Team Social Responsibility Embedded in Correlates of Universalism Values, Sport Involvement, and Team Identification for Sustainable Management in Sporting Settings

Abstract

This study investigated the fans’ knowledge of team social responsibility (TSR) as well as the motivation and intentions associated with TSR. Other correlates included in the conceptual model are the fans’ value orientation of universalism, sport involvement, and team identification. A questionnaire was administered at three Chinese Professional Baseball League (CPBL) games in Taiwan (n = 520). It was found that perceptions of team social responsibility were linked to TSR-induced motivation to watch baseball. Universalism values, spectator sport involvement with CPBL, and team identification were found to be positively related to TSR knowledge, TSR-linked motivation, and TSR-linked intentions. The results provide useful insights that professional baseball teams can use to pursue a goal of sustainability and to ensure a uniquely engaged fan base.

1. Introduction

This study examines perceptions of team social responsibility (TSR) among fans of the Chinese Professional Baseball League (CPBL) in Taiwan. TSR aligned constructs were examined in the context of corporate engagement and social responsibility programs that appeared in sport news reports. TSR includes athlete volunteerism, educational initiatives, charitable donations, community development, fan appreciation, health-related initiatives, and environmental programs [1]. This study examined how knowledgeable fans are about these activities as well as both related motivation and behavioral intentions.

It is important to better understand how these programs influence peoples’ motivation and intentions generally, and specifically in the context of the CPBL a very popular professional sport competition deeply embedded in Taiwanese culture. Additionally, correlates of universalism values, levels of spectator sport involvement, and team identification were explored to better understand any influence on the knowledge of CPBL’s corporate social responsibility programs as well as the motivation and intention to watch CPBL games. Gambling-related scandals once occurred in Taiwan, so corporate social responsibility has become even more important as a means to improve the image of the CPBL and all teams.

This research brings together several conceptual approaches, and serves as a platform to extend our understanding of CSR in sports. On a voluntary basis, companies or organizations adopt CSR to integrate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and interaction with customers [2]. Corporations engaging in CSR initiatives seek to minimize or eliminate any harmful effects and maximize benefits to society [1,3]. By doing so, corporations hope to enhance their image to thereby improve competitiveness and performance [1,4]. The growing importance of CSR in sport has initiated research on the motives, stakeholder attitudes, practices, and outcomes [2].

It has been found that CSR initiatives have a positive impact on purchase intentions [1,5,6] (Mohr & Webb, 2005; Needham & Little, 2013; Walker & Kent, 2009). CSR works well for sporting organizations because they are influential and shape public discourse around responsible norms of behavior [7]. Additionally, as star players in professional sports make good role models and foster affect among sport fans, TSR can provide different meaningful perspectives compared to other business segments [1].

Prior research has examined perceptions and practices of CSR in the sports industry [4,8] including investigating the relationship between fans’ perceived CSR activities and their patronage as well as the effect of team identification [1]. However, prior research has indicated that using TSR programs as part of a cause-related marketing strategy in sporting organizations might not work very well due to inconsistencies in implementation [9]. More understanding of the correlates of TSR might help overcome this misalignment. The conceptual framework adapted for this research follows Needham and Little’s [6] framework to examine team social responsibility embedded in correlates of universalism values, spectator sport involvement, and team identification. This TSR framework allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the importance of TSR and sustainable management in sport settings.

2. Conceptual Development and Hypotheses

It is plausible that three elements of a fans’ underlying psychology (universalism values, spectator sport involvement, and team identification) influence three important outcomes related to TSR (knowledge, current motivation, and future intentions behaviors). Sport spectators who are knowledgeable about CSR in sport and are motivated to watch the games based on CSR programs, likely espouse universalism values [10,11] and will hence be more involved and identify with a team [6] that emphasizes TSR (see Figure 1).

Over several decades, the motivation to attend sporting events has received substantial attention in sports marketing literature [12,13]. For example, internal forces push people to watch sports (e.g., relaxation, vicarious achievement, sociability) and external forces pull people to watch sports (e.g., game drama, player skill). Additional attributes such as TSR programs may also enhance sport corporate image and reputation [1] and motivate people to watch sports.

