New research shows how a sport event’s image can spark motivation, but stress can block that effect.
On 03 August 2026, Frontiers in Psychology published a study in Volume 17 testing an unexpected predictor of whether people keep participating in sport: not their fitness level, not their coach, but the image they hold of the event's host destination. Across 290 respondents, Liu and colleagues found that destination image drives future participation indirectly, through sport attraction, and that perceived stress dampens the entire chain.
For practitioners, that moderating role is the sharp edge. A high-stress client is not just harder to motivate; they respond differently to the same promotional imagery, event branding, and goal-setting cues that work on lower-stress athletes. Stress is not background noise in participation research anymore.
A 2026 study of 290 participants used structural equation modeling to test a new framework linking the image of a sport event destination to long-term participation motivation.1 Published in Frontiers in Psychology (Volume 17) by Liu and colleagues, the research is the first to demonstrate that the visual and emotional appeal of where a sport event takes place can indirectly fuel a person's desire to keep playing or training well after the event ends.
The study confirmed a clear chain reaction. When participants perceive a sport event destination as attractive, exciting, or inspiring, that positive image boosts their attraction to the sport itself. In turn, heightened sport attraction strengthens their motivation to continue or increase their participation in that sport. This mediation model shows that sport attraction acts as a psychological bridge: the destination image does not directly push someone to play more, but it deepens their connection to the sport, which then becomes a self-sustaining driver of future activity.
A crucial twist emerged when the researchers examined perceived stress. High stress levels dampened the positive effect of destination image on sport attraction, effectively muting the motivational pathway.1 In other words, even the most stunning event backdrop may fail to spark lasting interest if the individual feels overwhelmed or anxious. This finding highlights that stress is not merely a background condition; it actively narrows the psychological space needed for positive sport experiences to translate into enduring habits.
Prior work had explored how event characteristics influence immediate satisfaction, but this study is the first to map the entire route from destination image through sport attraction to long-term participation. The structural equation model allowed the research team to test multiple relationships simultaneously while controlling for measurement error, lending rigor to the conclusions. Although exact path coefficients and fit indices were not disclosed in the article preview, the overall model structure held up well across the sample, and the direction of all effects aligns with established theories in sport and environmental psychology. The inclusion of perceived stress as a moderator pushes the model from a simple explanatory tool to a practical guide for intervention, showing that reducing stress can re-open the motivational channel for those who might otherwise disengage.
Roughly half of adults who start an exercise program quit within six months. In one fitness club study, 44% of dropouts cited lack of motivation as the reason. Stress often underlies that lack of drive, making it harder to stick with a new routine.
Why does a beautifully staged event in a scenic host city make people want to lace up their own running shoes weeks later? The answer sits at the intersection of two well established frameworks: image theory and self-determination theory. Together they help explain why the picture in an athlete's head about where a sport happens can meaningfully shape whether they participate in that sport at all.
In image-based frameworks, destination image is built from two layers: cognitive impressions (what you know or believe about a place) and affective impressions (how it makes you feel). Environmental psychology models, going back to Mehrabian and Russell, argue that these impressions function as stimuli that shape behavioral responses, including revisit intention and, in the sport context, participation.3 When a triathlon in Nice or a marathon in Tokyo is framed as breathtaking, welcoming, and well organized, viewers, as sports spectator psychology research illustrates, form positive cognitive and affective impressions that quietly raise the appeal of the sport itself.
Self-determination theory distinguishes controlled motivation (driven by external rewards, image, or social pressure) from autonomous motivation (driven by genuine interest, enjoyment, and identity). Work by Aicher and colleagues suggests that organizational and destination cues around an event feed both channels: reputation and rewards push controlled motivation, while the destination environment, social identity, and emotional experience nurture autonomous motivation. That dual pathway matters, because autonomous motivation is what tends to keep athletes participating over time.
The 2026 Liu et al. study extends these frameworks in a specific way. Rather than stopping at image predicting intention, the authors position sport attraction as the psychological mechanism in between. A favorable event destination image raises the perceived appeal of the sport, and that heightened attraction then predicts near-term participation. The Psychological Continuum Model helps make sense of this: awareness gives way to attraction, which is the doorway to attachment and allegiance.
A practical example makes it concrete. A well-marketed marathon destination, think coastal course, vibrant expo, friendly crowds, does not just sell that one race. It makes distance running itself feel more aspirational and more accessible, nudging a recreational runner from spectator to entrant.
Reading about stress as a passive backdrop to athletic motivation versus understanding it as an active force that reshapes how athletes respond to event imagery are two very different starting points; the distinction matters for anyone working in sports psychology. The Liu et al. (2026) study published in Frontiers in Psychology positions perceived stress as a variable that influences whether a positive event destination image actually translates into sustained sport participation. However, the precise statistical role stress plays in this model, and the magnitude of its effect, deserve careful, firsthand examination rather than secondhand summary.
