Citation
The Sport Spectators Perceived Crisis and Preferred Organizations Responses

Material Information

Title:
The Sport Spectators Perceived Crisis and Preferred Organizations Responses
Creator:
Ho, Ming-Shen
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
Florida
Publisher:
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Language:
english
Physical Description:
1 online resource (63 p.)

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Degree:
Master's ( M.S.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Sport Management
Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management
Committee Chair:
Ko, Yong Jae
Committee Members:
Kerwin, Shannon M
Connaughton, Daniel P
Graduation Date:
8/11/2012

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Accident causes ( jstor )
Blame ( jstor )
Customers ( jstor )
Emotional expression ( jstor )
Marketing ( jstor )
Modeling ( jstor )
Perceptual organization ( jstor )
Public relations ( jstor )
Transgression ( jstor )
Trust ( jstor )
Tourism, Recreation, and Sport Management -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
crisis -- responses -- responsesstrategy -- scandal -- sportcrisis
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent) ( marcgt )
born-digital ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
Sport Management thesis, M.S.

Notes

Abstract:
Crisis management is one of the hot topics in sport industry. This is due to the emerging of so many crises in sports industry. However, previous crisis management studies only focus on how to prevent. This is not enough for handling crises. In contrast, how to choose a suitable response is essential for companies’ effort in public relations. Previous studies had no empirical support for how to choose responses strategies when crisis happened. Thus, in order to fill this gap, the purpose of this study were to test (a) sport spectators’ perceptions about crises involved in sporting events, (b) sport spectators’ perceptions about types of organization’s responses toward the crises and its role in predicting behavioral intention, (c) the role of spectators’ trust and commitment in predicting their perceptions about crises and organizations’ responses for the crises, and (d) the type of risk (accident vs. transgression)on the perception about risk and response.   Data were collected in a southeastern university. The results of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)supported the relationship from Crisis Severity to Spectators’ Emotion, Crisis Responsibility to Organizational Image, and Organizational Image to Visit Intention. The results of ANCOVA showed that Rebuild has more effects on Crisis Responsibility rather than Apology under Transgression. Also, when comparing spectators’ perception toward two crises, spectators would draw more responsibility and have lower visit intention on Transgression rather than Accident.    This present can make both theoretical and managerial contributions. Future researchers can further develop Crisis Communication Model based on the findings in this study. On the other hand,sport managers should pay more attention on dealing with Transgression, and Rebuild still is the best strategy to handle it. Also, sport organizations need to build their positive image anytime. This is due to image will directly lead to visit intention, and it would decrease when spectators think they should pay responsibility for crisis. ( en )
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.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2012.
Local:
Adviser: Ko, Yong Jae.
Electronic Access:
RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2014-08-31
Statement of Responsibility:
by Ming-Shen Ho.

Record Information

Source Institution:
UFRGP
Rights Management:
Copyright Ho, Ming-Shen. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Embargo Date:
8/31/2014
Resource Identifier:
857767147 ( OCLC )
Classification:
LD1780 2012 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 RESPONSES By MING SHEN HO A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2012

PAGE 2

2 2012 Ming Shen Ho

PAGE 3

3 To my family and friends

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I want to thank my advisor Dr. Yong Jae Ko. He is the most important person in my master career. Without his help, this study c annot be finished. I really appreciate his kindness, patien ce and excellent advice. Also, I want to thank my committee members Dr. Shannon Kerwin, and Dr. Dan Connaughton. They always give me appropriate suggestions, and these suggestions always can make my works easy. I want to further thank all my friends in the University of Florida. I am glad to be here, and have a chance to know everyone here. Without their encouragement, it is hard to live alone in a foreign country. Especially, I want to thank Ryan T. Wang, a Ph.D. candidate in University of Florida. He always tried to help me in this field, and g a ve me suggestions to make me better. Finally, I want to thank my p arents Hsiu Feng Tsai and Hung Tsai Ho. They always give me fully support in every way. I am really glad and happy to be their son. Also, I want to thank to my girlfriend Joanna S. Lin. She helps me both in the thesis and in life. Without anyone, I cannot finish this work. Again, I really appreciate everyone in th ese two years.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF C ONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 7 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 8 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 11 Statement of Problems ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 12 Purpose of Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 14 Contribution of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 15 Limitations of the Study ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 16 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 17 Crisis ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 17 Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) ................................ ................................ 18 Response Strategies ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 19 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 20 ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 21 Research Questions and Hypothesis Development ................................ ................................ 22 Accident ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 22 Transgression ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 23 A Research Model and Hypotheses ................................ ................................ ........................ 23 Trust and Commitment ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 24 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 28 Participants and Procedures ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 28 Stimuli Development ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 29 Types of Crises ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 29 ................................ ................................ ............................... 29 Instruments ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 29 Trust and Commitment ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 30 Perceived crises and response strategies ................................ ................................ ......... 30 Visit Intention ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 31 Manipulation Check ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 32 Demographics ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 32 Data Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 32

PAGE 6

6 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 34 Demographics ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 34 Descriptive Statistics ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 34 Crisis Responsibility When Crisis Happened ................................ ................................ .. 34 Emotion When Crisis Happened ................................ ................................ ..................... 34 Image When Crisis Happened ................................ ................................ ......................... 34 Visit Intention When Crisis Happened ................................ ................................ ............ 35 Severity Of Crisis When Crisis Happened ................................ ................................ ...... 35 Crisis Responsibility after Responses ................................ ................................ ............. 35 Emotion after Responses ................................ ................................ ................................ 35 Image after Responses ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 35 Visit Intention after Responses ................................ ................................ ........................ 36 Trust ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 36 Commitment ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 36 Reliability of the Measurement Scale ................................ ................................ ..................... 36 Measurement model Test ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 37 Structural Equatio n Modeling (SEM) Test ................................ ................................ ............. 37 ANCOVA Test ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 37 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 46 Theoreti cal Contributions ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 47 Managerial Contributions ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 49 Limitations and Future Directions ................................ ................................ .......................... 51 APPENDIX : QUESTIONNAIRE ................................ ................................ ................................ 53 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 58 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 63

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 Descriptive of Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ 39 4 2 Summary result for measurement model test ................................ ................................ ..... 40 4 3 Path coefficient and statistical significance ................................ ................................ ....... 41 4 4 Summary result for items used in responses test ................................ ............................... 43

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 The proposed research model ................................ ................................ ............................ 27 4 1 Result of Hypothesis test (H1~H5) ................................ ................................ .................... 42 4 2 Main effects among responses strategies in Accident ................................ ....................... 44 4 3 Main effects among responses strategies in Transgression ................................ ............... 45

PAGE 9

9 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 RESPONSES By Ming Shen Ho August 2012 Chair: Yong Jae Ko Major: Sport Management Crisis management is one of the hot topics in sport industry. This is due to the emerging of so many crises in sports industry. However, previous crisis managem ent studies only focus on how to prevent. This is not enough for handling crises. In contrast, how to choose a suitable support for how to choose responses s trategies when crisis happened. Thus, in order to fill this gap, the purpose of this study were to test to crises, and (d) the type of risk (accident vs. transgression ) on the perception about risk and response. Data were collected in a southeastern university. The results of Structural Equation Responsibility to Organization al Image, and Organizational Image to Visit Intention. The results of ANCOVA showed that Rebuild has more effects on Crisis Responsibility rather than Apology

PAGE 10

10 wo uld draw more responsibility and have lower visit intention on Transgression rather than Accident. This present can make both theoretical and managerial contributions. Future researchers can further develop Crisis Communication Model based on the findin gs in this study. On the other hand, sport managers should pay more attention on dealing with Transgression, and Rebuild still is the best strategy to handle it. Also, sport organizations need to build their positive image anytime. This is due to image wil l directly lead to visit intention, and it would decrease when spectators think they should pay responsibility for crisis.

