|کد مقاله||کد نشریه||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||نسخه تمام متن|
|140777||162783||2016||13 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||دانلود رایگان|
• Affective responses to gambling promotions during televised sport were analysed.
• Qualitative data were collected via a series of online focus groups with Australian sport viewers.
• Positive, negative and neutral affects were reported across a variety of gambling promotion types.
• Affective responses varied according to message delivery format and context in which promotions were displayed.
• A conceptual model was generated to facilitate future research around affective responses to gambling promotions during televised sport.
Gambling promotions extensively punctuate contemporary televised sport broadcasts and concerns have been raised about their potential impacts on vulnerable groups. Research suggests advertising can shape individuals’ emotions, or affect, towards a product/brand and can subsequently influence purchasing decisions. Consequently, understanding how promotion of gambling influences sport viewers is an important although sparsely addressed area of research. This paper presents exploratory research on affective responses towards gambling promotions displayed during televised sport. Eight online focus groups were conducted with a sample of regular sports viewers in Queensland, Australia. Participants were exposed to a variety of gambling promotions used in National Rugby League match telecasts. Utilising adaptive theory, themes reflecting affective responses to each promotional technique were identified. A range of positive and negative affective responses were identified including arousal, joy, anger and worry. A conceptual model representing emergent affective response categories, message delivery techniques and moderating variables is proposed to inform a broader future research agenda examining how gambling promotions during televised sport influence affective response and concomitant gambling intention.
Journal: Sport Management Review - Volume 19, Issue 3, June 2016, Pages 319–331