Understanding demonstration effects among youth sport spectators: cognitive and affective explanations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study was to examine whether watching a live track cycling event could increase youths' intention to participate in the sport, and to identify cognitive and affective mechanisms associated with post-event intentions. Design/methodology/approach A sample of youth spectators ( n = 362) who experienced the 2016 Milton International Track Cycling Challenge completed pre- and post-event questionnaires to assess intention to participate and cognitive and affective components of their spectator experience. Findings Respondents' intentions to participate post-event were significantly higher than pre-event. Results also indicated that state inspiration mediated relationships between three cognitive dimensions of sport spectator experiences (i.e. fantasy, flow, evaluation) and intention to participate. Practical implications Sport managers should design youth day events to engage with youth prior to the event to increase their knowledge of the sport. This prior engagement may help youth to evaluate performances effectively. Moreover, event experience should be designed to incorporate vicarious and immersive experiences tailored to youth spectators. Originality/value The present study is one of the first to assess intentions to participate among youth spectators at multiple time points (i.e. before and after an event) and identifies specific mechanism within the spectator experience that may lead to a demonstration effect.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".