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Athletics is one of the fastest growing industries (Milano & Chelladurai, 2011). For instance, U.S. prof essional sports franchises, including the National Football League (NFL), the National Basketball Association (NBA), and the National Hockey League (NHL), generated $24.1 billion in revenue in 2011 (Ripley, 2011). Moreover, the sports industry grew by more than 50 % between 1999 and 2005,and has been predicted to keep growing steadily through 2016 (Ripley, 2011). In Asia, the sports industry has been valued at more than 10 billion since 2000 in Korea and China, sharing a similar portion of the GDP as in the United States (Huang & Chang, 2011). Although the future of the sports industry is very promising, sports managers cannot let down their guard when managing in this industry because an unexpected crisis could drastically curb its growth. Since competitio n within and between leagues has intensified, crises have emerged in such forms as match fixing, drug issues, and vicious recruitment. Those crises, which organizations need to face, are inevitable (Mazanov & Connor, 2010) Therefore, crisis management has become an essential topic today. Some scholars have demonstrated that a crisis 2009; Huber, Vollhardt, Matthes, and Vogel, 2010). In a sports context, positive bran d image accompanies substantial benefits for sport organizations, such as fan loyalty and higher revenue (Bauer, Stokburger Sauer, & Exler, 2005; Ross, James, & Vargas, 2006). When brand image is tarnished by a crisis, sports brands can be seriously damage d. For instance, the Chinese Professional Baseball League (CPBL) in Taiwan has faced a drastic decrease in game attendance and fan support since 1997 because several match fixing scandals were disclosed, and the image

PAGE 12

12 of CPBL was hurt (Wang, Zhang, & Tsuji 2010). Therefore, how to control damage from crises and how to reposition their image has become an important issue for sport managers. Statement of Problems In the field of public relations, most crisis management research es have focused on how to pre vent crises from happening. Pearson and Clair (1998) define organizational crisis management as an attempt by organizations to prevent crises from occurring. However, in reality, crises are inevitable, so how to mitigate the damage from a crisis becomes a very important issue. Some scholars in the public relations area advocate an immediate response after a crisis happens (Benoit, 1995; Coombs, 2007; Siomkos & Shrivastava, 1993). Moreover, according to the Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT), the only method that firms can use to restore their image and minimize damage to their reputation after a crisis happens is to adopt and implement effective response strategies (Coombs, 2007). Sharing some beliefs with Image Restoration Theory (Benoit, 1997) SCCT divides organization tries to minimize the perceived damage from a organization acknowledges a crisis and promises to recover. Response strategies have three major goals, including shaping the attribution of a crisis, changing the perceptions of the organization in the crisis, and reducin g the damage generated by the crisis (Coombs, 1995). Although rebuild strategies offer the most aid to victims, they are not always the most suitable response strategies. This is because firms sometimes implement response strategies in limited resource. Fo r instance, every firm has different levels of financial capabilities. Smaller firms cannot always afford the cost of rebuilding and so they sometimes can only choose less expensive approaches (Coombs, 2007). Moreover, implementing overt response strategie s may

PAGE 13

13 lead customers to view the crisis as much worse than they had thought, causing adverse effects (Coombs, 2007; Siomkos & Kurzbard, 1994 ). Accordingly, the choice of response strategies should correspond to suitable crisis types (Benoit, 1997; Coombs & Halladay, 1996). ls for forgiveness (Coombs, 2007). The totally different. To classify crisis types, Coombs and Holladay (1996) proposed a commonly used two by two matrix model. According to the Attribution Theory, people judge the attribution of crisis in terms of stability, external control, and personal co ntrol (Coombs & Holladay, 1996). Based on Attribution Theory, they used external control and intentionality to develop their model. The measure of external control was divided into internal and external. The difference between internal and external depends on whether the crisis was created by the organization itself. The measure of intentionality was divided into intentional and unintentional. The difference is whether the organization created the crisis purposely. In a sports context, Wilson, Stavros, and Westberg (2010) applied the crisis typology from Coombs and Holladay (1996) and made sports crisis typology more specific. This typology distinguishes among four types of crises: accident, faux pas, transgression, and terrorism. Accidents and Faux pas are unintentional, yet accidents are internal. Transgression and terrorism are intentional, but transgression is internal. Though the danger of crises as well as the need to find suitable strategies to respond to crises are obvious, these topics have rarely be en studied in the sports context to date. In other

PAGE 14

14 what response they preferred. In the field of public relations, Coombs (1995) provided a guideline for choos ing suitable response strategies; however, the guideline was created only by a literature review. Without empirical studies, it is difficult to develop effective strategies. Thus, the outcome is remains questionable. In the sports context, Dutta and Pullig (2011) tried to find the relationship between crisis and response strategies; however, due to the limitation of the crisis type and response strategies that they chose in their study, the relationship remains indistinct. This study attempted to fill this gap between sports crisis types and response strategies, as well as offer some implications to help sports organizations face crises. Furthermore, previous studies only focused on proving the importance of choosing response strategies suitable to differen t crises (Coombs & Halladay, 1996; Dutta & Pullig, 2011), organizations influen ced their attribution of responsibility (Coombs, 2007). Trust and commitment are two major concepts in relationship marketing studies. Trust enables customers to accept more of what organizations offer (Bendapudi & Berry, 1997), which then enhances custome Commitment can also facilitate ed to ferred response strategies. Purpose of Study crises involved in spo rts team responses toward the cris es and its role in predicting behavioral intention, (c) Propose and test a

PAGE 15

15 research model incorporating key variables of sport crisis and spectators responses (d) the type of risk (accident vs. transgression) on the perception about risk and response. C ontribution of the Study as a managerial contribution, if this study can answer these Research Questions, then sports managers can exploit their budget more efficiently when they face accident and transgression crises, especiall y for those leagues that lack abundant financial resources. If spectators prefer a less costly response, sports organizations do not always have to expend a large amount of money to solve a crisis. Instead, they can choose cheap responses to attain similar effects as an expensive response and can still achieve their goal. Also, they can focus on creating relationships of high trust and commitment with their customers to assist in their efforts to restore their image. This would also bring some benefits for their business. If sports organizations can have a high trust and high acceptance of what they offer after a crisis. This study can make a significant theoretical contribu tion to the public relation and sport literature, and risk management studies in particular. Before this study, there was a dearth of literature on this topic. This study is the first to use sports crisis typology of Wilson et al. (2010), which was the fir st sports specific crisis typology. After the Research Questions have been answered, this crisis typology will be more widely accepted. Moreover, researchers still lack their own theory of crisis communication in the sports field, so this study is conducte d based on can further adapt this theory to a new sports crisis communication model.

