular sport. As such, the final data set only included respondent interest levels of sports that he/she did not consider himself/herself a fan (i.e., only novel sports as indicated by the respondent were included). The interest levels across all remaining novel sports were summed and divided by the total number of applicable novel sports to create an interest index.
mine if the sports were significantly different from each other in terms of current interest level. Second, in order to examine whether trait curiosity can be useful in predicting an individuals' initial interest in new sports, a simple linear regression was performed (H1). According to Stevens (2002) and Tabachnick and Fidell (1996), the sample size (n = 128) was considered adequate for the analysis. The predictor variable for this analysis was the MCItrait curiosity score. The NSI score was the outcome variable in this analysis.
Analysis
First, in order to examine whether each sport was truly a novel sport, a Chi-square test was used. The Chisquare test compared the observed frequencies with the expected frequencies of fanship responses (i.e., whether the respondents indicated they were fans of the sport) for ten novel sports to deter-
RESULTS Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics of demographic data are presented in Table 1. The composite mean trait curiosity score for participants was 5.29 with a standard deviation of 0.79.
Table 2 Chi-Square Test Sports Cricket E-Sport Field Hockey Lacrosse Taekwondo Mountain Biking Rowing Softball Ultimate Fighting Wakeboading a.
Chi-Squarea
Asymp. Sig.
120.12 21.12 26.28 16.53 57.78 38.28 50 4.5 3.12 13.78
.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .034 .077 .000
0 cells (.0%) have expected frequencies less than 5. The minimum expected cell frequency is 64.0.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT MANAGEMENT
Sport Spectatorship
9
Chi Square
The Chi-square analysis showed that Ultimate Fighting differed significantly from the other novel sports _2(1) = 3.12 (see Table 2). Specifically, interest in the sport of Ultimate Fighting was significantly higher than the reported interest in the other novel sports. The result of the Chi-square test indicates that most selected sports were similar with regards to novelty. Simple Linear Regression
A simple linear regression was utilized to examine the relationship between the predictor variable (trait curiosity) and intention to watch novel sports (see Table 3). Assumptions of regression were examined and met [e.g., Dubin-Watson value (independent error) = 1.8; R between predictors (multicollinearity) = .019; Field, 2005]. The overall model revealed a significant result [F (1, 126) = 27.5; p < .001] and indicated about 18% of the variance in novel sport spectatorship was explained by the model. Therefore, as trait curiosity
Table 3 A Simple Linear Regression of the Relationship between Trait Curiosity and Intention to Watch Novel Sports Variables
B
SE B
Trait Curiosity
.42
.1
27.50**
R2 = .18 **p < .001
increased, there was a significant increase in intention to watch novel sports.
DISCUSSION The results of the current study indicated there is a positive relationship between trait curiosity and interest in watching novel sports. This finding is significant for both researchers and practitioners. For researchers, this finding provides support for further examining the impact of curiosity as well as other personality variables, in order to better understand sport fan behavior. Berlyne (1960), Day (1971) and Nalyor (1981) asserted that trait curiosity would motivate individuals to explore novel objects and environments, and this theory is supported by the results of this study. In other words, those higher in trait curiosity are more motivated to watch novel sports. For practitioners, the findings in this study may imply the need for new marketing strategies. For example, sport marketers can use the findings of this study to pursue their two major goals, the development of new sport consumers and the advancement of causal fans to loyal fans. Sport marketers could generate new sport fans if they offer novel stimuli to individuals who are not currently fans of sport to stimulate their curiosity. It could be quite effective for those possessing high trait curiosity because their intention to consume sports is increased when situations and stimuli arouse their curiosity.
