Understanding public acceptance of elite sport policy in japan: a structural equation modelling approach

INTRODUCTION
Increased investment in elite sport often results in the achievement of more medals in international sporting events (Hogan & Norton, 2000; Li, Meng, & Wang, 2009), or is essential even to maintain existing performance levels (De Bosscher, Bingham, Shibli, van Bottenburg, & De Knop, 2008). This generates a weighty debate about the 'never-ending spending race' (Mitchell, Spong, & Stewart, 2012). The current elite sport system's nature and increasing investments made by governments worldwide (De Bosscher et al. 2008) highlights the importance of public/taxpayer support and understanding for a sustainable elite sport policy. Houlihan and Zheng (2013) noted that the recent upward trend in public investment in elite sport has a political risk; excessive spending could lead to public disillusionment. Therefore, understanding how the public's perceptions towards elite sport policy are formed is an important research subject to consider. It could provide valuable suggestions to policymakers wanting to implement a publically supported elite sport policy. However, so far, no studies have yet investigated this mechanism. Hence, this research aims to examine the determinants that have a causal influence on public acceptance towards the promotion of Japanese elite sport policy as a national strategy.

RESEARCH FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT
This study's research framework is adapted from the attitude model first formulated by Fishbein (1963). This model indicated that an individual's attitude towards any object can be described as ?_(i=1)^N??B_i a_i ?, wherein 'Bi' is a belief 'i' about an object, 'ai' is the evaluative aspect of 'Bi', and 'N' is the number of beliefs. Accordingly, public attitudes (i.e. public acceptance or rejection) towards a policy can be determined by the sum of beliefs that the public has about the consequences of its outcome, namely perceived benefits and risks, multiplied by how they are evaluated. This study extends Fishbein's research framework by using the following constructs: (1) personal and (2) social benefit perception of elite sport success, (3) risk perception associated with elite sport, (4) trust in elite sport policy actors, and (5) athlete role model perception. The rationale for these constructs is explained in the next part, with six proposed hypothesis related to the ?public acceptance of Japanese elite sport policy promotion.

Perceived personal and social benefits and risks
The promotion of elite sport as a national strategy is usually justified on the basis that individual and team successes in major sport competitions have wide-ranging benefits (i.e. Grix & Carmichael, 2012). ? Literature distincts between personal and social benefits? Previous studies have investigated how social benefit perception, such as a belief that Olympic success is important for the prestige of the nation (Humphreys, Johnson, Mason, & Whitehead, 2011), was related to the public's supportive attitude towards elite sport. Likewise, personal benefits perception, such as feeling of happiness and pride were found to be significant factors for ...? for public acceptance? (Wicker, Hallmann, Breuer, & Feiler, 2012). Hence, the following hypotheses is proposed. H1: When the public perceives that elite sport success provides an increase in personal benefit (H2: social benefit), the promotion of related policies will receive greater acceptance.
In contrast, it is presumed that the perceived risks of elite sport, such as violence, performance enhancing drugs, and more (Volwein, 1995), contribute negatively to public attitudes (e.g. Green & Collins, 2008). Green and Collins (2008) found that public outcry regarding the Finnish doping incident at the 2001 Nordic World Skiing Championships provided little political incentive to reinforce their elite sport policy, which leads to speculation that the public does not accept elite sport-oriented policies when the perceived risks are high or when they outweigh perceived benefits. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed. H3: When the public perceives more potential risks associated with elite sport development, it is less likely to accept the promotion of an elite sport policy.

