Relationships among Spectator Gender, Motives, Points of Attachment, and Sport Preference

By M. Robinson, Galen T. Trail. 2005

390 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Gender Studies, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f5c79c5d25ff9907fd41ae3cb583d9d1e82927c6

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

1. Y. Kim
2. Daniel C. Funk
3. Max Sjöblom
4. Juho Hamari
5. Kevin Filo
6. D. O’Brien
7. Shea M. Balish
8. Galen T. Trail

In Gender Studies

1. Ryan Snelgrove
2. Daniel C. Funk
3. Kevin Filo
4. D. O’Brien
5. Y. Kim
6. Galen T. Trail
7. M. Taks
8. Max Sjöblom

In Sociology and Political Science

1. Ryan Snelgrove
2. Daniel C. Funk
3. Kevin Filo
4. D. O’Brien
5. Y. Kim
6. Max Sjöblom
7. Galen T. Trail
8. Juho Hamari

Citations in the corpus

• How Visitors and Locals at a Sport Event Differ in Motives and Identity (2008, background): “Gender differences in sport consumption are typically described with reference to gender roles (McCabe, 2007; Robinson & Trail, 2005).”
• The Antecedents and Outcomes of Attachment and Sponsor Image Within Charity Sport Events (2010, background): “An individual’s relationship with a sport object has been found to provide a sense of attachment (Trail, Anderson, & Fink, 2000) through a connection with various facets of that object (Robinson & Trail, 2005).”
• Identity crisis: a theoretical analysis of ‘team identification’ research (2017, neutral): “…draws on the strand of identity theory; however, it does so without taking a broad view of the roles (e.g., mother, parent etc.) with which a consumer might identify beyond the team (e.g., players) or community (Kwon et al., 2005; Robinson & Trail, 2005; Trail, Robinson, Dick, & Gillentine, 2003).”
• What is eSports and why do people watch it? (2017, background): “Moreover, many previous studies have already assessed the model fit (see e.g. Funk and James, 2006; James and Ridinger, 2002; Robinson et al., 2004; Robinson and Trail, 2005; Seo and Green, 2008; Trail and James, 2011; Won and Kitamura, 2007).”
• Constraints and Motivators: A New Model to Explain Sport Consumer Behavior (2010, methodology): “The PAI has also shown good internal consistency with alpha coefficients ranging from .75 to .86 and adequate construct reliability with AVE value ranging from .48 to .73 (Robinson & Trail, 2005; Kwon, Trail, & Anderson, 2005).”
• The Meaning Behind Attachment: Exploring Camaraderie, Cause, and Competency at a Charity Sport Event (2009, background): “But rather than simply attachment to a team, an individual may be attached to a variety of aspects of the sport object, including the focal sport and the community (Robinson & Trail, 2005).”
• Testing Models of Motives and Points of Attachment among Spectators in College Football (2009, neutral): “Recognizing the possible existence of different points of attachment, Robinson and Trail (2005) proposed that an individual could be attached to a player, coach, community, university, level of sport, or sport itself, in addition to the team.”
• Exploring the development of team identification: the contribution of social identity and the psychological continuum model (2012, neutral): “It also aligned with other work highlighting that individuals will associate themselves with multiple facets of the offering when attachment or identification becomes affectively significant (Funk, Mahony, Nakazawa, & Hiriwaka, 2000; Robinson & Trail, 2005).”
• Sex differences in sports interest and motivation: An evolutionary perspective. (2015, background): “…there is no major sex difference because differences are often slight in terms of attendance at major sporting events (Apostolou, 2014b; Dietz-Uhler et al., 2001), self-classification as being a sports fan (Dietz-Uhler et al., 2001), and motives for sport spectating (Robinson & Trail, 2005).”