<%BANNER%>

Community Relations

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021129/00001

Material Information

Title: Community Relations A State of Affairs in Intercollegiate Athletics
Physical Description: 1 online resource (120 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Francis, Simone Annika
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: athletics, attitude, commitment, community, intercollegiate, involvement, motives, ncaa, relations
Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Sport Management thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science COMMUNITY RELATIONS: A STATE OF AFFAIRS IN INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS By Simone Annika Francis August 2007 Chair: Lori Pennington-Gray Major: Sport Management Community relations provide an opportunity to address the relationship between an athletic organization and its community. It also provides an opportunity to make a positive influence in the community which may enhance the image of the student-athlete and the athletic organization. Despite these opportunities, little to no research has been conducted on community relations in college athletics. Nevertheless, the NCAA established the CHAMPS/Life Skills Program where community service is a main component of the program. An exploratory study was conducted to investigate the attitudes and motives of college athletic administrators and how they influence the importance of and actual participation in community relation efforts in intercollegiate athletics. Data were collected using a web-based questionnaire emailed to key college athletic administrators at NCAA Division I member institutions in the following units: Administration, Academic Services and Marketing. The questionnaire was designed to collect data on attitudes, motives, importance and commitment to community relations. A purposive sample of 193 participants completed the questionnaire. Structured interviews were also utilized to add depth to the study by collecting data inductively. A total of 12 collegiate athletic administrators participated in the in-depth interviews. The interview captured the participants? personal beliefs surrounding community relations, the current relationship between their community and institution, and their disposition to the NCAA CHAMPS/Life Skills program. Scale reliability measures were used to determine whether the attitudes, motives, commitment and importance scales were reliable. Frequencies were utilized to obtain descriptive statistics of each construct. Correlation and regression analyses were used to examine the relationships between attitudes, motives, importance, and commitment. One-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) examined group differences between institutions that do or do not participate in the NCAA CHAMPS/Life Skills Program and between the three different units (Administration, Academic Services & Marketing). Conceptual content analysis was utilized to analyze the interview transcripts. Results included the following findings: (1) college athletic administrators? attitude towards community relations is positive but weak; (2) motives to participate in community relations were self-serving; (3) athletic administrators are generally committed to community relations; (4) athletic administrators agree that community relations is important as demonstrated by their level of involvement; (5) Administration appeared to have a better attitude, was more motivated and was generally more committed to community relations than Marketing and Academic Services. In addition, athletic administrators defined community relations as: giving back to the community, establishing partnerships within the community and community involvement. Athletic administrators generally perceive their institutions as having positive relationships with their communities and are divided on whether community relations should be standardized in intercollegiate athletics.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Simone Annika Francis.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Pennington-Gray, Lori.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2009-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021129:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021129/00001

Material Information

Title: Community Relations A State of Affairs in Intercollegiate Athletics
Physical Description: 1 online resource (120 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Francis, Simone Annika
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: athletics, attitude, commitment, community, intercollegiate, involvement, motives, ncaa, relations
Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Sport Management thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science COMMUNITY RELATIONS: A STATE OF AFFAIRS IN INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS By Simone Annika Francis August 2007 Chair: Lori Pennington-Gray Major: Sport Management Community relations provide an opportunity to address the relationship between an athletic organization and its community. It also provides an opportunity to make a positive influence in the community which may enhance the image of the student-athlete and the athletic organization. Despite these opportunities, little to no research has been conducted on community relations in college athletics. Nevertheless, the NCAA established the CHAMPS/Life Skills Program where community service is a main component of the program. An exploratory study was conducted to investigate the attitudes and motives of college athletic administrators and how they influence the importance of and actual participation in community relation efforts in intercollegiate athletics. Data were collected using a web-based questionnaire emailed to key college athletic administrators at NCAA Division I member institutions in the following units: Administration, Academic Services and Marketing. The questionnaire was designed to collect data on attitudes, motives, importance and commitment to community relations. A purposive sample of 193 participants completed the questionnaire. Structured interviews were also utilized to add depth to the study by collecting data inductively. A total of 12 collegiate athletic administrators participated in the in-depth interviews. The interview captured the participants? personal beliefs surrounding community relations, the current relationship between their community and institution, and their disposition to the NCAA CHAMPS/Life Skills program. Scale reliability measures were used to determine whether the attitudes, motives, commitment and importance scales were reliable. Frequencies were utilized to obtain descriptive statistics of each construct. Correlation and regression analyses were used to examine the relationships between attitudes, motives, importance, and commitment. One-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) examined group differences between institutions that do or do not participate in the NCAA CHAMPS/Life Skills Program and between the three different units (Administration, Academic Services & Marketing). Conceptual content analysis was utilized to analyze the interview transcripts. Results included the following findings: (1) college athletic administrators? attitude towards community relations is positive but weak; (2) motives to participate in community relations were self-serving; (3) athletic administrators are generally committed to community relations; (4) athletic administrators agree that community relations is important as demonstrated by their level of involvement; (5) Administration appeared to have a better attitude, was more motivated and was generally more committed to community relations than Marketing and Academic Services. In addition, athletic administrators defined community relations as: giving back to the community, establishing partnerships within the community and community involvement. Athletic administrators generally perceive their institutions as having positive relationships with their communities and are divided on whether community relations should be standardized in intercollegiate athletics.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Simone Annika Francis.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Pennington-Gray, Lori.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2009-08-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021129:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 COMMUNITY RELATIONS: A STATE OF AFFAIRS IN INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS By SIMONE ANNIKA FRANCIS A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Simone Annika Francis

PAGE 3

3 To my family who has nurtured me from the beginning, stimulating my intellectual abilities and encourag ing me to pursue my dreams. This is our accomplishment.

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank the members of my supervisory comm ittee for their mentoring and guidance, the staff at HHP Computing Services fo r their technical assistance, and the participants in my survey for making this possible. A special thank you to Dr. Dovie Gamble for being my personal cheerleader-her generous and unyielding support is greatly appreciated. Most importantly, I thank my mother, my family and friends for th eir loving encouragement, which carried me to this milestone.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........8 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .......10 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................13 Overview of Intercollegiate Athletics.....................................................................................13 Statement of Problem........................................................................................................... ..14 Community Relations: A Compone nt of Public Relations..............................................15 Significance of the Study...................................................................................................... ..16 Theoretical Foundation......................................................................................................... ..18 Purpose of Study............................................................................................................... ......19 Research Questions............................................................................................................. ....20 Definitions.................................................................................................................... ..........21 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE........................................................................................22 Community Relations............................................................................................................ .22 Community Relations and Social Responsibility...................................................................23 Community Relations and Sports Industry.............................................................................24 Professional Sports..........................................................................................................24 College Sports.................................................................................................................26 The NCAA CHAMPS/Life Skills Program....................................................................27 Social Exchange Theory.........................................................................................................28 Trust.......................................................................................................................... .......28 Commitment....................................................................................................................29 Satisfaction................................................................................................................... ...29 Reciprocity.................................................................................................................... ..30 Attitudes...................................................................................................................... ............30 Personal Beliefs...............................................................................................................33 Motives........................................................................................................................ ...........34 Commitment and Importance.................................................................................................36 Community Attachment..................................................................................................36 Community Involvement.................................................................................................38 Summary of Literature Review..............................................................................................40

PAGE 6

6 3 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................41 Participants................................................................................................................... ..........41 Instrumentation................................................................................................................ .......42 Electronic Questionnaire.................................................................................................42 In-Depth Interviews.........................................................................................................47 Procedures and Data Collection..............................................................................................48 Data Analysis.................................................................................................................. ........50 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION....................................................................56 Respondent Profile: Questionnaire.........................................................................................56 Age............................................................................................................................ ......56 Level of Education..........................................................................................................56 Position Title................................................................................................................. ..56 Department..................................................................................................................... .57 Department Head.............................................................................................................57 Position Tenure................................................................................................................57 Descriptive Statistics......................................................................................................... .....57 Community Relations Participation................................................................................57 Attitudes...................................................................................................................... ....58 Motives........................................................................................................................ ....59 Commitment....................................................................................................................60 Importance..................................................................................................................... ..61 Degree of Relationship among Variables...............................................................................61 Bivariate Correlations......................................................................................................61 Regression Analysis........................................................................................................62 Significance of Group Differences.........................................................................................63 Attitudes...................................................................................................................... ....63 Motives........................................................................................................................ ....64 Commitment....................................................................................................................65 Importance..................................................................................................................... ..65 Conceptual Content Analysis.................................................................................................66 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS..................................................................................90 Discussion of Findings......................................................................................................... ..90 Attitudes...................................................................................................................... ....90 Motives........................................................................................................................ ....92 Commitment....................................................................................................................93 Importance..................................................................................................................... ..94 Community Relations......................................................................................................95 The NCAA CHAMPS/Life Skills Program....................................................................96 Conclusions.................................................................................................................... .........97 Suggestions for Future Research............................................................................................99 Delimitations.................................................................................................................. .......100 Limitations.................................................................................................................... ........101

PAGE 7

7 APPENDIX A ELECTRONIC INFORMED CONSENT FORM................................................................102 B ELECTRONIC COMMUNITY RELATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE...................................103 C INTERVIEW INFORMED CONSENT FORM..................................................................109 D INTERVIEW QUESTIONS.................................................................................................110 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................111 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................120

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Attitude Indicators........................................................................................................ .....52 3-2 Motive Indicators.......................................................................................................... .....53 3-3 Community Attachment Indicators....................................................................................54 3-4 Importance/Involvement Indicators...................................................................................55 4-1 Respondent Profile......................................................................................................... ....73 4-2 Community Relations Participation...................................................................................74 4-3 Attitudes Profile.......................................................................................................... .......75 4-4 Motives Profile............................................................................................................ .......76 4-5 Commitment Profiles........................................................................................................ .77 4-6 Importance Profiles........................................................................................................ ....78 4-7 Correlational Analysis for Motive, Commitment and Importance Subscales...................79 4-8 Multiple Regression Analysis for Motive, Commitment and Importance Subscales in relation to Department.......................................................................................................80 4-9 Multiple Regression Analysis for Motive, Commitment and Importance Subscales in relation to CHAMPS/Life Skills Program.........................................................................80 4-10 Means and Standard Deviations for Subscales and Department.......................................81 4-11 Means and Standard Deviations for Subscales and CHAMPS/Life Skills Program.........82 4-12 Analysis of Variance on Positive Attitudes.......................................................................83 4-13 Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships between Department and Positive Attitudes....................................................................................83 4-14 Analysis of Variance on Negative Attitudes......................................................................84 4-15 Means (M) and Standard Deviations (S D) for Significant Relationships between Department and Negative Attitudes...................................................................................84 4-16 Analysis of Variance on Motives.......................................................................................85

PAGE 9

9 4-17 Means (M) and Standard Deviations (S D) for Significant Relationships between Department and Motives....................................................................................................86 4-18 Analysis of Variance on Commitment...............................................................................87 4-19 Means (M) and Standard Deviations (S D) for Significant Relationships between Department and Commitment............................................................................................87 4-20 Analysis of Variance on Importance..................................................................................88 4-21 Means (M) and Standard Deviations (SD) for Significant Relationships between Department and Importance...............................................................................................89

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Conceptualization of the Social Exchange Process...........................................................29 2-2 Conceptualization of the Theory of Planned Behavior......................................................32

PAGE 11

11 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science COMMUNITY RELATIONS: A STATE OF AFFAIRS IN INTERCOLLEGIATE ATHLETICS By Simone Annika Francis August 2007 Chair: Lori Pennington-Gray Major: Sport Management Community relations provide an opportunity to address the relationship between an athletic organization and its community. It al so provides an opportunity to make a positive influence in the community which may enhance the image of the student-athlete and the athletic organization. Despite these opportunities, little to no research has been conducted on community relations in college athletics. Nevertheless, the NCAA established the CHAMPS/Life Skills Program where community service is a main co mponent of the program. An exploratory study was conducted to investigate the attitudes and motiv es of college athletic administrators and how they influence the importance of and actual pa rticipation in community relation efforts in intercollegiate athletics. Data were collected using a web-based quest ionnaire emailed to key college athletic administrators at NCAA Division I member ins titutions in the following units: Administration, Academic Services and Marketi ng. The questionnaire was designed to collect data on attitudes, motives, importance and commitment to community relations. A purposive sample of 193 participants completed the questionn aire. Structured interviews we re also utilized to add depth to the study by collecting data i nductively. A total of 12 collegiate athletic administrators participated in the in-depth interviews. The in terview captured the participants personal beliefs

PAGE 12

12 surrounding community relations, the current relationship be tween their community and institution, and their disposition to the NCAA CHAMPS/Life Skills program. Scale reliability measures were used to determine whether the attitudes, motives, commitment and importance scales were reliab le. Frequencies were utilized to obtain descriptive statistics of each c onstruct. Correlation and regression analyses were used to examine the relationships between attit udes, motives, importance, and commitment. One-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) examined group differences betw een institutions that do or do not participate in the NCAA CHAMPS/Life Skills Program and between the three different units (Administration, Academic Services & Marketing). Conceptual content analysis was utilized to analyze the interview transcripts. Results included the following findings: (1) college athletic administrators attitude toward community relations is positive but weak; (2) motives to participate in community relations were self-serving; (3) athletic administrators are generally committed to community relations; (4) athletic administrators agree that community relations is important as demonstrated by their level of involvement; (5 ) Administration appeared to ha ve a better attitude, was more motivated and was generally more committed to community relations than Marketing and Academic Services. In addition, athletic administ rators defined community relations as: giving back to the community, establishing partners hips within the community and community involvement. Athletic administrators generally perceive their institutions as having positive relationships with their communities and are divided on whether co mmunity relations should be standardized in intercollegiate athletics.

PAGE 13

13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Overview of Intercollegiate Athletics The National Collegiate Athletic Associati on (NCAA) is the largest governing body of intercollegiate athletics. Ot her governing organizations includ e the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) and the Nationa l Junior College Athle tic Association (NJCAA) that also govern some areas of intercollegiate at hletics, but on a much smaller scale compared to the NCAA. The NCAA purports its elf to be a self-governing and administrative entity, one in which the members create the legislation and ru le from the bottom-up. Currently more than 1,250 colleges, universities and conferences make up the membership of the NCAA across three divisions (NCAA, 2006a). College athletics accounts for $2.5 billion in licensed goods, the same amount as the NFL, and represent 23.8% of the total revenues in li censed goods. Intercollegiate athletics ranks second in media broadcast rights at $1.06 billion, representing 9.1% of the total revenue in media broadcast rights (Street & Smiths SBJ, 2006). Co llege athletics surpasses professional leagues in money spent by various publics (e.g.,, spectators, teams, educational institutions) traveling to and from their organized sporting events with $1.1 billion, which is 6.9% of total travel expenses (Street & Smiths SBJ, 2006). Similar to the big four leagues, college athletics accounted for 26.3% of total operating expenses, excluding tr avel costs (Street & Smiths SBJ, 2006). Division I institutions are characterized by a minimum of seven sports for men and women, contest and participant minimums, scheduli ng criteria for all sports, minimum athletic financial aid awards for the athletic program a nd maximum athletic financial aid awards for each sport; Division I-A football schools also have to meet minimum game attendance requirements (NCAA, 2006a). Division II instit utions are characterized by a mi nimum of five sports for men

PAGE 14

14 and women, contest and particip ant minimums, scheduling criteria for football and basketball, maximum athletic financial aid awards for each s port and the athletic programs are financed by the institution like any other department or un it (NCAA, 2006a). Division III institutions are characterized by a minimum of five sports for men and women, minimum contest and participant minimums, no scheduling criteria for any sport, no athletic financial aid awards, and the athletic program is funded and run like any other de partment at the institution (NCAA, 2006a). The NCAA reports that 95% of its revenue from television, media rights, championships, and marketing fees are funneled di rectly to its members through dire ct services or event services (NCAA, 2006b). In 2004 2005, it distributed $298.7 million back to its members, a 6.4% increase over the previous year which was $280.2 million (NCAA, 2006b). Average total revenues for the 2003 fiscal year ranged from $42.8 million for all of Di vision I to $4.3 million for Division II while average total expenses were $41.2 million and $4.6 million respectively. From their report, revenues increased at a greater rate than expenses across all divisions (Fulks, 2005). However it should be noted that few schools (40% in Div. I and 8.5% in Div. II) reported operating at a profit; the majority of NCAA member institutions operate at a deficit (Fulks, 2005). Similar to professional sports, the NCAA s revenue sharing protocol (e.g., NFL) is critical to the vitality of its members. Statement of Problem Intercollegiate athletics in the United States, particularly at the Di vision I level, is big business. As social responsibility is at the fo refront of standard busin ess practices and the big NCAA schools have adopted a corporate culture or are becoming more like corporations, it is conceivable that social responsib ility is becoming more pertinent. Historically, organizations have been reactive rather than proactive when it comes to community relations. The college sports industry is no exception, as it generates revenues and elicits economic impacts equitable to

PAGE 15

15 traditional business corporations. Although collegia te athletics professes itself to be not-forprofit, its financial statements display otherwis e. Collegiate athletic s accounts for a significant portion of the sports industry and draws in comparable revenues to its professional counterparts. With figures in the hundreds of millions and even in the billions, it is hard to argue that collegiate athletics is not profitable. Traditional business corporati ons and professional sport or ganizations have come to recognize their organizations respon sibility to their consumers, the community and society (Roy & Graeff, 2003). Social responsibility has es tablished itself among the generally accepted business practices including fis cal and ethical responsibilitie s (Bolino, 1999; Clark, 2000). While traditional businesses and pr ofessional sports have responded to this call, the initiatives of collegiate athletics are not as appare nt. In collegiate athletics, the extent of social responsibilities and community relations efforts has yet to be investigated. Community Relations: A Component of Public Relations In a broader context, community relations as a topic of research, has recently emerged as a stand alone issue in academia. Previously, it was a subtopic of public relations, as documented in the literature (Bruning, Langenhop, & Green, 2004; Clark, 2000; Hall, 2006; Kruckerberg & Starck, 1988; Ledingham & Bruning, 2001). Although there is some academic literature which focuses on community relations and social responsi bility in the sports in dustry, little is known about community relations in college athletics. There has been a relative dearth in the academic literature on social responsibility and community relations in the area of college athletic programs. The research literature on sport consumer and organizational behaviors has long identified that community relations (comm unity image and community attachment) are sociomotivational factors for sport consumpti on (Anderson & Stone, 1981; Hansen & Gauthier, 1992; Zhang, Pease & Hui, 1996; Robinson, Trail, Dick & Gillentine, 2003; Robinson et al.,

PAGE 16

16 2005). To date, community relations in the sp orts industry has not been studied from a managerial perspective. In the context of the sports industry, the i ssue of social responsibility has yet to be examined for sport properties, including teams, organizations, athlet es, associations, and conferences (Roy & Graeff, 2003). In their study, Roy and Graeff revealed findings in regards to the importance of social responsibility and goodwill to spectators. The findings indicated that 90% of the respondents expect prof essional sport franchises to s upport local charities or causes; 87% expect athletes to do the same. Typically, consumers expect more from an organization than they do the athletes. These results ar e further supported by similar findings in sport marketing research on other sport organizations su ch as minor leagues and college organizations (Zhang, Pease & Hui, 1996; Robinson, Trail, Di ck & Gillentine, 2003; Robinson et al., 2005). However, these previous studies were from a marketing perspective. Understanding the managerial and decision-making aspect behind community relations would provide invaluable information about community relations in intercollegiate athletics. Significance of the Study Stukas and Dunlap (2002) believe that an adequate understanding of community involvement and relations will only be gained by ex amining the roles and perspectives of all the various constituent groups in the system. The proposed research is significant to understanding the role of the college athletic organization in its respective commun ity from a managerial perspective rather than a marketing perspective as seen in the sport literature. The profiles of college towns and cities are significantly or very different than those without higher education institutions anchoring their local e. The present study also adds depth to the community relations and sport literature by examining community relations in collegiate athletics. This area is vastly