It is important to understand how much fans know about TSR activities and whether that knowledge is linked to their fandom. In turn, good causes, awareness, or the knowledge of TSR may increase positive attitudes toward a team that fans support [1,14] and further influence the fans’ motivation to watch the team’s games. Watching motivation would then further influence their future intention to continue watching games. This is one way through which sport managers may assess the effectiveness of CSR programs. This rationale suggests two hypotheses:

Hypothesis 0a.

Fans who know more about their team’s TSR programs, will have higher TSR-linked motivations.

Hypothesis 0b.

Fans with higher TSR-linked motivations, will have higher TSR-linked intentions.

Value orientations are revealed through the pattern and intensity of basic beliefs about people, nature, and objects, serving as guiding principles in people’s lives [1,15]. The value pattern “universalism” places importance on collective interests with the understanding, appreciation, and protection for the welfare of all humans and for nature [10]. The dimension of universalism in the Schwartz theory of basic values is defined as notions like being understanding, admiring, tolerant, and caring for the interests of all humans and the nature [16,17]. Universalism values contain concerns for the welfare of those in the larger society and for nature; and consist of items such as social justice, equality, world at peace, world of beauty, unity with nature, and protecting the environment [18].

In their daily lives, those who value equality and world at peace are concerned with disadvantaged people and want to help them. Those who are concerned with nature and the environment and love to enjoy its beauty are more likely to appreciate initiatives regarding environmental protection for the Earth. People who value universalism are more likely to support CSR programs because of their altruistic focus. Many TSR programs in which athletes, teams, leagues, and sports participate are focused on the care of disadvantaged groups, health-related initiatives, charitable donations, environmental issues, and athlete volunteerism, and align with universalism values. This helps us understand why universalism values are important in the context of TSR. Given what we know about universalism values, three hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 1a.

Fans who place more emphasis on universalism values are more likely to know more about their teams’ TSR programs.

Hypothesis 1b.

Fans who place more emphasis on universalism values have higher TSR-linked motivations.

Hypothesis 1c.

Fans who place more emphasis on universalism values will have higher TSR-linked intentions.

Both the involvement and team identification constructs can be used for classifying and ultimately better understanding groups of sport spectators. Spectator sport involvement in this study was defined as the extent to which the fans view spectator sports as a central part of their life, a meaningful and engaging activity in their lives [19,20,21], whereas team identification was defined as the fan’s commitment and emotional involvement with a sporting team [22,23]. In sport, a need for affiliation makes spectators more likely to identify with a team in the sport due to frequent exposure and familiarity:

Hypothesis 2a.

Fans who are more psychologically involved are more likely to identify with a team.

People who are highly involved as fans are more likely to know more about CSR programs and therefore be more motivated to watch CPBL games due to good causes [14] than lesser involved people [1]. Three hypotheses emerge from this conceptual development:

Hypothesis 2b.

Fans who are more involved are likely to know more about their teams’ TSR programs.

Hypothesis 2c.

Fans who are more involved have higher TSR-linked motivations.

Hypothesis 2d.

Fans who are more involved will have higher TSR-linked intentions.

When people identify with a team, it is expected that they will know more about their teams‘ CSR programs, thus resulting in increased motivation to watch their teams’ games. Identification with a team can basically satisfy some human needs such as affiliation and self-enhancement. These needs drive a person to identify with a team and motivate the person to watch the team’s games. People with a higher level of team identification are expected to be more motivated to watch games than those with a lower level of team identification [22,23,24]. Accordingly, three hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 3a.

Fans who are more identified are likely to know more about their teams’ TSR programs.

Hypothesis 3b.

Fans who are more identified have higher TSR-linked motivations.

Hypothesis 3c.

Fans who are more identified will have higher TSR-linked intentions.

Many sport managers are familiar with sport involvement and team identification, but may not yet pay enough attention to the knowledge, motivation, and intentions linked to TSR. The inclusion of values, involvement, and identification in this conceptual model is vital to foster a deep understanding. The contribution of the current study is therefore an initial focused exploration of the underlying psychology of TSR in a professional sport context. A better understanding of TSR knowledge/motivations/intentions and their antecedents will allow sport managers to shape effective promotional campaigns.

3. Methods

The study design is the product of the aforementioned conceptual development and resulting hypothetical model (Figure 1). Section 3.1 provides an overview of the items used to measure the six constructs. Section 3.2 explains the data collection and provides a profile of the sample. The tools for the analysis used in this study included descriptive statistics, Cronbach’s alphas, composite reliability, average variance extracted, correlation coefficients, and exploratory factor analysis to examine the reliability and validity of scales and to check the bias of common method variance. Next, t tests and a combination of regression and structural equation modeling were conducted to test the model and the hypotheses.