Volume 9, #3, July 2008
10
While it may not be intuitively practical to identify which potential fans are high in trait curiosity, focusing advertising efforts on these individuals would increase the chances for success. They are more willing to engage in an exploratory behavior to investigate a novel object (Berlyne, 1960, 1963; Naylor, 1981). Therefore, it would be more efficient to focus advertising efforts toward those who are high in trait curiosity because the likelihood that they will become fans of the new sports is greater. This is particularly true for novel sports that often struggle to increase fan interest (Mahony & Howard, 2001). In the crowded sports marketplace, many of the leagues in these sports fail due to their inability to become included into fans’ sport-consuming consideration sets. Future research could focus on developing strategies that would increase curiosity in potential fans for these new leagues, as well as the more established leagues. Moreover, it is possible that sport marketers could more efficiently transform causal fans to loyal fans by appealing to their curiosity. After initially attracting these new fans, the key for fledgling sports is to maintain their interest. It is plausible that stimulating a causal fan’s curiosity could help sport marketers extend the loyal fan base because individuals possessing higher levels of trait curiosity would be more likely to continue as fans if the events focused on maintaining their curiosity (see Boyle, 1989; Naylor, 1981; Spielberger & Starr, 1994). According to Kashdan and Roberts (2004), a person INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT MANAGEMENT
Sport Spectatorship
can be characterized as being high in trait curiosity “when he or she has the propensity to experience momentary curiosity under more conditions, more readily, and for more prolonged periods of time” (p. 795). Therefore, by offering more curiosity-triggering marketing and promotions over time, sport marketers could increase their success in maintaining the interest of the early adopters (i.e., those who become fans first) (see Moore, 2000). In fact, the results of this study may help explain the transition of a sport from novel sport to a popular sport through maintaining curiosity (Mullin, Hardy, & Sutton, 2000). The transition of a sport can be examined using the sports product life cycle (cf. Gorchels, 2000; Levitt, 1965). The authors of this study defined novel sport as sport that is relatively new and does not have a long history of fan interest. We selected ten sports in order to investigate how nonsport fans are initially attracted to sports. Researchers predicted that these ten sports might be positioned in the first stage, introduction. A novel sport in the first stage would be expected to elicit a high level of interest among those with high trait curiosity due to its new concepts, rules, and contents. In the current study, Ultimate Fighting (UF) did not appear to fall into the first stage of the life cycle. A Chi-Square test showed that UF had a significantly different result than other sports. Therefore, UF does not appear to fall into the first stage of the product life cycle with our other proposed novel sports (see Table 3). It may be possible that the im-
Sport Spectatorship
pact of curiosity on sport fan behavior may last into the growth stage. If, as suggested earlier, sport organizations are able to appeal to and maintain the curiosity of the casual fan, they may be able to keep these individuals as fans of the sport beyond the introduction stage.
LIMITATION AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS The current study has some limitations. First, this study only focused on trait curiosity and interest in watching novel sports. Because this study is the first attempt to examine the impact of curiosity on sport fan behaviors, future studies are needed in order to better understand the impact of curiosity in a sport context. In fact, the regression model only explained 18% of the variance in novel sport spectatorship. While this is a relatively higher percentage than some other studies, particularly those examining the impact of individual personality factors (Mahony et al., 1999), it does suggest that much of the variance in intention is still not predicted by the simple model presented in the current study. Second, the results of the current study might be limited by various situational effects even though the authors tried to control extraneous effects such as state curiosity. In contrast to trait curiosity, state curiosity is very sensitive to situational influences. State curiosity is more reflective of how interesting a situation is to the individual (Cyr, 1996). The concept of state is also meaningful in the sport context because various
11
