Secondary Outcomes of a Legislated Stadium Subsidy

Figures & data

Figure 1. Final structural model.

Note. Dashed line indicates path was not significant at the .05 level. For illustrative purposes, each of the three stages is bounded by the paths (rather than constructs) contained within the respective stage; for example, Ideology moderates Plan → Policymakers is considered a Stage 2 outcome because the path is drawn within the Stage 2 boundaries. Omitted from this final structural model is TeamID, which was predicted to moderate the relationship between Plan and Consume (H_3b) but was removed from analysis because of suspected multicollinearity with Consume; *p < .01. **p < .001.

Table 1. Demographic comparison of sample, county registered voters, and all county residents.

	Sample	Registered Voters^a	All Residents
N	401	813,711	1,163,414
Age
Mdn age (years)	52	42	33.4
18 years and over	100.0%	100.0%	76.0%
21 years and over	97.8%	95.4%	71.0%
62 years and over	28.7%	17.7%	12.4%
65 years and over	20.7%	13.9%	9.9%
Gender
Female persons	49.9%		51.3%
Male persons	50.1%		48.7%
Race^b
White persons	85.8%		69.2%
Black or African American persons	6.2%		21.2%
American Indian or Alaska Native persons	0.5%		0.2%
Asian persons	0.7%		3.9%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander	0.0%		0.1%
Persons reporting multiple or other races	4.0%		8.4%
Persons of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin	2.5%		4.8%
White persons not Hispanic	93.3%		67.3%
Highest Level of Education Achieved^c
Less than high school graduate or equivalent	0.5%		10.7%
High school graduate or equivalent	8.5%		26.2%
Some college, no degree	20.0%		21.0%
Associate’s degree	7.2%		6.6%
Bachelor’s degree	35.7%		23.1%
Graduate degree or higher	26.9%		12.5%
Income
Mdn per capita income range	$50,000–$74,999
Per capita money income in past 12 months			$26,909^d
Registered Voter Participation
Voted in 2012 general election	98.3%	71.1%	64.0%^e

Note. Mdn = median. All Franklin County Residents data from 2010 U.S. Census data; “Official Audit Results Summary” by Franklin County Board of Election 2012; and “U.S. Census Bureau State & County QuickFacts,” by U.S. Census Bureau (2012a, 2012b).

^aAs of January 2013. 812,491 records retained for age analysis, while some records were omitted because of inaccurate years of birth (i.e., any date in 1800–1888 range). Voter participation percentage reflects 808,578 valid registered voter records reported by Franklin County Board of Elections at time of general election.

^bPercentages reported for White persons, Black persons, American Indians or Alaska Native persons, Asian persons, and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander include persons reporting only one race; Hispanic persons may be of any race, so also are included in applicable race categories.

^cPercentage of persons age ≥25.

^d2006–2010; in 2010 dollars.

^eEstimated using U.S. Census Bureau’s estimate of 898,245 persons 18 years old or older in 2011.

Table 2. Measurement model using split-half sample (n = 200).

Factors and Items	λ	SE	t	ρ	AVE
Perceived Stadium Impact				.90	.56
Stadium1	.75	.04	21.37
Stadium2	.68	.06	12.31
Stadium3	.79	.03	27.68
Stadium4	.57	.05	11.58
Stadium5	.81	.03	27.72
Stadium6	.77	.04	21.11
Stadium7	.85	.03	29.95
Trust in Government				.94	.78
Trust1	.88	.02	45.69
Trust2	.91	.02	60.42
Trust3	.91	.02	54.52
Trust4	.84	.03	29.29
Support of Financing Plan				.98	.91
Plan1	.90	.01	69.12
Plan2	.98	.01	200.83
Plan3	.98	.01	191.43
Plan4	.95	.01	134.62
Team Consumption Intentions				.99	.95
Consume1	.93	.01	81.11
Consume2	.99	.00	387.79
Consume3	.99	.00	606.63
Consume4	.98	.00	318.40
Congruence with Democratic Norms				.95	.83
Congruence1	.93	.02	58.86
Congruence2	.95	.01	80.56
Congruence3	.88	.02	41.80
Congruence4	.87	.02	56.65
Attitude Toward Policymakers				.88	.79
Policymakers1	.89	.03	30.11
Policymakers2	.89	.04	20.94
Political Apathy				.84	.57
Apathy1	.62	.05	12.02
Apathy2	.76	.04	22.02
Apathy3	.80	.03	26.97
Apathy4	.81	.03	28.74
Voting Intentions				.93	.77
Vote1	.85	.07	11.60
Vote2	.87	.04	21.83
Vote3	.89	.03	35.00
Vote4	.91	.03	35.53

Note. λ = standardized factor loading. SE = standard error. ρ = construct reliability. AVE = average variance extracted.

Table 3. Comparison of AVE and squared correlations.

	AVE and squared correlations
Construct	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1. Stadium	.56
2. Trust	.50	.78
3. Plan	.42	.46	.91
4. Consume	.17	.06	.36	.95
5. Congruence	.38	.50	.46	.05	.83
6. Policymakers	.14	.11	.06	.01	.12	.79
7. Apathy	.00	.01	.01	.00	.00	.05	.57
8. Vote	.00	.00	.02	.01	.00	.01	.12	.77

Note. AVE value indicated in italicized diagonal.

Table 4. Summary of hypothesis testing.

	Hypothesis	Coefficient	Significance	Supported?
H1	Stadium → Plan (positive)	.50	p < .001	yes
H2	Trust → Plan (positive)	.24	p < .001	yes
H3a	Plan → Consume (positive)	.38	p < .001	yes
H3b	TeamID moderates Plan → Consume	not tested
H4	Plan → Congruence (positive)	.74	p < .001	yes
H5a	Plan → Policymakers (positive)	.34	p < .001	yes
H5b	Ideology moderates Plan → Policymakers	−.26	p < .001	yes*
H6	Congruence → Policymakers (positive)	.28	p < .001	yes
H7	Congruence → Apathy (negative)	.12	p < .01	yes*
H8a	Policymakers → Vote (U-shape)	.06	n.s.	no
H8b	Apathy moderates Policymakers → Vote	.05	n.s.	no

Note. n.s. = not significant. * hypothesized relationship was statistically significant, but not in expected direction.

Table 5. Descriptive statistics.

	M	SD
Perceived Stadium Impact	5.03	1.00
Trust in Government	4.17	1.35
Support of Financing Plan	3.94	1.76
Team Consumption Intentions	3.18	1.92
Team Identification^a	2.95	1.63
Congruence with Democratic Norms	3.61	1.24
Attitude Toward Policymakers^b	4.27	1.43
Political Ideology^c	4.12	1.43
Political Apathy	2.11	1.06
Voting Intentions	6.63	.78
Awareness of Plan^d	1.68	.85
Interest in Issue^e	2.06	.80
Relevance of Issue	5.12	.97
Political Efficacy	3.51	1.24

Note. Unless otherwise noted, observed variables measured by 7-item response choices anchored by strongly disagree and strongly agree;

^aExcluded from structural model analysis;

^bResponse choices anchored by strongly disapprove and strongly approve;

^cMean interpretation anchored by extremely liberal and extremely conservative;

^dResponse scale: 1= yes; 2 = no; 3 = somewhat;

^eResponse scale: 1 = yes; 2 = no; 3 = sometimes.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2012a). Columbus (city) quickfacts from the US Census Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov

 Google Scholar

U.S. Census Bureau. (2012b). Statistical abstract of the United States: 2012. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov

 Google Scholar