426336 336Chien et al.Journal of Travel Research

JTRXXX10.1177/0047287511426

I Am Having a Dilemma:  Factors Affecting Resident Support of Event Development in the Community

Journal of Travel Research 51(4) 451­–463 © 2012 SAGE Publications Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0047287511426336 http://jtr.sagepub.com

P. Monica Chien1, Brent W. Ritchie1, Richard Shipway2, and Holly Henderson2

Abstract The purpose of this study is to better understand factors underlying local residents’ responses to mega event development. The authors suggest that residents’ intention to give or withhold support of hosting an event in the community can be viewed as a social dilemma and examine the effects of event publicity, perceived fairness of event portrayal, and residents’ commitment to the event. In a field study that assesses the impact of 2012 Olympic and Paralympic sailing events on residents at Weymouth and Portland, United Kingdom, the study finds that event publicity is linked to residents’ supporting behaviors indirectly through commitment. Perceived fairness of event portrayal is identified as a moderator of the event publicity effect. Specifically, when media reports of the event are considered biased or unfair, the effect of both positive and negative event publicity is attenuated. The findings have implications for event organizations and local authorities in stakeholder relationship management. Keywords event, resident, media, framing, commitment

Introduction Event-based tourism is now one of the most rapidly growing niche areas of tourism (Getz 2008). Beyond economic benefits, internationally recognized hallmark events such as the Olympic Games often bring intangible value to the host community, including entertainment opportunities, quality of life, and community pride (Gursoy, Kim, and Uysal 2004; Kim and Petrick 2005). In particular, because of their longterm impacts on the host city, events of this genre have the potential to gain significant media exposure and substantial community involvement (Deccio and Baloglu 2002; Solberg and Preuss 2007). Local residents, however, may feel disenfranchised by the event planning process and may be concerned about the negative impact on the host community, such as traffic, noise, and crowding (Fredline and Faulkner 2002). Thus, interests of individual residents may be at odds with the collective benefits of the host community. Nevertheless, residents are an important stakeholder group, and their involvement in the event could have implications for providing welcoming visitor experiences and increasing the longevity of positive impacts (Gursoy and Kendall 2006). The goal for the host cities, then, is to engage residents and garner their support through nurturing eventassociated values. Inevitably, perceptions vary among residents, which in turn influence their support behaviors. The objective of the present research is to understand how resident support of event development in the community is

shaped. We propose that residents’ intention to give or withhold their endorsement to mega event development in their community can be conceptualized as a social dilemma, whereby individuals are forced to choose between maximizing selfish and collective interests (Sen, Gürhan-Canli, and Morwitz 2001). Analogically, supporting the development of a mega event can be a two-edged sword: residents need to make trade-offs between the elusive benefits promised to the greater community and their individual incentives. How is such a dilemma formed? More importantly, how will the dilemma influence residents’ supporting behaviors? We approach these issues by considering the psychological conflict residents face when contemplating their actions. This research contributes to a better understanding of resident support of event development by highlighting the social dilemma encountered by community members. The study outlined in this article sheds light on the notions of publicity and commitment as they relate to a special event context. In particular, we show that perceived fairness of event portrayal in the media is a key determinant on 1

The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia Bournemouth University, Dorset, United Kingdom

2

Corresponding Author: P. Monica Chien, School of Tourism, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia Email: [email protected]

452 cultivating commitment and shaping support. This study can be extended (1) conceptually to other event and tourism settings or (2) methodologically to build causal models of media framing effect. Practically, findings should help host cities develop ideas about how event publicity can be managed or used to generate resident support. The literature review that follows covers social dilemmas within the context of the present research. Next, the effects of event publicity on resident reactions are discussed. The article then tests a model of residents’ intention to support the event, with commitment mediating the relationship between event publicity and support behavior, and perceived fairness of event portrayal moderating the effect of event publicity.

Support of Event Development as a Social Dilemma Prior investigations on related phenomena (e.g., Deccio and Baloglu 2002; Waitt 2003; Yoon, Gursoy, and Chen 2001) have drawn on social exchange theory to suggest that local residents evaluate events or tourism as either positive or negative on the basis of expected return on investment. These studies assumed that residents are cognizant of all the associated benefits and costs and are capable of calibrating resources exchanged. However, positive perception of the social exchange will ensue only when both parties in the relationship have power to control and influence resources (Waitt 2003). Although public participation in the event planning process is important, in reality, local residents rarely know the full spectrum of impact an event brings to the community to precisely assess the outcomes. Reliance on certain information may lead to an unbalanced assessment of the pros and cons of event development. Accordingly, we consider local residents not as rational decision makers but as individuals who are likely to face a tension between social and personal interests. Social dilemmas are situations in which members of a group face a conflict between maximizing their personal interests and supporting collective good of that group (Dawes and Messick 2000) and “involve the interplay between selfish motives and cooperation that requires individual sacrifice in the short run for the benefit of all individuals in the long run” (Sen, Gürhan-Canli, and Morwitz 2001, p. 400). We suggest that the positive and negative outcomes associated with the development of a mega event present a potentially conflicting scenario to local residents. It is well documented that high-profile spectator-driven events, with their unrivalled ability to generate global interest and international media attention, can bring in additional economic benefits and social opportunities to the host community (Getz and Fairley 2004; Gursoy, Kim, and Uysal 2004). For example, more than 230,000 foreign soccer fans visited Korea during the FIFA 2002 World Cup (Kim and Petrick 2005), and the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt

Journal of Travel Research 51(4) Lake City were expected to generate more than $1.2 billion to the state of Utah (Deccio and Baloglu 2002). However, local residents often express concerns over negative impacts associated with hosting a mega event, such as rising costs of living and disruption for daily life; some even decide to boycott the event all together because there is no perceived direct benefit to the individuals. Given that the gains of hosting an event usually accrue over a period of time, residents could be uncertain about the amount of trade-off they have to make between group interests and personal incentives. While some residents have faith in the long-term benefits brought by a special event, most people are wary of the promises made by the local government and event organizers. They may be disinclined to show active support because the certain costs each of them incurs from event development (e.g., crowding, noise) are likely to outweigh the uncertain benefits (e.g., social opportunities, self-esteem) obtained through event hosting. A key factor that is likely to influence an individual resident’s support of collective interests of the group, and henceforth development of a mega event in the community, may be event-related communications to which an individual is exposed. Social dilemma theory also underscores the importance of persuasive communication in inducing cooperation (Sen, Gürhan-Canli, and Morwitz 2001). Communication delivered by the mass media can be viewed as an important agent that provides information to the public and shapes resident attitude and behavior (Robertson and Rogers 2009). Despite the media’s role in framing public interpretations about event-related topics, there have been few theoretical attempts to understand the impact of media on residents’ responses (Ritchie, Shipway, and Chien 2010). Another factor that has been shown to make a difference in people’s decision making and behavior is their level of commitment to the focal organization or issue (Ahluwalia, Burnkrant, and Unnava 2000; Funk and Pritchard 2006; Paulin, Ferguson, and Bergeron 2006). Intuitively, one’s tolerance of discrepant information reflects the strength of commitment. While similar constructs, such as community attachment, have been investigated in the context of resident support to event development (e.g., Deccio and Baloglu 2002; Gursoy and Kendall 2006), their relationship with a range of disparate factors such as perceived economic benefits, utilization of recreation resources, and personal values was not immediately clear. Next, we draw on the media framing literature to articulate how the mass media exert influence to affect residents’ commitment and intention to support events.