3.1. Measurement

Questionnaire items were created from a review of the literature and other sporting news outlets covering TSR activity. Detailed information on the descriptive statistics for each item in terms of means, standard deviations, and reliabilities measured by Cronbach’s alphas is included. Five individual values of “universalism” were drawn from Schwartz’s [10,15,18,25] value systems: world at peace, protecting the environment, unity with nature, world of beauty, and equality. Using a 9-point Likert-scale, from “7 = supreme importance,” to “0 = not important at all, −1 = opposed to my values”, respondents rated the importance of each value as a guiding principle in their lives.

The scale for sport involvement has four items, which comprise the dimensions of hedonism or attraction, and centrality [26], and relate to affective (or enduring involvement) and behavioral systems of recreation specialization [20,27]. The dimension of involvement, symbolic value, was not contained because this dimension overlaps with the constructs of team identification. The scale used to measure team identification included four previously validated items from previous studies such as James and Ross [28], Gau, Wann, and James [29], Gau and Kim [30], and Wann and Branscombe [31]. Respondents answered items with a 7-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7).

Knowledge of the TSR programs of CPBL teams was measured with items unique for each team. The items were based on CPBL news related to each team’s TSR programs characterized as educational initiatives, environmental programs, charitable donations, community development, athlete volunteerism, fan appreciation, health-related initiatives, and care for disadvantaged groups. Watching motivation was also measured by the same four items related to the existing TSR programs of the CPBL teams. These items asked respondents whether these TSR programs would motivate them to watch these teams’ games. Future intentions to watch supported team’s games were measured with four questions asking if respondents would be willing to watch their teams’ games if the number of existing CPBL teams’ TSR programs increased. Again, a 7-point Likert scale was used.

3.2. Data Collection

Baseball is the most popular spectator sport in Taiwan and the baseball teams have an active TSR profile, so this is an ideal context for the current study. Data were collected onsite at three CPBL games who were a partner in and approved the research. At each data collection, the audience was divided into three blocks and the questionnaire was spread out among each block to make the sample representative of the wider population of baseball fans. A small magnet was given as a gift to people who returned the questionnaires.

A total of 533 questionnaires were distributed to baseball fans at three games. Of those who received a questionnaire, 526 participants returned it and a total of 520 questionnaires had all questions answered. The sample was comprised of 181 fans of Sinon Bulls, 143 that supported the Lions, 121 that supported Brother Elephants, and 75 of Lamigo Monkeys. There were almost twice as many male respondents (344 people) as females (176 people), reflecting the overall proportion of male to female fans of CPBL in Taiwan. Further sample demographics are outlined in

Table 1. Demographic profile of respondents.

	Number	%		Number	%
Gender			Age
Male	344	66.2	20 and under	148	28.5
Female	176	33.8	21–30	201	38.7
Education			31–40	124	23.8
Junior high and under	33	6.3	41–50	38	7.3
Senior high	145	27.9	51 and above	9	1.7
College	298	57.3	Occupation
Graduate school	44	8.5	Students	221	42.5
Income (U.S. dollar) per Year			Services	125	24.0
No income	151	29.0	Manufacturing	69	13.3
$4500 and under	65	12.5	Government employee	32	6.2
$4501–$9000	39	7.5	Housekeeping	11	2.1
$9001–$13,500	122	23.5	Husbandry and fishery	7	1.3
$13,501–$18,000	63	12.1	Retired people	4	0.8
$18,001–$22,500	19	3.7	Others	51	9.8
$22,501–$27,000	25	4.8
$27,001 and above	36	6.9

.

4. Results

The Cronbach’s alphas of the six scales were between 0.867 and 0.968, which were higher than 0.70, the level at which reliability is considered acceptable [32]. Composite reliabilities (CR) were between 0.88 and 0.94 while the statistics of average variance extracted (AVE) were between 0.65 and 0.79, indicating that all six scales met the convergent validity. Therefore, items for each of the scales were averaged to create a composite score for the scale that the items belonged to. The exploratory factor analysis showed that the items were loaded on their respective factors as expected (

Table 2. Results of exploratory factor analysis.

