Regaining fans' trust after negative incidents: fit between responses and nature of incidents.

Lee, Cindy ; Bang, Hyejin ; Lee, Donghun 等

Introduction

Sport has long been in the center of public interest (McDonald, 1991); thus, media are always eager to find any sport-related stories. As a result, the incidents where athletes or coaches are involved are readily reported. Oftentimes, negative news is more easily found in media (Wilson, Stavros, & Westberg, 2008), since people pay more attention to negative news (Fiske, 1980). In this paper, a scandal or transgression means an individual's negative on- or off-field behavior, which can lead to a form of crisis not only for that individual but also for the team and sponsors (Wilson et al., 2008)

There are plenty of scandals in professional and amateur sports. In 2009, Tiger Woods shocked the public with extramarital affairs with multiple women. In the NFL, Ben Roethlisberger, Pittsburgh's quarterback, was involved in sexual assaults in 2008 and 2010. These scandals cost them many sponsorship deals.

Negative incidents are not only confined to athletes: Coaches and referees are also often involved with them, and sometimes an individual's scandal has a magnifying result on a whole organization. Individuals' involvement with negative incidents can put the respective organization or institution under the microscope. For example, the scandal of an NBA referee, Tim Donaghy, made fans question the integrity of NBA games, which further led to distrust of the entire NBA. The more recent incident involving Mike Rice, the basketball coach at Rutgers, also led to the resignation of its athletic director and the launch of an investigation of all intercollegiate athletics at Rutgers.

It is widely accepted that professional sports and media have a symbiotic and interdependent relationship (Bruce & Tini, 2008). Bruce and Tini (2008) stated that high levels of media coverage feed an insatiable appetite for sport. Spurred by the public's high interest in sport and sport celebrities, media cover athletic feats as well as details of the sport celebrities' personal lives. The high level of media coverage of sport and its personnel is like a double-edged sword: It helps create strong bonds with fans, but it can also destroy the reputation of the individuals who are involved in scandals (Jones, 2008). Furthermore, negative incidents can negatively affect attendance and merchandising sales of the involved organization (Shilbury, Quick, & Westerbeek, 1998). However, what is more damaging is that people might lose trust toward the individual or organization that committed these negative incidents. Thus, communicating with fans after negative incidents becomes a critical issue not to cause further damages and distrust, but to mend the damage.

Not all negative incidents have the same nature. There are on-field and off-field negative incidents (Fink, Parker, Brett, & Higgins, 2009); some negative incidents happen due to individuals' ignorance or inability to follow rules, and some happen due to lack of willingness to follow rules or even intentional breaking of rules.

When these negative incidents become public, some are still allegations without any evidence. Some allegations turn out to be false after a while, such as the Duke lacrosse case where players were falsely accused of rape but proved to be innocent ("Duke lacrosse," 2007). Sometimes, the truth never comes out or it takes a long time to find the truth, which makes us wonder which strategy is more effective when there is a negative allegation. If we assume that truth always prevails, the response consistent with the truth would be the answer. However, that is not the case in reality. Then, if an alleged violator can be either innocent or guilty, is there a fit between the types of response and the nature of the incidents? To answer to this question, this study investigates whether there is a fit between the nature of the alleged negative incidents and the response types to these allegations. In other words, the purpose of this study is to examine whether there are more effective response types in responding to different negative incidents to prevent further damages and mend trust.

Literature Review

Previous Studies in Negative Incidents

Due to the special context of sport, scandals committed by sport personnel (e.g., player, coach) have a little bit of a different meaning to sport fans compared to other scandals, for example, an executive involved in internal transactions. This is because many people are emotionally involved with sports teams and events (Madrigal & Dalakas, 2008). Defined as "an orientation of the self in regard to other objects including a person or group that results in feelings or sentiments of close attachment" (Trail, Anderson, & Fink, 2000, pp. 165-166), fan identification is an important factor in explaining sport fan behaviors (Capella, 2002; Wann & Branscomb, 1993; Wann, Tucker, & Schrader, 1996).

In the sport context, several researchers have examined how fans react when athletes break the law: Dietz-Uhler, End, Demakakos, Dickirson, and Grantz (2002) studied the influences of the membership of the violator (in-group vs. out-group) on fans' reaction, while Fink, Parker, Brett, and Higgins (2009) examined the influences of organizational leaders' reactions (strong vs. weak) on fans' reaction to these negative incidents. These studies used the concepts of in-group bias effect and black sheep effect to explain fan reactions.

According to Dietz-Uhler et al. (2002), categorizing individuals into groups motivates the individuals to have in-group bias, which can be explained by social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) proposes that the groups such as social class, family, and sport team to which individuals belong are important sources of pride and self-esteem. This theory also suggests that individuals perceive their social world as two types of group: (a) in-group that the individuals belong to and (b) out-group that they do not belong to. This social categorization predicts the existence of in-group bias, in which individuals tend to evaluate their in-group members more favorably than out-group members (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). Confirming the in-group bias, Dietz-Uhler et al. (2002) noted that sport fans' reaction to athletes engaging in unscrupulous acts can occur in one of two ways: by exhibiting an in-group bias effect or a black sheep effect. In-group bias effect could lead individuals to more generously evaluate their in-group members by extending unjustified trust to their in-group members (Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002), even when information proves that a group member has failed (Dietz-Uhler, 1999). Similarly, when an in-group member does something favorable, he or she will be evaluated more favorably.