sport behaviors such as watching a game in a stadium, buying sport products in a sport venue, or supporting a national sport team in a large public square may be more likely influenced by unique situational influences within sport. Therefore, further studies are needed to investigate the role of state curiosity in sport fan behavior and the relationship between state curiosity and trait curiosity in the sport context. In addition, the relationship between the level of curiosity gap and the intention to consume novel sports and products is worth investigating. Berlyne (1960), Zuckerman (1979), and Day (1982) believed that the level of stimulation and arousal can result in different exploratory behavior. Day’s “Zone of Curiosity” (1982) explained that the individual differences in novelty preference would depend on the level of arousal. Day asserted that people’s curiosity would be the highest when they have an optimal level of stimulation. In the same manner, Loewenstein (1994) insisted that an exploratory behavior is significantly related to the level of arousal, which is attributed to curiosity knowledge gap. In general, prior research has indicated that a moderate knowledge gap elicits the greatest curiosity with lower levels of curiosity elicited by gaps that are too low or too high (Balling & Falk, 1982; Henderson & Moore, 1979). Therefore, it can be hypothesized for future studies that different levels of the curiosity knowledge gap will influence the intention to watch novel sports. Understanding the curios-
Volume 9, #3, July 2008
12
ity gap could help sport marketers pursue their goals more successfully. Lastly, research should investigate how individuals react to novel stimuli after their curiosity is satisfied. Loewenstein (2000) provided two different types of altered personality states related to the behavior derived from curiosity: (a) ‘hot’ state and (b) ‘cold’ state. The hot state is the state of anticipation in which people are not able to rationally judge the situation due to the curiosity or emotional disequilibrium. People may enter a ‘hot’ state when they face a desirable novel stimulation that arouses curiosity and have difficulty to imagine their future actions in a ‘cold’ state (Bernard & Schulze, 2005). In contrast, the cold state is the state of tranquility where an individuals’ curiosity is satisfied. After satisfying their curiosity, people may fall in a ‘cold’ state even if the object of curiosity does not disappoint (Bernard & Schulze, 2005). These concepts may help to explain why reactions to sport may differ depending on whether one’s initial curiosity is satisfied. Understanding the chronological nature of ‘hot’ and ‘cold’ states could allow sport marketers to make appropriate alterations to their marketing strategies at appropriate times to continually arouse curiosity and maintain fan interest in their respective sport.
REFERENCES Ainley, M.D. (1987). The factor structure of curiosity measures: Breadth and depth of interest curiosity styles.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT MANAGEMENT
Sport Spectatorship
Australian Journal of Psychology, 3 9 , 53-59. Balling, J.D., & Falk, J.H. (1982). A perspective on field trips: Environmental effects on learning. Curator, 23, 229-240. Barron, F. (1963). The disposition toward originality. In C.W. Taylor, & F. Barron (Eds.), Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Barry, T.E. (1987). The development of the hierarchy of effects: An historical perspective. In J.H. Leigh, & C.R. Martin, Jr. (Eds.), Current Issues and Research in Advertising (pp. 251-295). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Berlyne, D.E. (1954). A theory of human curiosity. British Journal of Psychology, 45, 180-191. Berlyne, D.E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill. Berlyne, D.E. (1962). Uncertainty and epistemic curiosity. British Journal of Psychology, 53, 27-34. Berlyne, D.E. (1963). Motivational problems raised by exploratory and epistemic behavior. (1963). In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of science. (Vol. 5). (pp. 25-33). New York: McGraw-Hill. Berlyne, D.E. (1965). Curiosity and education. In J. B. Krumboltz (Ed.), Learning and the Educational Process (pp.67-89). Chicago: Rand McNally. Bernard, J.C., & Schulze, W. (2005). The next new thing: Curiosity and the
Sport Spectatorship
motivation to purchase novel products. Economic Bulletin, 3(32), 1-8. Bernus, P., Nemes, L., & Schmidt, G. (2003). Handbook on enterprise architecture. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
13
Ferber, R. (1977). Research by convenience. Journal of Consumer Research, 4, 57-58. Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.
Boyle, G.J. (1989). Breadth-depth of state-trait curiosity? A factor analysis of state-trait curiosity and state anxiety scales. Personal and Individual Differences, 10, 175-183.