PAGE 16

16 Limitations of the Study This study has some limitations that should be consid ered by future researchers. First, this study cannot test every subcategories of response strategies. It is necessary that future studies need to focus on the contour of the relationship between crisis and response strategies by considering every subcate gories. Furthermore, the samples were collected from only one geographic area. Therefore, future studies should collect more information from a broader

PAGE 17

17 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Crisis (Allen & Caillouet, 1994). Threats exist only when a) customers believe that organizations are responsible for the action, and b) the action was considered offensive (Benoit, 1997). I n a general business would harm the brand equity by hurting brand confidence and brand consideration (Dutta & Pullig, 2011). Specifically, a crisis can cau se serious damage to brand image (Dawer & Lei, 2009; Huber et al., 2010), one of the most important components of brand equity (Keller, brand loyalty (Keller, 1 993). Moreover, since the products that sports can offer are unique compared with general physical products ( Gladden, Milne & Sutton, 1989 ), better understanding of branding in a sports context becomes necessary. Thus, sports scholars have started research ing branding in the sports context and considering sports organizations as brands ( Bauer et al., 2005; Gladden & Funk, 2001 ). Accompanying this greater attention to branding in the sports context, the topic of sports crisis has also started to attract atte ntion as an essential topic. In the sports context, Wilson et al. (2010) applied the famous crisis typology from Coombs and Holladay (1996), and proposed a framework of sports crisis typology. Also, based on Attribution Theory, the sports crisis typology was divided into intentionality and the extent of outside control into a two by two matrix model. The four dimensions of sports crisis are Accident, Faux Pas, Transgression, and Terrorism. Accidents are unintentional and internal. For example, a player hit face. And the spectator got damage (Fried & Ammon Jr., 2002). A faux pas is unintentional and

PAGE 18

18 external, and sometimes even is not considered as crisis. This is because the am biguity surrounding the issue of whether the organizations did anything wrong enables organizations to persuade consumers that they made no mistake (Coombs & Halladay, 1996). Transgression is intentional and internal, and is considered the most dangerous t ype of crisis. For instance, match fixing scandals occurred in Taiwanese professional baseball five times within 20 years, creating an image crisis that was hard to recover from, and causing a large reduction in game attendance and fan support (Wang et al. 2010). Also, a lot of MLB players have been suspended due to the usage of doping. This is also an essential Transgression crisis in MLB recently. Terrorism is intentional and external. In this type of crisis, sports organizations are also sometimes victi ms. For example, a spectator once attacked a tennis player. In this case, both the tennis player and other spectators were victims, so consumers may not blame the sports organizations for this (Coombs & Halladay, 1996). Due to the predictable nature of the danger caused by a crisis, some scholars have started to seek efficient ways to manage the damage. Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT) In order for a manager to protect against a crisis and restore brand image afterwards, Coombs (2007) propos ed Situational Crisis Communication Theory (SCCT), which was based on Attribution Theory. According to Attribution Theory, people search for the causes of events, and more so for negative events (Weiner, 1985). When people attribute responsibility for a cr isis to organizations, they have a negative emotional reaction toward those organizations. Both the attribution of responsibility and emotional reaction are key factors to behavior intentions (Coombs, 2007). Extending the concept from Attribution Theory, S CCT offers a framework for the process of describing how a crisis would lead to behavioral intentions. In the SCCT model, attribution of responsibility for a cris

PAGE 19

19 p.167). If a crisis happens regularly, people would ascribe more responsibility to organizations ( (Coombs, 2007, p. 167). For instance, Porritt (2005) illustrated that pr ior relational reputation would be negative when the organization treats their stakeholders badly. Also, poor prior relational reputation implies that an organization was not truly concerned about their stakeholders (Coombs, 2007). Nonetheless, organizatio ns can only influence their crisis history and prior relational reputation before a crisis happens. That is, response strategies are the only way by which organizations can prevent image damage after crisis. Thus, the next section will introduce some commo n typologies of response strategies. Response Strategies An immediate response to a crisis is important because the speed with which organizations respond to a crisis can determine whether their efforts to the crisis succeed or not (Siomkos & Shrivastav a, 1993). Thus, organizations should have response plans in order to face crises more effectively. Before establishing different response strategies for different types of crises, organizations should know how many and what types of response strategies the y should choose. Numerous researchers have already categorized typologies of response strategies. Among them, the typology of image repair strategies offered by this theory is usually used in image repair studies developed and refined other response strategies in SCCT (Coombs, 2000, 2007). This typology is considered the most rela ted to public relation efforts (Seeger, Sellnow, & Ulmer, 2003).

PAGE 20

20 Based on previous studies, Benoit (1997) proposed a typology of image restoration strategies that can be used for both individuals and organizations. This typology has fiv e categories: denial, evading responsibility, reducing offensiveness of event, corrective action, and mortification. transfer responsibility to others. deficiency of information results in the crisis; accident, i.e., when the whole situation is just an accident and cannot be controlled by the organization; and good intentions, when the crisis was produced with good intentions. what the organizations did positively in the past, and which tends to enable customers to custom ers by persuading them that the accused action is not serious; differentiation, which compares the accused action with other similar but more serious events; transcendence, which emphasizes that the organizations have more important goals and consideration s; attacking the accuser, which is when those organizations decide to damage the credibility of the accuser; and compensation, when organizations reimburse victims in order to change their image. rganizations or individuals promise to correct the problem. The goal of corrective action is not only to offset the current problems but

PAGE 21

21 the mistakes and asks f or forgiveness. been criticized because the typology is based on case studies instead of empirical studies, and offers no conceptual links between response strategie s and the crisis situation (Coombs, 2007). Coombs continually devoted his research to examining the relationship between crises and three categories including: deny, diminish, and rebuild. the mist the strategy whereby organizations blame someone outside for the mistakes. s stakeholders that the crisis is not as serious as they thought and that it is out of their control. ion of the crisis, and can be employed through minimizing the damage from the mistake, comparing it with other more serious crises, implying that they have more important goals, and clarifying that the crisis is not as serious as people thought. On the oth crisis. It can succeed by stating unwittingness and inability.

PAGE 22

22 responsibility and explains the whole situation to stakeholders, pleading for forgiveness; how future protection. Research Questions and Hypothesis Development Accident Accidents are unintentional. People perceive unintentional and intentional mistakes dif ferently. Under an unintentional crisis situation, it is much easier to shift responsibility because people assign blame according to whether the crisis was intentional (Knobe, 2006). For instance, when organizations stress that they did not intend to make mistakes, these actions can reduce their responsibility for the mistakes (Coombs & Holladay, 1996). According to SCCT, recover and the negative emotion will d less damaging to a brand, managers still need to protect their brand image in such crises. That is, customers have a basic need or an explanation when an adverse event happens (Mccoll Kennedy & Sparks, 2003). Explanations can reduce negative emotions, such as anger (Shaw, Wild, & Colquitt, 2003) and enable organizations to avoid being blamed by customers (Knobe, 2006). re established to provide direction for the current study.