On the other hand, according to black sheep effect (Marques, Yzerbyt, & Leyens, 1988), an in-group member who did something unfavorable would be characterized as an exception or abnormal to the group; thus, group members can still maintain a positive social identity and feelings toward their group (Marques et al., 1988). Related to the object of identification, researchers (e.g., Kwon, Trail, & Anderson, 2006; Robinson & Trail, 2005) found that there are multiple points of attachments including team, player, coach, university, level of sport, or sport itself. Although many studies in sport contexts focused on team identification (Woo, Trail, Kwon, & Anderson, 2009), since an individual's involvement with a negative incident is the main focus of this study, identification with that individual was used.

Trust in Relationship

Considering in-group bias effect and black sheep effect, an individual's evaluation of other in-group members could be biased due to his/her unwarranted trust of those members driven by identification with the target. Trust is defined as the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to another party (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995), and one of the characteristics of trust is the willingness to take a risk (Johnson-George & Swap, 1982). Similarly, Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, and Camerer (1998) contended that risk creates a situation requiring trust. Many argued that trust is a key element in relational commitment (Garbarino & Johnson, 1999; Tax, Brown, & Chandrashekaran, 1998) and cooperative behavior (Gambetta, 1988), and reduces harmful conflict (Meyerson, Weick, & Kramer, 1996). Likewise, Morgan and Hunt (1994) stated that trust is a prerequisite and central factor in successful relationship marketing. All these imply that trust plays an important role in the building and maintaining of relationships.

The importance of trust as a building block of relationships is even greater in the sport context, since support from fans for players, coaches, and teams is basically based on the created relationships. Considering that the level of performance in sport is rather volatile unlike the performance of other goods, maintaining good relationships with fans becomes more important in times of low performance, because a good relationship provides a buffer when failures occur (Tax, Brown, & Chandrashekaran, 1998) just like consumers in a close relationship with a company are more willing to forgive transgressions (Mattila, 2001).

Then how can trust, one of the critical elements of a relationship, be built? Literature found that certain characteristics of the trustee lead to trustworthiness (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995). Among many suggested characteristics, three characteristics (i.e., competency, integrity, and benevolence) of the trustee explain a major portion of trustworthiness (Sirdeshmukh, Singh, & Sabol, 2002). Mayer et al. (1995) further stated that the evaluation of a party's trustworthiness is influenced by individuals' perception of the three characteristics of the party.

Competency. Competency is a set of skills applicable to a single, fixed domain (Mayer et al., 1995). Butler and Cantrell (1984) defined competency-based trust as a trustor's perception that the trustee possesses the technical and interpersonal skills required for a job. Different terms such as ability and perceived expertise have also been used exchangeably with competency (Hovland, Janis, & Kelley, 1953).

Integrity. Integrity can be found when a trustor perceives that a trustee adheres to a set of moral principles that the trustor finds acceptable (Mayer et al., 1995). According to Mayer et al., the issue of integrity is related to the consistency of the trustee's past actions and the belief that the trustee has a strong sense of justice and his action will be congruent to that justice.

Benevolence. Benevolence is defined as "the extent to which a trustee is believed to want to do good to the trustor, aside from an egocentric profit motive" (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 718). According to Mayer et al., benevolence suggests that the trustee has some underlying attachment to the trustor such as the relationship between a mentor and a protege, which is likely to increase over time as the relationship grows stronger.

Individuals' trustworthiness should be regarded as a continuum depending on the levels of competency, benevolence, and integrity (Mayer et al., 1995). However, many scholars have argued that integrity and competency are two of the most important qualities for trustworthiness (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995; Schindler & Thomas, 1993). In addition, the information regarding a trustor's benevolence is very limited (Mayer et al., 1995). In addition, while judgments of integrity and ability can be formed relatively quickly, judging benevolence might take some time (Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 2007). Therefore, the dimension of benevolence was dropped from this study because the pilot study was conducted in the experiment setting where respondents do not have enough time to develop benevolence toward the fictional character. Using a fictional character was justified given that people show a relatively high level of trust for others even without a history of interaction (McKnight, Cummings, & Chervany, 1998). It should be also noted that trust can be damaged without any proof, which means people are very willing to believe unsubstantiated allegations of such acts (Kim, Ferrin, Cooper, & Dirks, 2004; Penrod & Cutler, 1995; Ross, Ceci, Dunning, & Toglia, 1994). Therefore, this study assumed that people would have some initial level of trust toward an individual even if there was no history of interaction, and the allegations of untrustworthy behavior would lower the initial trust level. Due to the use of a fictional character, the level of identification with the character was not included in the pilot study.

Willingness to Forgive

Although there is no consensus on the definition of forgiveness, in general, forgiveness means pardoning the target violator (Xie & Peng, 2009). Several scholars have acknowledged the importance of forgiveness after occurrence of a transgression: Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, and Hannon (2002) argued that forgiveness from one party toward the violator is a requisite to restore harmony in the relationship; Chung and Beverland (2006) noted that forgiving is the first step to rebuilding trust; Schoorman, Mayer, and Davis (2007) mentioned that examining the effect of forgiveness helps us to understand the trust-recovery mechanism.