PAGE 17

17 different than traditional corporate businesses, which has permeated the community relations literature. With much scrutiny upon the ethics and im age of student-athlete s and the athletic organization itself, it is important to understa nd the priority given by administrators to community relations. The athletic department usually makes all the decisions concerning the athletic program, with input from university admi nistration. Athlet ic programs are typically run by athletic directors who are supported by associat e athletic directors a nd assistant athletic directors. While job titles may vary from institution to institution, job positions remain equivalent. Together, they serve as the official gatekeepers of all facets of the athletic program, including community relations. Therefore, one would expect that employees/managers of different departments where community relations programs are housed would vary by attitudes, motives, commitment and importance of community relations programs. The NCAA has already implemented an associ ation-wide vehicle for community relations in its CHAMPS/Life Skills program, thereby demonstrating the importance it assigns to the matter. The CHAMPS/Life Skills program consists of a commitment to academics, athletics, personal development, career development and community service (NCAA, 2006c). Administration, Marketing and Academic Services departments of athletic programs are usually involved with community relations programming. However, no research has been done to determine which department would be better su ited to house community relations. This study proposes to do that. The NCAA CHAMPS/Life Skills program is trad itionally located in an athletic programs Academic Services unit due to it s classification (NCAA, 2006c). However, the charge of the Academic Services unit is prim arily the academic progress, success and total development of

PAGE 18

18 student-athletes, not co mmunity relations. While the many duties of the Academic Services unit are beyond the scope of this study, those duties surely impact the community relations efforts of the CHAMPS/Life Skills program. Additionally, the Marketing and Administration departments also contribute to community relations, a nd do not typically house the CHAMPS/Life Skills program. The current research study serves as a way to assess the attitudes, motives, importance and commitment of athletic administrators to the CHAMPS/Life Skills Program and other community relations efforts. This study will aid administrators in making informed decisions concerning the departmental location of the CH AMPS/Life Skills program and other community relations programs and initiatives. The results of the proposed study may also provide valuable information about the future use of such a pr ogram including maximizing the strategic usefulness of community relations and how to effectivel y manage a community relations program in collegiate athletics. Theoretical Foundation The relationship building aspect of community re lations lends itself to understanding social exchange and how it fosters community buildi ng. Through social exchange theory, the relationship is a foundation of in teraction processes motivated by a desire to maximize rewards and minimize losses (Homans, 1958; Thibault & Kelley, 1959; Homans 1961; Blau, 1964). Researchers have noted that the majority of the literature on social exchange theory has examined components of social interaction necessa ry for maintaining a relationship, for example, availability of alternatives, interdependence, power and emotions (Thibault & Kelley, 1959; Emerson, 1976; Cook & Emerson, 1978; Lawler, 2001) There is consensus among researchers that social exchange theory is also well suited to study the motiva tional factors behind community relations (Zenisek, 1979; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Bolino, 1999; Hillman & Keim, 2001; Ledingham & Bruning, 2001; Ha ll, 2006). A key tenet of soci al exchange is that each

PAGE 19

19 individual is somehow satisfyi ng an unmet need of the other individual (Thibault & Kelley, 1959; Homans, 1961; Blau, 1964, 1986). If this need remains a necessity, then the exchange continues. In deciding what is fair individuals develop a comp arison level against which they compare the give/take ratio of the relationship. Th is level will vary between relationships, with some being more giving and others where the indi vidual will get more from the relationship. It will also vary greatly in what is given and received (Thibault & Kelley, 1959). Thus, for example, exchanges at home may be very differe nt, both in balance and content, than exchanges at work because there are different needs at home and work. Purpose of Study The literature in sport marketing often recomm ends that athletic organizations need to engage in some form of comm unity image building activities as a way to increase appeal, attractiveness and attendance (Funk & James, 2001; Zhang, La m, Bennett & Connaughton, 2003; Trail, Anderson & Fink, 2005). While much of the research has focused on the attitudes, motives, and commitment of the sport fan, spectat or or consumer, few, if any have examined how the athletic organization addresses community relations and social re sponsibility. Further research on all the sociomotivational factors, including community image and attachment is likely to be stimulated by the shifting patte rns of sport consumption and by the increasing importance of the various fact ors to sport organizations. The purpose of this study was to examine the importance of community relations to college athletic programs as well as evaluate the attitudes, motives and commitment of college athletic administrators as it rela tes to community relations. In addition, the relationships between attitudes, motives and importance and commitme nt and group differences between departments were examined.

PAGE 20

20 Research Questions This study addressed the following research questions: 1. What are the attitudes of college athletic pr ograms toward community relations in general? (Attitudes) a. Is there a difference between attitudes to ward community relations by department (Administration, Marketing and Academic Services)? 2. What are the motives of college athletic progr ams toward community relations in general? (Motives) a. Is there a difference between motives to ward community relations by department (Administration, Marketing and Academic Services)? 3. How committed are college athletic program s to community relations in general? (Commitment) a. Is there a difference between commitment toward community relations by department (Administration, Marketing and Academic Services)? 4. How do college athletic programs define th eir role in the co mmunity? (Importance) a. Is there a difference between importance of community relations by department (Administration, Marketing and Academic Services)? 5. What factors (attitude, motive, commitment a nd importance) have the greatest influence on participation in community relations efforts in general? 6. How do college athletic administra tors define community relations? 7. How do college athletic administrators charact erize the relationship between their institution and their local community? 8. Do college athletic administrators value community relations? Do they believe it contributes to overall success as well as the bottom line? 9. Should community relations programs be standardized? 10. What are college administrators level of awareness and disposition toward the CHAMPS/Life Skills program?

PAGE 21

21 Definitions Community relations: management function of inte racting with local communities through activities that promote th e interest of the company and th e community where it is located (Altman, 1999). Social responsibility: a reflection of the morality and sense of commitment that an organization shows toward its community (Clark, 2000).

PAGE 22

22 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Community Relations Community relations, usually housed under the vise of public relations, have recently emerged as a stand alone topic in the literatu re, with attention from the public relations, sociology, psychology, social psychology, busine ss management and marketing fields. Community relations are characterized by the in teractions between an organization and its communities (Waddock & Graves, 1997; Hillman & Keim, 2001; Andereck, Valentine, Knopf, & Vogt, 2005; Hall, 2006). It refl ects the responsibil ity that an organization feels toward its community and allows the organization to de monstrate its commitment to the community through action (Morias, Dorsch, & Backman, 200 4; Bruning, Langeenhop, & Green, 2004; Hall, 2006). Through various programs and initiatives, organizations give back to the communities where they do business. Some examples of community relations programming include environmental protection programs, urban development plans, and reaching out to underserved and underprivileged citizens. The fundamental objective was communicating the image of the organization to its community. Community relations have been studied from a variety of perspectives (Dietz-Uhler & Murrell, 1999; Green, 2001; Gibson, Willming & Holdnak, 2003; Hall, 2006). What was missing from the literature was information regard ing the impact of community relation efforts on college athletic programs. Inte restingly, while the literature doe s not reflect the existence of a community relations dilemma for college athletic programs, th e National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the prominen t governing body of college athl etics, saw fit to implement the NCAA CHAMPS/Life Skills Program with a community service component for studentathletes in 1994 (NCAA, 2006c). However, th e program only addresses community relations

PAGE 23

23 from the student-athlete perspective, not the organization. Additionally, institutional participation in the CHAMPS/Life Skills Program was required but ultimately decided by athletic administrators. While the NCAA has been lax in enforcing this bylaw, institutions were considered compliant if they have the main academic component. Athletic programs whose CHAMPS/Life Skills program was superior were deemed Programs of Excellence. As a result, this study aims to address an emerging c oncern for the image of college athletic programs and its student-athletes w ithin the context of soci al responsibility and social exchange theory. Community Relations and Social Responsibility Social responsibility usually falls under the umbrella of social marketing. According to Kotler and Andreasen (1991) social marketing diffe rs from other areas of marketing only with respect to the objectives of the marketer and his or her orga nization. Social marketing seeks to influence social behaviors not to benefit the mark eter, but to benefit the target audience and the general society." This technique has been used extensively in community programs, especially community welfare programs. Public relations or community relations were a large component of the social marketing plan. In particular, understanding how community relations plans might influence behaviors was of critical importance to some organizations. Social responsibility reflects the morality and sense of commitment that an organization shows toward its community (Clark, 2000). Through various programs and initiatives, organizations give back to the communities in wh ich they exist. Some examples of community relations programming include environmental pr otection programs, urban development plans, and outreach programs that target the underserved or underprivilege d citizens. Public affairs programs were being created by non -traditional types of organizati ons, such as universities and non-profit organizations in recognition of their responsibility to the community and the growing importance of good community relations.

PAGE 24

24 As a unit of the university, college athletic programs have started to employ people as community relations managers. The philos ophy guiding community relations was based on social responsibility. Social responsibility has become important because of a need to enhance the image of student-athletes and the organization as a whole. This was due in part to the negative behaviors of student-athl etes which reflects poorly upon the organization. Here, social responsibility considers the impacts, both positiv e and negative, that th e organization may have on the community. Community Relations and Sports Industry In the sports industry, those public affairs progr ams which address issues of interest to the general public, businesses, academia, fans, athletic supporters and other public entities constitute community relations. Community relations progra ms exist at a variety of levels of sport organizations, including professi onal sports and college sports. Professional Sports Professional sport franchises across all the ma jor leagues address community relations in some way, shape or form. Whether it was throu gh league initiatives, team mandates, collective bargaining agreements or player associations, professional sport organi zations address their social responsibilities through community relations. Member teams also have their own unique programming in addition to the league-wide s ponsored programs. Individual players also contribute by establishing foundations or special events and promotions to benefit those within their community. While the focus was usually on children, there were programs that administer to other members of society or address local, regional (i.e., Hurricane Katrina of 2005), national and global issues (i.e., Tsunami of 2004). The NFL, including member teams, players, coaches and families, has served communities across the United States for over 75 years. Th e Join the Team was the leagues community

PAGE 25

25 relations platform where they pledge their comm itment to give back to communities across the country (NFL, 2006). The NFL's outreach initiative s include national suppor t programs such as the United Way partnership and Community Quar terback volunteer awar d, recognition programs such as the Walter Payton Man of the Year Award and the NFL Teacher of the Year, and Super Bowl and Pro Bowl event-based outreach initiativ es (NFL, 2006). Their objective was to make a difference through community volunteer work, outreach and involvement. The NBA Cares was the league s community outreach initiative (NBA, 2006). Their outreach programming was specifically designed for social issues, education, youth, family development and health-related issues. Some of their programming includes Read to Achieve, Basketball without Borders and the Jr. NBA/Jr. WNBA (NBA, 2006). With established financial and volunteer hour goals, the NBA appears to ha ve solidified their commitment to the communities they serve. Additi onally, through their collective bargaining agreements and player association, NBA players were requ ired to contribute a specified amount of time to the team and the leagues community outreach initiatives (NBA Players Association, 2006). The NBA established the monthly Commun ity Assist Award to honor the player who demonstrated the passion for their community and the league s commitment to community relations. NHL Community platform addresses concerns with childrens healt h, education and innercity services. Hockey Fights Cancer, Hockey All-Star Kids, NHL Diversity and Teammates for Kids Foundation, the official char ity of the league and the players association, were the major community relations programs through which the NHL serves its communities. NHL Diversity was a particularly interesting pr ogram in which the league was reaching out to ethnicities not usually associated with hockey in an effort to introduce youth of other ethnicities to the sport (NHL, 2006).

PAGE 26

26 The MLB also has a league-wide community relations platform entitled MLB Community Programs (MLB, 2006). Each team in the league has their own community relations department that coordinates player appear ances, special events, and othe r standing programs (MLB, 2006). Programs include Reviving Baseball in the Inner City (RBI), the Roberto Clemente Award for service to others, Baseball Assistance Team (B.A.T.), and the Baseball Tomorrow Fund. The focus of MLBs community relations programmi ng is youth baseball, in troducing baseball in urban communities and most importantly enhancing the community (MLB, 2006). College Sports Unlike professional sports, not al l intercollegiate athletic prog rams appears to be on board with community outreach initiatives and progr amming. Institutions have the option to participate or not in community relations progr amming. However, it woul d be in the athletic programs best interest to enga ge in community relations programming and give back to the communities where it operates. Unlike professiona l sports, college athletics does not presently have mandated community relations efforts or collective bargaining agreements through which to encourage participati on in community relations. The NCAA, the most prominent associati on that governs the actions of athletic conferences and individual inst itutions has established its ow n community relations campaign through two major platforms and many community partnerships. The National Youth Sports Program (NYSP) was a summer camp for low-income youth in an effort to expose them to sports and education (NCAA, 2006d). Additionally, the NCAA in conjunction with the National Youth Sports Corporation administers the Youth Edu cation through Sports (YES) Clinics at select NCAA championship sites (N CAA, 2006d). The NCAA also partners with various organizations in the Indianapolis, Indiana ar ea through sponsorships, vo lunteers, and in-kind

PAGE 27

27 donations. For the total development of the student-athletes, the NCAA established the CHAMPS/Life Skills Program (NCAA, 2006c). The NCAA CHAMPS/Lif e Skills Program In 1994, the NCAA established th e CHAMPS/Life Skills Program in an effort to address the total student-athlete development. Be fore then, college athl etics was plagued by accusations of student-athlete e xploitation where institutions we re capitalizing on the athletic abilities of their students but appeared to have no regard for their future outside of athletics. So the CHAMPS (Challenging Athletes Minds for Pe rsonal Success) was established to reduce and prevent such instances of abuses and reshape the thinking of college athletes as studentathletes, with student being their primary role at any given instituti on (NCAA, 2006c). Each participating institution has a Life Skills Coordi nator who was advised by a select group of their peers who compose the CHAMPS/Life Skills Advi sory Team. This team was charged with assisting with program and planning initiatives as well as the CHAMPS/Life Skills Orientation and Continuing Education C onferences (NCAA, 2006c). The five major components of the CHAMPS/Life Skills program are: academics, athletics, personal development, career development and community service. Academics are at the forefront with emphasis on intellectual developm ent and ultimately graduation. Academics are usually handled by the academic affairs departme nt which may or may not be housed under the athletic department. Athletic excellence was de dicated to providing the best athletic support programs to foster the student-athletes well-b eing. The personal development and leadership components focus on developing the life skills nece ssary to function in th e real world. Career development entails preparing student-athletes for life after athletics as th e probability of them going pro was very low. Co mmunity service was the most popul ar and prominent of the five

PAGE 28

28 components where the purpose was to engage the student-athlete in serv ice and citizenship to their campus, community and society. As beneficial as the CHAMPS/Life Skills Pr ogram may be, institutional participation appears to be voluntary, despit e being required by the NCAA. Thus, not all NCAA members have implemented the program or all of its components to date. Un like their professional counterparts who adopt all the programming initiati ves introduced by the respective leagues, the NCAA and its members do not operate in the same manner. The CHAMPS/Life Skills program was well suited for the development of the we ll rounded student-athlete. However, the NCAA has not implemented or introduced any such co mmunity relations programming for its member institutions as organizations. Social Exchange Theory The literature on social exchange theory presents four recurring themes: trust, commitment, satisfaction and reciprocity. These themes were also critical factors in the relationship between an organiza tion (like college athletics) a nd its community. The important features of each theme can help one to be tter understand why it wa s important to study community relations from the perspective of college athletics. Trust Trust was an essentia l component of short-term excha nges between two entities. It addresses the initial imbalance that occurs betwee n entities. Trust was gained within the social exchange when the expected obligations were met and were reciprocat ed (Blau, 1986). However it should be noted that while trus t has been determined to be an essential component of social exchange, no study has truly examined how trust em erges within the exchange relationship. This was an important concept because if trust mate rializes at the beginning of a relationship, it establishes the foundation upon whic h all the other exchanges in the relationship were built.

PAGE 29

29 Insight into whether trust was i ndependent, dependent, or interdependent in comparison to the other aspects of the relationship may reshape our thinking about the role trust plays in community relations. Figure 2-1. Conceptualization of the Social Exchange Process Commitment Cook and Emerson (1978) indicated that comm itment was the difference between social and economic exchange. Commitment occurs when two or more entities continue to engage each other regardless of previous outcomes or av ailable alternatives. According to Blau (1964), social exchange was based on the premise that relationships lead to indeterminate future commitments. When there was a possibility of exploitation, the risk invol ved in making the first concession was high. The risk was lessened when both parties value the exchange. Rusbult (1983) suggested that commitment was a function of satisfaction with a nd investments in the relationship. Satisfaction Homans (1961) states that sa tisfaction occurs when the benefits outweigh the costs incurred during the exchange. Similarly, dissa tisfaction occurs when the costs outweigh the benefits. The outcome of weighing the rewards against the costs will determine the level of satisfaction and whether the relati onship should be terminated or maintained. Bui, Peplau and TRUST RECIPROCITY SATISFACTION COMMITMENT

PAGE 30

30 Hill (1996) concluded from a study of Rusbult s model of investment for relationship commitment that rewards and costs will explai n variations in levels of satisfaction. Reciprocity Members within the exchange relationship e xpect mutual reciproc ity to justify their investment in the other entities (Thibault & Ke lley, 1959). If reciprocit y was not observed, such transactions or the relationship will eventually discontinue (Homans 1961). Reciprocity aims at eliminating the risk in an exchange by establishing each sides obligations to the other at the very beginning, especially if there was a strong cultu ral norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960; Blau, 1964). Reciprocity was affected by commitment; therefore, the level of trust throughout the relationship was critical. Once that trust wa s broken, reciprocity and commitment to the relationship significantly decreases (Blau, 1964). Thus, social exchange requires the trusting of others because there was an underlying e xpectation of reciprocity (Blau, 1986). On its own, social exchange cannot comprehe nsively explain participation in community relations (Turner, 1987). As a result, theories on attitude, motive, importance and commitment will also be considered as they all evoke some influence on behavior (Fishbein, 1963; Iwasaki & Havitz, 1998; Kelley & Thibault, 1978). Examining the nature of the complex social exchange of college athletic organizations with resp ect to the attitudes, motives, importance and commitment of college athletic administrato rs will advance the unders tanding of community relation needs in college athletics including institutional support of the NCAA CHAMPS/Life Skills Program. Attitudes Attitude has long been a topic of heated discussion in the social psychological literature. In its early days (Thurstone, 1928; Allport & Allport, 1921; Allport, 1935; Faris 1929), the definition of the term caused much controversy ov er conceptualizing such a philosophical term.

PAGE 31

31 Much of the debate stemmed from those that believed some definitions limited the scope or excluded components and others fe lt it was vague and too variable to predict anything, much less behavior. Attitudes were a result of personal op inions and societal byproduct. Kelman (1958) defines attitude as an individual s predisposition to affectively re act to a particular object or event, (p. 1). Other definitions offered from the social, psychological an d behavioral literature include: a habitual feeling or opini on from which responses were fo rmed; a residual effect of the action; a mind-set that determines ones response to a particular situatio n; a predisposition to react negatively or positively based upon personal tendencies and external tendencies; an acquired predisposition to ways of responding (V oelker, 1921; Fishbein, 1963; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). In their research, Fishbein and Ajzen (1963) al so point out that the terms attitude, beliefs, behavior and intentions have been used interc hangeably to the detrimen t of academia. Instead each term was conceptually different and should be treated as such. In support, the literature reflects that in general, beliefs determine attitude s, attitudes determine intentions and intentions determine behaviors. Disagreements then ar ose around the measurement of attitudes and its usefulness. The debate of how to measure the intangible and its ut ility in predicting behavior has since been put to rest by recent theorists. Att itudinal research was on the verge of abandonment when research in the mid 1970s illuminated ma ny of the discrepancies in the relationship between attitude and behavior and served to resu rrect interest in the field once again. Most notable were Fishbeins (1963) expectancy value model, Fishbein and Ajzens (1975, 1980) theory of reasoned action and later Ajzens (1991 ) followed up his earlier collaboration with the theory of planned behavior which was said to acc ount for the lack of behavioral control found in the theory of reasoned action.