Factors
Universalism	Motivation	Involvement	Identification	Knowledge	Intention
0.854	0.061	0.087	−0.006	0.214	0.185
0.850	0.064	0.122	−0.021	0.142	0.122
0.842	0.055	0.125	0.151	0.084	0.186
0.831	0.105	0.083	0.100	−0.009	0.111
0.705	0.223	0.127	0.179	−0.025	0.149
0.143	0.834	0.150	0.133	0.261	0.213
0.126	0.827	0.134	0.112	0.264	0.198
0.127	0.778	0.116	0.165	0.326	0.229
0.165	0.744	0.174	0.177	0.379	0.203
0.093	0.150	0.828	0.272	0.184	0.152
0.223	0.173	0.828	0.245	0.100	0.152
0.232	0.181	0.795	0.309	0.071	0.187
0.075	0.065	0.756	0.326	0.216	0.176
0.078	0.193	0.323	0.823	0.181	0.181
0.164	0.155	0.300	0.799	0.139	0.258
0.103	0.108	0.324	0.798	0.175	0.216
0.086	0.156	0.300	0.714	0.243	0.219
0.142	0.251	0.078	0.208	0.813	0.079
0.082	0.281	0.156	0.112	0.773	0.194
0.116	0.280	0.182	0.201	0.760	0.095
0.044	0.450	0.164	0.144	0.633	0.179
0.270	0.197	0.166	0.182	0.207	0.802
0.254	0.310	0.145	0.281	0.142	0.765
0.191	0.146	0.273	0.224	0.156	0.743
0.265	0.327	0.159	0.241	0.086	0.722

Note: (1) Extraction method: Principal Component Analysis. (2) Rotation method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.

), indicating that the scales had discriminant validity without the bias of common method variance [6,33].

An analysis of the Pearson correlation among the six scales showed that all coefficients were significant (p < 0.05) between 0.300 (for universalism and knowledge) and 0.706 (for knowledge and motivation). All squares of these coefficients were lower than 0.50, while all AVEs were higher than 0.50 (

Table 3. Correlations among the six variables.

Note: (1) The left-lower side shows correlations among variables; the right-upper side shows squares of correlations among variables. (2) ** indicates p values were below 0.001. (3) Left upper to lower right diagonal numbers were AVEs.

), indicating that these six variables in this study met discriminant validity. In particular, the correlation between the two constructs of spectator sport involvement and team identification was 0.698, acceptable to differentiate these two concepts.

The means of the importance of universalism values were between 5.410 and 5.737 using a 9-point Likert-scale, from “7 = supreme importance,” to “0 = not important at all, −1 = opposed to my values” (

Table 4. Items of four variables.

Items	Mean	S.D.	Loading
Universalism value (Alpha = 0.905, CR = 0.91, AVE = 0.66)	5.553	1.215
In my daily lives, world at peace is an important value.	5.410	1.593	0.780
In my daily lives, protecting the environment is an important value.	5.704	1.420	0.859
In my daily lives, unity with nature is an important value.	5.423	1.426	0.886
In my daily lives, world of beauty in nature or arts is an important value.	5.492	1.370	0.849
In my daily lives, equality (concerned with the disadvantaged people) is an important value.	5.737	1.313	0.679
Spectator sport involvement (Alpha = 0.920, CR = 0.93, AVE = 0.76)	5.692	1.083
Watching CPBL is a meaningful activity for me.	5.827	1.043	0.918
Watching CPBL is a valuable activity for me.	5.783	1.099	0.913
Watching CPBL is an important activity for me.	5.692	1.258	0.862
I will take the initiative to collect information about CPBL.	5.465	1.392	0.791
Team identification (Alpha = 0.931, CR = 0.93, AVE = 0.78)	5.776	1.122
The (team name) are my team.	5.883	1.150	0.913
I am very concerned about the performance of (team name).	5.767	1.201	0.883
I consider myself a loyal fan of the (team name).	5.790	1.240	0.928
I want others to know that the (team name) are my team.	5.665	1.331	0.808
Intention (Alpha = 0.919, CR = 0.92, AVE = 0.74)	5.934	0.999
If (team name) requires the players pay attention to law, I will want to watch their game.	5.885	1.174	0.779
If (team name) does more environmental protection and eco-friendly activities to the earth, I will want to watch their games.	5.840	1.112	0.883
If (team name) does more charity activities, I will want to watch their games.	5.946	1.116	0.929
If (team name) promotes baseball by giving disadvantaged students a chance to experience this sport, I will want to watch their game.	6.065	1.053	0.853

Notes: (1) S.D. stands for “standard deviation” (2) Loading is “item loadings” derived from structural equation modeling (SEM). (3) Alpha here is Cronbach’s alpha. (4) CR stands for “Composite Reliability,” whereas AVE stands for “Average Variance Extracted.”