Trust in elite sport policy actors and athletes
One area that may influence these social and personal benefits and thus the public acceptance to elite sport, concerns the trust that people have in the institutions and their actors responsible for elite sport Recently, trust in related institutions has been characterised as a crucial issue in risk management and technological policy (i.e. Siegrist, Cousin, Kastenholz, & Wiek, 2007). The body of literature indicates that institutional trust has direct effects on the perceived benefits and risks of a given technology, as well as an indirect influence on public acceptance (Siegrist, 2000). Because there is a limitation on acquiring knowledge about a given technology for individuals who are not directly related to the industry, many determine their level of acceptance by reflecting on (and trusting) the opinions and statements of authorities and experts related to the technology. This is highly applicable to the elite sport policy area where many individuals seem to lack knowledge on its outcome. The high level of uncertainty regarding the benefits and risks associated with the promotion of elite sport as a national strategy reflect the importance of trust in policy actors when it comes to public acceptance. Accordingly, the acceptability of elite sport policy as a national strategy is not just how people balance the potential benefits and risks but also how they view the trustworthiness of related organisations. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed. H4: When the public trusts key Japanese elite sports policy actors, it is more likely to perceive greater personal benefit (H5: social benefit) from elite sport success; H6: The public's feeling of trust towards key Japanese elite sports policy actors is likely to decrease their perception of the potential risks associated with elite sport development.
By some, the effect of athletes' role models is considered to be an important outcome of elite sport (reference; eg de bosscher et al or others), and may thus be an even more important factor related to benefit and risk perception. In general, a broad range of social and individual benefits is delivered through athlete performance or even behaviour. Wicker et al. (2012) revealed that the public's perception of athletes as a role model, in terms of fairness, is associated with supportive attitudes towards elite sport. Based on this, the following hypotheses are proposed. H7: When the public considers Japanese elite athletes as role models, it is more likely to perceive greater personal benefit (H8: social benefit) from elite sport success; H9: When the public considers Japanese elite athletes as role models, it is more likely to perceive fewer potential risks associated with elite sport policy.
In summary, the hypotheses of the public acceptance of the promotion elite sport policy as a national strategy is a double-layered structure: public acceptance of the elite sport policy is determined by the perceived (personal and social) benefit and risk, and, in turn, these factors are further determined by trust in elite sport policy actors and athlete role model perception.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:
Data collection and sample
Data were collected by means of an Internet-based cross-sectional survey conducted via a Japanese Internet research service company in February 2012. Stratified sampling based on demographic variables (gender and age groups: 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, and over 60) from the 2010 Population Census of Japan was conducted to establish a representative view of the survey sample. To avoid a self-selection bias (Heckman, 1979), the survey was named 'Questionnaire about life' rather than 'Questionnaire about the public's acceptance of elite sport policy'. Out of 1050 surveys, 921 surveys were useful (Successful response rate: 87.7%).

Measures
The questionnaire was constructed to assess public acceptance of promoting elite sport policy as a national strategy, and its antecedent factors. These contain constrains on (1) 'personal benefit' (pride, happiness, national identity, and national unity), (2) 'social benefit' (economic impact, international prestige, mass participation effect, international image, and international recognition), (3) 'risk' (education problems among athletes, physical and sexual abuse, unethical practices, an overemphasis on success, and inhibition of grassroots sports), (4) 'trust in elite sport policy actors' (the MEXT, the Japan Sports Council, the Japanese Olympic Committee, and National Governing Bodies), and (5) 'athlete role model' (modified version of Dix, Phau, and Pougnet's scale (2010)). These measurement items of each construct were derived from several studies on elite sport policy (i.e. Grix & Carmichael, 2012) as well as public acceptance research in different field (i.e. technology, nuclear energy, etc.). All items were measured on a seven-point Likert-type scale.

Analysis
The preceding data analysis used the two-phase approach outlined in Anderson and Gerbing (1988). In the first phase, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is used to assess the measurement model's adequacy. In the second phase, an SEM analysis is used to test the hypothesised relationships between constructs. The analyses were done using AMOS 20.