PAGE 23

23 RQ1. RQ2. apology Transgression Transgressions, such as match fixing scandals, on the other hand, are intentional. This is because those players intentionally broke the law (Wilson et al., 2010). Customers believe that intentional mista kes are more worthy of criticism than unintentional ones because of disconfirmation of their expectation (Coombs & Halladay, 1996). From Schweitzer, Hershey, st. Also, a promise that prevents mistakes from happening again is a key factor in (1996) suggested that organizations should show how they can satisfy the expecta tions of Research Question s 3 and 4 were established to further explore RQ3. RQ4. What ar A Research Model and Hypotheses Based on SCCT (Coombs, 2007), the first set of hypotheses would assumed that everity of crisis would influence their perceptions toward crisis

PAGE 24

24 responsibility, emotion and organizational image (Coombs, 1998). As such, this study proposed the first set of hypotheses: H1 nal response would increase. H1 2: The severity of crisis increases is negatively related with organizational image. H1 responsibility. tudy, when customers draw more crisis responsibility on the firm, they develop much more negative image of the firm as well as negative emotion toward the firm. When spectators have more negative emotion, their image toward the organization would become mu ch worse. Thus, the current study proposed further hypotheses: H2 1: As spectators draw more crisis responsibility on a sport team, their overall emotional response would increase. H2 2: The perceived crisis responsibility on a sport team is negatively rel ated with their image of the team. image. Moreover, in their study, Coombs and Holladay (2001, 2004)found a positive relationship between Organizational Image and Be Behavioral Intentions. For example, customers who developed anegative Organizational Image would stop purchasing products from the company. Accordingly, this current study further proposed the other two hypotheses: H4: Organization al Image is positively related with Visit Intention. H 5 Trust and Commitment onsibility

PAGE 25

25 organizations influences how they attribute responsibility to organizations (Coombs, 2007). In a sports context, some researchers have advocated relationship marketing strategies ( Gladden & Sutton, 2009; Kim, Trail, & Ko, 2011 ); however, not every effort toward relationship marketing succeeds. Instead, trust and commitment are key mediators of relationship marketing from inputs to outputs (Morgan & Hunts, 1994). Also, in relationship marketing studies, trust and commitment are the two concepts that were studied and focused on most. vulnerability based upon positive exp Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer 1998, p. 395). In other words, the customers who highly trust the organizations can relationship bet ween customers and organizations would bring some favorable outcomes. For Moreover, trust also encourages consumers to consider conflicts as functional conflicts that are beneficial for business productivity (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Most importantly, trust facilitates enables customers to accept what organizations offer after a c risis has happened. (Moorman, Zaltman, & Desphande, 1992, p. 316). Relationship commitment exists when both customers and organizations agree on the importance of relatio nship and maximize their effort to ensure the indefinite relationships (Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Moreover, according to Morgan and Hunt (1994), commitment has three major benefits to sellers. First, with commitment, sellers receive acquiescence benefits from customers; that is, buyers accept further requests and policies from sellers when they have commitment to those sellers. Second, commitment reduces

PAGE 26

26 Third, sel lers derive cooperation benefits from customers. Since both parties realize the importance of the relationship, they tend to cooperate to solve problems instead of terminating their relationship. Furthermore, the goal of commitment is to maintain a valued relationship, and a valued relationship also gives sellers some benefits. According to Reichheld and Sasser (1990), to maintain a relationship between customers and firms causes firms to not only save transaction costs from customers but also earn more mon ey from customers. Therefore, commitment not only enables customers to accept what organizations offer after crisis but also encourages customers to keep a long term relationship with organizations. Moreover, Gender is the variable which was researched mos t in ethical issues. In previous studies, female were reported more ethical intention and behaviors (Dalton & Ortegren, 2011). In other words, female would have lower tolerance toward crises. Thus, gender would also have essential effects on the relationsh ip the construct of this study, Research Question 5 can be further introduced: RQ5. Do Trust and Commitment play covariate roles in the relationships among crisis resp and Visit Intention?

PAGE 27

27 Figure 2 1. The proposed research model

PAGE 28

28 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY A face to face survey investigation were conducted for this research, and the following sections described the p articipants and procedures, Stimuli Development, the instruments, and the data analysis. Participants and Procedures A factorial 2 (crisis types: Accident versus Transgression) x 3 (response strategies: diminish, apology versus rebuild) between groups qua si experimental design were employed. 248 participants successfully completed cases were included in the data analyses. Participants were college students in a large southeastern university. All of the participants joined this study voluntarily. The data were collected by face to face survey investigation, as well as online survey investigation. Participants were students in a large southern university. After participants had agreed to join this study, the researcher then explained the purpose of this st udy and the process of the survey. The procedure started by asking participants questions about the extent of their trust and commitment to the teams they supported in the major league baseball. After these questions, participants followed a scenario that enabled them to imagine the team they supported facing different types of crises. They were asked to answer questions about their perception of crises by asking Severity of Crisis, Crisis Responsibility, Organizational Image, and emotions, and then about t heir Visit intention. Then, the next paragraph explained one response strategy which the sports team used. After reading the paragraph, participants were prompted to describe their opinion toward response also by asking crisis responsibility, organization al image, and emotions, and then about their Visit intention. Finally, participants were asked about the manipulation check and supplied their demographic information.

PAGE 29

29 Stimuli Development Types of Crises Accident and Transgression were two types of crises examined in this study. This study focuse d on these two types of crises since that some researchers propose that the other two types of crises (i.e., Faux Pas and Terrorism) caused by external stimuli were much easier handled, comparing with other two cris es types, by organizations mitigated (Mattila, 2009). For example, under crisis situations of terrorism, customers would also perceive organizations as victims and thus would not blame organizations (Coombs & Halladay, 1996). Hence, this study only tr ied to study, which damage brand image to a larger extent. Howe ver, it as an independent strategy. The tally different. Thus, this study test ed Instruments The questionnaires were formulated in four parts: a) Trust and Commitment, b) Severity of Crisis, Crisis Responsibility, Organizational Image, and Sp d) Manipulation Check, and e) Demographics.

