{"id":151,"date":"2008-02-22T15:12:41","date_gmt":"2008-02-22T15:12:41","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2013-11-26T20:51:54","modified_gmt":"2013-11-26T20:51:54","slug":"an-investigation-of-environmental-motivation-factors-affecting-fans-of-minor-league-baseball","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/an-investigation-of-environmental-motivation-factors-affecting-fans-of-minor-league-baseball\/","title":{"rendered":"An Investigation of Environmental Motivation Factors Affecting Fans of Minor League Baseball"},"content":{"rendered":"
Submitted by: Dr. Soonhwan Lee, Dr. Cynthia Ryder, and Dr. Hee-Joon Shin<\/div>\n

Although they are\u00a0important to the\u00a0sports spectator experience, there have been few studies of crowd control,\u00a0concession services, parking, and the like. These environmental motivation factors <\/em>as they affect fans of specified sports were the focus of this study, which took as its premise that fans of a given sport differ from fans of other given sports\u00a0in terms of their motivation to follow the progress of a\u00a0team. The neo-Marxist critique of spectator sports in capitalist society holds that\u00a0sports spectators are more likely than nonspectators to be actively involved both in sports and in other cultural activities, including politics. Furthermore, many spectator sports actually tend to increase hostility and aggression in fans,\u00a0rather than rendering fans apathetic or providing them the lucid equivalent of an Aristotelian catharsis (Guttmann, 1981). From ancient times to the present, individuals who have demonstrated allegiance or devotion to a particular sport, a particular team, and\/or a particular player have been classified as sports fans.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

According to previous studies (Hansen & Gauthier, 1989; Zhang, Pease, Hui, & Michaud, 1995), there are four major factors that affect spectators’ decisions about attending games. The attractiveness of the home team is a first and vital consideration. Individual players’ skill, league standing, breaking of prior records, team record, performance, and star players together affect fans\u2019 attendance at games (Zhang et al.,1997). In Greenstein and Marcum\u2019s study (1981) of Major League Baseball from 1946 to 1975, hypothesized reasons for attendance at games were teams’ win-loss records, pitching staff, and home-run batters. The study results showed that 25% of the variance in attendance was due to team performance. Jones (1984) found a number of significant factors related to hockey game attendance: a winning home team relative to the league, a qualified visiting team relative to the league, a game’s role in progress to season play-offs, superstar players, and preference as to team style (i.e., fighting vs. skating).<\/p>\n

The\u00a0attractiveness\u00a0of the\u00a0visiting team (its quality, the presence of star players, the strength of its rivalry with the home\u00a0team, etc.) is a second major factor in fans’ decision making about\u00a0game attendance\u00a0(Zhang et al., 1997), and a third is economic variables including ticket pricing, promotions, and advertising (Hansen & Gauthier, 1989; Zhang et al., 1995). Promotions and income have been found to relate positively to game attendance, while ticket price, televising of games, available entertainment alternatives, and available sport-event alternatives have generally been found to relate negatively to game attendance (Baade & Tiehen, 1990; Bird, 1982; Siegfried & Eisenberg, 1980; Zhang et al., 1995). The fourth significant factor in fans’ decisions to attend games is audience preference, <\/em>meaning, for example, game schedules, convenience,\u00a0stadium quality, weather, and team history in a community. Weekend games and end-of-season games increase attendance, while afternoon games decrease attendance; showing no effect on attendance are double headers and home dates (Drever & MacDonald, 1981; Hansen & Gauthier, 1989; Hay & Thueson, 1986; Hill, Madura, & Zuber, 1982; Siegfried & Eisenberg, 1980). In addition, team attractiveness variables and audience preference variables have generally been found to relate positively to game attendance (Baade & Tiehen, 1990; Becker & Suls, 1983; Bird, 1982; Demmert, 1973; Godbey & Robinson, 1979; Hansen & Gauthier, 1989; Jones, 1984; Wall & Myers, 1989; Whitney, 1988; Zech, 1981).<\/p>\n