There are many factors that possibly influence people's willingness to forgive such as relationship factors (Mattila, 2001) and personality factors (Finkel et al., 2002). Besides, one of the other influencing factors is adopting an appropriate communication strategy, which is more acceptable to the public after negative incidents (Benoit, 1995). Benson (1988) and Coombs (2006) emphasized the value of effective communication in minimizing destructive effect in times of negative incidents or crisis. This leads to the effectiveness of responses in the aftermath of negative incidents to recover trust and induce willingness to forgive.

Response Types and Fit

Various responses are made when negative incidents occur, and the way the alleged violator responds to negative incidents varies case by case: Some deny, some ignore the allegation, and some accept the consequences and apologize for it. Then, is there a fit between the type of negative incident and the response followed? Kim, Ferrin, Cooper, and Dirks (2004) examined whether certain types of responses are more effective for certain violations, focusing on two of the most common response strategies, denial and apology, for repairing trust. Based on the hierarchically restrictive schema, Kim et al. (2004) hypothesized that apology would be more effective for competence-based violations while denial is a better strategy for integrity-related incidents: Individuals tend to think that even highly competent people can perform poorly sometimes; thus, admitting low performance and apologizing for it would not be so detrimental. However, individuals intuitively believe that someone with high moral standards would refrain from dishonest behaviors in any situation, making a single low-integrity behavior a sufficient indicator for low integrity (Kim et al., 2004). As a result, denial should be adopted for integrity-related violations because people weigh negative incidents heavily in integrity-related violations.

Thus, this study examines whether there is a fit between the nature of alleged negative incidents and types of response. In this study, apology was defined as an individual's taking responsibility for a negative incident and requesting forgiveness, while denial is when an individual refutes all the allegations made, thereby not accepting responsibility. Based on literature review and Kim et al.'s (2004) study, a hypothesis was tested to see if this would be supported in the sport context.

Hypothesis: There will be an interaction between the nature of incident and response types in the level of trust (two dimensions of competency and integrity), and individuals' willingness to forgive the violator after a negative incident. Apology will be more effective for competency-related violations while denial will be more effective for integrity-related violations.

Methods and Results

Research Design

The objectives of the current study were achieved in two phases: pilot study and main study. Using a survey method, data were collected in several phases. To test the proposed hypothesis, multivariate data analysis techniques were used (see "Data Analysis" sections for more detail). The "Instrument and Procedure" section for both phases narrates how the methodology in the current study was implemented.

Instrument and Procedure: Pilot Study

To test the hypothesis, a 2 (nature of incidents: competency-related, integrity-related) x 2 (response types: denial, apology) between-subjects design was implemented. Realistic local newspaper articles were developed with two different allegations depicting a hypothetical coach, Mr. Smith. The scenario describes many recent violations of players on his team, without mentioning any players' names. One version alleges that the series of violations is due to neglected background checks on players together with the coach's inferior ability to recruit players with clean backgrounds (competency-related scenario). The other version alleges lack of moral standards in the recruiting procedure, which contributed to the recent violations (integrity-related scenario). Each version was paired with two different response types (i.e., denial and apology) resulting in four versions of scenarios: Competency-apology, competency-denial, integrity-apology and integrity-denial.

Data were collected from undergraduate and graduate students in the sport management major at two different universities. Students in various sport management classes were invited to participate in the survey during classes. For agreed participants, one of the four versions of news articles was given randomly. This one-page copy of the local newspaper also contains two filler articles on the same page in order to make it look more real. Participants were instructed to read the copy of the newspaper and answer the attached questions.

The questionnaire was composed of five sections. The first section had two manipulation-check questions to verify the participants' understanding of the article in terms of the content of the article and the nature of the violation (competence vs. integrity). The second section asked the participants to evaluate perceived competence (three items) and integrity (three items) of the coach using the scales adopted from Mayer and Davis's (1999) study. The scales were slightly modified by a panel of experts comprising two professors and two graduate students to fit the context of this study (see Table 1). Section three showed one of the coach's responses (either apology or denial). Section four asked the participants to re-evaluate the coach's competency, integrity, and "willingness to forgive" after reading the response. The scale for "willingness to forgive" was adopted from the study of Finkel, Rusbult, Kumashiro, and Hannon (2002). The last section asked for participants' demographic information including age, gender, and ethnicity.

Data Analysis: Pilot Study

To test proposed hypotheses in the pilot study, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted with three dependent variables of integrity (post-pre evaluation), competency (post-pre evaluation), and willingness to forgive. A post-hoc examination of mean scores was conducted to see where the group differences were observed at the univariate level. To achieve statistical power of .80 with medium to large effect size, we considered Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson's (2009) suggestion of a minimum sample size of 100 to 125 with three dependent variables.

Results: Pilot Study

A total of 102 surveys were collected: competency-apology (n=26), competency-denial (n=26), integrity-apology (n=25), and integrity-denial (n=25). The average age for the participants was 22.54 (SD =3.89) and the majority of the participants were male (n = 73, 71.6%). The participants were composed of Caucasian American (n=57, 55.9%), Hispanic American (n=25, 24.5%), African American (n=18, 17.6%), and others (n=2, 2.0%).