Influence of the Mass Media In recent years, event organizers and researchers have become more interested in learning about the media’s influence on event management and destination marketing (e.g., Falkheimer 2007; Getz and Fairley 2004; Pan 2011). Many reasons underlie

453

Chien et al. this interest, including the significance of media in shaping festival visitors’ and directors’ perceptions of the sociocultural impact of festivals (Robertson and Rogers 2009), the influence of pre- and postevent media exposure to induce visitation to the destination (Dwyer et al. 2000), and the ability of event telecast in promoting the meaning and value associated with the host city (Ritchie, Sanders, and Mules 2007). To event and festival planners, the media have been considered as a key constituency whose collaboration facilitates the development of event brand equity (Mossberg and Getz 2006). Few studies, however, have considered the effects of media exposure on residents’ responses. We begin by considering the framing effect of mass media. Entman (1993, p. 52) defined framing as “to select some aspects of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communication text, in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation, and/or treatment recommendation for the item described.” While media may not exert direct control over what people do, it does emphasize the themes and actively sets the storylines that provide a frame of reference to readers or viewers (Scheufele 1999). Thus, the media can systematically affect how residents come to understand the economic, social, and environmental impacts of an event, which in turn nurture changes in host community reactions (Robertson and Rogers 2009). Publicity from the media is regarded as a relatively credible source of information and is therefore more influential compared with marketer-driven communications (Funk and Pritchard 2006). Indeed, negative publicity about special events in general, and mega events in particular, is widely prevalent, ranging from safety concerns with the Delhi Commonwealth Games, to the compliance disputes between environmental organizations and the Russian authorities responsible for the Olympics building programme, to the WTA Dubai Tournament’s refusal to issue a visa to an Israeli player and the subsequent loss of a key sponsor. Swing in public opinion as a result of negative publicity may generate mixed effects for the event’s organization, its activities, and the host city as a whole. Robertson and Rogers (2009) showed that respondents across all types of events rated the significance of local media as being extremely important. They suggested that the content pattern or thematic arrangement of messages in the media could affect public perception of the festivals. Analogically, message framing studies in psychology and marketing have demonstrated that people’s judgments of an issue, act, or position differ as a result of how the message is framed (e.g., Maheswaran and Meyers-Levy 1990; MeyersLevy and Maheswaran 2004). When ad claims are framed positively, attitude toward the advertiser tends to be more favorable than when the ad claims are framed negatively. In line with this reasoning, we argue that residents’ perceptions of the event are likely to be framed by exposure to eventrelated news reports. Specifically, favorable event publicity

will foster greater resident support of the event. Conversely, negative media coverage of the event will engender negative thoughts, which will be associated with a decline in supporting behavior. Hypothesis 1: Event publicity will be positively related to residents’ intention to support the event.

Residents’ Commitment to the Event People’s commitment to the focal organization or issue represents another factor that influences response outcomes. Commitment has been variously defined as the “psychological attachment to an organization” (Gruen, Summers, and Acito 2000, p. 37) or “an enduring desire to maintain a valued relationship” (Moorman, Zaltman, and Deshpandé 1992, p. 316). It is a psychological state that provokes a tendency to resist change in response to conflicting information and implies continuation of an affiliation (Bansal, Irving, and Taylor 2004). Hence, commitment is viewed as a major dimension of attitude strength and is akin to brand loyalty (Ahluwalia, Burnkrant, and Unnava 2000). Our focus distinguishes commitment from exchange-based forms of motivation and considers it as an attitude that guides or mediates residents’ overt responses or behavioral intentions (Meyer and Herscovitch 2001). Building on relationship marketing and organization theories, resident commitment can be conceptualized as multidimensional (Bansal, Irving, and Taylor 2004; Paulin, Ferguson, and Bergeron 2006). Affective commitment refers to a resident’s emotional bond with the event. It reflects residents’ desire to be involved in the event because they want to (Bansal, Irving, and Taylor 2004). Continuance commitment refers to the constraint-based relationship binding a resident to the event. In other words, residents feel that they need to form a relationship with the event because of a sense of being “locked in” (Meyer and Herscovitch 2001). Normative commitment refers to the perceived obligation a resident has toward the event. Residents feel the social pressure to conform to the community norms because they ought to as “it is the right thing to do” (Bansal, Irving, and Taylor 2004, p. 236). Overall, commitment has a significant role in cultivating loyalty, which signifies identification and shared values (Paulin, Ferguson, and Bergeron 2006). Thus, residents with high commitment to the event are likely to show a strong belief in, and acceptance of, the event’s values. Commitment prescribes and instigates behaviors for the benefits of the event and greater community (i.e., the collective good). Intuitively, when residents’ commitment level is high, a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the event and a desire to ensure the event’s success should manifest. We also contend that resident commitment is likely to be fostered by exposure to event publicity. As residents use the frames provided by media to construct reality and understand social issues (Entman 1993; Pan 2011), how the event

454 is portrayed by the media helps cultivate emotional attachment and people’s sense of obligation. We argue that event publicity provides a cognitive basis for display of supporting behavior but that commitment supplies the motivational force. In other words, commitment to the event mediates the relationship between event publicity and resident support, and correlations between commitment and supporting behavior should be uniformly positive. Hypothesis 2a: Event publicity will be positively related to residents’ commitment to the event. Hypothesis 2b: Residents’ commitment to the event will be positively related to their intention to support the event. Hypothesis 2c: The effect of event publicity on residents’ support of the event will be mediated by residents’ commitment to the event.