PAGE 30

30 Trust and Commitment The first section of the instrument included trust and commitment. The questionnaire tested these two indicators with four items. The first part of t item scale based on Crosby, Evans, and Cowles (1990) and Palmatier, Dant, and Grewal (2007) to fit a (2) Commitment was examined and modified by a three item scale from Mahony, Madrigal, By modifying this scale, the Being a fan of the team is importan Perceived Crises a nd Response Strategies Based on Situational Crisis Communication Theory (Coombs, 2007), response strategies anizational Reputation, and Emotion. However, organizational reputation consists of the accumulation of organizational image (Fombrun, 1996). Organizational reputation is hard to be changed only by the crisis and response immediately. Thus, this current st udy used Organizational Image to replace Organizational Reputation. Thus, the present study used these three indicators to investigate in different crises. A perception about crises. Crisis responsibility was measured by a three item scale developed by Griffin, Babin, and

PAGE 31

31 modified by the items developed by Griffin et al. (1992). Some scholars in the public relation area have used this scale to test cris is responsibility. For instance, Coombs (1998, 1999) and Coombs and Halladay (2001, 2002) employed this scale many times in their research. The Cronbach alpha range in these studies was from .80 to .91. A three item scale can be adapted and modified to tes t Organizational Image. The original Emotion can be tested by a three item scale. The scale was developed by Price, Arnould, and Tierney (1995). Modifying this scale, the example items of this present study Severity of Crisis can be examined by a three item scale. The scale items were modified from existing scales (i.e., Siomkos & Kruzbard, 1994; Weber, Blais, & Betz, 2002; Laufer, Gillespie, McBride, & Gonzalez, 2005). The items sel ected for the current study included Visit Intention A three item scale modified from Bauer, Stokburger Sauer, and E It is very likely that I will visit the game. I will visit the game next time when I want to watch ball game

PAGE 32

32 Manipulation Check According to Wilson et al. (2010), the difference between Accident and Transgression is More over, based on the definitions of three response strategies (Coombs, 2007), this study Demographics The demographic section at the end in cluded questions about gender, age, and ethnicity. Data Analysis SPSS and AMOS were employed in the data analysis. Descriptive statistics were first conducted for each section of the survey scale to describe basic characteristics of research variables. In coefficient. A series of confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to establish validity and reliability. Further, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), and a series of ANCOVA s were carried out to answer Research Questions and test hypotheses. A SEM test was employed to examine the hypothesized relationships among the selected research variable in the model (i.e., Severity of Organizational Image, and Behavioral crises. ANCOVAs were used to com pare the mean differences of Crises Responsibility, response strategies in both Accident and Transgression perceptions. ANCOVA was also used to

PAGE 33

33 compare the mean Image, and Behavioral Intentions in Accident and Transgression. Both ANCOVA tests used Trust and Commitment as covariates.

PAGE 34

34 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS This chapter will come from the orders below: 1) Descriptive Statistics, 2) Measurement Models, 3) Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Analysis, and 4) ANCOVA Analysis. Demographics Demographics characteristics are reported in Table 4 1. The total participants are 248. 121 of them are male, an d 127 are female. The majority of them are in the age of 21 25 (58 %) and White/non Hispanic (32%). Descriptive Statistics Crisis Responsibility When Crisis Happened The means of Crisis Responsibility when crisis happened items ranged from 2.83 to 2.91. S The blame for the crisis lies with the team. SD = 1.66). Emotion When Crisis Happened The means of Emotion when Crisis happened items ranged from 5.55 to 5.77. Standard I feel sad about this accident, and I feel upset about this accident I feel angry about this accident Image When Crisis Happened The means of Image when Crisis happened items ranged from 3.75 to 4.73. Standard Deviation ranged I still have a clean image to the team lowest mean (M = 3.75; SD = 1.498).

PAGE 35

35 Visit Intention When Crisis Happened The mean s of Visit Intention when crisis happened items ranged from 4.8 to 5.28. Standard I will visit the game next time when I want to watch ball game It is ve ry likely that I will visit the game Severity Of Crisis When Crisis Happened The means of Severity of Crisis when crisis happened items ranged from 5.83 to 5.96. Standard Deviation ranged from 1.293 to 1.352. The Crisis Responsibility after Responses The means of Crisis Responsibility a fter responses items ranged from 2.63 to 3.13. The blame for the crisis lies with the team The circumstances, not the team are responsible for the crisis Emotion after Responses The means of Emotion after responses items ranged from 5.45 to 5.62 Standard Deviation I feel sad about this accident = I feel angry about this accident. SD = 1.535). Image after Responses The means of Image after responses items ranged from 4.49 to 5.06. Standard Deviation ranged from 1.361 to 1.622. The item I still has a clean image to the team

PAGE 36

36 Overall, the team is evaluated positively in the eyes off the public Visit Intention after Responses The means of Visit Intention after responses items ranged from 5.16 to 5.35. Standard I will visit the game next time when I want to watch ball game It is very likely that I will visit the game Trust The means of Trust items ranged from 5.15 to 5.27. Standard Deviation ranged from 1.356 he I trust the team Commitment The means of Commitment items ranged from 5.31 to 5.61. Standard Deviation ranged It would be unlikely to me to change my allegiance from the team I am a committed fan of the team Reliability of the Measurement Scale ponsibility after responses to .95 for the factor of Visit Intention after responses. Almost all of the factors indicated good consistence in reliability when considering the value of .70 (Nunnally, 1994). The blame for the crisis lies with the I still have a clean image to the team .95.

PAGE 37

37 Measuremen t M odel Test A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to examine the psychometric properties of the measures. The measurement model yielded an acceptable model convergent validity was established by high factor loadings in current study. Each measurement atios (CR) of indicators of the constructs ranged from 7.245 to 25.53, which were greater than the significant value of 1.96 at p < .05 (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2009). Also, all AVE estimates were over .50, which satisfied the suggested cri teria (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Test Emotion, Organizational Image, Crisis Responsibility, and Visit intention. The result sugges ted that the model has a good fit to the data (X2 = 141.124 (df = 57), X2/df = 2.476; SRMR = .0669; RMSEA = .076; NFI = .943; CFI = .965). The relationship between Crisis Responsibility and Emotion ( = .054) was not statistically significant. And the pat Organizational Image as well as from Severity of Crisis to Organizational Image also not had significant result. Also, the Hypotheses 1 2, 1 3, 2 1, and 5 showed the results with opposite direction. Table 3 showed the specifi c path coefficients. From the results in Figure 4 1, it can be confirmed that the Hypotheses 1 1, 2 2, and 4 were supported. ANCOVA Test different types of response after cri sis. The only main effect among two crises (i.e., Accident and Transgression) and three responses strategies (i.e., Diminish, Apology, and Rebuild) were the

PAGE 38

38 effect of Crisis Responsibility between Apology and Rebuild in Transgression. This effect was signi ficant (F (2,113) = 3.58, p < .05). The results showed that, in a Transgression case, Rebuild Responsibility on organizations. The second ANCOVA test was condu cted to compare spectator perceptions toward two crises (i.e., transgression and accident). The significant difference were found in Crisis Responsibility (F(1,247) = 4.269, p < .05), and Visit Intention (F(1, 248) = 4.731, p <.05). The results suggested t hat. When perceived Transgression, spectators draw more responsibility to organizations had lower Visit Intention when compared to perceive Accident.