). The respondents basically reported a high level of sport involvement and team identification with composite means of 5.692 and 5.776 by a seven-point scale (Table 4). Participants indicated that they were knowledgeable or somewhat knowledgeable of the team’s TSR initiatives with means between 5.560 and 5.336 by a seven-point scale (

Table 5. Items of knowledge and motivation.

Items	Knowledge (K)		Motivation (M)
	Mean	S.D.	Mean	S.D.
Lions (Cronbach’s alphas: K = 0.897; M = 0.897)	5.560	1.229	5.692	1.119
The Lions have launched a baseball bus going around Taiwan to get more people familiar with baseball.	5.455	1.420	5.645	1.284
The Lions held education workshops attempting to stop gambling and prevent scandal in CPBL, and hoped that CPBL players do the best to be a role model.	5.802	1.269	5.893	1.250
The Lions invited fans to protect environment and love the earth together, and give reusable chopsticks for free when fans buy boxed lunch in stadium.	5.488	1.473	5.570	1.359
The Lions and Childhood Cancer Foundation collaborated to raise Christmas gifts for free to children at all childhood cancer centers in Taiwan.	5.496	1.456	5.661	1.222
Lamigo (Cronbach’s alphas: K = 0.899; M = 0.959)	5.393	1.394	5.600	1.333
The Lamigo has launched a baseball bus going around Taiwan to get more people familiar with baseball.	5.253	1.701	5.560	1.454
The Lamigo responded to the activities of the Ankang Nursing Home for Intellectual Disability in Taoyuan City to raise 10,000 catties of rice and take care of the disabled children.	5.280	1.657	5.533	1.417
The Lamigo responded to the Earth Day event held by Department of Environmental Protection, Taoyuan, and launched electric buses to transfer fans from the Taoyuan High Speed Rail Station.	5.440	1.544	5.627	1.412
The Lamigo provided free tickets for children to watch home games in Children’s Day.	5.600	1.452	5.680	1.367
Brothers (Cronbach’s alphas: K = 0.898; M = 0.908)	5.336	1.282	5.752	1.015
The Brothers have launched a baseball bus going around Taiwan to get more people familiar with baseball.	5.315	1.522	5.643	1.171
The Brothers provided free tickets for people who donated invoices to help those in need.	5.224	1.536	5.741	1.143
The Brothers have organized activities to promote breast cancer prevention and show loving care for females.	5.203	1.475	5.769	1.167
The Brothers went to the Children’s Homes to play Lele Baseball (樂樂棒球 in Chinese) with all children there.	5.601	1.322	5.853	1.100
Sinon Bulls (Cronbach’s alphas: K = 0.867; M = 0.968)	5.485	1.167	5.711	1.250
The Sinon Bulls have launched a baseball bus going around Taiwan to get more people familiar with baseball.	5.387	1.424	5.724	1.265
The Sinon Bulls invited fans to help vegetative patients and assist the construction of rooms compartment in Taichung branch of Genesis Social Welfare Foundation.	5.387	1.360	5.663	1.343
The Sinon Bulls held a Pink Mother’s Day event, provided mothers free tickets, and invited mothers of local centers of Taiwan Fund for Children and Families to serve as kick-off VIPs.	5.823	1.252	5.680	1.311
The Sinon Bulls cooperated with Miaoli center of Taiwan Fund for Children and Families to set up slow softball team and help children with more outdoor activities and sport experiences.	5.343	1.473	5.779	1.315

Notes: (1) For measuring “knowledge”, each of the statements begins with “I am aware that….” (2) For measuring “motivation”, each of the statements begins with “I watch games because….” (3) S.D. stands for “standard deviation.” (4) All the teams were combined together to calculate Composite Reliability (CR) and Average Variance Extracted (AVE): 0.88 and 0.65 for knowledge, 0.94 and 0.79 for Motivation.