Perceived Fairness of Event Portrayal A related issue is that event publicity does not exert a universal influence on residents. There may be situations in which the portrayals of events are perceived to be unfair reports, regardless of whether they are positive or negative. Journalists may emphasize the themes they want to present to the public while setting a storyline that gives meaning to an unfolding strip of issues (Scheufele 1999). Sometimes, certain issues are highlighted or exaggerated because they are perceived to be newsworthy. The knowledge and skills residents develop toward persuasive attempts would allow them to judge whether the media are being truthful and impartial. Prior research suggests that when people are less certain about the decision outcome, they use their perceptions of overall fairness as heuristics for determining the trustworthiness of organizational authorities (Jones and Martens 2009; Lind and Van den Bos 2002). When people have little or no control over the situations, fairness is used as a substitute for trust judgments and formation of cooperative decisions (Masterson et al. 2000). As mentioned previously, the costs, benefits, and outcomes associated with mega event development are likely to remain largely unclear to local residents. Thus, we hypothesize that residents may rely on the perceived fairness of event portrayal to determine the credibility of information provided by the media. Fairness matters because it helps residents deal with uncertainty and drives responses. In the tourism context, there have been reports about residents’ resentment toward media coverage of a disaster because of the perceived unfairness associated with the news reports (e.g., Kreck 1981). Not only did residents express concern over media’s exaggeration toward the disaster, but many also considered conflicting media information the key irritant during community hardship. This implies that not all negative information is considered bad information; the

Journal of Travel Research 51(4) negative media coverage must also be perceived to be unfair in order to create a backlash. A recent study conducted by Ritchie, Shipway, and Chien (2010) confirmed the importance of fair persuasion attempt. Insofar as residents considered news reports of the event by the local media as fair, their intention to support event-associated development significantly increased. On the basis of fairness heuristic theory, the media’s impact on residents’ event commitment and support is likely to depend on residents’ perceptions of the media coverage of the event. We suggest that perceived fairness of event portrayal will moderate resident responses. Hypothesis 3a: When the event portrayal is perceived to be fair, residents will exhibit greater intention to support in response to positive event publicity compared with negative event publicity, but intention to support will not differ when the event portrayal is perceived to be unfair. Hypothesis 3b: When the event portrayal is perceived to be fair, residents will exhibit higher commitment in response to positive event publicity compared with negative event publicity, but commitment will not differ when the event portrayal is perceived to be unfair. In sum, we draw on social dilemma theory to develop a conceptual model of residents’ intention to support the event development. We begin by considering the key source that constitutes the formation of social dilemma: the mass media. Event publicity in the media is hypothesized to influence residents’ supporting behaviors (Hypothesis 1). Event publicity may also shape resident commitment, which in turn mediates the relationship between event publicity and resident support (Hypothesis 2a-c). Moreover, the degree of media influence may hinge on people’s perceptions of the media’s persuasive attempt. We draw on fairness heuristic to explore the moderating role of perceived fairness of event portrayal by the media (Hypothesis 3a-b). Figure 1 illustrates the conceptual framework for this study.

Methods Research Setting The event context we studied was the forthcoming 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games in London. We chose this event because it is one of the most prestigious mega-sporting events that is known to elicit high levels of emotion and involvement from the host community (Ritchie and Aitken 1984). It is important to understand how resident perceptions concerning the event evolve over time, as a lack of resident support could result in the transfer of the event to another location, such as in the case of the 1976 Winter Olympics (Ritchie and Lyons 1987). Furthermore, events of

455

Chien et al.

Perceived Fairness of Event Portrayal H2c

H3b Event Publicity

Residents' Commitment to the Event

H2a

H2b

Residents’ Intention to Support the Event

H3a H1

Figure 1. Relationships between event publicity, residents’ commitment to the event, perceived fairness of event portrayal, and residents’ intention to support the event

this scale and prominence usually attract extensive media interest and represent a unique publicity platform (Gibson, Qi, and Zhang 2008). The media’s continuous monitoring of development associated with the Games would suggest extensive coverage of debate or controversy with event decisions (Ritchie and Lyons 1987). Thus, the context was conductive to our investigation of event publicity. The research site was the Borough of Weymouth and Portland, in the county of Dorset, England, where the Olympic and Paralympic sailing events will be held. The Borough of Weymouth and Portland has approximately 64,500 residents. In the period up to 2012, Weymouth and Portland could experience a total cumulative impact of increased visitor spending in the region of £9.6 million (Fletcher 2006). Based on attendance estimates of 15,000 to 25,000 during the sailing events, the likely additional spending in the local economy would be between £5.8 million to £9.5 million (Fletcher 2006). Dorset may also be able to benefit from the raised profile created by London 2012, beyond the local area of Weymouth and Portland. Overall, the Games are expected to offer people from Dorset a chance to be involved in Games-time activities while also providing a potential opportunity to drive forward civic engagement and to strengthen community spirit. The event offers the county an opportunity to invest not only in the infrastructure that is required to host the event but also in other facilities and attractions (Solberg and Preuss 2007). Current concerns for the residents revolve around transport infrastructure, accessibility issues for the local community, and environmental concerns associated with the area surrounding Chesil Beach following plans for a new relief road to reduce traffic congestion.

Sampling and Procedures The present research was part of an ongoing community consultation study for London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. The first-stage project was conducted in 2007 and

findings were subsequently published. The present research represented the second-stage investigation and built on the findings from the previous project. We used a self-completion questionaire to examine residents’ responses to the hosting of 2010 Olympic sailing events. The “drop and collect” method was chosen for this survey, which involved hand delivery and recovery of the questionnaires. Respondents were able to complete the questionnaire in their own time yet the technique included the important aspect of personal contact to increase response likelihood. The technique proved to be cost effective and reliable, given the response rate it normally achieves. The technique also avoided interviewer bias and a certain degree of control over the sample selection process. Empirical studies also found support for the use of this technique in various contexts (e.g., Gursoy, Chi, and Dyer 2010; Roehl 1999; Snepenger, O’Connell, and Snepenger 2001). The questionnaire consisted of four pages and two sections. The first section asked residents to provide answers to the independent (i.e., event publicity, residents’ commitment to the event, and perceived fairness of event portrayal) and dependent variables (i.e., residents’ intention to support the event). The second section collected sociodemographic information such as age, gender, marital status, and ethnicity. Surveys were equally distributed within the 15 wards of both Weymouth and Portland, using a systematic sampling procedure and the street ward road index where streets were randomly selected after numbering. Residents received a cover letter explaining the purpose of the survey and a questionnaire. A total of 5,000 questionnaires were dropped off to residents between Wednesday 9 June and Friday 11 June 2010 and were attempted to be collected 48 hours later. On the occasions where the resident was not present, prepaid reply envelopes were provided for the resident to return the completed questionnaire by post. The questionnaire required 10 to 12 minutes to complete. By 30 June 2010, 1,192 completed questionnaires were collected. Among the total responses collected, 254 did not complete all measures and thus were removed from the

456 study. This resulted in 938 usable questionnaires, providing a response rate of 19%. Respondents who returned the completed questionnaire received a chance to win a prize of £50 store voucher. We reasoned that the nonrespondents might be relatively new to the area. People who have not resided in the area for long might have little knowledge about the area and were unable to assess how the community was changing because of the event development; hence, they might find it difficult to respond to the survey (Snepenger, O’Connell, and Snepenger 2001). Importantly, the Borough has approximately 64,500 residents and only 5,000 questionnaires were disseminated. The study’s response rate was accomplished in less than a month, and it would have significantly increased for a higher target and cost. Resident studies conducted in the fields of event and tourism reported similar response rate (e.g., Gursoy et al. 2010; Yoon et al. 2001; Zhou and Ap 2009), further supporting the research validity.