PAGE 39

39 Table 4 1 Descriptive of Participants Variables Description Frequency Percent G ender Man 121 48.79 Women 127 51.21 Age 18 20 59 23.79 21 25 144 58.06 26 30 40 16.13 31 40 4 1.61 >40 1 0.40 Ethnicity American/Indian 5 2.02 Asian 71 28.63 Black 22 8.87 Pacific Islander 4 1.61 Hispanic/non White 14 5.64 White/Hispa nic 43 17.33 White/non Hispanic 81 32.66 Other 8 3.23

PAGE 40

40 Table 4 2 Summary result for measurement model test Item mean SD AVE Crisis Responsibility The circumstances, not the team are responsible for the crisis. 2.89 1.79 .725 .798 .74 The blame for the crisis lies with the team. 2.91 1.77 The blame for the crisis lies in the circumstances, not the team. 2.83 1.6 7 .902 Emotion I feel angry about this accident. 5.55 1.57 .756 .888 .84 I feel sad about this accident. 5.77 1.49 .875 I feel upset about this accident. 5.77 1.44 .957 Organizational Image favorable 3.7 5 1.50 .788 .728 .76 Overall, the team is evaluated positively in the eyes off the public 4.07 1.83 .744 I still have a clean image to the team 4.73 1.47 Visit Intention It is very likely that I will visit the game. 4.80 1.74 .762 .903 .85 I w ill visit the game next time when I want to watch ball game. 5.28 1.56 .972 I will definitely visit the game. 5.02 1.73 .887 Severity of Crisis How severe do you perceive the incident to be 5.92 1.31 .879 .95 .92 How important this incident is 5. 83 1.35 .927 How serious do you consider the incident 5.96 1.29 .977

PAGE 41

41 Table 4 3 Path coefficient and statistical significance Path Unstandardized Estimates(B) Standardized Standard Error Critical Ratio Significance Probability Severity of Crisis Crisis Responsibility .226 .191 .085 2.668 .008 Severity of Crisis .616 .597 .068 9.015 .000 Crisis Responsibility Emotion .101 .115 .052 1.928 .054 Crisis Responsibility Organizational Image .505 .590 .076 6.607 .000 Severity of Crisis Organizational Image .073 .072 .088 .826 .409 Organizational Image .068 .069 .089 .759 .448 Sp Visit Intention .252 .227 .068 3.728 .000 Organizational Image Visit Intention .620 .545 .093 6.635 .000

PAGE 42

42 Figure 4 1. Result of Hypothesis test (H1~H5)

PAGE 43

43 Table 4 4. Summary result for items used in respo nses test Item mean SD Crisis Responsibility The circumstances, not the team are responsible for the crisis. 2.63 1.55 .808 The blame for the crisis lies with the team. 3.13 1.74 The blame for the crisis lies in the circumstances, not the team. 2 .71 1.56 Emotion I feel angry about this accident. 5.45 1.54 .915 I feel sad about this accident. 5.62 1.52 I feel upset about this accident. 5.61 1.45 Organizational Image 4.66 1.50 .807 Overal l, the team is evaluated positively in the eyes off the public 4.49 1.62 I still have a clean image to the team 5.06 1.36 Visit Intention It is very likely that I will visit the game. 5.16 1.59 .948 I will visit the game next time when I want to wa tch ball game. 5.35 1.46 I will definitely visit the game. 5.20 1.57 Trust The team is trustworthy. 5.17 1.37 .942 I trust the team. 5.15 1.41 I have trust the team. 5.27 1.36 Commitment Being a fan of the team is important to me. 5.38 1.69 926 I am a committed fan of the team. 5.31 1.74 It would be unlikely to me to change my allegiance from the team. 5.61 1.69

PAGE 44

44 Figure 4 2. Main effects among responses strategies in Accident

PAGE 45

45 Figure 4 3. Main effects among responses st rategies in Transgression

PAGE 46

46 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION With the recent emergence of many crises emerging in sports field, such as drug issues, the importance of crisis management has begun to receive an increasing amount of attention among scholars. Due to the f act that a crisis could easily damage brand equity (Dutta & Pullig, 2011), organizations and firms have tried to protect themselves from crises through crisis management. Also, in most areas of crisis management research, including Public Relations, most s tudies focus primarily on how to prevent crises from happening; however, focusing only on prevention seems unlikely to fully protect the organizations and the brand, since crises are inevitable (Connor & Mazanov, 2010). Conversely, knowing how to handle cr ises is also essential for organizations. For instance, Mazanov and Connor (2010) suggested that if organizations can effectively cope with crisis and successfully protect their brand, the outcome would be better than people may expect. In particular, choo sing suitable response strategies is the most important part in the handling of crises. Based on Situational Crisis Communication Theory, response is the only effort that organizations can make after a crisis arises (Coombs, 2007). Also, how fast organizat ions can give a suitable response determines the success of the response efforts (Siomkos & Shrivastava, 1993) Nevertheless, previous studies in response strategies only give suggestions without empirical evidence. So, managers can only rely upon their ex perience when dealing with a crisis. In the sports area, relatively few studies have been conducted on how to choose the best response strategies. Sports marketers have difficulty applying suitable response strategies in a crisis. In order to fill this aca demic gap, and to help sport managers find an efficient way to choose appropriate response strategies, this current study tries to understand the crisis. T

PAGE 47

47 Questions and the proposed model, the current study tried to contribute in both the theoretical and managerial areas. Theoretical Contributions This is an exploratory study in the sport area. Before this study, almost no study had been conducted on the topic of choosing response strategies suitable to the crisis. This current study used sports crisis typology of Wilson et al. (2010), which was the first sports crisis typolog y set forth. After this study, sports researchers began to notice this topic and use this typology as a basis for their own research. Since there is still no theory of crisis communication in the sports area, this study tried to propose a model of crisis SCCT. First of all, this study aimed to incorporate the Severity of Crisis, which is not included in SCCT, into the proposed model. This study modified SCCT in this way because Coombs (1998) proved Crisis has significant effects on Crisis Responsibility and Emotion but no significant effects on Image. In particular, contrary to Hypothesis H1 3, the resu lts showed that Severity of Crisis has a negative effect on Crisis Responsibility. Why would the results be totally different from the direction of the Hypothesis? This may be due to the difference of the items and the scenario used in the study. In the sc enario, both crises are produced by the coach; however, in the items of The circumstances, not the team are responsible for the n kely to blame the coach than the sports organization. That is, spectators would tend to place more blame on the one who produced

PAGE 48

48 the crisis; so, although they consider the crisis to be severe, they would not think that the fault is he definition of Sports Crisis Typology (Wilson et al., 2010), a crisis detail the difference between those two concepts, and further examine whether the Severity of Crisis significant support of H1 1 we can understand that spectators will have stronger negative emotional responses, such as being sad, upset, or angry if they feel the crisis is very severe. As a direction for future research, researchers should find more kinds of emotional responses to examine in this model. Moreover, H2 2 can be supported by the results of this study. From the proof of the relationship path, the theoretical roles played by Crisis Responsibility become clearer. Furthermore, a new relationship path proposed by the new model is H3; however, it is not suppor ted. Although this relationship did not show a significant support, the direction still was consistent with the Hypothesis. This result perhaps is due to the items used for Emotion in this model. If future researchers can further define the type of emotion that they want to examine in the relationship, they can perhaps find a supported relationship in that path. Image has a positive relationship with behavior intention However, H5 showed a reverse direction results, which means that when spectators had much more negatives emotions, they would have more Visit intention. This interesting result should be paid more attention. Future study can further re examine this relati onship to check if this relationship is correctly established. Based on the building and examining of the proposed model, future researchers can apply it to

