Genuine or impression management? Uncovering biases in how people respond to the Black Lives Matter movement in sport

Youngho Park, Dae Hee Kwak
{"title":"Genuine or impression management? Uncovering biases in how people respond to the Black Lives Matter movement in sport","authors":"Youngho Park, Dae Hee Kwak","doi":"10.1108/ijsms-09-2023-0184","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3>Purpose</h3>\n<p>National surveys reveal that sports fans exhibit greater support for athletes, sports teams and leagues endorsing social justice initiatives compared to the general population, highlighting the potential of sports for positive social impact. This study investigates whether such responses are influenced by systematic biases.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Design/methodology/approach</h3>\n<p>Replicating a Nielsen national survey, two experiments explore whether biases affect support for athletes' participation in the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. The study also examines partisan motivated reasoning as a factor driving sports fans' support for BLM.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Findings</h3>\n<p>While avid fans display stronger endorsement of BLM compared to causal/non-sports fans, evidence suggests that systematic biases distort these responses. When sport identity becomes salient, reported support for the BLM movement becomes inflated.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Research limitations/implications</h3>\n<p>Researchers often employ self-report surveys to gauge audience perceptions of athlete activism or cause-related initiatives, particularly when assessing their impact. This study's findings indicate that this context is susceptible to SDB.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->\n<h3>Originality/value</h3>\n<p>The study underscores the role of systematic biases in self-report surveys, particularly in socially desirable contexts. People tend to over-report “positive behavior,” leading survey participants to respond more favorably to questions that are socially desirable. Therefore, interpreting survey results with caution becomes essential when the research context is deemed socially (un)desirable. It is crucial for researchers to apply appropriate measures to identify and mitigate systematic response biases. The authors recommend that researchers adopt both procedural and statistical remedies to detect and reduce social desirability biases.</p><!--/ Abstract__block -->","PeriodicalId":501000,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijsms-09-2023-0184","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

National surveys reveal that sports fans exhibit greater support for athletes, sports teams and leagues endorsing social justice initiatives compared to the general population, highlighting the potential of sports for positive social impact. This study investigates whether such responses are influenced by systematic biases.

Design/methodology/approach

Replicating a Nielsen national survey, two experiments explore whether biases affect support for athletes' participation in the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. The study also examines partisan motivated reasoning as a factor driving sports fans' support for BLM.

Findings

While avid fans display stronger endorsement of BLM compared to causal/non-sports fans, evidence suggests that systematic biases distort these responses. When sport identity becomes salient, reported support for the BLM movement becomes inflated.

Research limitations/implications

Researchers often employ self-report surveys to gauge audience perceptions of athlete activism or cause-related initiatives, particularly when assessing their impact. This study's findings indicate that this context is susceptible to SDB.

Originality/value

The study underscores the role of systematic biases in self-report surveys, particularly in socially desirable contexts. People tend to over-report “positive behavior,” leading survey participants to respond more favorably to questions that are socially desirable. Therefore, interpreting survey results with caution becomes essential when the research context is deemed socially (un)desirable. It is crucial for researchers to apply appropriate measures to identify and mitigate systematic response biases. The authors recommend that researchers adopt both procedural and statistical remedies to detect and reduce social desirability biases.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
真心实意还是印象管理?揭示人们在体育运动中如何应对 "黑人生命至上 "运动的偏见
目的全国性调查显示,与普通人相比,体育迷对运动员、运动队和联盟支持社会正义倡议的支持率更高,这凸显了体育运动在产生积极社会影响方面的潜力。本研究探讨了这种反应是否受到系统性偏见的影响。设计/方法/方法重复尼尔森的全国调查,通过两个实验探讨偏见是否会影响对运动员参与黑人生命至上(BLM)运动的支持。研究结果虽然与因果关系/非体育迷相比,狂热的体育迷表现出更强烈的对 BLM 的支持,但有证据表明,系统性偏见扭曲了这些反应。研究局限性/意义研究人员经常使用自我报告调查来衡量受众对运动员行动主义或事业相关倡议的看法,尤其是在评估其影响时。本研究的结果表明,这种情况下很容易出现 SDB。原创性/价值本研究强调了自我报告调查中系统性偏差的作用,尤其是在社会期望的背景下。人们倾向于过度报告 "积极行为",从而导致调查参与者对社会期望的问题做出更有利的回答。因此,当研究背景被视为社会(不)理想时,谨慎解释调查结果就变得至关重要。研究人员必须采取适当的措施来识别和减轻系统性的回答偏差。作者建议研究人员采用程序和统计补救措施来检测和减少社会期望偏差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pre-post examination of residents’ destination image toward mega event hosting country with strained bilateral relations Gender differences in the effects of nostalgia on conspicuous consumption and impulsive buying Digitalization in action sports: blessing or curse? Connecting event impact perceptions to sponsor-related behaviours among residents in the host city A machine learning approach to predict classification of fans’ attitudes toward sponsors
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1