arbiter
JournalsAccount

Responsible behaviour in Mega Sports events under facial recognition technology surveillance

Kijung Choi & Eunjung Kim

Event Management2026https://doi.org/10.3727/152599526x17695712079039article
AJG 2ABDC A
Weight
0.50

Abstract

This study investigates how facial recognition technology (FRT) shapes socially responsible behavioural intentions at mega sport events. Integrating the Technology Acceptance Model and the Theory of Planned Behaviour, it examines how perceived usefulness, perceived surveillance, attitudes, subjective norms, and behavioural control influence ethical conduct. Survey data from Australian event attendees were analysed using structural equation modelling. Results show that perceived usefulness significantly predicts both favourable attitudes and responsible intentions. While perceived surveillance does not directly affect attitudes, it positively shapes subjective norms and behavioural control. These findings suggest that FRT can support pro-social behaviour when presented as beneficial and empowering. Organisers should prioritise not only system efficiency but also how surveillance is communicated and perceived. Normative messaging, staff modelling, and opt-in options can enhance agency and foster alignment with shared expectations. FRT should be positioned as part of a broader behavioural strategy, not solely as a security upgrade.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3727/152599526x17695712079039

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{kijung2026,
  title        = {{Responsible behaviour in Mega Sports events under facial recognition technology surveillance}},
  author       = {Kijung Choi & Eunjung Kim},
  journal      = {Event Management},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3727/152599526x17695712079039},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Responsible behaviour in Mega Sports events under facial recognition technology surveillance

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.