PAGE 32

32 According to the theory of planned behavi or (Ajzen, 1991), behavi oral intention was a function of three dimensions: attitude, the subjec tive norm, and perceived behavioral control. Attitude was a persons judgment of that behavior, whereas the subjective norm was the perceived acceptability of or social pressure surrounding that behavior Finally, perceived behavioral control was ones perception of the power and frequency of inhibiting/facilitating factors to performing that behavior (Ajzen 1991, 2001). The three dimensions that determine community relations programming intention incl ude (1) moral judgment (an attitude) toward community relations/social respons ibility; (2) the percei ved acceptability of community relations (subjective norm); and (3) ones locus of control (perceived control). In this study, the researcher was primarily c oncerned with understand ing attitude formation and not necessarily predicting behavior. Herr (19 95) suggests that due to the strictness of the theory of planned behavior and its ultimate goal of predicting behavior, it could be a useful tool in diagnosing attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavior controls if predicting behavior was not your goal. The goal of this study was to assess attitudes, not predict behavior. Thus, this exploratory study only examined general be liefs about community re lations and subsequent attitudes of athletic admi nistrators on community relations in college athletics and also examined attitude differences by department. Figure 2-2. Conceptualization of the Theory of Planned Behavior Personal Beliefs Attitudes Behavior Intentions Actual Behaviors Social Beliefs Subjective Norms Control Beliefs Perceived Behavior Controls

PAGE 33

33 Personal Beliefs Beliefs have been widely acclaimed to be at the core of attitude formation. In Fishbeins (1963) expectancy-value model, at titude was a function of belief s and the evaluative aspects of those beliefs. Double negatives were later a key component of the expectancy-value theory and the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein, 1967; Fishbein & Aj zen, 1972, 1975; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) where a double negative belief (not believing in a negative outcome or characteristic) will contribute positively to the attitude toward that object or situation. Some critics (Chaiken, 1980; Petty & Cacioppo, 1981; Chaiken & Stangor, 1987; Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Herr 1995) claim that not all beliefs were cognitive and that some of our beliefs were inherent and stem from our subconscious. Thus there a two paths that l eads to attitude formation, one primary and the other secondary. The opponents of Fishbeins cognitive model pr oposed several non-belief based models for measuring attitudes including the heuristic system atic model, the elabor ation likelihood model and the motivation and opportunity determine pr ocessing model. Fishbe in (1979) calls these secondary beliefs subjective norms in his theory of reasoned action. Fi shbein and Ajzen (1980) countered the non-belief based th eorists by stating that attitude cannot be measured without acknowledging the cognitive structure or salient beliefs that underlie th e said attitude. Therefore, in the context of this study, the athletic admi nistrators attitude towa rd community relations should influence their judgment about whether or not community relations programming was beneficial in college athletics. Additionally, attitudinal differen ces between groups have been previously studied in the health, sociology and education fi elds on topics such as racial perceptions, self-attitudes and social opinions (Kuhn & McPartland, 1954; Ma stumoto, 1993; DiMaggio, Evans & Bryson, 1996). Attitudes by groups have been studied to determine if any va riance in a measured attitude

PAGE 34

34 was attributable to group differenc es. Likewise, this study examined variance in attitudes toward community relations by department, to determin e if one department was better suited for community relations than others. Motives Motivational theories can be found across various disc iplines from so ciology, psychology, education and business, each of which professes a different definition of the term. Mitchell (1982) defines it as the degree to which an individual wants and chooses to engage in certain behaviors, (p. 82). Other re searchers define motivation a nd motives through intention and performance (Lewin, 1951; Kelman, 1958; Ambros e & Kulik, 1999). A lack of differentiation between the psychological aspect (needs), the behavior itself and the performance of that behavior has led to each term and concept (n eed/motive, motivation and intention) being used interchangeably to represent motivation. As Deci comments in his 1992 review, the past and present theories that ignore the issue of activation were better de scribed as cognitive theories of behavior control, (p. 168). As a result, there was confusion in the motivational literature and research which further complicates analysis, understandi ng and functionality of those th eories. Contrary to modern motivational theories (goal theory, achievemen t-goal theory) that focu s on the direction of behaviors, classic motivational th eories (intrinsic, self-actualiza tion, needs) focused on not only the direction but were also concerned with the ac tivation of motives. The literature on intentions states that similar intentions can serve different actions, behaviors or functions. For example, researchers have suggested that many of the moti ves for sport participatio n were consistent with the motives for sport consumption or sport spectators (Trail & Ja mes, 2001; Sloan, 1989; Zillmann, Bryan & Sapolsky, 1989).

PAGE 35

35 Similarly, community relations programming ha ve many functions and were utilized for various reasons. Community relations programming was ofte n characterized by voluntary participatory actions with mutual benefits for all entities involved. Se veral researchers have examined the motives for volunteering and its implications for recruitment, retention and turnover (Smith, 1981; Gidron, 1984; Omoto & Snyder, 1995; Penner & Finkelstein, 1998; Allison, Okun & Dutridge, 2002). The researcher hypothesizes that like sport participation and consumption, the motives for volunteering were also consistent and similar to those of community relations. Much of the research on motivation has been carried out in the business and academic settings; few have examined motivation in spor t administration. The motivational research in sport and exercise psychology and sport behavior was primarily on sport participation. Within the sport and exercise field, the literature reve als much of the focus was on recreational, highschool or university athletes. Very few have utilized qualitative methods to measure motivation and none have examined the motivations of colle ge athletic administrators toward community relations. While the literature was lacking, it wa s beyond the scope of this study to tackle such a gap. Instead, the aim was to examine the motives of college athletic administrators to participate in community relations programming. For these reasons, the existence, relatedness and growth constr ucts from Alderfers (1972) ERG Theory was used to represent motives in th is study. One of the classic motivation theories, ERG realigned Maslows hierarchy into three co re motives: physiological and safety (existence), social (relatedness), esteem and self-actualiza tion (growth). Unlike Maslows hierarchy which stipulated that foundatio nal needs must be satisfied before other needs develop, Alderfer (1972) suggested that the needs can be activated simultaneously and that they fluctuate based upon

PAGE 36

36 strength and importance. Community relations is most often concerne d with relatedness and growth. Hersey, Blanchard and Johnson (2001) s tipulated that motives were the whys of behavior which strongly supports the researchers vi ews. In this study, motives were defined as the drive, want or need within an individual. Commitment and Importance Community Attachment Kruckeberg and Starck (1988) pos tulate that organizations assu me the role of creating and enhancing a sense of community by encouraging the leisure-time activities of the citizens in that community. Attachment increases when there are shared values, beliefs and rewards. From this research evolved the concept of community leisure, which was based upon shared values of the social network. Social exchange and commu nity leisure facilitate community development in an attempt to improve the locality of its residents (Blackshaw & Long, 1998). Similarly, the sport industry was formulated around formal structured leisure. The researcher will make this direct connection to contribute to the investigatio n of community relations and athletic organizations. Social exchange theory will provide a clear understanding of social networks and how that ties into building a community. Dietz-Uhler and Murrell (1999) found that social responsibility can feed into the need for a positive social identity. Strong reactions were pr oduced if ones identity was threatened. This can be resolved through social mobility, social cr eativity, and social competition to demonstrate who was better. Social identity affects ones perception about their group. However, DietzUhler and Murrells study was unable to show when social identity was most likely to affect ones attachment and reaction to their group. Sport consumption was an expression of associated values, thus confirming and perpetuating the consumers sense of social identi ty (Green, 2001). This can be classified as

PAGE 37

37 social bonding in the sociology literature. Gree n states that events were attractive when potential attendees were persuaded that the event was consistent with who they see themselves to be, (p. 6). Event attendees we re thus seeking opportunities wher e the morals and values of the event were similar to their own values and belief s. Green also argues that there was unrealized potential in using arts and cultu ral programs (i.e., forms of comm unity relations) as part of a sports event marketing strategy. Interestingly, other research has shown that elements of self identity or community attachment and social id entity, such as shared va lues, were learned and reinforced through other social exchanges (Cook & Emerson, 1978; Anderson & Stone, 1981; Doise, 1988; Tindall & Wellman, 2001.). Andereck, Valentine, Knopf and Vogt (2005) found that individua ls who perceived a greater personal benefit from tourism also perceived greater positive effects, but showed no difference from others in regards to negative eff ects. In their study, the residents agreed that tourism increased both positive (i.e., jobs, tax re venue, and entertainment) and negative (i.e., increased cost of living, traffic, litter and crime) community im pacts. More importantly, the studys results indicated that resi dents who were strongly attached to their community want to see their community prosper. In addition, the research ers suggest that length of residence or childhood residence in a community may not be the best predictor of community attachment. How an organization relates to its surr ounding community or communities will have a direct impact of the success of that organiza tion. When a person perceives the benefits of a relationship as outweighing the perceived costs, then the community attachment concept suggests that the person will choose to stay in the relationship. Intercollegiate athletic teams experience this first hand. A college town, ma de up of boosters, alumni and overall avid fans was often the life blood of the athletics program. The benefits the community provide to the

PAGE 38

38 athletic organization far outweigh th e costs of maintaining such a re lationship. As a result, many intercollegiate athletic programs will often make special and concerted accommodations for those who significantly contribute to their program. The public and athletic organizations perspective on and attachment to the athletic organization and the community respectively, will influence the organization-public relationship a nd its community relations programming (Clark, 2000; Ledingham & Bruning, 2001; Bruning et al., 2004) Community Involvement The historical literature on c onsumer, educational, business a nd leisure research have all identified that involvement was a multidimensional construct involving risk, probability, attractiveness and consequences (positive and ne gative) (Laurent & Kapferer, 1985; Kim, Scott & Crompton, 1997; Iwasaki & Havitz, 1998; Clar y & Snyder, 1999; Havitz & Dimanche, 1999). Involvement was defined as a state of percei ved importance (Rothschild, 1984). Its outcomes were different types of probing, processing and decision making. At the heart of involvement was the individuals personal and central value system. Stukas and Dunlap (2002) state the betterment of the community was the primary goal of community involvement. Community involvement takes on many forms, from social po licy and initiatives (top -down) to grassroots campaigns (bottom-up) (Clark, 2000). Whatever th e process may be, there was consensus in the literature that supports the clai m of community involvement provi ding benefits to societies, individuals and communities. The ultimate goal was assisting the community, improving quality of life, and enhancing citi zenship and responsibility. According to Batson, Ahmad and Tsang ( 2002), community involvement encompasses four vital theories: egoism, altruism, collectivis m and principlism. Egoism deals with helping the self (self benefit), altruism was about helpin g and increasing the welfar e of other individuals,

PAGE 39

39 and collectivism enhances the wellbeing of a gr oup or collective. Principlism in community involvement addresses upholding moral principles. Unlike marketing, business and le isure researchers, whose focus was solely on the product or activity (Iwasaki & Havitz, 1998; Havitz & Di manche, 1999), Batson, et al. and other social psychologists have a big pictur e perspective when it comes to involvement. The community involvement literature not only examines the volu nteer, but also takes into account the risks and rewards of all members of the community partne rship, including the organization, the recipient organization, the community and society as a wh ole. Such integration will provide undeniable insight into the study of community involvement a nd very few researchers have begun to tackle this course of direction (Batson, et al., 2002; St ukas & Dunlap, 2002). The work of Baston et al. is relevant to the current study for two reasons: community relations are integrative in nature, and take into account the orga nizations, members, community and society; and community relations programming and activit ies can be categorized into the same four constructs as community involvement. Community involvement, like community re lations, can fortify the bonds between institutions/organizations and the communities in which they reside by providing and facilitating support for those who may otherwis e not have contact with that organization. This was highly appealing for college athletics as there were ma ny in the community who support their athletic organization, but were not able to do so financially. Hence community involvement and community relations were the avenue through wh ich the athletic organizations show their appreciation to the community. Through commun ity relations, public support of an organization was raised by promoting a positive image, identity and organizational presence, communicating the organizations activities and accomplishments to both internal and ex ternal audiences, and

PAGE 40

40 engendering a broad-based sense of community. The attachment and involvement constructs allow for a greater understanding of the importan ce of community relations and commitment to the community. Summary of Literature Review This review of the literature centered on resear ch relating to community relations as well as social exchange and the properties which influe nce social exchange. Social action was an exchange of tangible or intangible activities and rewards/costs between individuals on the grounds that people have always explained their conduct by means of its benefits and costs to them (Homans, 1961: 12-13). Exchange represen ts the basis of human behavior (Homans, 1961: 317) and was pervasive throughout social life. The usefulness of social exchange in explori ng sport organizational behaviors has yet to be examined. It had provided insi ght into the social exchange in business settings and can be applied to other sport and non-pr ofit or volunteer organizations. Community relations research has been primarily located in the sociological an d marketing fields, barely piercing the sport and tourism literature. At best, it was mentioned mostly in the sport marketing research as a sociomotivational factor among many others and wa s usually last. The re searcher was unable to find any literature devoted solely to community rela tions and sports. Due to the lack of literature on community relations in college athletics, a thorough investigation should be conducted to determine the many aspects of such a relationship.

PAGE 41

41 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Participants Participants were selected using a purpos ive sample of all Division I NCAA member institutions. The population consis ts of 327 Division I schools or approximately 27% of the total population of NCAA member institu tions. Division I accounts for the primary source of income in intercollegiate athletics and t hus, is fiscally comparable to pr ofessional sports. As a result, Divisions II and III were excluded fro m this study due to their lack of congruence, fiscally and otherwise, to professional sports. Three subgroups of senior athletic admi nistrators are represented, those from Administration, Marketing and Academic Services Evidence of community relations usually falls under the umbrella of Academic Services, Marketing or Administration. Therefore, to ensure the appropriate senior athletic administ rators were chosen to participate in the study, upper management from all three department s were sampled for the questionnaire. Interview participants were sampled from the questionnaire thr ough a purposive selfselection process. Only particip ants of the questionnaire were elig ible to participate in the indepth interviews. A voluntary sa mpling method was utilized to el iminate contacting unavailable athletic administrators and to ease data collection. In 2000, a community relations study conducte d by the National Rest aurant Association (NRA) on select restaurant operators revealed that the restaurant owner was the primary decision-maker when it came to part icipation in community relations activities. Twenty percent of their respondents indicated that the store manager and corporate or division personnel also had decision-making authority (NRA, 2006). As the NR A revealed that upper management has the

PAGE 42

42 authority over community relati ons, the current study also targeted upper-level management in the three departments most likely to encounter comm unity relations in interc ollegiate athletics. Instrumentation Mixed methods were utilized in the current study: an electroni c questionnaire and telephone interviews. This process necessitate d the use of two instru ments: an electronic questionnaire (Appendix B) and a structured interview guide (Appendix D). The questionnaire instrument included an email cover letter expl aining the questionnaire and the hyperlink to the questionnaire. Both the questionnaire and the te lephone interview included sections on: attitudes toward community relations; motives to particip ate in community relations; the importance of community relations to an athletic program ; and an athletic programs commitment to community relations. The quest ionnaire instrument containe d an additional section on demographics. The instruments were designed sp ecifically for this particular research study. The attitude items were adapted from the Bo ston College Center for Corporate Citizenship (2005). Motive items were an adaptation from a published volunteer motives measurement scale (Clary et al., 1998). Commitment items were de rived from published li terature on community attachment while importance items were adap ted from published involvement and community involvement scales (Iwasaki & Havitz, 1998; Chavis & Pretty, 1999; Baston et al., 2002; Iwasaki & Havitz, 2004). The content va lidity of the instrument was es tablished by a panel of experts that included several university pr ofessors in sport management and public relations as well as college athletic administrators. A desc ription of the two instruments follows. Electronic Questionnaire Attitude. Questionnaires and tests are the most commonly used methods of measuring attitudes and date back to the early 1900s. Sherman (1935) detail s in his review the history of attitudinal measurements in his time. He be gins with Ruggs (1920) one-on-one comparisons

PAGE 43

43 (ratings by self and from others) which firs t introduced rating scales. The one-on-one comparisons take the average of three independent ratings. Allport (1924) initially agreed but later stated that a ranking method would be mo re objective than ratings Thurstone (1928) and Chave (1928) both attempted to statistically objectify measurement scales by testing for reliability of the items in the questionnaires to eliminate weak measurements. From 1923 to 1931 several researchers began ra ting specific attitudes and beha viors including socialization, money and wealth, prejudices, religion, economics, education and personality. The most popular of these was the Likert-type scale, which is still in use today across all disciplines. In Fishbeins (1963) expectancy-value model, beliefs were measured on a 7-point bipolar scale ranging from likely to unlikely, using zer o as neutral; the evaluative aspect was also measured on a 7-point bipolar sc ale ranging from good to bad, usi ng zero as neutral. He also used this same method in his theory of reasoned action (Fishb ein, 1974). Using a unipolar scale for constructs with negative and positive va lues produced distorted results (Fishbein & Middlestadt, 1995); unipolar scales are only useful if all the evaluative aspects are positive. The current study utilized a bipolar scale to measure all constructs as the questionna ire items have both positive and negative evaluative aspects. In a follow up of the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein & Ajze n, 1975), Fishbein (1979) made a point to note the differences between a single action or beha vior and behavioral categories. Behavioral cate gories are much broader in scope than specific actions and researchers should note which makes up their meas urement instrument. The example Fishbein used is dieting. Dieting can represent a myriad of actions using this term on an instrument can undermine the reliability and validity of that inst rument. Instead, the instrument should measure more specific actions (take diet pi lls, drink low calorie beverages, snack between meals, etc) to

PAGE 44

44 represent the broader behavioral categories and serv e as valid indicators of attitude, intention and behavior. Likewise, the investigat or of the current study utilized specific actions to represent the behavioral category of community relations. Herr (1995) highlighted in his commentary on the theory of reasoned action that researchers should be aware of the possible influence the measurement instrument can have on the criterion. In other words, respondents to a questionnaire may not be aware of their beliefs and/or attitudes prior to comple ting the questionnaire, and thus may alter answers to maintain consistency with what they think should be the co rrect answers. This leads to flawed data from survey-induced cognitive measures and is more likely to occur when attitude, intention and behavior are all measured on one instrument. Fishbein and Middlesta t (1997) agreed and suggested that open-ended questions be utilized so that research participants elicit their own responses. Some suggestions were to ask respon dents to describe the characteristic, qualities and attributes of the attitude obj ect or to list the advantages and disadvantages of performing a given behavior. The current study employed mixed methods of both questionnair e and structured interviews to measure positive and negative att itudes toward community relations. Of the 12 items adapted from the Boston College Center fo r Corporate Citizenship, 6 were positive and 6 were negative. Each item was measured on a seven-point bi-polar Li kert-type scale ranging from (3) strongly agree to (-3) strongly disa gree. The items assesse d attitudes about the participants perceptions, outside expectations and th e usefulness of community relations in intercollegiate athletics. A complete list of attitude indicators is located in Table 3-1. Motives. Clary et al. (1998) along with Allis on, Okun and Dutridge (2002) presented individual and social situational factors as motives for volunteering. Volunteers and volunteer

PAGE 45

45 programs are the foundation upon which many commun ity relations programs are built (Altman, 1999; Burke, 1999; Hall, 2006; Waddock & Graves 1997). Community re lations programming consist of volunteer efforts on a much larger sc ale that often requires planning, organization and management. As volunteering is the underlying factor in community relations, volunteer motives were examined. In their study, Clary et al. (1998) developed the Volunteer Functions Inventory (VFI) to measure volunteer motives. Allison et al. assessed the usefulness, consistency and correlation of open-ended probes and Likert rating scales in measuring volunteer motives. They found that both methods have posi tive and negative aspects. The Likert scale items are highly correlated causing some motives to be overshadowed by others. Community relations are voluntar y in nature. Thus, the curr ent study utilized a modified version of the Volunteer Func tion Inventory (VFI) to measure motives for engaging in community relations. The VFI uses a Likert-typ e rating scale to assess respondents motives to volunteer. Clary et al. (1998) id entified six volunteer motives for the inventory. Each motive was measured by five items for a total of 30 items assessing reasons for volunteering. The reliability of the scale determined by test-rete st correlations initially ranged from 0.64 to 0.78 (Clary et al., 1998); however, in 2002, when Alli son et al. performed their study on the VFI, the range of reliability drastically improve d to 0.75 to 0.87. The six motives were Developing and enhancing ones career (Career) Enhancing and enriching personal development (Esteem) Conforming to the norms of, or esta blishing norms for others (Social) Escaping from negative feelings (Protective) Learning new skills and practicing unde rutilized abilities (Understanding) Expressing values related to altruistic beliefs (Value) The current study utilized five of the six motives for voluntee ring: career, esteem, social, protective and value. Understanding was omitted for its lack of relevance to intercollegiate athletics. Each motive was m easured by three items except caree r which had four items, for a