PAGE 49

49 more of a sports crisis context. Repeated examination of the proposed model can contribute toward assessing whether the model is suitable for sports crisis communication. In the first ANCOVA analysis, the only significant support is the difference in Crisis Responsibility under Transgression. Spectators consider the Rebuild strategy as more effective than Apology in decreasing the amount of responsibility assumed by sport organizations. These Transgression are different in terms of Crisis Responsibility. Mor different crisis types. There are two significant supports for Crisis Responsibility and Visit Intention. In Accident, the Crisis Responsibility is lower than in Transgression, which means that spectators believe that sport organizations need to assume more responsibility when they produce a Transgression Crisis. On the other hand, Transgression also showed lower Visit Intention games when sport organizations are suffering from Transgression. Finally, this study proved that Commitment and Trust did play a covariate role in the relationship among crisis and other factors. Future studies must not overlook the efficacy of Trust and Commitment. This is an exploratory study. Although not much significant support was obtained from the ANCOVA analysis, this study still contributes to theory. Future sport researchers can apply the findings of this study to explore more deeply the relation ship between crisis types and responses strategies. The biggest theoretical contribution is to open the new research directions to sports researchers. Managerial Contributions Although this is a pioneering study in the sports research area, this study st ill offers some

PAGE 50

50 Responsibility and Visit Intention, spectators treat Accident and Transgression in different ways. Spectators believe that sports organizations need to take more responsibility and that they have lower Visit Intention if the sport organizations are suffering Transgression. This finding can provide sports managers with some important signs. If sports organizations are facing Transgression, they should pay great intention to how they deal with it because spectators will consider Transgression more negative in terms of responsibility and Visit intention. Sports Managers must not to let down their guard about the differences between different types of cris is. Based on the proof of hypotheses, this current study can serve as a useful reference for perception toward sports crisis. When spectators feel that the Severity of Crisis is high, their negative emotional responses will also be higher. Further, negative emotional responses will also lead to higher Visit Intention. Sport managers can exploit the chance to increase their attendance rate when crisis happened. Again, sport managers should pay great attention to Transgression, since spectators consider Transgression as a very severe crisis. If they do not make a strong effort to cope with Transgression, then the negative impact will be higher than with Accident. Moreove r, when spectators draw more responsibility on the crisis to organizations their image of the sports organization would be worse. Thus, sports managers need to concentrate on how to feeling of the sports organizations as taking respon sibility. Based on the findings of this study, the Rebuild strategy is more effective in decreasing Crisis Responsibility than the Diminish and Apology strategies. Therefore, Rebuild is still the best strategy when sports organizations are facing Transgres sion. Most interestingly, under Transgression, Apology has lower efficacy in decreasing responsibility than a Diminish strategy. The reason may be that Apology and Rebuild both admit to a fault, yet Apology makes no effort to satisfy spectators.

PAGE 51

51 Thus, spec tators would be more likely to perceive sports organizations as being responsible. On the other hand, Diminish does not admit to any fault; instead, Diminish tries to disconnect from the responsibility. Furthermore, it has much greater efficacy on Crisis R esponsibility than on Apology. From this finding, sport managers should consider using Diminish instead of Apology if they cannot offer Rebuild. Also, although other factors such as Emotion and Image show no statistically significant difference among diffe rent response strategies, Rebuild still has much better performance in those factors. Therefore, if sport organizations have no worries about their Emotion has response toward the sports organizations. These two factors are essential due to their direct relationship to Visit Intention, which is an important factor that directly affect revenue. Limitations and Future Directions Though the current study has some limitations, these can be used as future directions for further researches. First, the samples all came from the same geographic area and they were all students, so the results cannot be generalized to other populations with different age. Finally, the st udy only selected and used two types of crises and three types of responses strategies. Numerous combined relationships among different types of crises and strategies are still remain unknown. Again, this study is a quasi experimental study, conducted ba sed on theoretical frameworks from the field of Public Relations. Thus, the limited scope of the current study created many future research opportunities for scholars in the field of sport management. For example, researchers can design their studies by u sing different types of crisis and responses in

PAGE 52

52 typologies of responses. In addition, there are sever al hypothesized relationships in the proposed model that are not supported, so future studies need to reexamine the relationships among the selected variables. stu dies can explore the moderating roles of other variables such as gender and age.

PAGE 53

53 APPENDIX QUESTIONNAIRE

PAGE 54

54

PAGE 55

55

PAGE 56

56

PAGE 57

57

PAGE 58

58 LIST OF REFERENCES Allen, M. W., & Caillouet, R. H. (1994). Legitimation endeavors: Impression management strategies used by an organizatio n in crisis Communication Monographs 61 44 62. Bauer, H. H., Stokburger Sauer, N. E., & Exler, S. (2005). The loyalty of German soccer fans: International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship 7 14 22. Bauer, H H., Stokburger Sauer, N. E., & Exler, S. (200 8 ). Brand Image and Fan loyalty in professional team sport: A refined model and empirical assessment Journal of Sport Ma nagement 22 205 22 6 maintaining relationships with service providers. Journal of retailing 73 15 37. Benoit, W. L. (1997). Image repair discourse and crisis communication. Public Relations Review, 23 177 186. Coombs, W.T. (1995). Choosing the right words: The development of guidelines for the Management Communication Quarterly 8 447 476. Coombs, W. T. (1998). An analytic framework for crisis situations: Better responses from a better understanding of the situatio n. Journal of Public Relations Research 10 177 191. Coombs, W. T. (1999). Information and compassion in crisis responses: A test of their effects. Journal of Public Relations Research 11 125 142. Coombs, W. T. (2006). The protective powers of crisis re sponse strategies: Managing reputational assets during a crisis. Journal of Promotion Management 12 241 260. Coombs, W. T. (2009). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of Situational Crisis Communication Th eory. Corporate Reputation Review 10 163 176. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (1996). Communication and attributions in a crisis: An experimental study in crisis communication. Journal of Public Relations Research 8 279 295. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2001). An extended examination of the crisis situation: A fusion of the relational management and symbolic approaches. Journal of Public Relations Research 16 321 340. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2002). Helping crisis managers protect reput ational assets: Initial tests of the Situational Crisis Communication Theory. Management Communication Quarterly 13 165 186.

