The effect of articulation in sports posters on betting behavior

The study addresses how sponsorship by commercial gambling providers (CGPs) may influence gambling attitudes, intentions, and behaviors, given the growth of CGP sponsorship in sport and associated public health concerns about problem gambling. While harmful product categories like tobacco and alcohol face advertising restrictions, CGPs widely fund sports, creating ethical and regulatory challenges. The research focuses on articulation (activations that explain sponsor–property links), perceived congruence (fit between sponsor and event), and perceived sincerity (benevolent motives) as mechanisms shaping fan responses. The purpose is to test whether articulation affects perceptions and behaviors differently for CGPs versus a congruent non-gambling sponsor, informing regulators and sports organizations—especially regarding underage audiences. Contributions: (1) compares CGP sponsors with congruent sponsors, (2) includes actual betting behavior alongside intentions, and (3) incorporates articulation effects with CGP sponsors, previously unexamined.

Theoretical foundations draw on the Theory of Reasoned Action (TRA), linking attitudes and subjective norms to intentions and behavior in gambling contexts, with prior work showing attitudes predict gambling intentions and behavior (e.g., Hing et al., Miller & Howell, Moore & Ohtsuka). Attitude toward the sponsor can transfer to attitudes toward gambling and intentions (image transfer theory), though findings are mixed. Perceived congruence (fit) between sponsor and event generally improves attitudes toward sponsor and event and can enhance perceived sincerity; congruence can be functional or image-based. Perceived sincerity reflects benevolent motives and predicts favorable responses; low perceived sincerity harms credibility and attitudes. Articulation—explicitly explaining the sponsor–property relationship—can increase perceived congruence, awareness, and attitudes, especially when natural fit is low, though commercial articulation may limit favorable effects in some studies. The paper formulates hypotheses: H1 attitudes toward gambling → (a) intention, (b) behavior; H2 intention → behavior; H3 attitude toward sponsor → (a) attitude toward gambling, (b) gambling intention; H4 perceived fit → (a) attitude toward sponsor, (b) perceived sincerity, (c) attitude toward gambling, (d) intention; H5 perceived sincerity → (a) attitude toward sponsor, (b) attitude toward gambling, (c) intention; H6 articulation strengthens (a) perceived congruence and (b) attitude toward sponsor. Proposal: consumer responses differ between congruent sponsor (Adidas) and CGP sponsor (Bwin).

Design: 2 (sponsor type: CGP vs. congruent) × 2 (articulation: commercial articulation vs. no articulation) between-subjects online experiment. Stimuli were sports posters for a tennis event; congruent sponsor: Adidas; CGP sponsor: Bwin. Articulation implemented by adding a promotional discount code. Posters used non-famous models and were pretested via surveys and focus groups to validate brand-event congruence and stimulus quality. Participants: N=518 UK adults (MTurk via Qualtrics, 2020; 64.1% male; mean age 38.9, SD=12.7). Demographics: majority high school or higher education; 73.7% earned $25k–$100k; 66.7% employed full-time. Measures: 5-point Likert scales unless noted. Perceived sincerity (Speed & Thompson, 2000; 4 items), perceived congruence/fit (Dreisbach et al., 2021; 3 items), gambling attitude (Leng et al., 2021; 5 items), betting intention (Leng et al., 2021; 3 items), attitude toward sponsor brand (Na & Kim, 2013; 3 items), and gambling behavior (Moore & Ohtsuka, 1999; single ordinal frequency item). Procedure: manipulation checks assessed perceived congruence and group equivalence on involvement, gender, age, and gambling attitudes. Analysis: Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) with SmartPLS 4; assessed reliability/validity (loadings, AVE>0.5, CR/Cronbach’s alpha>0.7), discriminant validity (cross-loadings, Fornell-Larcker, HTMT<0.90). Non-normality noted but acceptable for PLS. Common method bias assessed via Harman’s single-factor (39.9% variance <50% threshold) and VIFs (<1.89). Structural model evaluated via path coefficients (bootstrapping=5000), R2, Q2 (blindfolding OD=7), SRMR. Multi-group analysis (MGA) conducted after establishing full measurement invariance using MICOM (permutation test; compositional invariance, equal means/variances). Ethics: IRB approval (Universidad Católica de la Santísima Concepción); informed consent; Declaration of Helsinki compliance.