Independent Variables The independent variables in our study were event publicity, residents’ commitment to the event, and perceived fairness of event portrayal. Event publicity was operationalized as the valence of media coverage and was measured on a single-item 5-point scale (1 = negative and 5 = positive) (Ritchie, Shipway, and Chien 2010). Residents’ commitment to the event was measured by adapting the scales used by Garbarino and Johnson (1999) and Kelley and Davis (1994). An eight-item, 5-point Likert-type scale assessed the degree to which a resident viewed himself or herself as psychologically intertwined with the event (1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree; Cronbach’s α = .86). The scale captured the extent to which residents identified with the event, their belief in and acceptance of the event’s values, and the feeling of an emotional bonding to the event. In addition, residents were instructed to think about portrayal of the event in the media. We measured perceived fairness of event portrayal on a three-item, 5-point scale (1 = unfair/biased/unbelievable and 5 = fair/unbiased/believable; Cronbach’s α = .85) (Ritchie, Shipway, and Chien 2010).

Dependent Variables Residents’ intention to support the event was measured by asking residents the extent to which they would support the event’s development on a three-item, 5-point scale (1 = extremely unlikely/impossible/no chance and 5 = extremely likely/highly possible/sure to support; Cronbach’s α = .98). The scale was adapted from Lacher and Mizerski’s (1994) study. Respondents were also instructed to provide information regarding their perceptions of the event development in the community in an open-ended question (i.e., “Please list below any comments that you may have concerning Olympic-related developments”).

Journal of Travel Research 51(4)

Results Descriptive Statistics A total of 938 responses were recorded comprising 46% female respondents, compared to 50% from the census data (Office of National Statistics 2001). Respondent age ranged from 14 to older than 65 years, with the majority of respondents (80%) being older than 46, compared with 55% of the local population (Office of National Statistics 2001). Nearly two-thirds of respondents are married (65%) compared with 63% of the population, while more than 50% of respondents are currently retired compared with 16.4% of the local population (Office of National Statistics 2001). Only 7% of respondents consider themselves employed within the tourism industry. Ninety-four percent of respondents are of Anglo-Saxon ethnicity, and almost 80% of respondents have been a resident of Weymouth and Portland for more than 11 years. Approximately one in five respondents regularly participate in water-based activities such as sailing and windsurfing (21%). Almost 82% of respondents said they are somewhat or very interested in local politics. Compared to the local census data, the sample is relatively representative by gender and martial status but overrepresented by age, with a higher proportion of older and retired respondents completing the survey. However, it should be noted that the most recent census data was from 2001 and that respondents who were not employed because of sickness or disability or were identified as carers in the census are not included in the comparison above. The sociodemographic profile of respondents should be kept in mind when viewing the remainder of the Results section.

Support of the Social Dilemma Conceptualization To understand whether residents did exhibit a social dilemma when considering mega event development in the community, we first examined the qualitative data provided by the open-ended question. Following the approach used by Kreck (1981) and Kneesel, Baloglu, and Millar (2010), we coded resident responses by analyzing the response content, counting frequencies, and dividing comments into four categories: (1) residents who were mainly concerned about personal sacrifices made for the event, (2) residents who showed great expectations of collective good the event brings to the community, (3) residents who clearly demonstrated a dilemma toward the event development, and (4) residents who were ambivalent/indifferent. Two researchers coded the responses independently. Once the coding was completed, the researchers tabulated the groupings and any discrepancies were resolved by comparing the statements (see Table 1). The qualitative comments evidently showed the tradeoffs residents faced between the costs and benefits of hosting the event. Obvious expressions of doubts over hosting the event were not uncommon, which were also accompanied by

457

Chien et al. Table 1. Summary of Qualitative Responses Theme

Frequency

Percentage

Sample Statements

Concerns about personal sacrifices made for the event

244

26

Expectations of collective good the event brings to the community

253

27

Clear dilemmas toward the event development

290

30.9

Ambivalence/ indifference

 79

8.4

“It’s interrupted my life and given me real grief when trying to travel anywhere.” “As owner of a small holiday park one of my main concerns is to retain historical or traditional and usual market for 2013 and beyond. I have seen no evidence of effort or thought about this so far.” “I think we are encountering unnecessary road works and tremendous expense caused by these games.” “The borough is lucky to be chosen as a venue for the Olympics, and developments will be a permanent bonus for us.” “The games and related developments and legacy are a major boost to well being of the area.” “I am delighted that the Olympics are coming to Weymouth. This is a great privilege and a one in a lifetime opportunity. We should have great pride in our Borough and those that are involved in the organising of this event.” “I feel that the 2012 Olympic sailing and water sports will improve Weymouth’s facilities and reputation. But I feel locals have not been sufficiently involved in development and too much emphasis is based on only two-four weeks of our lives, especially where transport is a concern.” “Happy to host Olympics and Paralympics here at Weymouth and Portland—but feel strongly that afterwards Weymouth and Portland will be dead—and left to pick up the financial debts they will most likely occur. Also unnecessary changes—for example road works and roundabouts.” “Yes there may be periods when the town is busy but overall it will bring interesting people to the town, who on the whole are friendly and will be spending their money here.” “Pointless.” “Uninterested.”

Note: Seventy-two respondents (7.7%) did not provide any statement.

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables (N = 938) Construct (Measure)

M

SD

Event Publicity

Event publicity Commitment Perceived fairness Intention to support

3.57 2.95 3.51 3.15

 .91  .76  .90 1.27

.20* .44* .28*

Commitment

.31* .75*

Perceived Fairness

Intention to Support

.37*

       

*p < .001.

concerns about the personal sacrifices needed for the event. Despite worries over individuals’ short-term interests, residents expressed the “we-ness” sentiment and were keen to engage in individual restraint in order to achieve the collective good. Residents who expressed willingness to cooperate with the event organizers and local authorities appeared to exhibit positive evaluations of the community as well as a moral sense of duty to support it. Some residents explicitly voiced disappointment over the lack of involvement in the event development and as a result, viewed the event organization and local authorities as untrustworthy. Such sentiment highlighted issues concerning information and the role of the media. Overall, comments from residents reflected a social dilemma that embodied a potential tension between individual incentives and collective benefits.

Event Publicity and Perceived Fairness on Intention to Support We tested the hypotheses by running a series of regression models. Means, standard deviations (S.D.), and correlations are presented in Table 2. We began by examining the relationship between event publicity, perceived fairness of event portrayal, and residents’ intention to support (Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 3a). In Model 1, a simple regression analysis was performed with event publicity as the predictor and residents’ intention to support as the criterion. Supporting Hypothesis 1, results suggested that 8% of the variance in intention to support could be explained by the predictor, R = .28, R2adjusted = .08, F(1, 936) = 80.37, p < .001.