Frenkel-Brunswik, E. (1951). Personality theory and perception. In R.R. Blake, & G.V. Ramsey (Eds.), Perception:
Bruner, J.S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Funk, D.C., Haugtvedt, C.P., & Howard, D. R. (2000). Contemporary attitude theory in sport: Theoretical considerations and implications. S p o r t Management Review, 3, 124-144.
Collins, R.P., Litman, J.A., & Spielberger, C.D. (2004). The measurement of perceptual curiosity. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1127-1141. Cyr, T.A. (1996). Arousing and sustaining intellectual curiosity: a study of course design and implementation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, Denver. Day, H.I. (1969). Role of specific curiosity in school achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 59(1), 37-43. Day, H.I. (1971). The measurement of specific curiosity. In H.I. Day, D.E. Berlyne, & D.E. Hunt (Eds.), Intrinsic motivation (pp. 77-97). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Holt, Rinehart and Winston of Canada. Day, H.I. (1982). Curiosity and interested explorer. NSPI Journal, 19-22. Driscoll, M.P. (1994). Psychology of learning for instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
An approach to personality. New York: Ronald.
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, 119-150. Funk, D.C., & James, J. (2006). Consumer Loyalty: The meaning of attachment in the development of sport team allegiance. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 189-217. Gentry, J.W., Burns, A.C., Putrevu, S., Hongyan, Y., Williams, L., Bare, T., & Gentry, R. A. (2001). Motivating students: An initial attempt to operationalize the curiosity gap model. Developments in Business Stimulation and Experiential Learning, 28, 69-75. Gorchels, L. (2000). The product manager’s handbook: The complete product management resource. (2nd ed.). Chicago: NTC Business Books.
Volume 9, #3, July 2008
14
Henderson, B., & Moore, S. G. (1979). Measuring exploratory behavior in young children: A factor-analytic study. Developmental Psychology, 15, 113-119. James, J.D. (2001). The role of cognitive development and socialization in the initial development of team loyalty. Leisure Sciences, 23, 233-261. Kahle, L.R., Kambara, K.M., & Rose, G.M. (1996). A functional model of fan attendance motivations for college football. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 5, 51-60. Kashdan, T.B., & Roberts, J.E. (2004). Trait and state curiosity in the genesis of intimacy: Differentiation from related constructs. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 792816. Kolbe, R.H., & James, J. D. (2000). An identification an examination of influences that shape the creation of a professional team fan. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 2, 21-37. Leherissey, B.L. (1971). The effects of stimulating state epistemic curiosity on state anxiety and performance in a complex computer-assisted learning task (Tech. Rep. No. 23). Florida State University CAI Center. Leherissey, B.L. (1972). Validation of a measure of state epistemic curiosity in a computer-assisted learning situation. Proceedings of the 80th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 523-524.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT MANAGEMENT
Sport Spectatorship
Lehmann, D. (1994). Characteristics of ‘really’ new products in and now for something completely different. In M. Adams & J. LaCugna (Eds.), And now for something completely different: “Really” new products. (Report No. 94-124, pp. 29-31). Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute. Levitt, T. (1965). Exploit the product life cycle. Harvard Business Review, 43, 81-94. Litman, J.A., & Spielberger, C.. (2003). Measuring epistemic curiosity and its diversive and specific components. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, 75-86. Loewenstein, G. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 75-98. Loewenstein, G. (2000). Emotions in economic theory and economic behavior. Preferences, Behavior, and Welfare, 90, 426-432. Mahony, D.F., & Howard, D.R. (2001). Sport business in the next decade: A general overview of expected trends. Journal of Sport Management, 15, 275296. Mahony, D.F., Howard, D.R., & Madrigal, R. (2000). BIRGing and CORFing behaviors by sport spectators: High self-monitors versus low selfmonitors. International Sports Journal, 4, 87-106. Mahony, D.F., Madrigal, R., & D.R. (1999). The effect monitoring on behavioral tudinal loyalty towards
Howard, of selfand attiathletic
Sport Spectatorship
teams. International Journal of Sport Marketing and Sponsorship, 1, 146-167. Menon, S., & Soman, D. (2002). Managing the power of curiosity for effective web advertising strategies. Journal of Advertising, 31(3), 1-14. Milne, G.R. & McDonald, M.A. (1999). Sport marketing: Managing the exchange process. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett. Moore, G.A. (2000). Crossing the chasm: Marketing and selling high-tech products to mainstream customers (Rev. ed.). New York: HarperCollins. Mullin, B., Hardy, S., & Sutton, W. (2000). Sport marketing (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. Naylor, F.D. (1981). A state-trait curiosity inventory. Australian Psychologist, 16, 172-183. Necka, E. (1989). Stimulating curiosity. Gifted Educational International, 6, 2527. Olson, E. (1986). Measurement of curiosity in junior high students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University, Iowa. Pearson, P.H. (1970). Relationships between global and specific measures of novelty seeking. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 34, 199-204. Reio, T.G. Jr. (1997). Effects of curiosity on socialization-related learning and job performance in adults. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Virginia.