PAGE 46

46 total of 16 items. Each item was measured on a seven-point bi-polar Likert-type scale ranging from (3) strongly agree to (-3) strongly disagree. The items assessed motives to participate in community relations programming. A complete lis t of motive indicators is shown in Table 3-2. Commitment. As Chipuer and Pretty (1999) repo rted, the Sense of Community Index (SCI) is the most used and broadly validated m easure of a sense of co mmunity as a relational network. A sense of community stems from the reciprocal and committed nature of the relationship between an individua l and their surroundings. This is indicative of community attachment. The SCI as a whole has been a ve ry useful, reliable, a nd valid measure in the sociology and psychology literatur e (Davidson & Cotter, 1993; Ch ipuer & Pretty, 1999; Chavis & Pretty, 1999). The accessibility and favor of factor analytic techniques has resulted in a wide range of empirically derived dimensions of a sense of community (Chavis & Pretty, 1999). While confirmatory factor analys is is not the aim of the presen t study, it does attest to the validity of the measurement scale. Chipuer and Pr etty report that many of these factor analyses of the SCI resulted in dimensions that were sim ilar to the four elements of sense of community proposed by McMillan and Chavis (1986), whic h are membership, influence, fulfillment of needs and emotional connection. There are several other measures of sense of community that have been developed (Allen & Allen, 1987; Berger, 1997; Davidson & Cotter, 1993; Glynn, 1981; Royal & Rossi, 1996). Several of these measures were developed by combining the SCI with other items or instruments and using factor analytic and face va lidity methods. These studies have generally supported SCI, but have distinguished themselves as separate measures. Chipuer and Pretty (1999) suggested that the l ong form of the SCI reported by Chavis, Hogge, McMillan, and Wandersman (1986) might be a better measure. The longer version is based on a formula that

PAGE 47

47 was derived from 24 weighted items, of which 11 were adaptable to the current study. Their analysis suggests the importance of understanding community attachment in light of the need for a sense of community with what is perceived to be the empowered community. The 11 items represented time commitment (3 items), meaning (3 items), connection (3 items) and tradition (2 items). Each item was measured on a seven-poin t bi-polar Likert-type scale ranging from (3) strongly agree to (-3) strongl y disagree. The specific items are shown in Table 3-3. Importance. Involvement is a process driven by current external variables (the situation; the product; the communications) an d past internal variables (e nduring; ego; central values) (Iwasaki & Havitz, 1998; Havitz & Dimanche, 1999; Batson et al., 2002). To measure the involvement of athletic administrators in co mmunity relations activities, the current study adapted the involvement scales developed by Iwasaki and Havitz (1998, 2004) and the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship (2005). Similar to Iwasaki and Havitz, the objective of the present study is to identify and examin e the relationship between importance and commitment. Importance was measured by 15 items. The re searcher re-categorized the items from Iwasaki and Havitz (1998, 2004) and the Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship (2005) into five constructs: personal satisfac tion, volunteerism, citizenship, involvement and contribution. Each construct consisted of thr ee items, each measured on a seven-point bi-polar Likert-type scale ranging from (3 ) strongly agree to (-3) strongly disagree. The specific items are shown in Table 3-4. In-Depth Interviews The structured interviews were conducted via telephone with 12 Division I senior athletic administrators. Interviews were approximate ly 20-30 minutes in length. The interview instrument (Appendix D) included modified versions of the questionnaire instrument, a total of

PAGE 48

48 10 questions designed to elicit de tailed outcomes from the selected respondents. Participants were asked to define community relations, characterize the relationship between their community, institution and athletic program and insightful questions regarding the NCAA CHAMPS/Life Skills program. It is an inductive approach that allows the respondents to be open and honest without the suggestive influence that a ques tionnaire instrument can impose on the respondent. The aim of the interviews was to gather more detailed information regarding community relations in college athletics that would otherwise not be revealed in the questionnai re. The benefit of using both methods together outweighs using each met hod individually. Allison et al. (2002) also discovered that the open-ended surv eys also identified motives not tested for on the fixed choice rating scale. Procedures and Data Collection On March 5, 2007, the principa l investigator emailed 924 questionnaire invitations to purposely selected intercollegiat e administrators at all 327 NCAA Division I institutions. Email addresses were compiled from a NCAA online directory and from each institutions online directory. The email correspondence contained th e University of Florida brand, the principal investigators name and the address of the College of Health and Human Performance. The cover letter included in the email explained the purpos e of the study, stressed the importance of the participants response, indicated who was supporting the study and specified the requested time of completion. A hyperlink to the actual questio nnaire was included in the email; participants clicked on the link to complete the questionnaire The web-based questionnaire also contained the University of Florida brand and logo. Data were gathered through tw o electronic mailings to the selected athletic admini strators at each institution, one from each of the following

PAGE 49

49 departments: Administration, Mark eting and Academic Services. The three departments were identified as the most likely to pa rticipate in community relations. The electronic cover lett er outlined the objectives of the st udy: to gather information about the attitudes and motives of colle ge athletic administrators on community relations. To avoid socially desirable responses, par ticipants were not informed about the specific focus of the study, to understand participation in the NCAA CH AMPS/Life Skills program. The outline also informed the respondents of their rights as a par ticipant (Appendix A). Ten days after the initial email, the follow-up request was emailed to thos e who had not responded thus far. Due to time limitations, only one follow-up email was issued. Participation in the interview section of th is study was limited to participation in the questionnaire. Respondents were as ked at the conclusion of the que stionnaire if they would like to participate in an in-depth interview about co mmunity relations in inte rcollegiate athletics. Participants who responded in the affirmative were taken to a screen to complete the informed consent for the interview (Appendix C). Lastly, once the informed consent form was accepted by the principal investigat or, the participants contact inform ation was collected. This included name, phone number, and email. At the same tim e, participants were able to select their interview date and time. An email requesting co nfirmation of the date and time of the interview was sent to participants. Email reminders of th e upcoming interview were sent to participants one week (first email) and one day (sec ond email) prior to the interview date. AT&T provided data collection services for the interview portion of the study. Their teleconferencing services were utilized to provide the me dium for conducting the phone interviews. Once interview dates and times were confirmed, participants were emailed the toll free teleconference dial in number and the pa rticipant code for their respective interview

PAGE 50

50 sessions. AT&T also provided audio recording a nd transcription services as a part of the teleconferencing service. To ensure the participants pr ivacy and candid response, requests for names and institution were prohibited as any part of the questionnaire instrument and actual interview. Out of the 981 potential participants, email addresses were only garnered for 962. While some institutions did not have administrative personnel in each depart ment, at least one representative at each institution was identified and had the opportunity to participate in the study. Of the 962 participants, 93 or 9.7% completed the initial onl ine survey. An additional 100 respondents or 10.4% of the sample completed the online surv ey after the second reminder. Among the 769 non-respondents, 60 were undeliverable and 33 were unavailable. Thus, the overall response rate was 23.0% (n=193). The responses, however, repr esent 41.0% of all Divi sion I institutions. Twelve respondents voluntarily part icipated in the structured phone interviews. Interviews took place from March 9 to March 23, 2007. Upon signing up for an interview date and time, respondents were emailed the teleconference info rmation to participate in the upcoming phone interview. Out of the 21 respondents that agreed to be interviewed, 9 did not call in for their scheduled interview and one can celled but later rescheduled and completed the interview. Data Analysis The questionnaire results are presented in the following sections: descriptive statistics and the relationships between att itudes, motives, importance of and actual participation in community relations. Group differences betwee n the three divisions as well as each unit (Academic, Marketing and Administration) of the athletic organiza tion were examined. Regressions and ONEWAY ANOVA were used to examine the relationships and group differences. Procedures were measured at th e 0.05 significance level. Missing data were reviewed for systematic avoidance of res ponse before being omitted from the analyses.

PAGE 51

51 The interview data were analyzed using con ceptual content analysis. The researcher utilized Carleys eight steps of conceptu al content analysis (1993). These included 1. Decide the level of analysis. 2. Decide how many concepts to code for. 3. Decide whether to code for existence or frequency of a concept. 4. Decide on how you will distinguish among concepts. 5. Develop rules for coding your texts. 6. Decide what to do with "irrelevant" information. 7. Code the texts. 8. Analyze your results. Interview transcripts were reviewed and ed ited for accuracy based upon recordings and transcriptions provided by AT&T. Word phrases were utilized as the level of analysis as opposed to single words as language used to repr esent community relations is often more than one word. The researcher did not establish a predetermined number of concepts to code for. This allowed the researcher to exercise flexibilit y in the number of concepts coded for. It also allowed the data to reveal any significant them es or concepts which may have been omitted by limiting the amount. Concepts were coded fo r frequency, thereby adding depth to the interpretation of the results. Concepts were also distinguishe d or generalized based upon their meaning, not appearance, which provided a more accurate representation of emergent concepts. Consistency was a primary system of coding conc epts. Word phrases and similarities were consistently utilized across all tr anscripts. Transcripts were revi ewed a second time to verify and catch inconsistent generalizations and omitted co ncepts. After careful review, the researcher found all the information in the transcripts, including non-responses, relevant. Interview transcripts were then coded thr ough selective reduction, a systema tic review for recurring words and phrases that identified commun ity relations and related activities. Results were quantified in a descriptive manner that revealed community re lations trends and concepts of importance to athletic administrators.

PAGE 52

52 Table 3-1. Attitude Indicators Attitude about Community Relations Positive 1. Community relations should be completely voluntary. 2. Community relations make a tangible contribu tion to the athletic programs bottom line. 3. The public has a right to expect good commun ity relations from collegiate athletic programs. 4. Many athletic programs do a great deal more for their communities than is talked about or known. 5. Community relations is a priority for collegiate athletic programs. 6. Community relations helps our community. Negative 7. Many collegiate athletic programs promot e community relations, but are not truly committed to it. 8. No regulations should govern community relations in collegiate athletics. 9. Community relations is not necessary in collegiate athletic programs. 10. Community relations should not be highl y organized in collegiate athletics. 11. Community relations should not be an essent ial business strategy for collegiate athletic programs. 12. It would be better not to have community relations in collegiate athletics.

PAGE 53

53 Table 3-2. Motive Indicators Community Relations Motives Value 1. Our athletic program engages in community re lations because it fits our traditions and values. 2. I feel compassion toward people in need. 3. I feel it is important to help the community. Protective 4. Community relations will improve the athl etic programs image and reputation. 5. Doing community relations relieves me of some of the guilt over being more fortunate than others. 6. Community relations are a good escape fr om the troubles of my organization. Career 7. Our athletic program supports community rela tions because it is part of our business strategy. 8. Volunteering can help get my foot in the door at a place where I would like to work. 9. I can make new contacts that might help the athletic program in the future. 10. Community relations provide our student-athl etes with tangible, hands on experience. Esteem 11. Community relations allow othe rs to have positive feelings about our athletic program. 12. Community relations place our athl etic program in high regard. 13. Community relations provide our athletic program with a sense of purpose. Social 14. Community relations are important to our customers/consumers. 15. Community relation efforts are expected in our community. 16. We employ community relations within our at hletic program because it is mandated by laws and/or regulation.

PAGE 54

54 Table 3-3. Community A ttachment Indicators Commitment to Community Relations Time 1. I will be involved in community relations 1 year from now. 2. I will be involved in community relations 3 years from now. 3. I will be involved in community relations 5 years from now. Connection 4. I feel connected to numerous aspects of my community. 5. I feel a part of the community su rrounding our athletic program. 6. I support the entire community as a whole. Meaning 7. This community has meaning to me. 8. This community has meaning to our athletic program. 9. I am willing to make sacrifices for the sake of community relations. Tradition 10. Our athletic program has established traditions within the community. 11. It is important to continue th e traditions of our community.

PAGE 55

55 Table 3-4. Importance/I nvolvement Indicators Importance of Community Relations Volunteer 1. Supporting employee volunteerism. 2. Supporting student-athlete volunteerism. 3. For me, giving back to the community does not matter. Contribution 4. Our athletic program gets involved by respondi ng to community/ interest groups regarding issues they care about. 5. I believe in supporting community welf are with both money and effort. 6. Our athletic program engages in community relations by contributing to societal and community causes. Involvement 7. Our athletic program has invested a cons iderable amount of time and money into community relations activities. 8. Our athletic program operates with so cially responsible business practices. 9. Consistent participation in community relations is important. Citizenship 10. Improving conditions in my co mmunity is a priority. 11. Corporate citizenship is impor tant within our community. 12. Community relations allow me to be a good citizen. Personal Satisfaction 13. When I participate in community relati ons, it reflects the ki nd of person I am. 14. I believe community relati ons are very important. 15. I gain personal satisfaction from pa rticipating in community relations.

PAGE 56

56 CHAPTER 4 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION The purpose of this exploratory study was to investigate the attitudes and motives of college athletic administrators in regards to co mmunity relations in intercollegiate athletics. Equally important was to examine the relations hip between their attitudes and motives and the importance of, and their commitment to community relations in intercollegiate athletics. This chapter contains the analysis and interpretation of the data collected during the study. Respondent Profile: Questionnaire The demographic characteristics examined in cluded age, education, job title, department, head of department, tenure and the existence of the CHAMPS/Life Skills program. The results are presented in Table 4-1. Age The average age of the respondents was 41; the median age was 39 with a range of 23 to 72. Approximately 20.0% of the respondents (n=31) were 29 years old and younger. Thirty-two percent (n=50) are between 30 and 39. Anothe r 21.0% (n=33) are between 40 and 49 years of age. Approximately 17.0% (n=24) are 50-54 and nearly 10.0% (n=18) are 55 and older. The middle 50% of the respondents are between 32 and 50. Level of Education All but one of the respondent s (n=164) had earned at leas t a bachelors degree. The majority (n=129 or 78.7%) had earned a professiona l or advanced degree. Slightly more than one in five (20.7%) reported only ha ving an undergraduate education. Position Title Just over 13.0% of the respondent s (n=164) identified themselves as athletic directors. Exactly 39.0% reported they served as associate athletic director s while another 23.2% served as

PAGE 57

57 assistant athletic directors. Twenty-one respondents (12.8%) ar e directors, 3.7% are assistant directors and 7.9% are coordinators. Department The majority (57.2%) of the respondents (n=166 ) work in administration. Another 23.0% are in the marketing department. The remaining 20.0% work in academic services. Department Head Almost 62.0% of the respondents (n=167) identi fied themselves as the head of their respective department. The remaining 38.0% we re not in charge of their department. Position Tenure Nearly 20.0% of the respondents (n =167) reported being in their position one year or less. A little more than half (50.3%) of the sample he ld their current position for 2-5 years and the remaining 30.0% have held their position for 6-10 years. None of the respondents reported tenure of 11 years or more. Descriptive Statistics Community Relations Participation The majority (95.2%) of the respondents (n=167) indicated that their athletic department is directly involved in community relations while 4.8% reported no direct involvement. Approximately 89.0% (n=160) indirectly partic ipated in community relations while the remaining 11.0% had no indirect participation in community rela tions. Almost 89% (88.5%) of the respondents (n=165) reported having a NCAA CHAMPS/Life Skills program in their athletic department. The other 11.5% indicated their institution did not have a CHAMPS/Life Skills program available. Within the CHAMPS/Life Skills program, respondents identified which commitment components were available within their inst itution. Approximately 81.0% of respondents

PAGE 58

58 (n=133) indicated a commitment to academics and community service. While 78.1% (n=129) indicated a commitment to at hletics, personal development (n=127) was 76.9% and career development (n=118) garnered 71.5%. Th e results are displayed in Table 4-2. Attitudes RQ 1: What are the attitudes of college athletic programs toward community relations in general? The attitude indicators consisted of two indices, positive and negative, with each index consisting of 6 items. Neither the positive or negative attitude indices showed good reliability, with internal consistency measurements (Cr onbach alphas) of 0.42 and 0.50 respectively. The minimum standard for the Cronbach alpha is 0.70 (Cronbach, 1951; Nunnaly, 1978). Inter-item correlations were also examined to eliminate incompatible items. The positive attitude index was reduced to four items and produced a Cronba ch alpha of 0.61. The negative attitude index was reduced as well to three items and stil l only produced a Cronbach alpha of 0.62. Thus subscales were not created for th e attitude items and individual data analysis was executed. The attitude statements, along with the other three constructs, were based on a seven point Likert-type scale. The scale ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree or -3 to +3 with zero representing the median. The attitudes of at hletic administrators appeared to be of a positive nature; 10 of 12 attitude statements yielded a generally positive outcome. These positive attitudes ranged from somewhat agree/di sagree to agree/disagree. The statement no regulations should govern community relations in collegiate athletic s was the only statement to result in a negative attitude. In terestingly, respondents were repr esented equally on both sides of that statement. With a mean score of -0.25, almost half ( 49.2%) of the respondents somewhat disagreed that college athletic programs promote community relations but are not committed to it. When

PAGE 59

59 asked if community relations should be voluntar y, 58.5% of the respondents somewhat agreed and 5.3% offered no opinion. The attitude indicator that no regulations should govern community relations in intercollegiate athletics was the only negative attitude (mean score is 0.29) supported by the respondents with 50.8% somewh at in agreement. Respondents could not decide if community relations make tangible cont ributions to the athlet ic departments bottom line and had a mean score of zero. Respondent s were almost equally split with 37.8% in disagreement and 38.4% in agreement. A little mo re than 85.0% of the respondents agreed that community relations is necessary in college athletics and another 71.0% agreed that the public has a right to expect good community rela tions from collegiate athletic programs. Approximately 80.0% of respondents also agre ed that community relations should be highly organized in intercollegiate athletics. Ninety-two percent of respondents strongly agreed that athletic programs do more in their respecti ve communities than is generally known about. A little more than half of the respondents somewhat disagreed that community relations should not be an essential business strategy and anothe r 20.7% offered no opinion. Only 65.1% somewhat agreed that community relations is a priority for intercollegiate athletic programs. The majority of respondents (96.3%) strongly agr eed it would not be beneficial to have community relations excluded from intercollegiate athletics and the same percentage also strongly agreed that community relations helps their respective community. Motives RQ 2: What are the motives of college athletic programs toward community relations in general? The motive indicators consisted of five indices: value (3 items), protective (3 items), career (4 items), esteem (3 items) and social (3 items). The test for reliability showed that only value and esteem could be converted to subscales with Cronbach alphas of 0.70 and 0.70 respectively.

PAGE 60

60 The remaining indices did not produce the minimu m alpha coefficient. Thus subscales were created for the value and esteem items; individual data analysis was executed for the protective, social and career indices. Overall, agreement was reached on all career indicators. Respondents somewhat agreed (M= 0.15) that community relations is a business strategy. Fiftysix and a half percent agreed, 29.5% disagreed and 23.3% neither agreed nor di sagreed. Respondents also somewhat agreed that volunteering can kick start ones career, with a mean score of 0.67. Ninety-two percent agreed that contacts made through community relations can be benefi cial to the athletic program in the future (M= 1.90). Interestingly, no respon dent disagreed with th at motive; 8.0% offered no opinion. They strongly agreed (M= 2.11) that community relati ons provides students with tangible, hands-on experiences. All motive profiles are presented in Table 4-4. Commitment RQ 3: How committed are college athletic programs to community relations in general? Three subscales for the commitment construc t were created. The time, connection and meaning indicators met the minimum Cronbach al pha with reliability scales of 0.87, 0.70 and 0.72 respectively. All commitment items resulted in agreement. Respondents (97.6%) strongly agreed with a mean of 2.04 that they are committe d to spend time in community relations. When asked about their connection to the community, 95.3% of respondents were in agreement with an average score of 1.64. Ninety-six and a half percent agreed that the community has meaning to them and their athletic program Eighty-six percent of respo ndents indicated their athletic program has established traditions in the commun ity, while another 97.0% said it was important to continue the traditions of the comm unity. Table 4-5 highlights these results.