458

Journal of Travel Research 51(4)

Table 3. Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Event Publicity and Perceived Fairness of Event Portrayal on Residents’ Intention to Support

Step 1   Event publicity (EP)   Perceived fairness (PF) Step 2   Event publicity (EP)   Perceived fairness (PF)   EP × PF

b .15* .30* .16* .29* .13*

R2 R2adjusted R2change F Value .15

.15

.15

.17

.17

.02

df

83.75 2, 935     63.01 3, 934      

*p < .001.

Residents’ Intenon to Support

Parameter

5 4.5 4

Low fairness High fairness

3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Negave publicity

In Model 2, the interaction between event publicity and perceived fairness of event portrayal was tested in a hierarchical moderated multiple regression analysis, with residents’ intention to support as the criterion. Event publicity and perceived fairness of event portrayal were entered as predictors at step 1, while event publicity, perceived fairness of event portrayal, and their cross product were entered at step 2. Both event publicity and perceived fairness of event portrayal were mean centered by subtracting the mean from each score, and the interaction term was based on these centered scores. Mean centering was performed to minimize multicollinearity between the predictors. In step 1, results confirmed that the main effects of event publicity and perceived fairness of event portrayal predicted residents’ intention to support the event, R = .39, R2adjusted = .15, F(2, 935) = 83.75, p < .001. That is, 15% of the variance in intention to support could be jointly explained by the predictors. The semipartial correlations revealed that 2% of the variance explained appeared to be uniquely accounted for by event publicity, β = .15, t(935) = 4.47, p < .001. Perceived fairness of event portrayal uniquely accounted for 7% of the variance in residents’ intention to support, β = .30, t(935) = 8.96, p < .001. Compared to event publicity, perceived fairness of event portrayal appeared to be a more important predictor. In step 2, a significant increment in residents’ intention to support variance was observed, R2change = .02, Fchange(1, 934) = 18.42, p < .001. The interaction explained 2% of the variance in residents’ intention to support over and above the additive effects of event publicity and perceived fairness of event portrayal. The overall equation was statistically significant, R = .41, R2adjusted = .17, F(3, 934) = 63.01, p < .001. Event publicity, perceived fairness of event portrayal, and their interaction jointly accounted for 17% of the variance in residents’ intention to support the event. Table 3 provides the results of hierarchical regression analysis. Simple slopes analysis was conducted to further analyze the interaction. The values 1 standard deviation above and below the means were used for high and low values for each variable. When perceived fairness of event portrayal was high, event publicity had a significantly positive relationship

Posive publicity Event Publicity

Figure 2. Effects of event publicity and perceived fairness of event portrayal on residents’ intention to support. Note: High and low values were +1 SD and –1 SD from the mean, respectively

with residents’ intention to support, β = .26, b = .37, t(934) = 6.20, p < .001. In other words, people who perceived portrayals of the event as fair showed significantly greater intention to support the event in response to positive event publicity compared with negative event publicity. On the contrary, when people perceived portrayals of the event to be unfair, event publicity and residents’ intention to support were unrelated, β = .05, t(934) = 1.27, p = .20, ns. Neither positive nor negative event publicity influenced residents’ support of the event. The findings supported hypothesis 3a and the interaction effect is shown in Figure 2.

The Mediating Role of Commitment To test whether resident commitment to the event mediated the effects of event publicity (i.e., hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 2c), we conducted a series of regression analyses following the recommendations of Baron and Kenny (1986). The basic test for such mediation depends on four statistical outcomes. First, the effect of the independent variable (i.e., event publicity) on the dependent variable (i.e., residents’ intention to support) must be significant. Second, the independent variable must significantly influence the mediating variable (i.e., residents’ commitment to the event). Third, the proposed mediating variable has to significantly influence the dependent variable. Fourth, when accounting for the mediating variable, the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable must become nonsignificant (i.e., full mediation) or diminished (i.e., partial mediation). A regression analysis on residents’ intention to support scores revealed a significant effect of event publicity, β = .28,

459

Chien et al.

Event Publicity and Perceived Fairness on Residents’ Event Commitment To test hypothesis 3b, event publicity and perceived fairness of event portrayal were entered as predictors at step 1 of a hierarchical moderated multiple regression model, while event publicity, perceived fairness of event portrayal, and their cross product were entered at step 2. The resulting equation was statistically significant in step 1, R = .32, R2adjusted = .10, F(2, 935) = 52.85, p < .001, indicating that event publicity and perceived fairness of event portrayal jointly accounted for 10% of the variance in residents’ commitment to the event. Inspection of the semi-partial correlations revealed that 58% of the variance explained appears to be uniquely accounted for by event publicity, β = .08, t(936) = 2.44, p = .015. Perceived fairness of event portrayal uniquely accounted for 6% of the variance in residents’ commitment to the event, β = .27, t(936) = 7.91, p < .001. Interestingly, event publicity exerted a greater influence on residents’ commitment than the perceived fairness of event portrayal. In step 2, there was a significant increment in residents’ commitment to the event variance, R2change = .02, Fchange(1, 934) = 15.57, p < .001. The overall equation was likewise statistically significant, R = .34, R2adjusted = .11, F(3, 934) = 40.97, p < .001. Event publicity, perceived fairness of event portrayal, and their interaction jointly accounted for 12% of the variance in residents’ commitment to the event. Findings from the hierarchical regression analysis were provided in Table 4. The interaction effect was shown in Figure 3. Results of the simple slopes analysis showed that when perceived fairness of event portrayal was high, event publicity had a significantly

Table 4. Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis of Event Publicity and Perceived Fairness of Event Portrayal on Residents’ Commitment to the Event R2 R2adjusted R2change F Value

b

Parameter Step 1   Event publicity (EP)   Perceived fairness (PF) Step 2   Event publicity (EP)   Perceived fairness (PF)   EP × PF

.08* .27* .09* .27* .12*

.10

.10

.10

.12

.11

.02

df

52.85 2, 935     40.97 3, 934      

*p < .001.

5 4.5 4

Commitment Scores

t(936) = 8.97, p < .001. The findings confirmed the support of hypothesis 1. A second regression analysis on the mediator (i.e., residents’ commitment to the event) revealed a significant main effect of event publicity, β = .20, t(936) = 6.36, p < .001. The semipartial correlations revealed that event publicity accounted for 4% of the variance in residents’ commitment. Hypothesis 2a was supported. A third regression analysis found that commitment was also a significant predictor of residents’ support to the event. Commitment uniquely accounted for 6% of the variance in residents’ intention to support the event, β = .75, t(936) = 35.07, p < .001. Hypothesis 2b was supported. A final regression analysis, including the independent variable and the mediator, revealed that when the mediator was added to the model, the effect of event publicity on residents’ intention to support became less significant, β = .13, t(935) = 6.19, p < .001. A Sobel test, computed to assess the reduction in the strength of the effect of the independent variable after controlling for the mediator, showed that this reduction was significant, z = 4.46, p < .001. This finding suggested that the effect of event publicity on residents’ intention to support was partially mediated by commitment, supporting hypothesis 2c.