PAGE 59

59 Connor, J., & Mazanov, J. (2010). The inevitability of scandal: lessons for sponsors and administrators. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship 3, 212 220. Crosby, L. A., Evans, K. R., & Cowles, D. (1990). Relationship quality in services selling: An interpersonal influence perspective. The Journal of Marketing, 54 (3), pp. 68 81. Dalton, D., & Ortegren, M. (2011). Gender difference in Ethics research: The importance of controlling for the social desirability responses bias. Journal of Business Ethics 103 73 93. Dawar, N., & Lei, J. (2009). Brand Crises: The roles of brand familiarity and crisis relevance in determ ining the impact on brand evaluations. Journal of Business Research 62 509 516. Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer seller relationships. The Journal of Marketing, 61 (2), 35 51. Dutta, S., & Pullig, C. (20 11). Effectiveness of corporate responses to brand crisis: The role of crisis type and response strategies. Journal of Business Research 12 1281 1287. Fombrun, C.J. (1996). Reputation. Boston: Harvard Business School Press Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1 981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), 39 50. Marquette Sports Law Review 13 39 62. Gladden J. M.,& Funk, D. C. (2001). Understanding brand loyalty in professional sport: Examining the link between brand associations and brand loyalty. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship 3(2) 67 94. Gladden, J.M., & Sutton, W.A. (2009). Marketing principles applied to sport management. In H.P. Masteralexis, C.A. Barr, & M.A. Hums (Eds.), Principles and practices of sport management (pp. 42 59). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Gladden, J.M., Milne, G.R., & Sutton, W.A. (1998). A conceptual framework for evaluating brand equity in Division I college athletics. Journal of Sport Management, 12, 1 19. Griffin M., Babin, B. J., & Darden, W. R. (1992). Consumer assessments of responsibility for product re lated injuries: The impact of regulations, warnings, and promotional polices. Advances In Consumer Research 19 870 878.Huang S. C.,& Chang, H. C. (2010). The development of Asian sport industry. Asian Journal of Physical Education and Recreation 17 25 30. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2009). Multivariate Data Analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

PAGE 60

60 Huber, F., Vollhardt, K., Matthes, I., & Vogel, J. (2010). Brand misconduct: Consequences on consumer brand relationships. Journal of Business Research 63 1113 1120. Ihlen, Y. (2002). Defending the Mercedes A Class: Combining and changing crisis response strategies. Journal of Public Relation Research 14 185 206. Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptu alizing, measuring, and managing Customer Based brand equity. The Journal of Marketing 57 1 22. Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. (1980). Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology 31 457 501. Kim, Y. K., Trail, G. T., & Ko, Y. J. (2011 ). How relationship influences sport consumption behavior? An empirical examination relationship quality framework. Journal of Sport Management, 25, 576 592 Knobe, J. (2006). The concept of intentional action: A case study in the uses of folk psychology Philosophical Studies 130 203 231. Laufer, D., Gillespie, K., McBride, B., & Silvia, G. (2005). The role of severity in consumer attributions of blame: Defensive Attributions in Product Harm Crises in Mexico Journal of International Consumer Marketing 17 33 50. Lee, B. K. (2004). Corporate image examined in a Chinese based context: A study of a young educated public in Hong Kong. Journal of Public Relation Research 130 203 231. Mahony, D. F., Madrigal, R., & Howard, D. (2000). Using the Psychologic al Commitment to Team (PCT) Scale to Segment Sport Consumers Based on Loyalty, Sport Marketing Quarterly 9(1) 15 25. Mattila, A. S. (2009). How to handle PR disasters? An examination of the impact of communication response type and failure attributions o n consumer perception. Journal of Service Marketing, 23 211 218. Mazanov, J., & Connor, J. (2010). The role of scandal and corruption in sports marketing and sponsorship. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship 11 183 184. Mccoll Kenne dy, J. R., & Sparks, B. A. (2003). Application of Fairness Theory to service failure and service recovery. Journal of Service Research 5 251 266. McCroskey, J. C. (1966). An introduction to rhetorical communication Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. M ilano, M., & Chelladurai, P. (2011). Gross domestic sport product: The size of the sport industry in the United States. Journal of Sport Management 25 24 35.

PAGE 61

61 Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpande, R. (1992). Relatinships between provides and users of ma rketing research: The dynamics of trust within and between organizations Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 314 29. Morgan, R. M. & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20 38. Nunnally, J C., & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. Palmatier, R. W., Dant, R. P., & Grewal, D. (2007). A Comparative Longitudinal Analysis of Theoretical Perspectives of Interorganizational Relationship Performance, Jour nal of Marketing 71(4) 172 194. Pearson, C. M., & Clair, J. A. (1998). Reframing Crisis Management. The Academy of Management Review 23 59 76. Corporat e Reputation Review 8, 198 213. Price, L. L., Arnould, E. J., & Tierney, P. (1995). Going to extremes: Managing service encounters and assessing provider performance. The Journal of Marketing 59 83 97. Reichheld, F. and Sasser, W. E. (1990). Zero defecti ons: quality comes to services, Harvard Business Review, 68, 105 111. Ripley, K. (2011). IBISWorld industry report 71121a sports franchises in the US. Retrieved from: http://clients.ibisworld.com/industryus/default.aspx?indid=1628 Rousseau, D., Sitkin, S. B., Burt. R., & Camerer. C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross discipline view of trust. The Academy of Management Review, 23,255 271. Ross, S. D., James, J. D., & Vargas, P. (2006). Development of a scale to measure team brand association in prof essional sport. Journal of Sports Management, 20, 260 279. Schweitzer, M. E., Hershey, J. C., & Bradlow, E. T. (2006). Promises and lies: Restoring violated trust. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 101 1 19. Seeger, M. W., Sellnow, T. L., & Ulmer, R. R. (1998). Communication, organization, and crisis. In M. E. Roloff & G. D. Paulson (Eds.), Communication Yearbook 21, (pp. 231 275). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Shaw, J. C., Wild, E., & Colquitt, J. A. (2003). To justify or excuse?: A meta an alytic review of the effects of explanations. Journal of Applied Psychology 88 444 458. Siomkos, G. J., & Kurzbard, G. (1994). The hidden crisis in product harm crisis management. European Journal of Marketing 28 30 41.

PAGE 62

62 Siomkos, G., & Shrivastava, P. ( 1993). Responding to product liability crises. Long Range Planning 26 72 79. Wang, R. T., Zhang, J. J., & Tsuji, Y. (2011). Examining fan motives and loyalty for the Chinese Professional Baseball League of Taiwan. Sport Management Review 14 347 360. Weber, E. U., Blais, A., & Betz, N. E. (2002). A domain specific risk attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 15 263 290. Weiner, B. (1985). An attribution theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review 92 548 573. Wilson, B., Stavros, C., & Westberg, K. (2010). A sport crisis typology: establishing a pathway for future research. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing 7 21 32. Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L ., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. The Journal of Marketing 60(2) 31 46.

PAGE 63

63 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Ming Shen Ho (Cony) earned his Master of Science degree in the College of Health and Human Performance (Sport Manageme nt) from the University of Florida in August 2012. He received his Bachelor of history from National Cheng Chi University in June 2009. He had so many working experiences in sport media including a commentator of FIFA World Cup 2010 in ELTA sports channel a sport analyst in Apple Daily and Videoland Sport channel. He wanted to devote himself in research in sport field when he start ed his master career. His research interests are sports marketing and consumer behavior. He also attended and presented in man y conference including Sports Marketing Association (SMA), North American Society for Sport Management (NASSM), and Taiwan Global Summit.