Sporting involvement and alcohol sponsorshipTABLE 1 Characteristics of the sampleGENDERTYPE OF SCHOOLMALEFEMALEPRIVATECHURCHWELSH MEDIUMLOCAL AUTHORITY (LOWER SOCIO-ECONOMIC AREA)LOCAL AUTHORITY (HIGHER SOCIO-ECONOMIC AREA)NUMBER1611333556588263%55%45%12%19%20%28%21%HIGHESTSPORTING LEVELREACHEDREPRESENT COUNTRYREPRESENT COUNTY, REGION OR CITYREPRESENT CLUB/SCHOOLNO REPRESENTATION/NOT COMPETITIVETOTALNUMBER2035137100MALE14247942FEMALE6115858TOTAL%7%12%47%34%RESEARCH PAPERassociated with sporting involvement. The followinghypotheses are therefore proposed:H3: Awareness of sponsorship affects thelikelihood of drinking alcohol, over and above anyeffects of sporting involvement.H4: Awareness of sponsorship affects thelikelihood of getting drunk, over and above anyeffects of sporting involvement.MethodologyThe research population for this study was Year 10(14/15 year old) pupils in a medium-sized Welsh citywhich, in common with most UK cities, has seriousconcerns about the alcohol-fuelled behaviour of someof its young people. The literature would indicate thatat this age the vast majority have drunk alcohol atsome time, with a significant minority drinkingregularly and/or binge-drinking. Following focusgroups at which attitudes and beliefs about alcohol,alcohol use, opinions on sponsorship and knowledgeof sport sponsors were discussed, a questionnairesurvey was piloted and then administered to a sampleof young people. In order to survey a wide crosssectionof the age group, a stratified samplingprocedure was adopted, with a total sample of 322participants being selected from two local authorityschools in contrasting socio-economic areas, onechurch school, one private school and one Welshmedium school. After removing questionnaires wherekey questions had been omitted, 294 usablequestionnaires were used for analysis. Thecharacteristics of the sample are shown in Table 1.The questionnaire comprised three parts, relating tosport, alcohol and sponsorship. First, a series ofquestions investigated the respondent’s level ofinvolvement with sport, both as a participant and as aspectator, as follows:● OCTOBER 2009 ● <strong>International</strong> Journal of <strong>Sports</strong> <strong>Marketing</strong> & <strong>Sponsorship</strong>31
Sporting involvement and alcohol sponsorshipRESEARCH PAPER1. In a typical week, on how many days do you takepart in one or more sports?2. How important is it to you to take part in sport?3. How important is it to you to perform well insport?4. In an average week, on how many days do youwatch sport on television?5. How many live sporting events have you attendedin the last three months?6. What is the highest level you have reached in anycompetitive sport?Questions 2 and 3 were coded on a 7-point Likertscale, Question 5 from 0 (none) to 5 (more than 10),and Question 6 from 0 (non-competitive) to 3(representing country). Responses to these questionswere aggregated to produce an index of sportinginvolvement (Cronbach alpha = 0.77).The alcohol section was based around theframework of the Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen &Fishbein, 1980), which has been used in manystudies as a model for predicting alcohol use (e.g.Schlegel et al, 1977; Laflin et al, 1994; Trafimow,1996; O’Callaghan et al, 1997; Collins, 2002). Thistheory states that the likelihood of a person carryingout any behaviour (e.g. drinking alcohol) can bepredicted from his/her attitude towards that behaviourand his/her subjective norms relating to thatbehaviour. Subjective norms measure the extent towhich significant others (parents, friends, etc.)influence behaviour; they are operationalised as (thelikelihood that X would approve of this behaviour) x(how motivated the person is to comply with what Xthinks they should do), where X is a significant otherperson or group. Later modifications to the theoryinclude the addition of other predictors relevant tospecific studies; in the context of drinking alcohol,Rimal and Real (2005) included descriptive norms, orthe extent to which respondents subscribed togenerally held beliefs (e.g. “students are frequentconsumers of alcohol”).Participants in this study were asked to rate thelikelihood that they would a) drink alcohol and b) getdrunk on the forthcoming weekend, and their attitudestowards these behaviours. Although it is only therespondents’ perceived likelihood of drinking that isbeing measured, Shim and Maggs (2005) discoveredthat for college students, intentions to drink correlatedwell with actual behaviour. Attitudes were measuredon a scale adapted from that used by Ajzen andFishbein (1980, pp.261-267) and Oliver andBearden (1985) to measure attitude toward the acts(Bruner et al, 2001, p.61), with two items beingreverse coded.Drinking alcohol is:Bad 1___2___3___4___5___6___7 GoodWise 1___2___3___4___5___6___7 FoolishHealthy1___2___3___4___5___6___7 UnhealthyUnpleasant 1___2___3___4___5___6___7 PleasantAttitude towards getting drunk was measured in asimilar way. Despite previous studies having achievedacceptable Cronbach alpha values for this scale, thisstudy did not, highlighting the ambivalence ofattitudes towards alcohol. As the measure ‘Bad…Good’ had highest average correlation with othermeasures, this single statement was chosen as theattitude measure for analysis. Respondents were alsoasked to evaluate a range of outcomes, obtainedduring focus group sessions, of drinking alcohol andgetting drunk; the correlations of the summed outcomeevaluations with the chosen attitude statement rangedfrom 0.432 to 0.559, comparing favourably withstudies cited by Ajzen and Fishbein (1980).Finally, in this section respondents were asked torate the extent to which significant others (parents,32 <strong>International</strong> Journal of <strong>Sports</strong> <strong>Marketing</strong> & <strong>Sponsorship</strong> ● OCTOBER 2009 ●