Outcomes of the sport event volunteer experience: examining demonstration effects on first-time and returning volunteers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine if sport event volunteers were inspired by their event experience to volunteer in the future. Design/methodology/approach A postevent questionnaire was administered to 161 professional golf tournament volunteers, in which 93 respondents were identified as first-time volunteers of the event and 68 as returning volunteers. A moderation analysis was conducted to assess if previous event-specific volunteer experience moderated the relationship between volunteers' inspiration and future volunteer intentions. Findings First-time event-specific volunteers were significantly more inspired to volunteer again than returning event-specific volunteers. Findings indicate volunteers can be inspired from their event experience toward future volunteer intentions. Research limitations/implications This study offers conceptual understandings and new application of inspiration–behavioral intentions by examining sport events' (in)ability to inspire first-time and returning event volunteers to volunteer in the future. Findings are limited to the sport event volunteers' intention discussion. Practical implications This study demonstrates how event stakeholders can create positive future behavioral intentions for community members through hosting sport events. By positioning first-time event-specific volunteers within roles that can elicit inspiration (e.g. interacting with athletes), event managers can foster stronger future volunteer intentions. Originality/value This study extends the understanding of demonstration effects by moving beyond the traditional sport event spectators and sport participation intention foci. It demonstrates that sport events can inspire different spectator groups (i.e. event volunteers) toward different future behavioral intentions (i.e. volunteer intentions). Findings address previous sport event volunteer assumptions regarding intention, inspiration and volunteer segments.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".