PAGE 61

61 Importance RQ 4: How do college athletic programs de fine their role in the community? All importance indicators resulted in positive agreement. Two indices, citizenship and personal involvement passed the subscale reliab ility test with Cronbach alphas of 0.70 and 0.77 respectively. A majority of th e respondents (94.2%) ag reed that citizenship in their community is important. Another 97.6% indicated community relations is important to them personally. All of the following were agreed upon to be important: the athletic programs investment of time and money (76.7%), consistent partic ipation in community relations (95.3%) and socially responsible business practices (89.5%). Almost 83.0% agreed their employer s upported employee volunteerism while 90.5% agreed student-athlete vo lunteerism was a priority for their athletic program. Almost 94.0% of the respondents agreed giving back to the community matters. Eighty-five percent of respondents agreed their athletic program responds to issues presented by the community and community interest groups. Another 88.0% indicate d the athletic program c ontributes to societal and community causes and also believes in usi ng time and money to support the community. A profile of the importance indica tors is located in Table 4-6. Degree of Relationship among Variables RQ 5: What factors (attitude, motive, commitment and importance) have the greatest influence on participation in community relations efforts in general? Bivariate Correlations A correlational analysis was performed to examine the relationship between the motive, commitment and importance subscales. The resu lts indicated that all seven subscales (value, esteem, time, connection, citizenship, meaning and personal involvement) were significantly (p<0.01) and positively correlated with each ot her. Meaning and connection exhibited the

PAGE 62

62 strongest relationship (Pearsons r=0.72) follo wed by personal involvement and citizenship (Pearsons r= 0.69). The correlation coeffici ents varied across a range of 0.37 to 0.72, each statistically significant at the p<0.01 level. The results of this anal ysis are presented in Table 4-7. Regression Analysis Multiple regressions were performed to analyze the relationships between having a CHAMPS/Life Skills program, departments in the athletic program and the motive, commitment and importance subscales. Department (Admin istration, Marketing & Academic Services) and CHAMPS/Life Skills was the independent variable. The motive, commitment and importance subscales were the dependent variables. The re sults showed no significa nt relationship between the value subscale under motives and any department or having the CHAMPS/Life Skills program. The remaining six subscales were statistic ally significant in relation to the department. Esteem motive showed a Pearson coefficient of -0.17 (p<0.05). The time subscale produced a 0.20 coefficient significant at the p<0.01 level. Connection, citizenship and meaning showed Pearson coefficients of -0.22, -0.24 and -0.20 resp ectively and were all significant at the p<0.01 level. Personal involvement produced a Pear son coefficient of -0.19 (p<0.01). Time and meaning were also statistically significant to having a CHAMPS/Life Skills program with Pearson coefficients of -0.28 (p< 0.01) and -0.17 (p<0.05) respectively. Of great importance to note is the negative correlation coefficients present in all the regressions. This suggests an in verse relationship among the variable s. As the department mean increases, the subscales means decreases and vice versa. As the data for department represents Administration, Marketing and Academic Serv ices, the regressions imply that certain departments rate the subscales higher than others Comparing the means and standard deviations by department and CHAMPS, the results show th at Administration has the highest mean score for all subscales and those institutions that have a CHAMPS/Life Skills program spend more

PAGE 63

63 time in and gain more meaning from community relations. Marketing had the second highest mean scores followed by Academic Services whic h had the lowest mean scores across the five subscales. Analyses of variance will highlight which departments have the greatest significant differences. The regressions also highlighted the variance in each subsca le explained by department and CHAMPS/Life Skills program. Department explained 4.1% of the variance in meaning, 7.9% in time commitment and 2.9% in esteem. Department also explained 4.8% of the variance in connection, 5.6% in citizenship and 3.7% in personal involvement. The CHAMPS/Life Skills program explains another 2.8% of the variance in mean ing and 3.9% in time commitment. Table 4-8 highlights the relationship between subscales and department. Table 4-9 highlights the subscales in relation to the CHAMPS/Life Skills program. Table 4-10 and Table 4-11 display the means and standard deviations for the s ubscale, department and champs variables. Significance of Group Differences One-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) were performed to te st for differences in the means of the attitude, motive, commitment a nd importance indicators broken down by each department. The means of three attitude indi cators (one positive a nd two negative) were significantly different among the departments. Attitudes RQ 1a: Is there a difference between attitudes to ward community relations by department (Administration, Marketing and Academic Services)? Positive attitude 4 (PA4), many athletic progr ams do a great deal more than is talked about or known was statisti cally significant at p<0.05 fo r mean differences between departments. Both Marketing and Administratio n strongly agreed while Academic Services only

PAGE 64

64 agreed, however, the standard deviations ar e 0.867, 0.559 and 1.43 respectively. These results are presented in Table 4-12 and Table 4-13. Negative attitudes 1 (NA1) many collegiat e athletic programs promote community relations, but are not truly committed to it and ne gative attitude 6 (NA6) it would be better not to have community relations in collegiate athletic s were significant for group mean differences. Both Marketing and Academic Services somewhat agreed with NA1 many collegiate athletic programs promote community relations, but are not truly committed to it, while Administration somewhat disagreed. All three departments str ongly disagreed with NA6 it would be better not to have community relations in college athletics. These results are presented in Table 4-14 and Table 4-15. Motives RQ 2a: Is there a difference between motives to ward community relations by department (Administration, Marketing and Academic Services)? The results of the one-way ANOVA on motives produced three motive indicators whose means significantly differ by department. The value subscale (p<0.05) of motive was strongly agreed to by both Marketing (M =2.40) and Administration (M=2.21) while Academic Services (M=1.86) only agreed, suggesting that Administ ration and Marketing agree to a significant degree more than Academic Services on the values in community relations. All three departments disagreed with S3 (p<0.01) we em ploy community relations within our athletic department because it is mandated by laws a nd/or regulation. Ad ministration (M=-1.09) disagreed while Marketing (M=-0.78) and A cademic Services (M=-0.25) both somewhat disagreed with P3 (p<0.05) that community rela tions is a good escape from the troubles of my organization. The results are displayed in Table 4-16. Further analysis of the department mean differences is presented in Table 4-17.

PAGE 65

65 Commitment RQ 3a: Is there a difference between commit ment toward community relations by department (Administration, Marketing and Academic Services)? The ANOVA performed on the commitment i ndicators resulted in two statistically significant differences in group means for two of the five indicators. Connection and meaning were both significant at the p<0.05 level. All th ree departments agreed with the connection and meaning subscales of commitment; Administration is significantly more connected to their community and derives more meaning from comm unity relations than Marketing and Academic Services. However, similar to positive attitude 6 (PA6), the st andard deviations for these two variables are more revealing. The standard de viations for Marketing and Administration ranged from 0.66 to 0.78 for both variables while Acad emic Services ranged from 1.1 to 1.3. The results are displayed in Table 4-18 and Table 4-19. Importance RQ 4a: Is there a difference between importance of community relations by department (Administration, Marketing and Academic Services)? The importance indicators ANOVA revealed five statistically significant differences in group means. This is the highest ratio of si gnificant group differences at 45%. Citizenship, personal involvement, V2 and CO2 were the impor tance indicators significant (p<0.05) for group mean differences while I3 was significant at the p<0.01 level. Personal involvement had the highest mean (2.00) and lowest standard devia tion (0.67) in Administra tion; Marketing followed by Academic Services had lower means and higher standard deviations. The same is true for citizenship, giving the implication that Administration places significantly more importance on citizenship and personal involveme nt in community relations. The results suggest that Administration places more importance on personal involvement than Marketing and Academic Services. For I 3, V2 and CO2, Marketing had the highest mean

PAGE 66

66 scores, which suggests Marketing agrees more so th an the other two departments that the athletic program operates with socially responsible business pr actices (I3), suppor ting student-athlete volunteerism is a priority (V2) and that the athletic program contributes to societal and community causes (CO2). The results ar e presented in Table 4-20 and Table 4-21. Of the seven subscales, five are significantly different for department mean differences. These include value, connection, meaning, citizenship and personal involvement. Administration scored the highest on all subscales except value wh ere Marketing rated higher. Interestingly, Academic Services resulted in the lowest rating acro ss all five subscales. Conceptual Content Analysis Conceptual content analysis was used to an alyze the transcripts of the 12 structured interviews. The results of the content analysis revealed recurring respon ses in the data. The results are presented by question. RQ 6: How do college athletic administra tors define community relations? Interview question 1: How do you define community relations? Respondents defined community relations in various wa ys and from different perspectiv es. The four prevalent themes that emerged were: meeting the needs of the community, giving back or reaching out, a partnership of mutual benefits, and community involvement. Two respondents (n=2) elaborated and defined the makeup of a community, identif ying the many factors and groups who make up a community. These included surrounding schools, businesses, residents, students, fans, supporters and donors. RQ 7: How do college athletic administrators characterize the relationship between their institution and their local community? Interview question 2: How would you char acterize the relationship between your institution and your local community? When asked about the institut ions relationsh ip with its

PAGE 67

67 surrounding community, respondents were genera lly positive. A few (n=4) respondents characterized their relationship as solid, great and fantastic while ot hers (n=2) leaned in the opposite direction with it needs improvement Of those who responded optimistically, the positive relationship was attributed to the level of involvement from the institution with the community. The negative responses indicated a n eed to make direct connections within the community, lack of established partnerships, and the challenge of building or expanding the fan base. Interestingly, one positive response was at tributed to a successful athletic season. Interview question 3: How do you think you r local community views or regards your institution and athletic department? This question elicited all positive and favorable responses. The prevalent theme was that the in stitution is heavily supported by the community and that the community is consistently and activ ely involved in all end eavors of the athletic program. Respondents indicated that the community is respectful and grateful for what the institution brings to the comm unity. Another informant cited the institutions growth and success as a contributing factor. As far as the perceptions related directly to athletic department, one respondent noted that the demographics of their community are constan tly changing and thus the athletic program is charged with attracting new reside nts to their program. Another respondent indicated that their community is shared with another institution and bu ilding a fan base for their athletic program is highly competitive. Student-athletes and coaches was another prevalent theme in the communitys response to the athletic department because the athletes and coaches are a big draw for the public. Respondents indicated that the community responds very well to athlete and coach appearances in the community.

PAGE 68

68 RQ 8: Do college athletic administrators value community relations? Do they believe it contributes to overall success as well as the bottom line? Interview question 4: Do you think community relations is beneficial to intercollegiate athletics? Respondents unanimously agreed that co mmunity relations is beneficial to intercollegiate athletics. Themes supporting their rationale include: giving back to the community, mutual benefits, enhance self esteem and image, involvement in the community, and teaches citizenship. Fifty-eight percent of the respondents (n=7) cited involvement in the community as a benefit of communi ty relations. Thirty-three percent (n=4) said it enhanced self esteem and image and contributed to a mutually beneficial partnership with the community. Twenty-five percent (n=3) said giving back to the community and citizen ship were benefits. The average respondent provided two supportin g reasons; one respondent provided five. There were three responses that could not be coded: catalyst fo r programs success, capitalize on potential spectators and fans, and should not be used for publicity. While one respondent was hesitant to capitalize upon comm unity relations for publicity, equally another respondent said community relations provides good publicity for the athletic department. Interview question 5: How important do you believe community relations is to the overall success of an athletic program? Do you think it contributes to the bottom line? All the respondents agreed community relations play a role in the overall success of an athletic program. Three respondents quantified their answers as: approximately 10.0%, rated 8.5 on 10 point scale, and contributes to 90.0% of su ccess. Three respondents identified both image/esteem enhancement and community suppor t which stem from community relations as contributors to success. Four respondents id entified citizenship as a byproduct of community relations which also contributes to the success of an athletic program. Interestingly, one

PAGE 69

69 respondent indicated that a definition of success was needed and another offered that importance would vary from institution to institution. As far as contributing to the bottom line 92.0% of respondents (n=11) agreed that community relations does contribute to the bottom line and 8.0% (n =1) disagreed. Two respondents indicated th eir bottom lines were producing we ll rounded student-athletes. The others (n=9) indicated that community relations could enhance or infl uence financial support from the community in the form of sponsorsh ips, ticket sales, donors and endowments. Two respondents indicated that financia l gain should not be the intent of community relations. One respondent made a point that interc ollegiate athletic s is a business. RQ 9: Should community relations programs be standardized? Interview question 6: Do you think community relations should be standardized in intercollegiate athletics? Fifty percent of the respondents (n =6) supported standardization of community relations in interc ollegiate athletics, 17.0% (n =2) were unsure and 33.0% (n=4) rejected standardization. The most prevalent theme was instit utional freedom of choice from respondents both in support of and against standardization. While many (83% or n=10) indicated that each community is different a nd would make standardization difficult, other respondents were concerned about a lack of cr eativity and mandates from the NCAA. Three respondents supported required programs or co mponents and standardiz ation as a minimum guideline. RQ 10: What are college administrators level of awareness and disposition toward the CHAMPS/Life Skills program? Interview question 7: Does your inst itution have a NCAA CHAMPS/Life Skills Program? All respondents indicated th at their institution had a CHAMPS/Life Skills Program. When asked about the background of the progr am, 42.0% (n=5) said it was required by the

PAGE 70

70 NCAA and/or their respective conference while 33.0% (n=4) said it was an extension of a previously established program. Another 33.0% (n =4) were unsure of the programs origins. Eighty-three percent of the re spondents programs are housed in Academic Services. One respondent indicated the Complia nce and Student Welfare as th eir CHAMPS/Life Skills hub and another said it was its own entity. Of the five components included in th e CHAMPS/Life Skills program, 42.0% of respondents (n=5) had all five, 8.0% had four (n=1), 16.0% had three (n=2) and 33.0% were unsure or did not know (n=4). Fours respondents indicated their programs existed 10 years or more. Another four programs are 6 years old and younger. Twenty-five percent of respondents (n=3) failed to provide a date when their progra ms were first established. When asked about a CHAMPS/Life Skills budget, 33.0% (n=4) offere d estimated figures within the $10,000 to $50,000 range. Another 42.0% (n=5) did not know One respondent indicated funds were combined with Academic Services and anothe r depended upon trade and in-kind donations. For additional financial support from the NCAA or athletic conference, 42.0% (n=5) indicated they received supplemental assi stance and 33.0% (n=4) did not. Interview question 8: Are you aware that NCAA Bylaw 16.3.1.2 requires all Division I member institutions to have the NCAA CHAM PS/Life Skills program or a comparable equivalent on campus? Fifty percent of the respondents (n =6) were aware of the NCAA bylaw; 33.0% (n=4) were unaware of any NCAA By law requiring the NCAA CHAMPS/Life Skills program. An additional 16.0% (n=2 ) did not provide a response. Interview question 9: Are there other departments/units at your institution that could fulfill the five components of the NCAA CHAMPS/Life Skills program? If yes, does the athletic department utilize their services in part or whole? Nine participants responded

PAGE 71

71 to this question, of which 89.0% (n=8) said yes and 11.0% (n=1) said no. Of those who indicated yes, all indicated the at hletic department utilizes the services of other departments on campus. These departments and units assisted each program in meeting some or all of the five components of the CHAMPS/Life Skills program. Examples of the outside departments and units include: academic advisement, sport ps ychology, career explorations, leadership and multicultural affairs, student wellness and counseling centers. Interview question 10: Do you believe the NCAA CHAMPS/Life Skills program is sufficient in meeting the community relations and social responsi bility needs of the athletic department? How so? How can it be improved? Of the nine respondents who answered this question, 56.0% (n=5) agreed the current NCAA CHAMPS/Life Skills is sufficiently meeting the community relations and social responsibility needs of the athl etic program. Thirty-three percent (n=3) disagreed and 11.0% (n=1) was unsure. Three themes were revealed in the recommendations for improvement. They includ e funding and increased resources, a cohesive partnership with on-campus and off-campus resources and a commitment to community service. One respondent stipulated that the level of co mmitment to community relations was a reflection of the personnel in the athletic department. In summary, the results of the structured interviews are similar to the results of the questionnaire. Community involvement as an agent of community relations was prevalent throughout the interview responses. Questions re garding definition, relationship of institutions and communities and importance of community re lations all alluded to community involvement and mutually beneficial partners hips. Interestingly, as admini strators support partnerships between their athletic program and the communit y, they are also torn between the good of the community and the good of the athletic program. Similar to the results of the questionnaire,

PAGE 72

72 some administrators find it hard to accept that an athletic program can benefit from community relations. Awareness, participation and confidence in the CHAMPS/Life Skills program appear to be average. Responses at this portion of the interviews tailed off signi ficantly. Participants cited their lack of knowledge in th is area as a reason for non-response. It is not well known that the program is required by NC AA bylaws and less than half the respondents had all five components within their institution. Participan ts offered minimal or no information regarding their institutions participation in the CHAMPS/Life Skills program.