RESULTS:
A collectively assessment of fit indices estimated by CFA indicates that the measurement model satisfactorily fits the data and achieves reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. Estimation of the model by means of SEM yielded a goodness of fit, as indicated by the following fit indices: ?2(314) = 944.87 (p <0.001), the ?2/d.f. = 3.01 (less than 5.0 (Marsh & Hau, 1996)), NNFI = 0.94, CFI = 0.94 (greater than 0.90 (Hair et al., 2005)), RMSEA = 0.07 (within 0.08 (Hair et al., 2005)), SRMR = 0.09 (within 0.10 (Kline et al., 2005)).
The data reveal that the all three paths to public acceptance of elite sport policy are statistically significant ('personal benefit': ?H1 = 0.21, t = 4.89; 'social benefit': ?H2 = 0.46, t = 9.54; 'risk': ?H3 = -0.29, t = -6.50), providing evidence supporting H1-H3. Paths from 'trust in elite sport actors' to 'personal benefit' of elite sport success (?H4 = 0.10, t = 2.22), 'social benefit' (?H5 = 0.15, t = 3.25) and 'risk' associated with elite sport development (?H6 = -0.15, t = -3.05) are statistically significant. Thus, H4-H6 are supported. Data regarding paths from 'athlete role model' to 'personal benefit' (?H7 = 0.54, t = 10.16), 'social benefit' (?H8 = 0.58, t = 11.46), and 'risk' (?H9 = -0.11, t = -2.03) indicate that H7-H9 are supported. This model explained 47% of the variance in public acceptance towards the promotion of elite sport policy. It is apparent that 'social benefit' perception exhibited the strongest direct effect on 'public acceptance'. 'Athlete role model' perception served as a key antecedent factor for 'social benefit' perception.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:
Suggestion to build the discussion in a different order:
- start with answering the 'so what' question on your findings; so, I would start with your last paragraph
- as your results section mainly consists of statistics - it is wise to start with what you really found before linking to literature; so, instead of saying below : "The positive influence of perceived benefit on public acceptance ",say more precisely in relation to what you really measured (in other words: 'you' assume that the reader understands that "The positive influence of perceived benefit on public acceptance" is the same as what is stated in your hypothesis; for me it is not;) so, something like: "The results revealed that Japanese people perceive increased personal and social benefits from elite sport success. This supports ...? do this also for the other paragraphs where necassary
The positive influence of perceived benefit on public acceptance that resulted from this study, supports previous studies that investigated the importance of elite sport success for a country's prestige (Humphreys et al., 2011) and reputation (Wicker et al., 2012) positively influenced attitudes towards elite sport. Since the path from personal benefit perception to public acceptance was statistically significant and positive, the current study also supports the importance of personal benefit as examined by Wicker et al. (2012), who investigated how happiness stemming from athletic success was positively associated with the public's supportive attitude towards elite sport.
The negative influence of perceived risk of xxxx on public acceptance can be understood based on previous works describing that doping corrupts the image and value of sport, as well as the public's supportive attitude towards it (Uvacsek, Nepusz, Naughton, Mazanov, Ranky, & Petróczi, 2011). Park et al. (2012) argued that elite sport-oriented policy in South Korea has lead to social risks including educational problems of athletes, as well as physical and sexual abuse, and it could hamper the country's sporting fortune. These negative dimensions of elite sport can clearly hinder the development of a favourable public attitude towards related policy. However, the results also showed that while 'risk perception' had significant negative effects (? = -0.29) on public acceptance, 'perceived social benefit' was the most important factor in the model (? = 0.46). This result can be interpreted as demonstrating that Japanese people generally accept the promotion of elite sport policy as a national strategy because of its potential social benefit and in spite of the issues posed by the policy's emphasis. This empirical result is consistent with Green's (2006) statement that '"alternative voices" arguing for some perspective in respect of spending such large amounts of public money on the aspirational goal of a handful of Olympic medals, remain relatively suppressed (by a storyline that elite success motivates the generality of the population to participate and compete)' (p. 233).
This study showed that when people have more trust in elite sport policy actors, they perceived greater benefits and lower risks, which is reflected in the public's acceptance of elite sport policy. This finding is consistent with a wide range of social acceptability literature (i.e. Bonfman, Jiménez, Arévalo, & Cifuentes, 2012). It can be assumed that even though an expansion of elite sport funding should be accepted on the basis of its objective risks and benefits, it might be socially opposed based on the related organisations' credence and not necessarily on the policy's content.
Finally, Wicker et al. (2012) found that athlete role model perception - in terms of fairness - positively influences the value of elite sport success. Our study did not ?only reveal that the athlete role model perception positively determined both personal and social benefit perception, but also that it can negatively influence risk perception. Hence, future research should specifically focus on how trust in elite sport policy actors and athletic role model perception can be increased.
The implications of what??? for elite sport policymakers are clear-cut. In this study, perceived social benefit had the greatest effect on the acceptability of elite sport policy. Thus, those who want to contribute to the development of elite sport policy should focus on public awareness of the social benefits and values that stem from policy promotion and variable measures, as long as its risk are not too great. Another implication from our results is that athletes who act as role models for the public are even more important, since it has a significant indirect effect on public acceptance. As the eighth International Olympic Committee president, Jacques Rogge (2008, 2010), remarked, the development of 'true role models' is a crucial requirement of the current elite sport system.
(1) The present study is a first attempt to examine the determinants of public acceptance towards the promotion of elite sport policy. From a methodological viewpoint, this model established the development of reliable and valid measurements for capturing key socio-psychological factors related to public acceptance of elite sport policy in Japan. Theoretically, the study validated five relevant factors that may influence the public's attitude towards the promotion of elite sport as a national strategy. Their effects on public acceptance were successfully established by the nine hypotheses tests performed.

REFERENCES (Partly selected):
De Bosscher, V., Bingham, J., Shibli, S., Van Bottenburg, M., & De Knop, P. (2008). The global sporting arms race: An international comparative study on sports policy factors leading to international sporting success. Aachen: Meyer & Meyer.
Grix, J., & Carmichael, F. (2012). Why do governments invest in elite sport? A polemic. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 4, 73-90.
Houlihan, B., & Zheng, J. (2013). The Olympics and elite sport policy: Where will it all end? The International Journal of the History of Sport, 30, 338-355.

Keywords:public acceptance, elite sport policy, value elite sport