The Cronbach's alpha test was conducted to determine the inter-item reliability, and the results met the minimum required level (.70) recommended by Nunnally and Bernstein (1994): competency ([alpha] = .88), integrity ([alpha] = .87), post-competency ([alpha] = .91), post-integrity ([alpha] = .95), and willingness to forgive ([alpha] = .89). A total of 85 of the participants (83.3%) answered correctly for all manipulation questions while 17 respondents (16.7%) missed one question. Nobody missed both questions. An independent-sample t-test was conducted to see whether there was a group difference between these two groups in changes in competency and integrity, and willingness to forgive. Changes in competency and integrity scores were obtained by subtracting pre-evaluations from post-evaluation scores: Pre-evaluation was measured after the respondents read the article alleging Coach Smith as either incompetent or dishonest, whereas post evaluation was measured after the respondents read the coach's response. The t-test showed that there was no significant difference in differences in competence [ t (97) = -2.60, p> .05], integrity [t (98) = -1.51, p> .05], and forgiveness [t (99) = -1.78, p> .05] between these two groups at .05 level. All responses were treated equally in the further analyses.

The results of MANOVA showed that there was a main effect for response type at .001 level (Wilk's [lambda] = .63, F(3, 92) = 18.01, p < .001, [[eta].sub.p.sup.2] = .38): Apology was a better strategy after the negative incident regardless of the nature of the violation. The following analysis of variance showed that response type was a significant factor for all three dependent variables: changed perceived competency [F(1, 92) = 36.97, p < .001, [[eta].sub.p.sup.2] = .28; apology (M=.68); denial: (M=-.32)]; changed perceived integrity 92) = 32.69, p < .001, [[eta].sub.p.sup.2]=.26; apology (M=1.43) denial (M=.06)]; willingness to forgive 92) = 22.66, p < .001, [[eta].sub.p.sup.2]= .20; apology (M=4.11); denial (M=2.86)). No main effect was found for nature of incidents [Wilk's [lambda] = .93,F(3, 92) = 2.27, p > .05] nor was interaction between nature of the incident and response types at .05 level [Wilk's [lambda] = .94, F(2, 92) = 1.66, p > .05]. Therefore, the hypothesis was rejected.

Discussion: Pilot Study

The hypothesis, which predicted that there will be an interaction between nature of incidents and response types, was not supported. The results showed that the respondents' evaluation of the coach's integrity and competency was much more favorable, and they were more willing to forgive when Coach Smith apologized for the incident regardless of the nature of incident. Considering apology works better than denial when the allegation for negative incidents is real, it seemed like the respondents believed the alleged incidents actually happened, so apology worked better for both of the incidents. The authors speculated that two factors might have caused these results.

First is the possibility that the article triggered the respondents' "no smoke without fire" mentality because the depicted violations are not rare in collegiate athletics. This probable incident might have created a "reasonable doubt" standard, which plays a vital role in decision making of criminal procedure (Wright & Hall, 2007). On top of that, the format of a local newspaper as an information source might have added validity and legitimacy to the story compared to a story heard through the grapevine, because people view regular and accurate sources as more reliable and thus more legitimate (Hansen, 1991).These factors would have contributed to respondents' believing what was alleged in the article although no evidence for the allegation was provided.

Secondly, the results might be due to the lack of relationship between the hypothetical persona (i.e., Coach Smith) and the respondents. Ulmer (2001) stated that establishing strong relationships will build reservoirs of good will, alliances, and shared understanding. Other studies also evidenced that fan identification influences the way individuals perceive and behave (Capella, 2002; Wann & Branscomb, 1993; Wann, Tucker, & Schrader, 1996).

Due to no established relationship, the respondents were unlikely to give any benefit of doubt, but believed the allegation rather than Coach Smith. It would be a rational decision for the respondents to believe the familiar local newspaper rather than Coach Smith, who they do not know. Considering the second possibility, the main study was developed featuring an actual coach with whom the respondents have different levels of identification to see if this influences the results of the study.

Instrument and Procedure: Main Study

To incorporate fan identification, the main study used an actual football coach at Division 1 Football Bowl Subdivision school while all other conditions remained mostly the same. The study was collected from a third institution in order to not overlap the sample from the pilot study. Undergraduate and graduate students from four sport management classes at the university with which the coach was affiliated were invited to participate in the main study. Two weeks prior to the main study, the participants were asked their perception of the coach's competence and integrity, and their level of identification with the coach. The level of identification with the coach was measured using the subscale of "identification with coach" (3 items) from the Point of Attachment Index (PAI) by Trail, Robinson, Dick, and Gillentine (2003). No other questions were asked. For the identification purpose, students were asked to put the last three digits of their student number, which will be used to match with the main study. The respondents were told that the results would be used for marketing of their athletic department. A total of 163 students participated in this preliminary survey.

Two weeks later, the students in the same classes were invited again for the main study. Like the pilot study, two versions of stories (i.e., competency- and integrity-related) were used, but "Coach Smith" was replaced by the actual name of the football coach. Unlike with the pilot study where the allegation and response were separately presented, each scenario was paired with either apology or denial, and presented as one piece, since the participants' perception of the coach's competency and integrity before was already examined in the preliminary test. The survey administrator went to the class and announced that there was breaking news on that day, and distributed the article. The participants were asked to read the article and answer the accompanied three sections of questions: 1) two manipulation check questions on the contents of the article; 2) their perception of the coach's competency and integrity, and their willingness to forgive the coach after reading the article; and 3) demographic questions including the three digit numbers of identification. After completing the survey, the participants were debriefed about the study and were informed that the news articles were not true. A total of 155 students participated in this main study, but only 150 participated in both the preliminary and main study.