Low fairness High fairness

3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Negave publicity

Posive publicity Event Publicity

Figure 3. Effects of event publicity and perceived fairness of event portrayal on residents’ commitment to event. Note: High and low values were +1 SD and –1 SD from the mean, respectively.

positive relationship with residents’ commitment to the event, β = .19, b = .16, t(934) = 4.38, p < .001. On the contrary, when people perceived the media coverage of the event to be unfair, event publicity and residents’ commitment to the event were unrelated, β = –.009, t(934) = –.217, p = .828, ns. That is, neither positive nor negative event publicity would lead to significant change in residents’ commitment to the event when event portrayals were considered unfair. The findings supported hypothesis 3b.

Discussion and Implications This article contributes to our scant but growing understanding of resident reactions to mega event development in the community, by providing insights into the determinants of and mechanisms underlying consumers’ behavioral responses. The notion of social dilemma has heretofore not been applied to community residents, but our findings add to

460 the tourism literature. The results of our research point to theoretical and practical implications to strengthen the understanding and management of event publicity.

Theoretical Implications Extant research on local residents’ reactions to hosting special events and festivals has focused primarily on their perceptions of the economic and social benefits brought to the community. Much research in this area has drawn on social exchange theory to explain residents’ response outcomes such as their perceptions and attitudes (e.g., Deccio and Baloglu 2002; Gursoy and Kendall 2006; Waitt 2003). Our view differs slightly, however, as we do not consider residents as empowered decision makers. Instead, we assume that residents are driven by their innate motivation to achieve a balance between personal incentives and cooperative actions, and their responses may not be entirely rational or calculative. Although this paradoxical possibility has been observed in the event and tourism contexts, to our knowledge, this article is the first to conceptualize residents’ reactions to event development in the local community as a social dilemma. Our study extends the concept of social dilemma beyond the realms of psychology and consumer research into the event and tourism management field. We provide empirical validation that residents indeed experience quandary in relation to hosting a mega event in the community. Our qualitative data corroborate the individual-versus-group tension at the heart of local residents. The trade-offs and personal sacrifices that many residents referred to (e.g., “Massive inconvenience while roads being closed, huge disruption to residents trying to go about daily lives”) clearly highlight their doubts about the long-term benefits the event brings to the community. Negative information about mega events and their organizational committees is widely prevalent in the mass media. Yet there has been little systematic investigation of how residents process event publicity. For inspirations, we draw on the framing literature to suggest that residents’ perceptions of the events could be influenced by the persuasive communication the mass media creates. Valence of news reporting is shown to contribute to residents’ cognitive and behavioral reactions. Findings from our study are in line with those in message framing research in psychology and marketing (e.g., Maheswaran and Meyers-Levy 1990), that the manner in which an advertisement or product labeling is presented influences consumers’ motivation to process the information and behaviors. Similarly, having the event represented by the media can be an effective way of promotion; however, a poor portrayal of the event can eliminate and even reverse this effect. Negative event publicity frames public perception and leads to negative elaboration of the event, which in turn dilutes residents’ intention to support the event development. Our study also confirms existing findings that community

Journal of Travel Research 51(4) support of the event is likely to reduce if its negative impacts are disclosed to the public (Gursoy, Kim, and Uysal 2004). In other words, negative publicity jeopardizes residents’ support. The mechanisms that underlie residents’ processing of persuasive communication remain largely unexplored and represent a fruitful area of future investigations. A key theoretical contribution of this article stems from its focus on how event publicity engenders residents’ commitment to the event and overcomes individual reluctance to cooperate. Specifically, we find that perceived fairness of event portrayal is an important moderator of consumer response to event publicity. Our study draws on fairness heuristics to implicate the influence exerted by perceived fairness of event portrayal as a key determinant of resident commitment and support. Residents who perceive the event portrayal to be unfair discount the media’s trustworthiness. This is manifest in their responses to event publicity: neither positive nor negative event publicity would change residents’ commitment or support of the event. When residents consider portrayals of the event as fair, positive event publicity not only generates higher commitment levels but also greater support. The reverse is observed when event publicity is negative. We extend the psychology of organizational fairness to resident study in event management, by demonstrating that perceived fairness also influences residents’ cooperation decision. Our findings provide the first direct support for the theoretical assertion that when residents are uncertain about their assessment of the exact event outcome, they use perceptions of overall fairness of event portrayal as decision heuristics to infer how trustworthy the information can be. The mediation analysis also confirms that event publicity affects residents’ intention to support through commitment. Notably, we find that commitment only partially mediates the effect of event publicity. Thus, the valence of event information has direct influence over the residents’ attitudinal strength as well as overt responses. Although the tourism literature has previously considered the impact of residents’ community attachment on perceptions of event development (e.g., Deccio and Baloglu 2002; Gursoy and Kendall 2006), it has not considered the specific influence of commitment. The definition we adopt suggests that commitment has three components: affective, normative, and continuance; and attachment is clearly subsumed under affective commitment (Bansal, Irving, and Taylor 2004). Consequently, our findings extend earlier studies to suggest that event publicity not only affects residents’ emotional bond to the event, but also instigates normative influence. Although our commitment scale does not specifically follow the three-dimensional commitment model, they broadly capture residents’ emotional attachment to the event (e.g., “When someone praises the 2012 Games, it feels like a personal compliment”), obligations (e.g., “I would expend effort on behalf of the event to help it succeed”), and disposition to stay connected with the event (e.g., “The fate of the

461

Chien et al. this event is of no concern to me”; reverse coded). Future research could measure all three types of commitment and assess their effects separately. Overall, our results indicate that residents’ commitment to the event can be strengthened if they are convinced by the media. This finding confirms that attitudinal change precedes the behavioral intention and suggests that event publicity should work through building high level of commitment. Further research exploring how local authorities and event organizations can enhance residents’ commitment to the event would be desirable.

Managerial Implications The findings noted in this study suggest a number of managerial implications. In the area of relationship management, publicity has been shown to play a pivotal role in swinging public opinion. Our study highlights the importance of media in the accurate and fair reporting of event-related information. Indeed, some researchers have already emphasized the value for events to maintain a good relationship with the media (e.g., Mossberg and Getz 2006; Robertson and Rogers 2009). Thus, event organizations need to manage the media effectively, especially at times when controversies and crises emerge. Even more importantly, the event management committee needs to cultivate positive relationships with specific media outlets and to ensure that reporters are kept “in the loop.” Ongoing communication posts should be established, and the media need to be supplied with a cohesive and consistent message (Wilson, Stavros, and Westberg 2008). Given that residents form perceptions of fairness on the basis of information received, it is important for the local authorities and event organizations to provide information that is deemed credible and trustworthy via the mass media. Also, once the fairness perception is formed, it can be long lasting. Thus, local authorities and event organizations need to ensure that when a negative incident or crisis strikes, responses to the media need to be speedy and accurate (Wilson, Stavros, and Westberg 2008). Communicating information via the event’s websites could also demonstrate the event’s willingness to invite public scrutiny and involvement. This would allow residents to judge if the media is making an exaggeration in order to compete for readership. With the proliferation of media including social media, the event organizing committee is recommended to be mindful of public opinion. This could be done through frequent environmental scanning in order to stay abreast of resident sentiment and to understand how different stakeholders gather information. Conducting adequate research to identify residents’ needs and concerns could help manage expectations more effectively. Our study demonstrates that commitment plays a key role in the prediction of future behavior. Therefore, a proactive public relations approach should instill trust, which in turn will help nurture resident commitment.