PAGE 73

73 Table 4-1. Respondent Profile Respondent Characteristics Fr equency Valid Percentage Age (n=156) 29 and younger 31 19.9 30-39 50 17.3 40-49 33 21.2 50-54 27 17.3 55 and older 15 9.6 Level of Education (n=164) Attended College 1 0.6 College Graduate 34 20.7 Professional or Advanced Degree 129 78.7 Position Title (n=164) Athletic Director 22 13.4 Associate Athletic Director 64 39.0 Assistant Athletic Director 38 23.2 Director 21 12.8 Assistant Director 6 3.7 Coordinator 13 7.9 Department (n=166) Administration 95 57.2 Marketing 38 22.9 Academic Services 33 19.9 Department Head (n=167) Yes 103 61.7 No 64 38.3 Position Tenure (n=167) 0-1 year 33 19.8 2-5 years 84 50.3 6-10 years 50 29.9

PAGE 74

74 Table 4-2. Community Re lations Participation Community Relations Participation Frequency Valid Percentage Direct Involvement in Comm unity Relations (n=167) Yes 159 95.2 No 8 4.8 Indirect Involvement in Community Relations (n=160) Yes 142 88.8 No 18 11.3 CHAMPS/Life Skills (n=165) Yes 146 88.5 No 19 11.5 Commitment to Academics (n=133) 133 80.6 Commitment to Athletics (n=129) 129 78.1 Commitment to Personal Development (n=127) 127 76.9 Commitment to Career Development (n=118) 118 71.5 Commitment to Community Service (n=133) 133 80.6

PAGE 75

75 Table 4-3. Attitudes Profile Attitude Indicators Mean % Strongly Disagree % Disagree % Somewhat Disagree % Neither Disagree or Agree % Somewhat Agree % Agree % Strongly Agree NA 1 Many collegiate athletic programs promote community relations, but are not truly committed to it. -0.25 4.2 20.1 24.9 10.1 29.6 10.1 1.1 NA 2 No regulations should govern community relations in collegiate athletics. 0.29 8.0 15.5 13.9 11.8 15.5 23 12.3 NA 3 Community relations is not necessary in collegiate athletic programs. -1.74 35.4 31.7 18.5 5.3 3.7 4.8 0.5 NA 4 Community relations should not be highly organized in collegiate athletics. -1.38 17.6 37.4 24.6 9.1 8.6 2.1 0.5 NA 5 Community relations should not be an essential business strategy for collegiate athletic programs. -0.47 5.9 24.5 21.8 20.7 14.9 10.6 1.6 NA 6 It would be better not to have community relations in colle g iate athletics. -2.44 54.5 40.2 1.6 2.6 1.1 0.0 0.0 PA 1 Community relations should be completely voluntary. 0.47 2.7 11.2 22.3 5.3 27.7 20.7 10.1 PA 2 Community relations make a tangible contribution to the athletic programs bottom line. 0.00 5.9 17.3 14.6 23.8 18.4 11.4 8.6 PA 3 The public has a right to expect good community relations from collegiate athletic programs. 1.09 0.5 4.3 10.6 13.3 26.6 31.4 13.3 PA 4 Many athletic programs do a great deal more for their community than is talked about or known. 2.14 0.5 0.0 1.6 5.9 8.0 43.1 41.0 PA 5 Community relations is a priority for collegiate athletic programs. 0.74 0.5 6.9 13.2 14.3 33.9 24.9 6.3 PA 6 Community relations helps our community. 2.33 0.0 0.5 0.5 2.6 5.3 43.4 47.6 Note. Means ranged from -3 to 3, with -3 in dicating strongly disagree and being strongly agree

PAGE 76

76 Table 4-4. Motives Profile Note. Means ranged from -3 to 3, with -3 in dicating strongly disagree and being strongly agree Motive Indicators Mean % Strongly Disagree % Disagree % Somewhat Disagree % Neither Disagree or Agree % Somewhat Agree % Agree % Strongly Agree VAL VALUE 2.17 1.1 0.0 0. 5 1.1 5.7 32.8 58.7 EST ESTEEM 1.68 0.0 0.0 2.1 2.6 17.4 48.6 27.5 CA1 Our athletic program supports community relations because it is part of our business strategy. 0.15 5.3 12.2 12.7 23.3 29.1 13.2 4.2 CA2 Volunteering can help get my foot in the door at a place where I would like to work. 0.67 4.8 10.8 3.8 24.2 19.4 24.2 12.9 CA3 I can make new contacts through community relations that might help the athletic program in the future. 1.90 0.0 0.0 0.0 8.0 18.2 49.7 24.1 CA4 Community relations provide our student athletes with tangible, hands on experience. 2.11 0.0 0.5 0.0 2.7 16.0 46.0 34.8 S1 Community relations is important to our customers/consumers. 1.44 0.5 0.0 4.3 14.4 26.7 38.5 15.5 S2 Community relation efforts are expected in our community. 1.04 0.5 2.1 9.0 17.6 30.9 31.4 8.5 S3 We employ community relations within our athletic department be cause it is mandated by laws and/or regulation. -1.79 36.9 35.3 8.0 12.8 4.3 1.6 1.1 P1 Community relations will improve the athletic programs image and reputation. 2.19 0.5 0.0 1.1 2.1 12.7 41.8 41.8 P2 Doing community relations relieves me of some of the guilt over being more fortunate than others. -1.47 25.7 38.5 9.1 15.5 7.5 2.1 1.6 P3 Community relations is a good escape from the troubles of my organization. -0.88 13.8 29.3 13.8 24.5 12.8 4.3 1.6

PAGE 77

77 Table 4-5. Commitment Profiles Commitment Indicators Mean % Strongly Disagree % Disagree % Somewhat Disagree % Neither Disagree or Agree % Somewhat Agree % Agree % Strongly Agree TIME TIME 2.04 0.0 0.6 0. 0 1.8 12.3 46.7 38.6 CON CONNECT 1.64 0.6 0.0 1.8 2.3 22.2 49.7 23.4 MNG MEANING 1.77 0.0 1.8 1. 1 0.6 14.6 53.8 28.1 TR1 Our athletic program has established traditions within the community. 1.57 0.6 2.3 5.3 5.8 22.8 43.3 19.9 TR2 It is important to continue the traditions of our community. 1.92 0.6 0.0 0.0 2.4 21.9 53.8 21.3 Note. Means ranged from -3 to 3, with -3 in dicating strongly disagree and being strongly agree

PAGE 78

78 Table 4-6. Importance Profiles Importance Indicators Mean % Strongly Disagree % Disagree % Somewhat Disagree % Neither Disagree or Agree % Somewhat Agree % Agree % Strongly Agree CIT CITIZENSHIP 1.58 0.0 1. 2 2.3 2.3 18.8 56.1 19.3 PER PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT 1.88 0.0 0.6 1.2 0.6 11.7 54.1 31.8 I1 Our athletic program has invested a considerable amount of time and money into community relations activities. 1.11 0.6 4.8 7.1 10.7 34.5 31.5 10.7 I2 Consistent participation in community relations is important. 1.89 0.6 0.0 0.6 3.5 21.1 52.6 21.6 I3 Our athletic program operates with socially responsible business practices. 1.78 0.0 0.0 1.2 9.4 22.4 44.7 22.4 V1 Our athletic program supports employee volunteerism. 1.47 0.0 3.0 3.6 10.7 23.7 45.0 14.2 V2 Supporting student-athlete volunteerism is a priority for our athletic program. 1.83 0.0 2.4 3.0 4.1 20.1 40.8 29.6 V3 For me, giving back to the community does not matter. -2.16 51.2 31.8 10.6 1.8 0.6 1.8 2.4 CO1 Our athletic program gets involved by responding to community/interest groups regarding issues they care about. 1.42 0.0 0.6 4.8 9.6 32.3 42.5 10.2 CO2 Our athletic program engages in community relations by contributing to societal and community causes. 1.66 0.0 1.2 1.2 9.5 23.2 48.2 16.7 CO3 I believe in supporting community welfare with both time and money. 1.71 0.0 1.2 2.9 7.6 21.6 45.6 21.1 Note. Means ranged from -3 to 3, with -3 in dicating strongly disagree and being strongly agree

PAGE 79

79 Table 4-7. Correlational Analysis for Mo tive, Commitment and Importance Subscales Factor Value Esteem Time Connection Citizenship Meaning Personal Involvement Value Pearson Correlation 1 Sig. (2-tailed) N 189 Esteem Pearson Correlation .477(**) 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 189 189 Time Pearson Correlation .371(**) .448(**) 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 N 169 169 171 Connection Pearson Correlation .394(**) .501(**) .599(**) 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 N 169 169 171 171 Citizenship Pearson Correlation .359(**) .618(**) .567(**) .636(**) 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 N 169 169 171 171 171 Meaning Pearson Correlation .389(**) .491(**) .509(**) .720(**) .605(**) 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 169 169 171 171 171 171 Personal Involvement Pearson Correlation .394(**) .555(**) .582(**) .515(**) .686(**) .506(**) 1 Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 N 168 168 170 170 170 170 170 **correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

PAGE 80

80 Table 4-8. Multiple Regression Analysis for Mo tive, Commitment and Importance Subscales in relation to Department Pearson r Coefficient Significance (2-tailed) Variance Explained Esteem -0.170 0.015(*) 2.9% Time -0.200 0.005(**) 7.9% Connection -0.218 0.003(**) 4.8% Citizenship -0.237 0.001(**) 5.6% Meaning -0.202 0.005(**) 4.1% Personal Involvement -0.193 0.007(**) 3.7% *correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **corre lation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Table 4-9. Multiple Regression Analysis for Mo tive, Commitment and Importance Subscales in relation to CHAMPS/Life Skills Program Pearson r Coefficient Significance (2-tailed) Variance Explained Time -0.281 0.000(**) 3.9% Meaning -0.171 0.015(*) 2.8% *correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **corre lation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

PAGE 81

81 Table 4-10. Means and Standard Deviat ions for Subscales and Department Dept Mean Standard Deviation Esteem Administration a 1.77 0.77 Marketing b 1.75 0.76 Academic Services c 1.40 1.00 Total d 1.69 0.83 Time Administration a 2.17 0.69 Marketing b 1.99 0.76 Academic Services c 1.79 1.04 Total d 2.05 0.80 Connection Administration a 1.77 0.79 Marketing b 1.69 0.67 Academic Services c 1.29 1.15 Total d 1.65 0.87 Citizenship Administration a 1.75 0.71 Marketing b 1.51 0.77 Academic Services c 1.27 1.06 Total d 1.60 0.82 Meaning Administration a 1.89 0.66 Marketing b 1.86 0.78 Academic Services c 1.39 1.23 Total d 1.78 0.85 Personal Involvement Administration a 2.00 0.67 Marketing b 1.70 0.77 Academic Services c 1.68 0.94 Total d 1.87 0.77 Note. Means ranged from -3 to 3, with -3 in dicating strongly disagree and being strongly agree a(n=93). b(n=37). c(n=33). d(n=163)

PAGE 82

82 Table 4-11. Means and Standard Deviations for Subscales and CHAMPS/Life Skills Program CHAMPS/Life Skills Mean Standard Deviation Esteem Yes a 1.73 0.82 No b 1.31 0.83 Total c 1.68 0.82 Time Yes a 2.11 0.68 No b 1.37 1.27 Total c 2.03 0.79 Connection Yes a 1.67 0.81 No b 1.41 1.19 Total c 1.64 0.86 Citizenship Yes a 1.62 0.81 No b 1.43 0.98 Total c 1.60 0.83 Meaning Yes a 1.83 0.81 No b 1.35 1.03 Total c 1.77 0.85 Personal Involvement Yes a 1.88 0.72 No b 1.78 1.07 Total c 1.87 0.76 Note. Means ranged from -3 to 3, with -3 in dicating strongly disagree and being strongly agree a(n=145). b(n=18). c(n=163).

PAGE 83

83 Table 4-12. Analysis of Variance on Positive Attitudes Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Dept 2.317 2 1.159 0.407 0.667 PA1 Community relations should be completely voluntary. Within Dept 455.990 160 2.850 Between Dept 4.543 2 2.272 0.838 0.434 PA2 Community relations make a tangible contribution to the athletic programs bottom line. Within Dept 425.432 157 2.710 Between Dept 2.193 2 1.096 0.616 0.541 PA3 The public has a right to expect good community relations from collegiate athletic programs. Within Dept 284.593 160 1.779 Between Dept 6.532 2 3.266 3.612 0.029* PA4 Many athletic programs do a great deal more for their community than is talked about or known. Within Dept 144.658 160 .904 Between Dept .193 2 .096 0.057 0.945 PA5 Community relations is a priority for collegiate athletic programs. Within Dept 273.002 161 1.696 Between Dept 1.708 2 .854 1.387 0.253 PA6 Community relations helps our community. Within Dept 99.170 161 .616 Note. Means ranged from -3 to 3, with -3 in dicating strongly disagree and being strongly agree *significant at the 0.05 level Table 4-13. Means (M) and Standa rd Deviations (SD) for Signifi cant Relationships between Department and Positive Attitudes Factor Description Administration (n=94) Marketing (n=37) Academic Services (n=32) F-value M SD M SD M SD PA4 Many athletic programs do a great deal more for their community than is talked about or known. 2.15 0.867 2.49(d) 0.559 1.88(d) 1.43 3.612 Note. Means ranged from -3 to 3, with -3 in dicating strongly disagree and being strongly agree dScheffe post hoc tests indicate sign ificant differences between means

PAGE 84

84 Table 4-14. Analysis of Variance on Negative Attitudes Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Dept 17.846 2 8.923 4.260 0.016 (*) NA1 Many collegiate athletic programs promote community relations, but are not truly committed to it. Within Dept 337.251 161 2.095 Between Dept 1.222 2 0.611 0.178 0.837 NA2 No regulations should govern community relations in collegiate athletics. Within Dept 546.439 159 3.437 Between Dept 2.209 2 1.105 0.602 0.549 NA3 Community relations is not necessary in collegiate athletic programs. Within Dept 295.321 161 1.834 Between Dept 0.441 2 0.221 0.144 0.866 NA4 Community relations should not be highly organized in collegiate athletics. Within Dept 244.430 160 1.528 Between Dept 1.250 2 0.625 0.297 0.744 NA5 Community relations should not be an essential business strategy for collegiate athletic programs. Within Dept 337.057 160 2.107 Between Dept 4.638 2 2.319 4.903 0.009 (**) NA6 It would be better not to have community relations in collegiate athletics. Within Dept 76.143 161 0.473 Note. Means ranged from -3 to 3, with -3 in dicating strongly disagree and being strongly agree *significant at the 0.05 level. **significant at the 0.01 level Table 4-15. Means (M) and Sta ndard Deviations (SD) for Si gnificant Relationships between Department and Negative Attitudes Factors Description Administration (n=94) Marketing (n=37) Academic Services (n=33) F-value M SD M SD M SD NA1 Many collegiate athletic programs promote community relations, but are not truly committed to it. -0.56(d) 1.448 0.05 1.311 0.15(d) 1.584 4.260 NA6 It would be better not to have community relations in collegiate athletics. -2.59(d) 0.576 -2.43 0.689 -2.15(d) 0.939 4.903 Note. Means ranged from -3 to 3, with -3 in dicating strongly disagree and being strongly agree dScheffe post hoc tests indicate sign ificant differences between means

PAGE 85

85 Table 4-16. Analysis of Variance on Motives Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Dept 5.203 2 2.602 3.465 0.034 (*) VAL Value Within Dept 120.883 161 0.751 Between Dept 3.190 2 1.595 2.328 0.101 EST Esteem Within Dept 110.300 161 0.685 Between Dept 11.435 2 5.718 2.526 0.083 CA1 Our athletic program supports community relations because it is part of our business strategy. Within Dept 364.443 161 2.264 Between Dept 9.308 2 4.654 1.610 0.203 CA2 Volunteering can help get my foot in the door at a place where I would like to work. Within Dept 456.754 158 2.891 Between Dept 2.789 2 1.395 1.848 0.161 CA3 I can make new contacts through community relations that might help the athletic program in the future. Within Dept 119.983 159 0.755 Between Dept 1.408 2 0.704 1.016 0.364 CA4 Community relations provide our student athletes with tangible, hands on experience. Within Dept 110.123 159 0.693 Between Dept 1.550 2 0.775 0.663 0.517 S1 Community relations is important to our customers/consumers. Within Dept 187.015 160 1.169 Between Dept 0.726 2 0.363 0.267 0.766 S2 Community relation efforts are expected in our community. Within Dept 217.531 160 1.360 Between Dept 18.044 2 9.022 5.027 0.008 (**) S3 We employ community relations within our athletic department be cause it is mandated by laws and/or regulation. Within Dept 287.134 160 1.795 Between Dept 4.306 2 2.153 2.634 0.075 P1 Community relations will improve the athletic programs image and reputation. Within Dept 131.566 161 0.817 Between Dept 3.498 2 1.749 0.807 0.448 P2 Doing community relations relieves me of some of the guilt over being more fortunate than others. Within Dept 344.502 159 2.167 Between Dept 16.877 2 8.438 3.862 0.023 (*) P3 Community relations is a good escape from the troubles of my organization. Within Dept 349.589 160 2.185 Note. Means ranged from -3 to 3, with -3 in dicating strongly disagree and being strongly agree *significant at the 0.05 level. **significant at the 0.01 level

PAGE 86

86 Table 4-17. Means (M) and Sta ndard Deviations (SD) for Si gnificant Relationships between Department and Motives Factors Description Administration (n=94) Marketing (n=37) Academic Services (n=33) F-value M SD M SD M SD VAL Value 2.206 0.876 2.40(d) 0.550 1.859(d) 1.099 3.465 S3 We employ community relations within our athletic department be cause it is mandated by laws and/or regulation. -1.95(a, d) 1.254 -1.81 1.371 -1.09(d) 1.528 5.027 P3 Community relations is a good escape from the troubles of my organization. -1.09(d) 1.404 -0.78 1.584 -0.25(b, d) 1.566 3.862 Note. Means ranged from -3 to 3, with -3 in dicating strongly disagree and being strongly agree a(n=93). b(n=32). dScheffe post hoc tests indicate significant differences between means

PAGE 87

87 Table 4-18. Analysis of Variance on Commitment Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Dept 3.676 2 1.838 2.985 0.053 TIME Time Within Dept 99.123 161 0.616 Between Dept 5.392 2 2.696 3.724 0.026 (*) CON Connection Within Dept 116.564 161 0.724 Between Dept 6.059 2 3.029 4.365 0.014 (*) MNG Meaning Within Dept 111.744 161 0.694 Between Dept 3.551 2 1.775 1.259 0.287 TR1 Our athletic program has established traditions within the community. Within Dept 227.010 161 1.410 Between Dept 3.331 2 1.666 2.484 0.087 TR2 It is important to continue the traditions of our community. Within Dept 106.626 159 0.671 Note. Means ranged from -3 to 3, with -3 in dicating strongly disagree and being strongly agree *significant at the 0.05 level Table 4-19. Means (M) and Standa rd Deviations (SD) for Signi ficant Relationships between Department and Commitment Factors Description Administration (n=94) Marketing (n=37) Academic Services (n=33) F-value M SD M SD M SD CON Connection 1.759(d) 0.787 1.694 0.673 1.293(d) 1.154 3.724 MNG Meaning 1.880(d) .0666 1.856 0.784 1.394(d) 1.229 4.365 Note. Means ranged from -3 to 3, with -3 in dicating strongly disagree and being strongly agree dScheffe post hoc test indicate sign ificant differences between means

PAGE 88

88 Table 4-20. Analysis of Variance on Importance Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Between Dept 5.431 2 2.715 4.099 0.018 (*) CIT Citizenship Within Dept 106.652 161 0.662 Between Dept 3.927 2 1.964 3.450 0.034 (*) PER Personal Involvement Within Dept 91.059 160 0.569 Between Dept 5.404 2 2.702 1.674 0.191 I1 Our athletic program has invested a considerable am ount of time and money into community relations activities. Within Dept 255.019 158 1.614 Between Dept 4.416 2 2.208 2.962 0.055 I2 Consistent participation in community relations is important. Within Dept 120.023 161 0.745 Between Dept 11.135 2 5.567 6.834 0.001 (**) I3 Our athletic program operates with socially responsible business practices. Within Dept 130.350 160 0.815 Between Dept 6.108 2 3.054 2.290 0.105 V1 Our athletic program supports employee volunteerism. Within Dept 212.089 159 1.334 Between Dept 8.205 2 4.103 3.452 0.034 (*) V2 Supporting student-athlete volunteerism is a priority for our athletic program. Within Dept 188.937 159 1.188 Between Dept 2.546 2 1.273 0.858 0.426 V3 For me, giving back to the community does not matter. Within Dept 237.295 160 1.483 Between Dept 4.037 2 2.019 1.991 0.140 CO 1 Our athletic program gets involved by responding to community/interest groups regarding issues they care about. Within Dept 159.207 157 1.014 Between Dept 7.412 2 3.706 3.971 0.021 (*) CO 2 Our athletic program engages in community relations by contributing to societal and community causes. Within Dept 147.433 158 0.933 Between Dept 6.220 2 3.110 2.849 0.061 CO 3 I believe in supporting community welfare with both time and money. Within Dept 175.731 161 1.091 Note. Means ranged from -3 to 3, with -3 in dicating strongly disagree and being strongly agree *significant at the 0.05 level. **significant at the 0.01 level

PAGE 89

89 Table 4-21. Means (M) and Standa rd Deviations (SD) for Signifi cant Relationships between Department and Importance Factors Description Administration (n=94) Marketing (n=37) Academic Services (n=33) F-value M SD M SD M SD CIT Citizenship 1.727(d) 0.728 1.509 0.766 1.268(d) 1.064 4.099 PER Personal Involvement 2.004(a, d) 0.671 1.703 0.773 1.677(d) 0.937 3.450 I3 Our athletic program operates with socially responsible business practices. 1.76(a) 0.914 2.19(d) 0.739 1.39(d) 1.029 6.834 V2 Supporting student-athlete volunteerism is a priority for our athletic program. 1.90(b) 1.049 2.08(d) 1.064 1.42(d) 1.226 3.452 CO2 Our athletic program engages in community relations by contributing to societal and community causes. 1.71(c) 1.014 1.95(d) 0.780 1.30(d) 1.015 3.971 Note. Means ranged from -3 to 3, with -3 in dicating strongly disagree and being strongly agree a(n=93). b(n=92). c(n=91). dScheffe post hoc test indicate sign ificant differences between means

PAGE 90

90 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The purpose of this investigative study was to examine the attitudes and motives of senior athletic administrators as they relate to community relations in intercollegiate athletics. More specifically, the problem included analyzing the c onstructs of community relations, which were defined as attitude, motive, importance and commitm ent. This chapter discusses the results of the study, their relevance to the li terature and intercollegiate at hletics, and areas for further investigation. Discussion of Findings The following section summarizes the original research questions. Areas include influence of factors, overall attitude s, overall motives, overall impor tance and overall commitment of athletic administrators to community relations in intercollegiate at hletics. Findings on community relations in general and the NCAA CHAM PS/Life Skills program are also discussed. This chapter discusses the results of the study, thei r relevance to the literat ure and intercollegiate athletics, and areas fo r further investigation. Attitudes The attitudes of collegiate athletic administrato rs toward community relations tended to be positive yet weak and unstable. Positive and nega tive attitude items were measured on a bipolar scale ranging from strongly disa gree to strongly agree. The mean scores of the attitude statements were relatively average to low and thus did not significantly impact the outcome of this study. Three of the twelve in dicators registered at strongly agree, 5 at the somewhat level and 3 at the agree level. There was a lack of consensus among administrators, overrun by varying beliefs about community relations with each side polarizing around the middle. As a result, the attitude items proved turbulent and generally insignificant. The theory of planned

PAGE 91

91 behavior (Ajzen, 1991) modeled that personal be liefs influence attitudes, which has certainly been true of athletic administrators a nd their attitudes toward community relations. Administrators agreed that community relati ons should be highly or ganized, while at the same time supporting no regulations should govern community relations in college athletics. Likewise, similar viewpoints we re expressed in the follow-up interviews. Respondents were conflicted about the potential fi nancial gains community relati ons could provide. From the questionnaire, respondents neither agreed nor disagreed that community relations contributes to the bottom line. The follow up interviews reveal ed the same confliction with some praising the potential financial support and others were balkin g at such an intention. The non-responses from the interviews could also be interpreted as a negative attitude. When examining the relationship between att itudes and department, the researcher found three attitudes showed significant differences ac ross departments. Marketing and Administration felt strongly that the athletic program does more community relations than it receives publicity for. Academic Services also agreed, but not to the extent of the other two departments. Marketing and Academic Services both somewh at agree that athletic programs promote community relations, but are not committed to it Administration, on th e other hand, somewhat disagrees with that statement. All three depart ments strongly disagreed th at it would be better not to have community relations in college athletics. Admini stration placed a significantly greater importance on this attitude th an Marketing or Academic Services. The descriptive statistics revealed a majority of administrators agre ed community relations helps the community, is necessary in intercollegiate athletics and theref ore, should not be excluded. However, dimensionality arose when community relations was considered a business strategy and whether athletic programs are truly committed to community relations.