Data Analysis: Main Study

To test the proposed hypotheses in the main study, a multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was conducted with the three dependent variables of perceived competence (post-pre), perceived integrity (post-pre), and willingness to forgive, and two independent variables of nature of incident and response types. Each respondent's identification level with the coach was used as a covariate: Although many studies have shown fan identification as an important factor on affective, cognitive, and behavioral reactions (Capella, 2002; Wann & Branscomb, 1993; Wann, Tucker, & Schrader, 1996), it was not the main focus of this study.

Results: Main Study

A total of 163 students participated in the preliminary survey to measure the level of identification with the coach and perceived levels of his competency and integrity. Of the 163 students, 13 did not participate in the main test conducted two weeks later, which resulted in 150 usable surveys: competency-apology (n=38), competency-denial (n=36), integrity-apology (n=38), and integrity-denial (n=38). Cronbach's reliability tests showed that all constructs met the minimum required level of .70 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994): identification with coach ([alpha] = .83), competency ([alpha] = .85), integrity ([alpha] = .87), post-competency ([alpha] = .93), post-integrity ([alpha] = .93), and willingness to forgive ([alpha] = .77). For those 150 respondents, the mean scores for each construct were: identification with the coach (M=4.64, SD=1.06), competence (M=6.27, SD=.63), integrity (M=5.25, SD= 1.06), post-competence (M=6.06, SD=.82), post-integrity (M=4.85, SD=1.24), and willingness to forgive (M=5.26, SD=1.10). All of the scores were out of 7-point Likert-type scale. Three quarters of participants (n=120, 80%) answered two manipulation questions correctly, while 30 students missed one question. To see whether there is a group difference, an independent sample t-test was conducted, and the result showed that there is no significant difference in changes in competency [t(148) = -.98, p>.05], changes in integrity [t(97) = .46, p>.05], and willingness to forgive [t(97) = -.73, p>.05]. Therefore all surveys were treated the same thereafter. The participants' mean age was 21.80 (SD=1.42) and the majority of the participants were male ( n=132, 88.0%). The participants were composed of Caucasian American (n=136, 90.7 %), Hispanic American (n=6, 6.0%), African American (n=6, 4.0%), and others (n=2, 1.3%).

The results of the MANCOVA showed that there was a main effect for the nature of the event [F(3, 143) = 4.39, p < .05, [[eta].sub.p.sup.2]= .08]. The following analysis of variance (ANOVAJ revealed that the nature of the incident was a significant factor for perceived integrity 145) = 12.69, p < .05; competency-related M= -.21, SD= .10; integrity-related M= -.71, SD=.10], but not for the perceived competency 145) = .18, p > .05], nor willingness to forgiveness 145) = 1.40, p > .05].The identification with the coach was also found significant [F(3, 143) = 6.79, p < .05, [[eta].sub.p.sup.2]= .13]. However, no main effect of the response types [F(3, 143) = 1.86, p > .05] nor an interaction between response and nature of the violation [F(3, 143) = 2.09, p > .05] was found.

Discussion: Main Study

Unlike the pilot study, the main study used a real-life coach to see whether this makes any difference in the results since the authors suspected that using a hypothetical person might have influenced the result of the pilot study. Respondents' levels of identification with the coach were controlled as a covariate, since the focus of the study was to see whether there was a fit between the nature of incidents and the response types in recovering trust and inducing forgiveness.

Instead of finding the interaction effect, a main effect was found for the nature of the incident: the integrity-violating incident significantly damaged trust level (perceived competency and integrity) and willingness to forgive compared to the competency-violating incident. To understand the results, the researchers put the results in context: At the time when the data was collected, the coach was relatively new, just finishing up his first year as a head football coach at the respective school. The first year's game record was 10-3, a relatively successful year for the respective school. The preliminary test verified that the respondents' high regard for the coach's competency (M=6.27). The respondents' high regard for his competency did not change much (changed M=.21) by reading one negative article which alleges his incompetency. This might suggest that when people judge the coach's competency, they rely more on the previous information they have about the coach rather than one article provided by the researcher. Especially in collegiate sports, judging a coach's competency can really boil down to the winloss record, which is readily available; thus, the allegation of his incompetency did not sway the respondents' opinion much in that regard. On the contrary, the information on integrity would be relatively rare except for a few notorious coaches.

The result of this study might partly come from the coach's background. The coach used in this study had a short tenure at the respective institution (i.e., one year). This makes the respondents somewhat vulnerable to plausible allegations on integrity compared to a coach who has been there for a long period of time. For example, when Penn State University's child molestation scandal broke out, nobody would believe the legendary coach Joe Paterno's involvement with the incident at first, because that was not consistent with his image and legacy at all. Likewise, Lyon and Cameron (2004) also found that a corporation's existing reputation affects effective response style to negative news since reputation influences individuals' memory, attitude, and behavioral intentions. They found that companies with a bad reputation prior to the negative news were further damaged by the apologetic response because the participants perceived an organization with poor reputation as less credible and sincere when it apologized.

General Discussion

When an organization or individual is presented with a crisis situation due to negative scandal, the need for appropriate and effective communications strategies is heightened (Fortunato, 2008). Even if an organization is not directly related to negative incidents, some responsibility is being attributed to the organization when there is an association with the accused violator (Benoit, 1995). For example, when the "Duke rape case" broke out, Duke University had to respond to the allegation to control damage, one example of which is losing trust in the individual or organization involved with negative incidents.