). The respondents reported a high level of motivation to watch games because of these programs with means between 5.600 and 5.752 (Table 5). Respondents also reported a high level of intention to watch games in the future if their team increased and promoted more TSR programs (M = 5.934) (Table 4). As CSR or TSR is usually considered by the public as “good behavior,” a potential effect of "social desirability” might occur to support this good manner. Thus, it is important not to overestimate the strength of some of these relationships.

As different teams were based in different cities, they undertook different TSR activities and the marketing of such activities. Different teams have different players, and some players may be more well-known than others, so their fans might be more aware of the TSR activities than fans of another team. However, no significant differences were found among the four teams in their fans’ knowledge of TSR, TSR-induced motivation, and future intention perhaps because each team in this study has its own star players to acquire the fans’ support.

The results of one-sample t test showed that a team’s social responsibility did motivate respondents to watch baseball with all means of the four teams significantly higher than 4.5 (p < 0.001). Frequency analyses showed that 88.5 percent of respondents rated the level of intention higher than 4.5 in the 7-point scale to watch their teams’ games if their teams will increase TSR programs in the future. Paired t tests showed that the means of motivation and intention were significantly higher than the mean of knowledge (p < 0.001).

Analyses of three regression models showed that respondents who were more knowledgeable, more highly motivated to watch games because of TSR programs, and more likely intended to watch games in the future if TSR activities increased, placed more importance on universalism values. In addition, these kinds of respondents were also more involved with spectator sports, and were more likely to identify with a team. All hypotheses were directly supported except for H2c and H2d (

Table 6. Results of regression analyses.

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
	Dependent variable: Knowledge of supported teams’ CSR programs	Dependent variable: Current watching motivation because of supported teams’ CSR programs	Dependent variable: Future watching intention because of increasing supported TSR programs
Independent Variables	Standardized Beta, t value, p value	Standardized Beta, t value, p value	Standardized Beta, t value, p value
Universalism Values	0.129 t = 3.235 p = 0.001	0.123 t = 3.746 p < 0.001	0.266 t = 8.220 p < 0.001
Spectator sport involvement	0.159 t = 3.012 p = 0.003	Not significant	Not significant
Team Identification	0.357 t = 6.868 p < 0.001	0.095 t = 2.168 p = 0.031	0.312 t = 7.348 p < 0.001
Knowledge	Not available	0.592 t = 16.583 p < 0.001	Not available
Motivation	Not available	Not available	0.320 t = 9.208 p < 0.001
	Adjusted R square = 0.289 F = 71.226 p < 0.001	Adjusted R square = 0.532 F = 148.611 p < 0.001	Adjusted R square = 0.554 F = 162.056 p < 0.001

). However, the influence of spectator sport involvement on TSR-induced motivation was indirectly through team identification and knowledge regarding TSR. The influence of involvement on intention was also indirectly through team identification, knowledge, and motivation.

As multiple items were used from studies that contained and measured latent constructs, structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted. The results indicated that the model fit was acceptable as per Chi square per degree of freedom = 3.542, CFI = 0.943, IFI = 0.943, TLI = 0.935, and RMSEA = 0.70. All of the item loadings were appropriate between 0.679 and 0.929 (Table 4). Since the sets of four items measuring knowledge about TSR and TSR-induced motivation were similar for the four teams (Table 5), the four items were calculated together in SEM with item loadings for knowledge between 0.793 and 0.819 and with item loadings for motivation between 0.870 and 0.902. The parameter estimates for each path are shown in Figure 1. The results were similar with those of the regression analyses except that the path coefficients of H2b and H3b were not significant in SEM. Nevertheless, indirect effects still existed to support H2b and H3b.

5. Discussion

Although the influence of universalism values on the three TSR outcomes was more modest than team identification, they were significant nonetheless and formed an important part of the overall model (Table 6 and Figure 1). The direct effects of spectator sport involvement on TSR knowledge were not significant. This might be because spectator sport involvement was measured in the context of the entire CPBL rather than individual teams. Perhaps feelings of CPBL involvement would need to develop and become team identification with one of CPBL’s member teams first, before being linked to any of the TSR outcomes. That is, because spectator sport involvement is strongly linked with team identification (0.728, Figure 1), the indirect effects of spectator sport involvement existed on knowledge about TSR programs (0.728 × 0.404 = 0.294), on TSR-induced motivation (0.728 × 0.404 × 0.673 = 0.198), and on future intention (0.728 × 0.352 = 0.256, 0.728 × 0.404 × 0.673 × 0.353 = 0.070, 0.256 + 0.070 = 0.326) (Figure 1).