Limitations and Future Research As with all survey research, results of our study likely suffer from common method bias for using a self-reporting technique. Compared with the local census, our data are overrepresented with older respondents, possibly because of the drop-and-collect method we used. The use of cross-sectional design also prevents causal inferences. Further research must determine the causal relationship among variables in the model. For example, studies that examine the effects of event publicity on residents’ support could manipulate the type of publicity, source of information, and severity of the problems involved. A related issue is that exposure to event publicity varies in terms of quantity, sequence, and temporal order, but these factors were not investigated in our study. How do residents, who are initially exposed to negative event publicity, update and change their perceptions of the event during subsequent exposure to positive event information? Future work is needed on how characteristics associated with the media exposure affect residents’ responses. The quantitative findings could also be further extended by employing communication factors (e.g., media vehicles, message formats, characteristics of the spokesperson) that contribute to residents’ perceptions, ideally measured through methods other than self-report. Limitations may also derive from the generalizability of our results to other types of events, such as arts festivals. Testing the conceptual model in additional event settings is necessary to fully understand whether and how the role of event publicity changes across contexts. Moreover, our study focuses on the perceived fairness of event portrayal as a key moderator. In future studies, researchers need to examine whether the findings could extend to a more multifaceted measure of perceived fairness, as it may involve different types of justice (Masterson et al. 2000). Additional works should also examine other factors that may act as a decision heuristic to infer trust. Similarly, other factors may moderate the relationship between event publicity, resident commitment, and intention to support. These may include residents’ familiarity with the issues involved and attitude to tourism in general. Incorporation of these factors in future studies would improve the explanatory power of our model and contribute to a better understanding of resident behavior. Furthermore, we consider the mediating effect of commitment in our conceptual model. Future research must distinguish between the antecedents and consequence of commitment and further understand the role commitment plays in eliciting certain behavioral patterns. Research that examines how event organizers and authorities can enhance residents’ commitment toward the event development would be desirable. Finally, our research focuses on the publicity and media coverage in the context of special events. However, the findings could be extended to other types of tourism settings, for example, negative destination reports or unfavorable publicity about the hospitality industry.

462 If residents’ perceptions and support of event development in the community can be conceptualized as a social dilemma, then much can be gained from studying personal or group-related characteristics to better understand the antecedents and consequences of the dilemma. For instance, residents’ identification to the community, as well as their perception of community cohesiveness, may provide emotional glue that binds the community members together. These factors may influence residents’ commitment to the event and community as a whole, in addition to the media effects. An individual resident’s reference groups are also likely to exert normative influence on judgment and decision to cooperate. Consequently, a comprehensive model that incorporates these variables and heir interactions represents a potentially fruitful future research agenda. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding The authors acknowledge the contribution of both Jacqui Gisborne (Regeneration, Tourism, Marketing and Promotions Officer) and Simon Williams (Head of 2012 Operations) from Weymouth and Portland Borough Council, United Kingdom, for their guidance and financial support throughout this study.

References Ahluwalia, Rohini, Robert E. Burnkrant, and H. Rao Unnava. (2000). “Consumer Response to Negative Publicity: The Moderating Role of Commitment.” Journal of Marketing Research, 37 (May): 203-14. Bansal, Harvir S., P. Gregory Irving, and Shirley F. Taylor. (2004). “A Three-Component Model of Customer Commitment to Service Providers.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32 (3): 234-50. Baron, Ruben M., and David A. Kenny. (1986). “The ModeratorMediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic and Statistical Considerations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (December): 1173-82. Dawes, Robyn M., and David M. Messick. (2000). “Social Dilemmas.” International Journal of Psychology, 35 (2): 111-16. Deccio, Cary, and Seyhmus Baloglu. (2002). “Nonhost Community Resident Reactions to the 2002 Winter Olympics: The Spillover Impacts.” Journal of Travel Research, 41 (1): 46-56. Dwyer, Larry, Robert Mello, Nina Mistilis, and Trevor Mules. (2000). “A Framework for Assessing ‘Tangible’ and ‘Intangible’ Impacts of Events and Conventions.” Event Management, 6 (3): 175-89. Entman, Robert M. (1993). “Framing: Towards Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm.” Journal of Communication, 43 (4): 51-58. Falkheimer, Jesper. (2007). “Events Framed by the Mass Media: Media Coverage and Effects of America’s Cup Preregatta in Sweden.” Event Management, 11: 81-88.

Journal of Travel Research 51(4) Fletcher, J. (2006). Olympic effects in Weymouth-Portland and the South West Region 2012. Unpublished report for Southwest RDA, February: Bournemouth University. Fredline, Elizabeth, and Bill Faulkner. (2002). “Residents’ Reactions to the Staging of Major Motorsport Events within Their Communities: A Cluster Analysis.” Event Management, 7 (2): 103-14. Funk, Daniel C., and Mark P. Pritchard. (2006). “Sport Publicity: Commitment’s Moderation of Message Effects.” Journal of Business Research, 59: 613-21. Garbarino, Ellen, and Mark S. Johnson. (1999). “The Different Roles of Satisfaction, Trust, and Commitment in Customer Relationships.” Journal of Marketing, 63 (April): 70-87. Getz, Donald. (2008). “Event Tourism: Definition, Evolution, and Research.” Tourism Management, 29: 403-28. Getz, Donald, and Sheranne Fairley. (2004). “Media Management at Sport Events for Destination Promotion: Case Studies and Concepts.” Event Management, 8: 127-39. Gibson, Heather J., Christine Xueqing Qi, and James J. Zhang. (2008). “Destination Image and Intent to Visit China and the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games.” Journal of Sport Management, 22: 427-50. Gruen, Thomas W., John O. Summers, and Frank Acito. (2000). “Relationship Marketing Activities, Commitment, and Membership Behaviors in Professional Associations.” Journal of Marketing, 64 (July): 34-49. Gursoy, Dogan, Christina G. Chi, and Pam Dyer. (2010). “Local’s Attitudes toward Mass and Alternative Tourism: The Case of Sunshine Coast, Australia.” Journal of Travel Research, 49 (3): 381-94. Gursoy, Dogan, and K. W. Kendall. (2006). “Hosting Mega Events: Modeling Locals’ Support.” Annals of Tourism Research, 33 (3): 603-23. Gursoy, Dogan, Kyungmi Kim, and Muzaffer Uysal. (2004). “Perceived Impacts of Festivals and Special Events by Organizers: An Extension and Validation.” Tourism Management, 25: 171-81. Jones, David A., and Martin L. Martens. (2009). “The Mediating Role of Overall Fairness and the Moderating Role of Trust Certainty in Justice-Criteria Relationships: The Formation and Use of Fairness Heuristics in the Workplace.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30: 1025-51. Kelley, Scott W., and Mark A. Davis. (1994). “Antecedents to Customer Expectations for Service Recovery.” Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 22 (Winter): 52-61. Kim, Samuel Seongseop, and James F. Petrick. (2005). “Residents’ Perceptions on Impacts of the FIFA2002 World Cup: The Case of Seoul as a Host City.” Tourism Management, 26: 25-38. Kneesel, Erin, Seyhmus Baloglu, and Michelle Millar. (2010). “Gaming Destination Images: Implications for Branding.” Journal of Travel Research, 49 (1): 68-78. Kreck, Lothar A. (1981). “When Mt. St. Helens Blew Its Top.” Journal of Travel Research, 19 (16): 16-22. Lacher, Kathleen T., and Richard Mizerski. (1994). “An Exploratory Study of the Responses and Relationships Involved in the Evaluation of, and in the Intention to Purchase New Rock Music.” Journal of Consumer Research, 21 (September): 366-80.