Many scholars (e.g., Jiang, Jones, & Javie, 2008; Sargeant & Lee, 2004) believe that trust is a valuable resource for organizations as well as for individuals. The important of trust is greater in the sport context since the relationship between sports teams and their key stakeholders (e.g., fans, volunteers, and sponsors) is critical (Bruce & Tini, 2008). At an individual level, maintaining a certain level of trust is directly related to the marketability of an individual as an endorser since the success of endorsement depends on the relationship between an endorser and fans. At the organizational level, trust in the organization denotes the sustainability of that sport organization: If fans lose trust, it can damage attendance, media consumption, and merchandise sales (Shilbury, Quick, & Westerbeek, 1998); Wilson, Stavros, and Westberg (2008) mentioned that scandals or transgressions can disrupt organizational operation and reputation; Hughes and Shank (2005) acknowledged the effects of scandals on affiliated sponsors and sports organizations. Therefore, recovering trust effectively after negative incidents is a critical issue for the viability of that individual or institution.

This study examined whether there is a fit between the nature of negative incidents and the response types on the condition that the truth has not been revealed. This study is an effort to add knowledge on proper and effective response strategies that an organization or individual needs to adopt in response to negative incidents to minimize the possible damage in the sport context.

The pilot study used a hypothetical coach and found that there was a main effect for the response types: When a violator adopted apology, regardless of the nature of the incidents, the respondents were likely to perceive the violator more favorably in terms of his competency and integrity, and were more willing to forgive the violator. These results were similar to that of Lyon and Cameron's (1999) study where it was found that apologetic style in response to negative news had significantly more positive effects on attitude than defense response.

When a real character was employed in the main study, a main effect was found for the nature of the incidents: The integrity-related negative incidents resulted in more damage to trust. Although the result is statistically significant and we provided a few possible ideas as to why it might have happened, due to the small explained variance ([[eta].sub.p.sup.2] = .08), the result needs to be interpreted with caution.

However, the findings of this study might provide important information on how individuals assess information about competence and integrity. As noted before, studies suggest that people tend to weigh negative information on integrity more heavily than negative information on competency (Madon, Jussim, & Eccles, 1997; Snyder & Stukas, 1999). This means that one negative piece of information about integrity can possibly damage the perceived integrity of a person. Thus, when an individual or organization is involved with this type of violation, they need to be more careful before accepting any responsibility or involvement in the investigation stage, because once trust is damaged, it is very difficult to repair. Of course, when the evidence is presented, the response consistent with the evidence is a better way to repair trust (Kim, Ferrin, Cooper, & Dirks, 2004).

The result might also imply that pre-existing image of the accused violator (e.g. very ethical) is an influencing factor on how people perceive the provided information. Kim, Ferrin, Cooper, and Dirks (2004) also found that the accused party's perceived integrity mediates how individuals respond to the accused violator's apology or denial. Therefore, a track record of an individual's image becomes important in case of negative incidents. This means that the everyday image carried by an individual and an organization might play an important role in adopting responses after negative incidents.

There are a few limitations in this study. Firstly, using a student sample in both studies made it difficult to generalize the results of the study. Although the student group accounts for a large portion of the collegiate sport fans, it still limits the generalizability of this study. Logistically, however, it provided much convenience since the main study needed access to the same respondents two weeks apart for two tests (preliminary and main). Second, it seemed that the profile and history of a coach influenced the study results. In the future study, looking into individuals with different lengths of tenure and history would provide more information to understand the effects of fit between response types and nature of incidents in restoring trust. Thirdly, this study only used the identification with the coach, but did not take identification with the institution or team into consideration. While the story is depicted as an individual violation, respondents' identification with team or institution might be an important factor as literature indicated (e.g., Woo, Trail, Kwon, & Anderson, 2009). Therefore, future studies need to include these factors to provide a more comprehensive picture. In addition, examining the extent to which individuals are willing to forgive a violator who is more or less successful as a player or a coach would be another research avenue: The recent Nike commercial "Winning takes care of everything" as Tiger Woods went back to world ranking number one is an interesting and provoking concept. Lastly, media focus can be an influencing factor on how the public perceives negative incidents as Wilson et al. (2008) found. Even the same incident can be depicted less or more favorably by the media, and public response can be influenced by that. Future studies can look into how the focus of media can influence public response toward the same negative incident.

References

Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory of image restoration strategies. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Benson, J. A. (1988). Crisis revisited: An analysis of strategies used by Tylenol in the second tampering episode. Central States Speech Journal, 39, 49-66.

Bruce, T., & Tini, T. (2008). Unique crisis response strategies in sports public relations: Rugby league and the case for diversion. Public Relations Review, 34, 108-115.

Butler, J. K. Jr., & Cantrell, R. S. (1984). A behavioral decision theory approach to modeling dyadic trust in superiors and subordinates. Psychological Reports, 55, 19-28.

Capella, M. E. (2002). Measuring sports fans' involvement: The fan behavior questionnaire. Southern Business Review, 27(2), 30-36.

Chung, E., & Beverland, M. B. (2006). An exploration of consumer forgiveness following marketer transgressions. Advances in Consumer Research, 33, 98-99.

Coombs, W. T. (2006). Crisis management: A communicative approach. In C. Botan & V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public relations theory II (pp. 171-197). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dietz-Uhler, B. (1999). Defensive reactions to group relevant information. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 2, 17-29.

Dietz-Uhler, B., End, C., Demakakos, N., Dickirson, A., & Grantz, A. (2002). Fans' reaction to law-breaking athletes. International Sports Journal, 6, 160-170.