Results of the SEM analyses support all of the research hypotheses directly, indirectly, or both. Universalism values, spectator sport involvement, and team identification each show direct or at least indirect positive relations with TSR knowledge, TSR-linked motivation, and TSR-linked intentions. The proposed model that links the fans’ personal characteristics in universalism values, spectator sport involvement, and team identification with the fans’ perceptions of TSR is supported.

In the first regression model to predict TSR knowledge, the explained variance was 28.9 percent (33.2% in SEM). As the second and third regression models contained one more independent variable, they had higher prediction power than the first model. The explained variance of TSR-induced motivation in the second model and the explained variance of intention to watch sports because of increasing TSR programs in the third model were 55.4 percent and 53.2 percent, respectively (Table 6; 61.9%, 61.3% in SEM, Figure 1). In the third regression model, universalism values made a higher contribution to explaining TSR-linked intentions compared to the contribution to knowledge and motivation in the first and second models (Table 6 and Figure 1). This might be because universalism values are enduring and therefore can keep their influences on people’s intention behaviors.

Compared to knowledge and intentions, the effect of team identification on TSR-linked motivation was the lowest. It may be that identified fans need to first be aware of information of TSR programs and this may foster motivation and intention. Knowledge played a mediating role in the relationship between team identification and TSR-induced motivation.

This study tested a comprehensive model exploring TSR-linked outcomes and their antecedents. It therefore provides empirical evidence to unpack the relationship between the fans’ universalism values and TSR-linked intentions. Highly involved and identified fans that have universalism values have higher TSR-linked intention. This has meaningful implications on campaign creativity that may foster strong bonds between fans and teams. Marketing campaigns disseminating CSR programs may be effective in attracting the psychographic segment of the population who emphasize universalism values, are involved with spectator sports, and identify with a team. Previous studies have focused on internal motives [12,13] that push people to watch sports; this study, however, showed that external attributes such as TSR programs could pull people to watch games.

This study provides evidence that there is a need for sport managers to better understand the complexity of TSR in the minds of fans. Although respondents might not be highly knowledgeable about existing CPBL teams’ CSR programs, they were motivated by these programs to watch their teams’ games and intended to watch more if their TSR programs increased. Although CPBL teams have adopted several TSR programs and details are reported through online news platforms, this information is mixed with other news or announcements and becomes less prominent than the schedules, standings, and statistics. Managers may therefore want to report on TSR initiatives more prominently. Given that the majority (almost 90 percent) of respondents in the sample intended to watch games if their team became involved in more TSR programs, CPBL managers may be in a position to increase their fan base by doing more to promote the existing CPBL teams’ CSR programs and also by expanding the number of TSR programs.

6. Conclusions

This study examined the fans’ knowledge, current watching motivation, and intention to watch in the future by focusing on CPBL and TSR programs. TSR did motivate respondents to watch baseball. This indicates that TSR could be a useful tool to report on and embed more comprehensively in communications. Furthermore, this study offers a direction for research on fan perceptions of TSR, with empirical data examining the extent to which the fans’ knowledge, watching motivation, and intention to watch were influenced by other personal psychographic factors such as universalism values, sport involvement, and team identification. The results provide useful information for professional baseball teams to partake in TSR initiatives for the purpose of pursuing the goal of sustainability and establishing an engaged fan base.

TSR can improve the image of athletes, teams, leagues, and the sport in general, and go back to strengthening fans’ involvement and identification. This will become a virtuous cycle. Further research can focus on other professional sports in different countries and can take a similar approach to see how findings differ across sports and to see whether fan perceptions in different cultures provide us with similar or different insights. Additionally, this research has focused on team-related CSR. Future research can compare the effectiveness of CSR activities initiated by (1) players/athletes; (2) teams; (3) league; and (4) sport. A competing model of TSR should be examined in the future, where team identification is treated as a mediator, with knowledge of TSR as the antecedent, and future intentions being the outcome variable.

Finally, it is worth noting that “social desirability” may have skewed the manner in which people may have responded to questions about TSR positively. Fans tend to say that if a team does good things (TSR), then they would support the team more. However, whether this is actually true may not be confirmed until causal or time series research are undertaken in the future. This is a possible caveat to the interpretation of the results and conclusions in this study.