Manipulation checks: Adidas perceived as more congruent than Bwin (M=5.60 vs. 4.55; F1,160=49.8, p<0.001). Groups equivalent on involvement, gender, age, and attitudes toward gambling. Measurement model: Convergent and discriminant validity supported (e.g., CR: Attitude toward bet=0.922, Attitude toward sponsor=0.928, Bet intention=0.974, Congruence=0.946, Sincerity=0.911; AVE all >0.5; HTMT<0.90). CMB unlikely (single factor 39.9% variance); multicollinearity absent (VIF<1.89). Structural model (full sample): - H1 supported: Attitude toward gambling → Intention (β=0.545), and → Behavior (β=0.231, p<0.001). - H2 supported: Intention → Behavior (β=0.570, p<0.001). - H3 not supported in full model: Attitude toward sponsor did not significantly affect attitude toward gambling or intention. - H4 partially supported: Congruence → Attitude toward sponsor (β=0.360, p<0.001) and → Sincerity (β=0.485, p<0.001); not significant for → Attitude toward gambling or → Intention. - H5 supported: Sincerity → Attitude toward sponsor (β=0.516, p<0.001), → Attitude toward gambling (β=0.369, p<0.001), and → Intention (β=0.193, p<0.001). - H6: Articulation → Fit (β=0.113, p<0.001); Articulation → Attitude toward sponsor not significant; indirect effect via congruence significant (β=0.069, p<0.05). Model fit/predictive power: Example R2 values—Gambling behavior R2≈0.536; Attitude toward sponsor R2≈0.576; Gambling intention R2≈0.396; Sincerity R2≈0.236; Q2 values >0 for endogenous constructs; SRMR≈0.036. Multi-group analysis (CGP vs. congruent sponsor): - Attitude toward sponsor → Attitude toward gambling significant only for CGP group (β=0.244, p<0.001). - Attitude toward sponsor → Gambling intention significant only for CGP group (β=0.188, p<0.05). - Congruence → Sincerity stronger for CGP group (β=0.551***) than congruent group (β=0.235***); difference significant (Δ=0.316, p<0.05). - Sincerity → Attitude toward gambling (β=0.298, p<0.05) and → Gambling intention (β=0.354, p<0.001) significant only for CGP group. - No between-group differences in observed gambling behavior. Overall, exposure to CGP sponsorship strengthens the pathway from sponsor evaluations (attitude, perceived sincerity) to gambling attitudes and intentions relative to a congruent non-gambling sponsor, though actual behavior did not differ across groups in this study.

Findings indicate that sports sponsorship by CGPs can shape fans’ decision processes by enhancing perceived congruence and sincerity, which in turn elevate attitudes toward gambling and intentions to bet. Image transfer operates such that favorable attitudes toward the CGP sponsor predict downstream behavioral intentions, a pattern not observed for the congruent non-gambling sponsor. Perceived fit reliably improves sponsor attitudes and sincerity across sponsor types, but does not directly move gambling attitudes or intentions without sincerity as a mediator, suggesting sincerity is a key leverage point. Articulation (commercial) increased perceived fit modestly but did not directly improve attitudes toward the sponsor; its effectiveness may be limited in commercial contexts. Despite increased intentions, actual betting behavior did not differ across groups in this experiment, indicating an intention–behavior gap within the study timeframe. Practically, CGP sponsorships may normalize and encourage betting propensity, posing regulatory and ethical considerations for sports organizations, yet financial reliance on CGP funding complicates outright bans.

This study demonstrates that CGP sports sponsorships can elevate betting intentions via enhanced attitudes toward the sponsor, perceived congruence, and perceived sincerity compared with a congruent non-gambling sponsor. Commercial articulation alone offers limited incremental benefit, acting indirectly through fit rather than directly improving sponsor attitudes. The work extends image transfer and congruence theories to CGP sponsors and underscores sincerity as a pivotal mechanism linking sponsorship perceptions to gambling-related intentions. For practitioners, non-CGP brands should prioritize congruent partnerships to build sincerity and sponsor attitudes; CGPs seeking to minimize harm should consider activation forms beyond commercial articulation. For policymakers and sports bodies, the potential for CGP sponsorships to raise betting intentions warrants careful consideration against financial dependencies. Future research should test varied articulation formats (e.g., social/non-commercial), broader sponsor/event contexts, longitudinal designs to track behavior change over time, and neurophysiological measures of attention to articulation cues.

Generalizability is limited to the UK context and the specific brands (Adidas, Bwin) and sport (tennis) used as stimuli. Only commercial articulation was tested; social or non-commercial articulation may yield different effects. The cross-sectional experimental design and self-reported single-item behavior measure may not capture longer-term or nuanced behavioral change. Results may vary by cultural context, event type, or sponsor category; manipulation checks should be replicated across contexts. Future work should compare multiple articulation formats, include longitudinal and field data, and use neurophysiological measures to assess attention to articulation content.