463

Chien et al. Lind, E. Allan, and Kees Van den Bos. (2002). “When Fairness Works: Toward a General Theory of Uncertainty Management.” Research in Organizational Behavior, 24: 181-223. Maheswaran, Durairaj, and Joan Meyers-Levy. (1990). “The Influence of Message Framing and Issue Involvement.” Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (August): 361-67. Masterson, Suzanne S., Kyle Lewis, Barry M. Goldman, and M. Susan Taylor. (2000). “Integrating Justice and Social Exchange: The Differing Effects of Fair Procedures and Treatment on Work Relationships.” Academy of Management Journal, 43: 738-48. Meyer, John P., and Lynne Herscovitch. (2001). “Commitment in the Workplace: Toward a General Model.” Human Resource Management Review, 11 (3): 299-326. Meyers-Levy, Joan, and Durairaj Maheswaran. (2004). “Exploring Message Framing Outcomes When Systematic, Heuristic, or Both Types of Processing Occur.” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (1/2): 159-67. Moorman, Christine, Gerald Zaltman, and Rohit Deshpandé. (1992). “Relationships between Providers and Users of Market Research: The Dynamics of Trust within and between Organizations.” Journal of Marketing Research, 29 (August): 314-29. Mossberg, Lena, and Donald Getz. (2006). “Stakeholder Influences on the Ownership and Management of Festival Brands.” Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 6 (4): 308-26. Office of National Statistics. (2001). Lead dataset list. http://www .neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadDatasetList.do;jsessionid=ac1f930bce642323f76be3e4a828b9eb557 262bcd64?a=3&b=276940&c=Weymouth&d=13&g=43 9265&i=1001x1003&m=0&r=1s=1222420289593&enc=1&d omainId=16&nsjs=true Office of National Statistics (accessed May 26, 2011). Pan, Steve. (2011). “The Role of TV Commercial Visuals in Forming Memorable and Impressive Destination Images.” Journal of Travel Research, 50 (2): 171-85. Paulin, Michèle, Ronald J. Ferguson, and Jasmin Bergeron. (2006). “Service Climate and Organizational Commitment: The Importance of Customer Linkages.” Journal of Business Research, 59: 906-15. Ritchie, Brent W., Dale Sanders, and Trevor Mules. (2007). “Televised Events: Shaping Destination Images and Perceptions from the Couch.” International Journal of Event Management Research, 3 (2): 12-23. Ritchie, Brent W., Richard Shipway, and P. Monica Chien. (2010). “The Role of the Media in Influencing Resident Support for the 2012 Olympic Games.” International Journal of Event and Festival Management, 1 (3): 202-19. Ritchie, J. R. Brent, and Catherine E. Aitken. (1984). “Assessing the Impacts of the 1988 Olympic Winter Games: The Research Program and Initial Results.” Journal of Travel Research, 22 (Winter): 17-25. Ritchie, J. R. Brent, and Marcia Lyons. (1987). “Olympulse III/IV: A Mid-Term Report on Resident Attitudes Concerning the XV Olympic Winter Games.” Journal of Travel Research, 28 (3): 14-23.

Robertson, Martin, and Phil Rogers. (2009). “Festivals, Cooperative Stakeholders and the Tole of the Media: A Case Analysis of Newspaper Media.” Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 9 (2-3): 206-24. Roehl, Wesley S. (1999). “Quality of Life Issues in a Casino Destination.” Journal of Business Research, 44: 223-29. Scheufele, Dietram A. (1999). “Framing as a Theory of Media Effects.” Journal of Communication, 49 (Winter): 103-22. Sen, Sankar, Zeynep Gürhan-Canli, and Vicki Morwitz. (2001). “Withholding Consumption: A Social Dilemma Perspective on Consumer Boycotts.” Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (December): 399-417. Snepenger, David, Ryan O’Connell, and Mary Snepenger. (2001). “The Embrace-Withdraw Continuum Scale: Operationalizing Residents’ Responses toward Tourism Development.” Journal of Travel Research, 40 (November): 155-61. Solberg, Harry Arne, and Holger Preuss. (2007). “Major Sport Events and Long-Term Tourism Impacts.” Journal of Sport Management, 21: 213-34. Waitt, Gordon. (2003). “Social Impacts of the Sydney Olympics.” Annals of Tourism Research, 30 (1): 194-215. Wilson, Bradley, Constantino Stavros, and Kate Westberg. (2008). “Player Transgressions and the Management of the Sport Sponsor Relationship.” Public Relations Review, 34: 99-107. Yoon, Yooshik, Dogan Gursoy, and Joseph S. Chen. (2001). “Validating a Tourism Development Theory with Structural Equation Modeling.” Tourism Management, 22: 363-72. Zhou, Yong, and John Ap. (2009). “Residents’ Perceptions towards the Impacts of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games.” Journal of Travel Research, 48 (1): 78-91.

Bios P. Monica Chien, PhD, is a lecturer in the School of Tourism at the University of Queensland, Australia. Her research focuses on consumer psychology, branding, sponsorship strategy and portfolio management, sports marketing, and integrated marketing communications. Brent W. Ritchie, PhD, is Deputy Head and Research Director in the School of Tourism at the University of Queensland, Australia. His research interests include tourist/visitor behavior, tourism crisis management and the attitudes of residents toward tourism. Richard Shipway, PhD, is a senior lecturer in sports studies in the School of Tourism at Bournemouth University, United Kingdom. His research interests include sport tourism, Olympic studies, impact and legacies of sports events, health promotion, and sport ethnography. Holly Henderson, PhD, is a lecturer in events management in the School of Tourism at Bournemouth University, United Kingdom. She has a specialist research interest in sailing events and research connected to the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.