PAGE 92

92 Administrators were also split on whether co mmunity relations is even a priority of intercollegiate athletic programs. One of the di mensions of Ajzens Theory of Planned Behavior (1991) is subjective norms, or the perceived acceptability of or so cial pressure surrounding that behavior. Although it was not the goals of this study, the results showed there was a lack of subjective norm concerning attitude. Motives The Volunteer Functions Inventory (VFI) (Cla ry, et al., 1998; Allison, 2002) was modified to measure the motives in community relations. Th e results of the reliability analysis revealed that only two of the five constructs were useful as scales. Unlike previous research, the VFI failed to produce five reliable s cales of measurement for this st udy. Nevertheless, the two scales and individual items revealed most likely and least likely motivators of community relations. Mandates and/or regulations, guilt and escape from work were the least likely to motivate administrators in any department to particip ate in community relati ons. Top motivators of athletic administrators include d value benefits of community relations, benefits to studentathletes, and improvement to image and reputati on of athletic program. Community relations were identified as a resource for future business contacts. Admini strators are less motivated that community relations is important to their customers, and even le ss that it may be expected in their community. When examining the relationship between mo tives and department, the esteem subscale was significant to the three at hletic departments, Administ ration, Marketing and Academic Services. The ANOVA showed that value in co mmunity relations was a greater motivator for the Marketing Department than Admi nistration and Academic Services. These findings are ironic in the sense that the top motivators can be translated to goals and objectives of any athletic program, yet administrato rs barely agree that co mmunity relations is or

PAGE 93

93 can be a viable business strategy. Improving the image and reputation of the athletic program is something the entire organization is involved wi th, but falls primarily to Administration and Marketing. Administrators are mo re concerned with their athletic program than they are about the community. Although speculativ e, their motives appear to be more selfish than selfless. Commitment Administrators are generally comm itted to community relations in intercollegiate athletics. They are strongly committed to investing time and longevity in community relations. The administrators also agree they are connected to their respective co mmunities and that their communities have meaning to them and the athletic program. A majority of administrators also have established traditions in their communities and the continuation of these traditions is important to the community as well. The tim e commitment and meaning also appear to be significant for the CHAMPS/Life Skills program. Administrators are also direc tly involved and, to a lesser ex tent, indirectly involved in community relations. One way to measur e commitment was through the five NCAA CHAMPS/Life Skills commitment components. Support for each component was relatively average. For a program that is required by the NCAA, the expectations and output of the CHAMPS/Life Skills program are high. The resu lts of this study supports that community service is a prominent component of the CHAMPS/Life Skills program and that there is a lack of participation on the part of the institutions. For those who did have a CHAMPS/Life Skills program, a lack of funding and other operational resources hindered the success and potential of the program overall. This study indicated that a significant differe nce exists among commitment variables and department. Administration is more committed to connecting to the community and deriving meaning from it than Marketing and Academic Se rvices. The commitment construct also fits

PAGE 94

94 with the overall conceptualization of social exchange theory (Cook & Emerson, 1978). Many administrators established or wish to estab lish partnerships in the community, supporting the reciprocity dimension of the theory as we ll (Blau, 1964, 1986). Student -athlete involvement within the community was a core commitment among administrators. Importance Athletic administrators are in agreement that community relations are important in intercollegiate athletics. The results showed that importance is significantly expressed through citizenship and involvement and was more str ongly related to commitment than any other construct. Community involvement fits with con ceptualization of social exchange theory as a function of reciprocity (Blau, 1964; Baston, et al., 2002; Stukas & Dunlap, 2002). Athletic programs are involved by responding to community and interest groups, cont ributing to societal and community causes, supporti ng community welfare with ti me and money and supporting employee and student-athlete volunteerism. Administrators in the Marketing department placed a greater im portance on socially responsible business practices, st udent-athlete volunteerism as a priority and contributing to societal and community causes than Administra tion or Academic Services. Administration placed more importance on citizenship and personal involvement than Marketing or Academic Services. Academic Services placed the leas t importance on all of th e important/involvement indicators. As the researcher alluded to previo usly, Academic Services departments are already consumed with other priorities such as acad emic enrichment and advisement, initial and continued eligibility, career planning and othe r student-athlete welfare issues. Community relations do not appear to be a top priority for them. Five of the seven subscales showed signifi cant differences depending on the department. The three departments that were examined in clude Administration, Marketing and Academic

PAGE 95

95 Services. According to the ANOVA, three att itude and motive items were significant for group differences. The commitment ANOVA showed tw o of five items or two of three subscales significantly differ by department. Importance produced 5 items out of 11 that were significantly different across departments. Attitude was the least reliable and least signif icant construct due to its wide variability. Motives proved to be reliable but inconsistent. Results also showed mo tives were self-promoting more so than community betterment. Commitme nt was the only construc t to explain variances in both department and CHAMPS/Life Skills progr am. Correlational analysis showed a strong and significant relationship between the commitmen t subscales. Importance indicators were the most consistent construct and significant impacted related variables and group differences. Overall, the commitment and importance factors were better indicators of participation in community relations than motives and attitude Commitment and importance are a direct reflection of actions or behavior s whereas attitudes and motives are reflections of feelings. Administrators can have positive attitudes and well-intentioned motives, but without supporting actions, they are moot. This exemplifies the co mmitment and reciprocit y dimension of social exchange theory (Gouldner, 1960; Blau, 1964, 1986). Community Relations Community relations were defined as a partne rship with the community where the athletic program is involved, giving back and meeting th e needs of the community. The relationship between the institution, the athletic program a nd the community was characterized as positive, favorable and supportive. The positive disposition was generally attributable to the institutions or athletic programs level of involvement in the community. Again, these findings are characteristic of the satisfaction and reciprocity dimensions found in social exchange theory (Homans, 1961; Blau, 1986; Bui et al., 1996).

PAGE 96

96 Athletic administrators find community relations beneficial to college athletics. Community involvement surfaced as a top bene fit. Administrators were split on whether community relations should be used for publicity or if it contributes to the bottom line. Some administrators were adamant that community rela tions should be for th e sole benefit of the community. Other administrators stipulated th at community relations not only benefits the community, but is also valuable to an athl etic program. They saw nothing wrong with capitalizing on the benefits of community relations, while others thought it undermined the spirit of community relations. Athletic administrators were split on whethe r community relations should be standardized in intercollegiate athletics. Pr os and cons were expressed with supporting causes. Interestingly, many administrators felt standard ization meant mandatory, for which there was an overwhelming aversion. Some felt it would hinder creativity an d freedom of vision while others felt it would provide guidance. Other administ rators indicated sta ndardization may not work well with larger athletic programs, but may be beneficial to mid-major and smaller institutions. The NCAA CHAMPS/Lif e Skills Program While a majority of institutions have the CHAMPS/Life Skills program, or components of the program, many administrators are unaware of what the program is about and its five components. A majority of respondents indi cated having some of the components and few reported having all five components. Non-respon ses increased during the qualitative interviews as more questions about the CHAMPS/Life Skills program were asked. Half of the interview respondents had no knowledge that the program wa s required by the NCAA. Respondents were split on whether the CHAMPS/Life Skills program is sufficiently meeting the community relations needs of the program. A few admi nistrators offered that it could use some improvements.

PAGE 97

97 Conclusions There are several conclusions that can be drawn from this study. First, in support of Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1986) to study commun ity relations, the four dimensions (trust, commitment, satisfaction and reciprocity) necessary to continue the social exchange process were found to be true of community relations as well. The consistent relationships found throughout the models of commitment and importan ce, as well as the differences by department and the CHAMPS/Life Skills program, reveal the significance of these two variables in community relations. The interviews on community response and characteri zation revealed that communities are generally satisfied with the institution and the athletic program. Second, athletic administrators are more motivat ed by the benefits to the athletic program than by the benefits to the community. Community relations in intercollegiate athletics serve many purposes. Some of the perceived benefits of community support include enhanced public image, prestige, potential to increa se customer base, reputation as a socially respons ible business, potential for elite partnerships w ith other entities that value soci ally responsible businesses, and strengthen the organizations perceived ethical and moral values and f oundation. Despite some misgivings about capitalizing on the financial bene fits of community relations, that is ultimately the strongest motivator of administrators to participate in community relations. Hence, administrators should incorporat e community relations in their operating policies and learn to utilize it as a strate gic business practice to capitalize upon potential be nefits and unrealized income. Community relations, when utilized correctly, can increase an organizations brand awareness and add to its brand equity. Third, the attitudes of collegiate athletic admi nistrators are positive yet low; there is no cohesiveness among the group regarding community relations. Some view community relations as a win-win situation for both the institution a nd the community and others abhor exploiting the

PAGE 98

98 community for the sake of the institution. Despite their varied attitude s, administrators are highly committed to community relations in intercol legiate athletics. Any lack of commitment may be attributed to overworked and overburdene d departments. Nevertheless, administrators consider themselves citizens of the community as evidenced by their level of involvement, contribution and volunteerism. Subcommittees shoul d be established to examine the incongruity between administrators attitudes, motives, comm itment and importance of community relations. This would be a first step in addressing bridgi ng the gap between personal beliefs and subjective norms. Fourth, standardization should be explored for community re lations in intercollegiate athletics. As there was a fine divide between highly organize d but not mandated community relations initiatives, exploration would bridge the gap between the two. While the results show a commitment to community relations in general, there is a lack of commitment to the NCAA CHAMPS/Life Skills program. The low commitment is evidenced by low participation in the commitment constructs as well as funding. Succe ss cannot be defined if there is no benchmark; setting standards would create that benchm ark against which to measure success. Standardization can provide assurances that community relations programming will deliver a certain level of performance. Fifth, Administration should be considered to house th e NCAA CHAMPS/Life Skills program. Many CHAMPS/Life Skills programs are housed in Academic Services, and the results of the study show that Academic Servi ces ranks the lowest on all four constructs. Perhaps the leveling off of the success of the progra m is attributable to th e departments lack of motivation, importance and commitment to commun ity relations. This is also supported by the low response rate of administrators from this department.

PAGE 99

99 Lastly, athletic programs should educate their administrators on the benefits of community relations in intercollegiate athl etics. The results of the study imply that administrators have mixed feelings concerning community relations on a whole. Educating the masses on what community relations is, what it can do for the community and what it can do for the athletic organization would not only refute salient misgivi ngs, but also improve th e attitudes and motives of administrators by showcasing the benefits of community relations. Suggestions for Future Research This study has provided significan t insight into the perceptions of community relations in intercollegiate athletics. Howe ver, the researcher recognizes the need for more information dealing with community relations and intercolle giate athletic programs and administrators. These recommendations are based upon the assumpti on that community relations will continue to grow in collegiate athletics. T hus, the following suggestions are made. Recognizing that this sample is not representative of all athletic administrators, that Administration, Marketing and Academic Services ar e subsets of the entire organization and that personnel varies from institution, it is recommen ded that a more representative sample of administrators be obtained to determine if attitudes, motives, commitment and importance influence community relations. The timing of the study had an impact on the response rate. To ease participation in the study, it is recommended the study be completed at a time that is conducive to the sample. Further investigation on motives is needed. The VFI motives may not be suited to measure motives in community relations. It is recomm ended that qualitative methods be used to determine the motives of athletic administrators inductively ra ther than deductively. Further investigation on administrator attitu des is also needed. With the conflicting attitudes reflected in this study, it is recommended that focus groups be he ld in order to develop attitudinal profiles of

PAGE 100

100 the various administrators. These focus groups may in turn bring new knowledge about the culture of athletics. To broaden the scope of this study, other NCAA divisions, administrators at conferences and the NCAA should also be studied. Differen ces and relationships across division, institution, conference and NCAA should be analyzed. Addi tional investigation into the best location (department-wise) for the CHAMPS/Life Skills program would be useful to the NCAA and college administrators. In addition, the attitudes of college communities should also be examined to measure if they are congruent with the athletic programs viewpoints. It would be interesting to know whether the communities agreed or disagreed with the characterizations offered by the athletic programs or if they would confirm or refute th eir attitudes, motives, commitment and importance of community relations. Delimitations The purpose of this study was to investigate the attitudes, motives, level of commitment and importance of key senior athletic administra tors on community relations in intercollegiate athletics. This study was delimited to NCAA Divisi on I senior college athletic administrators in the Marketing, Administration a nd Academic Services departme nts whose names appeared on the NCAA Institutional Contact Information list a nd each institutions athletic staff directory. Therefore, the findings of this study cannot be generalized to the entire NCAA population (Division II, Division III, and conference memb ers), nor can they be generalized to other departments within an athletic program. Results cannot be generalized to other intercollegiate associations as well.

PAGE 101

101 Limitations The study offers several important findings to the literature. However, there are some limitations to the study as well. The study was li mited by the nature of the sample itself. College athletic programs and their administrato rs are fast-paced orga nizations that rarely experience down time. The study experienced a lo w response rate overall, and more specifically, low response rates from Marketing and Academ ic Services. As an organization whose legislation changes annually, memb er institutions may have felt vu lnerable and threatened by the potential exposure of this study. In addition, th e timing of this study, during college basketball season, was not conducive to optimal participation. Yet the results are still important as they represent almost half of the population. Another limitation of the study is the lack of response to the demographical questions about community relations and the CHAMPS/Life Skills program. Participants systematically avoided questions concerning their institutions participation, or lack thereof, in the CHAMPS/Life Skills program, budget allocation, and personnel assigned to community relations. This could be due to the social desi rability to appear in compliance with established NCAA bylaws and to reduce the risk of vulne rability and being labeled as non-compliant.

PAGE 102

102 APPENDIX A ELECTRONIC INFORMED CONSENT FORM

PAGE 103

103 APPENDIX B ELECTRONIC COMMUNITY R ELATIONS QUESTIONNAIRE The following statements are i ndicative of your level of perceptions about community relations. Please rate the extent to which you DISAGREE or AGREE with each item by selecting the appropriate box beside each statement. Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Disagree or Agree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree 1 Many collegiate athletic programs promote community relations, but are not truly committed to it. 2 Our athletic program engages in community relations because it fits our traditions and values. 3 I feel compassion toward people in need. 4 No regulations should govern community relations in collegiate athletics. 5 I feel it is important to help the community. 6 It would be better not to have community relations in collegiate athletics. 7 Community relations will improve the athletic programs image and reputation. 8 We employ community relations within our athletic program because it is mandated by laws and/or regulation. 9 Doing community relations relieves me of some of the guilt over being more fortunate than others. 10 Many athletic programs do a great deal more for their communities than is talked about or known. 11 Community relations is a good escape from the troubles of my organization. 12 Community relations make a tangible contribution to the athletic programs bottom line. 13 Our athletic program supports community relations because it is part of our business strate gy 14 Community relations should be completely voluntary. 15 Volunteering can help get my foot in the door at a place where I would like to work. 16 Community relations allow others to have positive feelings about our athletic program. 17 I can make new contacts through community relations that might help the athletic program in the future. 18 Community relations place our athletic program in high regard. 19 Community relations provide our student-athletes with tangible, hands on experience.

PAGE 104

104 20 Community relations provide our athletic program with a sense of purpose. 21 The public has a right to expect good community relations from collegiate athletic programs. 22 Community relations is important to our customers/consumers. 23 Community relations is not necessary in collegiate athletic programs. 24 Community relation effort s are expected in our community. 25 Community relations should not be highly organized in collegiate athletics. 26 Community relations is a priority for collegiate athletic programs. 27 Community relations should not be an essential business strategy for collegiate athletic programs. 28 Community relations helps our community. Please continue to next page.

PAGE 105

105 The following statements ar e indicative of your level of commitment to and involvement in community relations. Please rate the extent to which you DISAGREE or AGREE with each item by selecting the appropriate box beside each statement. Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Disagree or Agree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree 29 I will be involved in community relations 1 year from now. 30 I feel connected to numerous aspects of my community. 31 Improving conditions in my community is a priority. 32 I feel a part of the community surrounding our athletic program. 33 Community relations allows me to be a good citizen. 34 Our athletic program has established traditions within the community. 35 This community has meaning to our athletic program. 36 I believe in supporting community welfare with both money and effort. 37 This community has meaning to me. 38 I am willing to make sacrifices for the sake of community relations. 39 I support the entire community as a whole. 40 Consistent participation in community relations is important. 41 It is important to continue the traditions of our community 42 Our athletic program gets involved by responding to community/ interest groups regarding issues they care about. 43 I will be involved in community relations 3 years from now. 44 Our athletic program operates with socially responsible business practices. 45 Supporting student-athlete volunteerism is a priority for our athletic program. 46 Our athletic program engages in community relations by contributing to societal and community causes. 47 For me, giving back to the community does not matter. 48 When I participate in community relations programming, it reflects the kind of person I am.

PAGE 106

106 49 I believe community relations is very important. 50 Our athletic program has invested a considerable amount of time and money into community relation activities. 51 I gain personal satisfaction from participating in community relations programming. 52 Our athletic program supports employee volunteerism. 53 Corporate citizenship is important within our community. 54 I will be involved in community relations 5 years from now. Please continue to next page.