Duke lacrosse sexual assault case. (2007, June 20). The New York Times. Retrieved from http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/organizations7d/ dukeuniversity/duke_lacrosse_sexual_assault_case/index.html

Fink, J., Parker, H., Brett, M., & Higgins, J. (2009). Off-field behavior of athletes and team identification: Using social identity theory and balance theory to explain fan reactions. Journal of Sport Management, 23, 142-155.

Finkel, E. J., Rusbult, C. E., Kumashiro, M., & Hannon, P. A. (2002). Dealing with betrayal in close relationships: Does commitment promote forgiveness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 956-974.

Fiske, S. T. (1980). Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 889-906.

Fortunato, J. A. (2008). Restoring a reputation: The Duke University Lacrosse scandal. Public Relations Review, 34, 116-123.

Gambetta, D. (1988). Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relations. New York, NY: Basil Blackwell.

Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust and commitment for relational and transactional consumers. Journal of Marketing, 63, 70-87.

Hansen, K. (1991). Source diversity and newspaper enterprise journalism. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 68, 474-482.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 575-604.

Hovland, C. I., Janis, I. L., & Kelly, H. H. (1953). Communication and persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Hughes, S., & Shank, M. (2005). Defining scandal in sports: Media and corporate sponsor perspectives. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 14, 207-216.

Jiang, P., Jones, D. B., & Javis, S. (2008). How third-party certification programs relate to consumer trust in online transactions: An exploratory study. Psychology & Marketing, 25, 839-858.

Jones, V. (2008, August). Influences of mass media in sport. Retrieved from http://www.articleclick.com/Article/Influences-of-Mass-Media-in Sport/1028144

Johnson-George, C., & Swap, W. (1982). Measurement of specific interpersonal trust: Construction and validation of a scale to assess trust in a specific other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1306-1317.

Kim, P. H., Ferrin, D. L., Cooper, C. D., & Dirks, K. T. (2004). Removing the shadow of suspicion: The effects of apology versus denial for repairing competence- versus integrity-based trust violations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 104-118.

Kwon, H. H., Trail, G. T., & Anderson, D. F. (2006). Points of attachment (identification) and licensed merchandise consumption: A case study. International Journal of Sport Management, 7, 347-360.

Lyon, L., & Cameron, G. T. (1999). Fess up or stonewall? An experimental test of prior reputation and response style in the face of negative news coverage. Web Journal of Mass Communication Research, 1(4), Retrieved from http://www.scripps.ohiou.edu/wjmcr/vol01/1-4a.htm

Lyon, L., & Cameron, G. T. (2004). A relational approach examining the interplay of prior reputation and immediate response to a crisis. Journal of Public Relations Research, 16, 213-241.

Madon, S., Jussim, L., & Eccles, J. (1997). In search of the powerful self- fulfilling prophecy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 791-809.

Madrigal, R., & Dalakas, V. (2008). Consumer psychology of sport: more than just a game. In C. P. Haugtvedt, P. M. Herr, & F. R. Kardes (Eds.), Handbook of Consumer Psychology (pp. 857-876). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Marques, J. M., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Leyens, J. (1988). The 'black sheep effect': Extremity of judgments toward ingroup members as a function of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 1-16.

Mattila, A. S. (2001). The impact of relationship type on consumer loyalty in a context of service failures. Journal of Service Research, 4, 91-101.

Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 123-136.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734.

McDonald, C. (1991). Sponsorship and the image of the sponsor. European Journal of Marketing, 25, 31-38.

McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (1998). Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 23, 709-734.

Meyerson, D., Weick, K. E., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). Swift trust and temporary groups. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 166-195). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20-38.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Penrod, S., & Cutler, B. (1995). Witness confidence and witness accuracy: Assessing their forensic relation. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1, 817-845.

Robinson, M. I., & Trail, G. T. (2005). Relationships among spectator gender, motives, points of attachment, and sport preference. Journal of Sport Management, 19, 58-80.

Ross, D. F., Ceci, S. J., Dunning, D., & Toglia, M. P. (1994). Unconscious transference and mistaken identity: When a witness misidentifies a familiar but innocent person. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 918-930.

Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393-404.

Sargeant, A., & Lee, S. (2004). Trust and relationship commitment in the United Kingdom voluntary sector: Determinants of donor behavior. Psychology & Marketing, 21, 613-635.

Schindler, P. L., & Thomas, C. C. (1993). The structure of interpersonal trust in the workplace. Psychological Reports, 73, 563-573.

Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32, 344-354.

Shilbury, D., Quick, S., & Westerbeek, H. (1998). Strategic sport management. St. Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol. B. (2002). Consumer trust, value, and loyal in relational exchange. Journal of Marketing, 66, 15-37.

Snyder, M., & Stukas, A. A. Jr. (1999). Interpersonal processes: The interplay of cognitive, motivational, and behavioral activities in social interaction. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 273-303.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Tax, S., Brown, S., & Chandrashekaran, M. (1998). Customer evaluations of service complaint experiences: Implications for relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 60(2), 60-76.

Trail, G. T., Anderson, D., & Fink, J. S. (2000). A theoretical model of sport consumer behavior. International Journal of Sport Management, 1, 154-180.

Trail, G. T., Robinson, M. J., Dick, R. J., & Gillentine, A. J. (2003) Motives and points of attachment: Fans versus spectators in intercollegiate athletics. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12, 217-227.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Ulmer, R. R. (2001). Effective crisis management through established stakeholder relationships: Malden Mills as a case study. Management Communication Quarterly, 14, 590-615.