15
Reio, T.G., Petrosko, J.M., Wiswell, A.K., & Thongsukmag, J. (2006). The measurement and conceptualization of curiosity. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 167, 117-135. Spielberger, C.D., Barker, L., Russell, S., Silva De Crane, R., Westberry, L., Knight, K., & Marks, E. (1980). Preliminary manual for the state-trait personality inventory (STPI). Unpublished manuscript, University of South Florida at Tampa. Spielberger, C. D., & Starr, L. M. (1994). Curiosity and exploratory behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Stevens, J.P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Tabachnick, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Harper Collins. Trail, G. T., & James, J, D. (2001). The motivation scale for sport consumption: assessment of the scale’s psychometric properties. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 108-127. Urban, G.L., Weinberg, B.D., & Hauser, J. R. (1996). Premarket forecasting of really-new products. Journal of Marketing, 60, 47-60. Wann, D.L. (1995). Preliminary motivation of the sport fan motivation scale. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 19, 377-396. Wann, D., Tucker, K., & Schrader, M. (1996). An exploratory examination
Volume 9, #3, July 2008
16
Sport Spectatorship
of the factors influencing the origination, continuation and cessation of identification with sports teams. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82, 995-1001. Weinberg, R.S., & Gould, D. (1999). Foundations of sport and exercise psy-
chology (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetic Publish. Zuckerman, M. (1979). Sensation seeking: Beyond the optimal level of arousal. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Seong-Hee Park, M.S., is a student at the University of Louisville; Dr. Damon Andrew teaches at the University of Tennessee; and Dr. Daniel Mahony is on the faculty at the University of Louisville.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORT MANAGEMENT
Sport Spectatorship
17
APPENDIX NOVEL SPORT INDEX
SPORT
Do you consider yourself as a fan?
CRICKET A game played with a ball and bat by two teams of 11 players
Yes/No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Yes/No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Yes/No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Yes/No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Yes/No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Yes/No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Yes/No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Yes/No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Yes/No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Yes/No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
E-SPORT The overall term for computer games as a sport is Electronic Sports. FIELD HOCKEY A game resembling ice hockey that is played on an open field. LACROSSE It is played by two teams using netted sticks in order to project a small rubber ball into the opponents' goal. TAEKWONDO Korean martial art; The art of Kicking and Punching MOUNTAIN BIKING A form of off-road cycling which uses very sturdy bicycles with straight handlebars and wide tires. ROWING Propelling a boat with a lever. SOFTBALL A game closely resembling baseball that is played on a smaller diamond and with a larger and softer ball. ULTIMATE FIGHTING American based mixed martial arts. WAKEBOADING Combination of water skiing, snow boarding, and surfing techniques. Instead of using skis, the rider rides a single board.
Rate your interest in watching this sport 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Very Very Low High
Volume 9, #3, July 2008