PAGE 107

107 Please check the appropriate box or fill in the blank for each item below. 55 Gender: Male Female 56 Age: _______ 57 Education: Attended high school College graduate Graduated high school Professional or Graduate School Attended college 58 Job Title: Athletic Director Director Associate Athletic Director Assistant Director Assistant Athletic Director Coordinator 59 Department: Administration Marketing Academics 60 Department Head: Yes No 61 Number of personnel in department: __________ 62 Number of personnel designated to handle community relations in your department: _____________ 63 Years in current position: 0-1 years 2-5 years 6-10 years 11-19 years 20+ years 64 Is your athletic program directly involved in community relations: Yes No 65 Is your athletic program indirectly involved in community relations: Yes No 66 Does your athletic program have a NCAA CHAMPS/Life Skills Program: Yes No If yes, please indicate which components are applicable to your program: Academics Athletics Personal Development Community Service Career Development 67 What year was your institution's NCAA CHAMPS/Life Skills Program established? _________ 68 How much money does your athletic department budget for community relations overall? ____________

PAGE 108

108 69 How much money does your athletic department budget for the NCAA CHAMPS /Life Skills Program? _________________ Is this amount included in the overall community relations budget? Yes, included No, separate Additional comments and insights regarding community relati ons in intercollegiate athletics are welcome below. Follow up in-depth interviews are being conducted to gain a deeper understanding of community relations in intercollegiate athletics. Your willingness to assist in advancing the knowle dge of our field would be greatly appreciated. Yes, I would like to be interviewed. No, not at this time. Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey!

PAGE 109

109 APPENDIX C INTERVIEW INFORMED CONSENT FORM

PAGE 110

110 APPENDIX D INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 1. How do you define community relations? 2. How would you characterize the relationshi p between your institution and your local community? 3. How do you believe your local commun ity responds to your institution? a. the athletic department? 4. Do you think community relations is bene ficial to intercollegiate athletics? a. Why or why not? 5. How important do you believe community relations is to the overall success of an athletic program? a. Why? b. Do you think it contributes to the bottom line? 6. Do you think community relations should be st andardized in interc ollegiate athletics? a. Why or why not? 7. Does your institution have a NCAA CHAMPS/Life Skills Program? (Yes) a. Why was the program established? b. Under which department is it housed? c. What components are included? d. How long has the program been in existence? e. How much money is budgeted for y our CHAMPS/Life Skills Program? i. Does this amount include funding from non-institutional sources (i.e. NCAA, Conference, etc.)? 1. If so, what is the breakdown? (No) a. Why not? b. What would motivate your institution to establish a NCAA CHAMPS/Life Skills program? 8. Are you aware that NCAA Bylaw 16.3.1.2 requires all Division I member institutions to have the NCAA CHAMPS/Life Skills program or a comparable equivalent on campus? 9. Are there other departments/units at your inst itution that could fulfill the 5 components of the NCAA CHAMPS/Life Skills program? a. If yes, does the athletic department ut ilize their services in part or whole? 10. Do you believe the NCAA CHAMPS/Life Skills program is sufficient in meeting the community relations and soci al responsibility needs of the athletic department? a. If yes, how so? b. If no, how can it be improved?

PAGE 111

111 LIST OF REFERENCES Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned beha vior. Organizational Be havior Human Decision Process, 50, 179. Ajzen, I. (2001). Nature and operation of a ttitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27 58. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understandi ng attitudes and predic ting social behavior. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Alderfer, C. P. (1972). Existence, relatedness, and growth: Human needs in organizational settings. New York, NY: The Free Press. Allen, R.F., & Allen, J. (1987). A Sense of commun ity, a shared vision and a positive culture of health promotion. American Journa l of Health Promotion, 1(3), 40. Allison, L., Okun, M. & Dutridge, K. (2002). Assessing volunteer motives: A comparison of an open-ended probe and likert scale ratings. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 12, 243. Allport, F. H. (1924). Social psyc hology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Allport, G. W. (1935). Attitudes. In C. Mu rchinson (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (p. 798). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press. Allport, F. H. & Allport, G. W. (1921). Persona lity traits, their classification and measurement. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 16, 6. Altman, B.W. (1999). Transformed corporate co mmunity relations: A management tool for achieving corporate citizenship. Busi ness and Society Review, 102(1), 43. Ambrose, M. L., & Kulik, C. T. (1999). Old friends, new faces: Motivation research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 231. Andereck, K. L., Valentine, K. M., Knopf, R. C ., & Vogt, C. A. (2005). Residents perceptions of community tourism impacts. Annals of Tourism Research, 32(4), 1056. Anderson, D. F., & Stone, G. P. (1981). Sport: A search for community. In S. L. Greendorfer & A. Yiannakis (Eds.), Sociology of sport: Dive rse perspectives (164). West Point, NY: Leisure Press. Batson, C. D., Ahmad, N., & Tsang, J. (2002). Four motives for community involvement. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 429. Berger, J.B. (1997). Sense of comm unity in residence halls, social integration, and the first-year persistence. Journal of College Student Development, 38(5), 441.

PAGE 112

112 Blackshaw, T. & Long, J. (1998). A critical exam ination of the advantages of investigating community and leisure from a social netw ork perspective. Leisure Studies, 17, 233. Blau, P. M. (1964). Justice in social exchange. Sociological Inquiry, 34, 193. Blau, P. M. (1986). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Bolino, M. C. (1999). Citizenship and impressi on management: Good soldiers or good actors? Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 82. Bruning, S. D., Langenhop, A., & Green, K. A. ( 2004). Examining city-resident relationships: Linking community relations, rela tionship building activities, and satisfaction evaluations. Public Relations Review, 30, 335. Bui, K. T., Peplau, L. A., & Hill, C. T. (1996). Testing the rusbult model of relationship commitment and stability in a 15-year st udy of heterosexual couples. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(12), 1244. Burke, E. M. (1999). Corporate community relati ons: The principle of the neighbor of choice. Westport, CT: Quorum Books /Greenwood Publishing Group. Carley, K. (1993). Coding Choices for Textual An alysis: A comparison of content analysis and map analysis. Sociolog ical Methodology, 23, 75-126. Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship. (2005). The state of corporate citizenship in the U.S.: Business perspectives in 2005. Boston, MA: Carroll School of Management. Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and So cial Psychology, 39, 752 766. Chaiken, S. & Stangor, C. (1987). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 575. Chave, E. J. (1928). A new type scale for m easuring attitudes. Religious Education, 23, 364 380. Chavis, D. M., Hogge, J. H., McMillan, D. W ., & Wandersman, A. (1986) Sense of community through Brunswiks lens: A first look. J ournal of Community Psychology, 14(1), 24. Chavis, D. M., & Pretty, G. M. H. (1999). Sens e of community: Advances in measurement and application. Journal of Community Psychology, 27(6), 635. Chipuer, H., & Pretty, G. M. H. (1999). A revi ew of the Sense of Co mmunity Index: Current uses, factor structure, reli ability, and further developm ent. Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 643.

PAGE 113

113 Clark, C. (2000). Differences between public rela tions and corporate soci al responsibility: An analysis. Public Relations Review, 26(3), 363. Clary, E. G., & Snyder, M. (1999). The motivati ons to volunteer: Theo retical and practical considerations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 156. Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copela nd, J., Stukas, A. A., Haugen, J., & Meine, P. (1998). Understanding and assessing the motivat ions of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of Personality a nd Social Psychology, 74, 1516. Cook, K. S., & Emerson, R. M. (1978). Power, e quity and commitment in exchange networks. American Sociological Review, 43(5), 721. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficien t alpha and the internal struct ure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334. Davidson, W. B., & Cotter, P. R. (1993). Psyc hological sense of community and support for public school taxes. American Journa l of Community Psychology, 21(1), 59. Deci, E. L. (1992). On the nature and functions of motivation theories. Psychological Science, 3(3), 167. Dietz-Uhler, B. & Murrell, A. (1999). Examining fan reactions to game outcomes: A longitudinal study of social identity. Journal of Sport Behavior, 22(1), 15. DiMaggio, P., Evans, J., & Bryson, B. (1996). Have americans social at titudes become more polarized? The American Journa l of Sociology, 102(3), 690-755. Doise, W. (1988). Individual and so cial identities in intergroup relations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 99 111. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace. Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2, 335. Faris, E. (1929). Attitudes and behavi or. American Journal of Sociology, 34, 271. Fishbein, M. (1963). An investigat ion of the relationships between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward that object. Human Relations, 16, 233. Fishbein, M. (1967). A consideration of beliefs a nd their role in attitude measurement. In M. Fishbein (Ed.), Readings in attitude th eory and measurement (p. 389). New York: Wiley.

PAGE 114

114 Fishbein, M. (1979). A theory of reasoned action: Some applications and implications. In H. Howe and M. Page (Eds.), Nebraska sym posium on motivation (p. 65). Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1972). Attitudes a nd opinions. Annual Review of Psychology, 23, 487. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1974). Attitudes toward objects as predictors of single and multiple behavioral criteria. Ps ychological Review, 81, 59-74. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attit ude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1980). Predicting a nd understanding consumer behavior: Attitudebehavior correspondence. In I. Ajzen and M. Fishbein (Eds .), Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Engl ewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Fishbein, M., & Middlestadt, S. E. (1995). N oncognitive effects on attitude formation and change: fact or artifact? Jour nal of Consumer Psychology, 4, 181. Fishbein, M., & Middlestadt, S. E. (1997). A striking lack of evidence for nonbelief-based attitude formation and change: A response to five commentaries. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 6, 107. Fulks, D. L. (2005). 2002-03 NCAA revenues and e xpenses of divisions I and II intercollegiate athletic programs report. I ndianapolis, IN: National Colle giate Athletic Association. Funk, D. C. & James, J. D. (2001). The psychol ogical continuum model (PCM): A conceptual framework for understanding an individuals psychological connection to sport. Sport Management Review, 4, 119. Gibson, H. J., Willming, C., & Holdnak, A. (2003). Small-scale event sport tourism: fans as tourists. Tourism Management, 24(2), 181. Gidron, B. (1984). Predictors of retention and tu rnover among service volunteer workers. Journal of Social Service Research, 8, 1. Glynn, T. J. (1981). Psychological sense of co mmunity: Measurement and application. Human Relations, 34, 780. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciproc ity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review 25: 16 Green, C. B. (2001). Leveraging subculture and identity to promote sports events. Sport Management Review, 4, 1.

PAGE 115

115 Hall, M. R. (2006). Corporate philanthropy a nd corporate community relations: Measuring relationship-building results. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(1), 1. Hansen, H., & Gauthier, R. (1992) Marketing objectives of pr ofessional and university sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 6, 27. Havitz, M. E., & Dimanche, F. (1999). Leisur e involvement revisited: Drive properties and paradoxes. Journal of Leis ure Research, 31(2), 122. Herr, P. M. (1995). Whither fact, artifact, and attitude: Reflections on the theory of reasoned action. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 4(4), 371. Hersey, P., Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, D. E. (2001). Management of organizational behavior: Leading human resources. Upper Sa ddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hillman, A. J., & Keim, G. D. (2001). Shareholde r values, stakeholder management, and social issues: Whats the bottom line? Stra tegic Management Journal, 22, 125. Homans, G. C. (1958). Social behavior as exch ange. American Journal of Sociology, 63(6), 597 606. Homans, G. C. (1961) Social Be havior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt Brace and World, Inc. Iwasaki, Y., & Havitz, M. E. (1998). A path analytic model of the relationships between involvement, psychological commitment, and loya lty. Journal of Leisure Research, 30(2), 256. Iwasaki, Y., & Havitz, M. E. (2004). Examini ng Relationships between Leisure Involvement, Psychological Commitment and Loyalty to a Recreation Agency. Journal of Leisure Research, 36(1), 45. Kelley, H. H. and Thibaut, J. (1978) Interpersona l relations: A theory of interdependence. New York: Wiley. Kelman, H. C. (1958). Introduction: Studies on attitude and communication. Conflict Resolution, 2(1), 1. Kim, S., Scott, D., & Crompton, J. L. (1997). An exploration of the relationships among social psychological involvement, beha vioral involvement, commitment, and future intentions in the context of birdwatching. Journa l of Leisure Research, 29(3), 320. Kotler, P., & Andreasen, A. R. (1991). Stra tegic marketing for nonprofit organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

PAGE 116

116 Kruckeberg, D., & Starck, K. (1988). Public re lations and community: A reconstructed theory. New York: Praeger. Kuhn, M. H. & McPartland, T. S. (1954). An empiri cal investigation of se lf-attitudes. American Sociological Review, 19(1), 68-76. Laurent, G., & Kapferer, J. (1985). Measuring consumer involvement profiles. Journal of Marketing Research, 22(1), 41. Lawler, E. J. (2001). An affect theory of so cial exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 107(2), 321. Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (2001). Ma naging community relationships to maximize mutual benefit: Doing well by doing good. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (p. 527). Thousand Oa ks, CA: Sage Publications. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theore tical papers. New York: Harper. Major League Baseball [MLB ]. (2006). Community programs New York: MLB Advanced Media. Retrieved October 10, 2006 from http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/ community/programs.jsp Matsumoto, D. (1993). Ethnic differences in affect intensity, emotion judgments, display rule attitudes, and self-repo rted emotional expression in an American sample. Motivation and Emotion, 17(2), 107-123. McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Se nse of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6. Mitchell, T. R. (1982). Motivation: New directions for theory, re search and practice. Academy of Management Review, 7(1), 80. Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commit ment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58, 20. Morias, D. B., Dorsch, M. J., & Backman, S. J. (2004). Can tourism providers buy their customers loyalty? Examining the influence of customer-provider investments on loyalty. Journal of Travel Research, 42, 235. National Basketball Association [NBA]. (2006) NBA cares. New York: NBA Media Ventures. Retrieved October 10, 2006 from http://www.nba.com/nba_cares/ National Basketball Players Association [NBP A]. (2006). Collective bargaining agreement: Player conduct. New York: NBPA Retrieved October 10, 2006 from http://nbpa.org/cba_a rticles/article-VI.php

PAGE 117

117 National Collegiate Athletic A ssociation, NCAA. (2006a). Membership services. Indianapolis, IN: NCAA. Indianapolis IN: NCAA. Retrieved October 10, 2006 from http://www2.ncaa.org/portal/about_ncaa/ membership/ National Collegiate Athletic Association, NCAA. (2006b). About the NCAA: Budget and finances. Indianapolis, IN: NCAA Retrieved October 10, 2006 from http://www2.ncaa.org/ portal/about_ncaa/ budget_and_finances/index.html National Collegiate Athletic Association, NCAA. (2006c). Champs/life skills program. Indianapolis, IN: NCAA. Re trieved October 10, 2006 from http://www1.ncaa.org/ membership/ed_outreach/cham ps-life_skills/index.html National Collegiate Athletic Association, NC AA. (2006d). Academics and athletics: Youth programs. Indianapolis, IN: NCAA Retrieved October 10, 2006 from http://www2.ncaa.org/portal/acade mics_and_athletes/youth/index.html National Football League [NFL]. (2006). NFL in the community: Join the team. New York: NFL Enterprises. Retrieved October 10, 2006 from http://www.jointheteam.com/programs/ National Hockey League [NHL]. (2006). NHL community platform. New York: NHL Enterprises. Retrieved October 10, 2006 from http://www.nhl.com/nhlhq/community/ National Restaurant Association [NRA]. ( 2006). Community relations study. Washington, DC: National Restaurant Association. Retrieved October 10, 2006 from http://www.restaurant.org/community/facts.cfm Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill. Omoto, A. M., & Snyder, M. (1995). Sustai ned helping without ob ligation: Motivation, longevity of service, and perceived attitude change among AIDS volunteers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 671. Penner, L. A., & Finkelstein, M. A. (1998). Di spositional and structural determinants of volunteerism. Journal of Personali ty and Social Psychology, 74, 525. Petty, R. E. & Cacioppo, T. J. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: Brown. Robinson, M. J., Trail ,G. T., Dick, R. J., & G illentine, A. J. (2003). Motives and points of attachment: Fans versus spectators. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12, 217. Robinson, M. J., Trail ,G. T., Dick, R. J., & Gill entine, A. J. (2005). Fans vs. spectators: An analysis of those who attend intercollegiate football games. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 14(1), 43.

PAGE 118

118 Rothschild, M. L. (1984). Perspectives on involve ment: Current problems and future directions. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 216. Roy, D. P. & Graeff, T. R. (2003). Consumer attitudes toward cause-rela ted marketing activities in professional sports. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12 (3), 163. Royal, M., & Rossi, R. (1996). Individual level co rrelates of sense of community: Findings from workplace and school. Journal of Community Psychology, 24(4), 39516. Rugg, H. O. (1920). Rating scales for pupils dynamic qualities standardizing methods of judging human character. Th e School Review, 28(5), 337. Rusbult, C. E. (1983). A longitudinal test of the investment model: The development (and deterioration) of satisfaction and commitment in heterosexual involvements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 101. Sherman, M. (1935). Theories and measurements of attitudes. Child Development, 3(1), 15. Sloan, L. R. (1989). The motives of sport fans. In J. H. Goldstein (Ed.), Sport, games, and play: Social & psychological viewpoints (2nd ed., 175240). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Smith, D. H. (1981). Altruism, volunteers, and volunteerism. Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 10, 21. Street and Smiths Sport Business Journal [SBJ ]. (2006). Sports industr y overview. Retrieved October 10, 2006 from http://www.sportsbusinessjourna l.com/index.cfm?fuseaction =page.feature&featureId=43 Stukas, A. A., & Dunlap, M. R. (2002). Commun ity involvement: Theoretical approaches and educational initiatives. Journa l of Social Issues, 58(3), 411. Thibault, J. W. and Kelley, H. H. (1959) Th e social psychology of groups, New York: Wiley. Thurstone, L. L. (1928). Attitudes can be m easured. American Journal of Sociology, 33, 529 554. Tindall, D. B., & Wellman, B. (2001) Canada as Social Structure: Social Ne twork Analysis and Canadian Sociology. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 26, 3, 265. Trail, G. T., Anderson, D. F., & Fink, J. S. (2005) Consumer satisfaction and identity theory: A model of sport spectator c onative loyalty. Sport Market ing Quarterly, 14(2), 98. Trail, G. T., & James, J. D. (2001). The motiva tion scale for sport consumption: Assessment of the scales psychometric properties. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 108.

PAGE 119

119 Turner, J. (1987). Social exchange theory: Futu re directions, in K. S. Cook (ed.), Social Exchange Theory. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Voelker, P. F. (1921). The function of ideals and attitudes in social education. Teachers College Contribution to Education, 112. Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). The corporate social performance financial performance link. Strategic Ma nagement Journal, 18(4), 303. Zenisek, T. J. (1979). Corpor ate social responsibility: A conceptualization based on organizational literature. The Academ y of Management Review, 4(3), 359. Zhang, J. J., Lam, E. T. C., Bennett, G., & Connaughton, D. P. (2003). Comfirmatory factor analysis of the spectator decision-making i nventory. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 7(2), 57. Zhang, J. J., Pease, D. G., & Hui, S. C. (1996) Value dimensions of professional sports as viewed by spectators. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 21, 78. Zillmann, D., Bryant, J., & Sapolsky, B. S. (1989). Enjoyment from sport spectatorship. In J. H. Goldstein (Ed.), Sport, games, and pl ay: Social & psychological viewpoints (2nd ed., 241 278). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

PAGE 120

120 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Simone Francis was born in Jamaica but rais ed in Miami, Florida which she has called home since childhood. In 2000, she graduated in the top 10% of her class from Coral Gables Senior High School in Coral Gables Florida. She then attended the University of Florida (UF) in Gainesville, Florida. While there she served in various leadership roles in several student organizations. Through these experiences, she f ound her niche in sport and event management. Her experiences also inspired her to double majo r in business management and recreation with a specialization in event management in 2003. One y ear later, Simone graduated from UF with a Bachelor of Science in busine ss administration (management) and a Bachelor of Science in recreation, parks and tourism (event management) in 2004. In the spring of 2005, Simone entered graduate school in the College of Health and Human Performance at her alma mater, the University of Florida. During this time, she was a graduate intern at the University Athletic Association, Inc. in the Office of Student Life. In this capacity, she works primarily with the G.A.T.O.R.S. CHAMPS/Life Skills program. She also participated in market research and practicum opportunities in sport management and was able to incorporate research and practical experiences into her graduate school career. This broadened her knowledge of the field and motivated her to pursu e the thesis option of her academic program. In August 2007, Simone was awarded a Master of Science degree in sport management. Simone pursued a career in sport marketing and continued to develop her research agenda that contributed and advanced the fields of sport marketing and sport management.