Wann, D. L., & Branscomb, N. R. (1993). Sports fans: Measuring degree of identification with their team. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 1-17.

Wann, D. L., Tucker, K. B., & Schrader, M. P. (1996). An exploratory examination of the factors influencing the origination, continuation, and cessation of identification with sport teams. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82, 995-1001.

Wilson, B., Stavros, C., & Westberg, K. (2008). Player transgressions and the management of the sport sponsorship relationship. Public Relations Review, 34, 99-107.

Woo, B., Trail, G. T., Kwon, H., & Anderson D. (2009). Testing models of motives and points of attachment among spectators in college football. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 18, 38-53.

Wright, D. B., & Hall, M. (2007). How a "reasonable doubt" instruction affects decision of guilt. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29, 91-98.

Xie, Y., & Peng, S. (2009). How to repair customer trust after negative publicity: The roles of competence, integrity, benevolence, and forgiveness. Psychology & Marketing, 26, 572-589.

Cindy Lee, PhD, is an assistant professor of sport management at West Virginia University. Her research interests include sport consumer behavior and sponsorship mechanism.

Hyejin Bang, PhD, is an associate professor in the Department of Leadership and Professional Studies at Florida International University. Her research interests include branding effectiveness, volunteerism, and human resource management in sport.

Donghun Lee, PhD, is an assistant professor of sport administration at Ball State University. His research interests include team product purchase, spectators, and measurement. Table 1 Survey Items Pilot Study M SD [alpha] Perceived Competency Pre 3.35 1.24 .88 The Coach is very capable of performing his job. The Coach has Post 3.58 1.18 .91 ability to get the job done. I feel very confident about the Coach's skills. Perceived Integrity Pre 2.36 1.09 .87 I like the Coach's values. Sound principles post 3.15 1.39 .95 seem to guide the Coach's behavior. The Coach has a great deal of integrity. Willingness to 3.45 1.41 .89 Forgive I would think favorably of this coach Given the Coach's response, I would condemn it. (reverse coded) Given the Coach's response, I would forgive it. Identification with Coach I am a big fan of Coach (name). I follow the YYY team because I like Coach (name). I am a fan of the YYY team because they are coached by Coach (name). Manipulation Check Questions 1. In the article the coach was accused related to recruiting matters. What was the accusation? a. The Coach knew the history of the player, but still recruited due to his athletic ability b. The Coach did not perform a thorough background check, so he did not know the history of the player 2. What does the accusation bring into question? a. Primarily the Coach's recruiting incompetence. b. Primarily the Coach's low ethical standard in recruiting. Main Study Survey Items M SD [alpha] Perceived Competency 6.27 .63 .85 The Coach is very capable of performing his job. The Coach has 6.06 .82 .93 ability to get the job done. I feel very confident about the Coach's skills. Perceived Integrity 5.25 1.06 .87 I like the Coach's values. Sound principles 4.85 1.24 .93 seem to guide the Coach's behavior. The Coach has a great deal of integrity. Willingness to 5.26 1.10 .77 Forgive I would think favorably of this coach Given the Coach's response, I would condemn it. (reverse coded) Given the Coach's response, I would forgive it. Identification with 4.64 1.06 .83 Coach I am a big fan of Coach (name). I follow the YYY team because I like Coach (name). I am a fan of the YYY team because they are coached by Coach (name). Manipulation Check Questions 1. In the article the coach was accused related to recruiting matters. What was the accusation? a. The Coach knew the history of the player, but still recruited due to his athletic ability b. The Coach did not perform a thorough background check, so he did not know the history of the player 2. What does the accusation bring into question? a. Primarily the Coach's recruiting incompetence. b. Primarily the Coach's low ethical standard in recruiting. Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations for Dependent Variables Pilot Study Nature of Incident Response Types Competency Integrity -based -based Apology Denial Variable Overall (n=47) (n=49) (n=47) (n=49) Competency .17 .26 .10 .68 -.32 (post-pre) (.95) (.12) (.12) (.12) (.12) Integrity .77 .54 .95 1.43 .06 (post-pre) (1.39) (.17) (.19) (.17) (.17) Willingness 3.45 3.56 3.41 4.11 2.86 to Forgive (1.41) (.19) (.18) (.19) (.18) Main Study Nature of Incident Response Types Competency Integrity -based -based Apology Denial Variable Overall (n=74) (n=76) (n=74) (n=76) Competency -.30 -.28 -.32 -.31 -.30 (post-pre) (.57) (.51) (.62) (.60) (.54) Integrity -.46 -.20 -.72 -.29 -.64 (post-pre) (.94) (.65) (1.1) (.95) (.91) Willingness 5.26 5.37 5.15 5.39 5.13 to Forgive (1.08) (.93) (1.21) (.84) (1.27) Table 3 Multivariate Analysis of Variance Results Variable Pilot Study F p [[eta].sub.p.sup.2] Identification with Coach Nature of Incident 2.27 .09 .07 Response Type 18.01 .00 .38 Nature x Response Type 1.83 .15 .06 Variable Main Study F p [[eta].sub.p.sup.2] Identification with Coach 6.79 .00 .13 Nature of Incident 4.40 .01 .08 Response Type 1.86 .14 .04 Nature x Response Type 2.10 .10 .04