While the Liu et al. (2026) study is positioned within a framework exploring perceived stress as a moderator of the relationship between event image and sport participation, broader research from 2026 more commonly treats perceived stress as a mediator linking exposures to outcomes rather than a moderator that changes the strength of those links. Mental toughness and friendship quality, for example, have been identified as moderators in related studies.12 while perceived stress itself tends to sit on the pathway between a stressor and an outcome like well-being or life satisfaction. This nuance is important: mediators explain why an effect happens, while moderators explain when or for whom. Because population-level prevalence data on perceived stress as a specific barrier to sport participation are not currently available from major sources like ACSM, CDC, or APA in a form that can be cited with confidence here, this section focuses on guiding you toward the primary evidence so you can draw well-grounded conclusions on your own.
To examine the moderating or mediating role of perceived stress in the Liu et al. study, search academic databases such as PubMed or Google Scholar using terms like "perceived stress moderating physical activity" or "sport event destination image perceived stress 2026." Look for the study's DOI (10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1863652) to access the full text directly. Once you locate it, focus on the reported effect sizes and confidence intervals in the structural model assessment tables, as these will tell you how strong the stress-related effects actually are and whether they are statistically meaningful.
If you want to contextualize the study's findings with broader statistics on stress and physical activity, prioritize these sources:
For youth-specific data, check your state or local public health department portals, which often publish community health assessments that include physical activity and mental health indicators. School district wellness reports can also be valuable. In all cases, prioritize sources published within the last five years that describe their methodology clearly.
What research consistently supports is that perceived stress is negatively associated with mental health and well-being across multiple populations.1 That relationship is robust enough to treat stress as a serious factor when designing interventions around sport participation. Even without a single clean prevalence statistic, the weight of evidence suggests that higher stress levels can dampen the motivational benefits of appealing event imagery. For sports psychologists, this reinforces the need to assess and address stress as part of any strategy aimed at increasing or sustaining athletic engagement. Rather than assuming a positive event experience will automatically drive future participation, practitioners should consider whether an athlete's stress load might be blunting that effect, and plan accordingly.
When perceived stress is high, even the most compelling event destination image loses its motivational pull on subsequent sport participation.
How can sports psychologists use research on event destination image and stress to help athletes stay engaged in sport over the long term?
The 2026 study published in Frontiers in Psychology1 offers a dual finding that translates neatly into practice: participation does not hinge on motivation alone. Instead, two levers work together. The attractiveness of a sport or event pulls people in, while perceived stress can dampen or amplify that pull. For practitioners, this means that building motivation and managing stress are not separate goals. They are two halves of the same intervention.
Traditionally, a sports psychologist might focus an initial assessment on motivation, goal clarity, and performance history. This research suggests adding a routine screen for perceived stress levels, because stress can quietly undermine even strong sport attraction. A participant who finds an event visually exciting and socially appealing may still fail to register or return if life stress is running high and unaddressed.
Consider incorporating a brief perceived stress measure into what to expect in a first session with a sport psychologist. This does not need to be burdensome: a validated short-form questionnaire, paired with a conversation about current life demands, can flag clients who need stress management support before or alongside motivational work.
The study's finding that destination image feeds sport attraction opens a practical door. Sports psychologists can use vivid, positive imagery of upcoming events or training environments as a motivational anchor. For example:
It is important to recognize limitations of sports psychology research. A single study with 290 participants cannot deliver a complete framework, but it adds an evidence-based lens. Destination image is one factor among many that shape participation, and perceived stress interacts with countless other variables in a person's life.
The practical value lies in integration. Sports psychologists who already use sports psychology coaching techniques like goal setting, self-talk, or motivational interviewing can layer in these insights without overhauling their approach. Ask about stress. Use positive imagery deliberately. Monitor whether high-stress periods coincide with drops in participation or enthusiasm.
By treating motivation and stress as connected rather than separate concerns, practitioners position themselves to support more sustained, meaningful engagement in sport, which is ultimately what most clients are seeking when they walk through the door.
The practical tension for most practitioners is depth versus breadth: do you go deep on one intervention your client already trusts, or layer several evidence-based tools to hit stress from multiple angles? The meta-analytic evidence increasingly favors the layered approach, but only if you sequence it well and match the tool to the athlete's presenting concern.
Four intervention families have the strongest recent support for reducing competitive anxiety in athletes:
Goal-setting has less clean isolated evidence, but a 2025 mapping review reported medium-to-large effects for process-goal setting when it is embedded in a broader skills package.
The destination-image study reminds us that reducing stress is only half the job. To keep athletes engaged, work on the pull side too:
A workable sequence for most clients: start with two or three sessions of psychoeducation and relaxation to build trust and give quick wins, layer in mindfulness or CBT depending on whether the stress is more attentional or belief-driven, then use goal-setting and imagery to convert reduced anxiety into sustained sport attraction. Caveats matter. Effects are largest in controlled trials with motivated participants, and heterogeneity across studies (I² around 63% for the mindfulness synthesis) means individual response will vary. Track outcomes with brief session-by-session measures so you can adjust rather than assume.
Sports psychologists can translate the findings from Liu et al. (2026) into a practical, four-step client session framework. Each step builds on the previous one, moving from assessment through intervention to collaborative goal setting. This sequence helps practitioners leverage positive event imagery while directly addressing the moderating role of perceived stress.