Employing psychological and sociological theories concerning sports fans, Wakefield and Sloan (1995) sought to identify specific stadium factors affecting attendance. Their study argued that\u00a0spectators who enjoyed spending time at a stadium should be relatively likely to want to spend additional time there, while conversely, spectators who had had an unpleasant experience at a stadium should be relatively unlikely to want to spend additional time there (and risk repetition of the unpleasant experience). Stadium qualities that have been considered environmental motivation factors include parking, cleanliness, comfort (or convenience), food service, and fan behavior, as outlined below.<\/p>\n

Where stadium parking spaces are ample, spectators’ enjoyment of the stadium experience may be enhanced. Low-tolerance and task-oriented individuals may experience frustration if locating a parking space and\/or walking in to the stadium require excessive amounts of time (Bitner, 1992; Snodgrass, Russell, & Ward, 1988). Spectators dissatisfied with parking conditions\u00a0are relatively likely to leave a game early and express less satisfaction with their stadium experience.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0cleanliness of a stadium is primarily a function of stadium service quality. For instance, as a game progresses, restrooms and concession areas can fill with trash and spilled food and drink. Spectators confronting such refuse may feel unwilling to use the facilities and may become dissatisfied (Wakefield & Sloan, 1995).<\/p>\n

Physical comfort in a stadium is, as\u00a0Melnick (1993) found, another important factor. The width of aisles and hallways, the arrangement of seats, and the amount of room afforded for concessions and restroom facilities (which may also be thought of\u00a0as the convenience of stadium facilities) should be sufficient to accommodate social interaction and facilitate enjoyment of the game. A spectator who feels uncomfortable because other spectators are too close or who feels hampered in exiting the stands and accessing restrooms or concessions may leave a game early and hesitate to attend further games\u00a0(Wakefield & Sloan, 1995).<\/p>\n

From a food service perspective, spectators are virtually held captive in the stadium for the three or more hours before and during a game (Wakefield & Sloan, 1995). By offering\u00a0a variety of appetizing foods, a stadium\u00a0facility enhances the spectator’s sports encounter.<\/p>\n

Finally, fan behavior that is offensive to or abusive of fellow fans may, Bernstein noted (1991), prompt some spectators to leave a game early, especially when such behavior continues throughout a game. Both players’ behavior and the intensity of the two opponents’ rivalry affect fan behavior, as does alcohol consumption.\u00a0 When stadium managers and personnel carefully monitor fan behavior, moving quickly to end unpleasant situations (in other words, when they practice crowd control), many negative experiences on the part of their patrons can be prevented (Wakefield & Sloan, 1995).<\/p>\n

In addition, while each of the five preceding stadium factors would be expected to influence all spectators, those spectators who are most loyal to the home team should be relatively likely to stay throughout a game and to return to the stadium in future,\u00a0due to their loyalty to the team. In other words, spectators who are loyal to the home team are likely to want to spend time at the stadium, and to return, primarily due to a desire to see the team play (Wakefield & Sloan, 1995).<\/p>\n

]Methodology[<\/p>\n

The purpose of this study was to examine environmental motivation factors and fan loyalty affecting Alabama residents whose communities had no Major League Baseball team, but did have a Class AA\u00a0Minor League Baseball (MiLB)\u00a0team. Specifically, the study sought to ascertain the types of environmental factors (parking, crowd control, stadium cleanliness, convenient facilities, and food and beverage service) affecting fans who are attending professional baseball games. Fan loyalty to specific baseball teams was also analyzed.<\/p>\n

To obtain fan responses reflecting realistic evaluations of the related stadium and environmental factors, Wakefield and Sloan’s (1995) adapted Stadium Factors Measurement questionnaire was modified and used with an on-site distribution and collection strategy during each July 2001 home game of the Mobile (Alabama) BayBears. The BayBears are a Class AA MiLB team in the Southern League and play in Hank Aaron Stadium. The questionnaire was distributed in all 14 seating sections of the stadium.\u00a0The researchers employed a stratified random sampling method with no discriminating factors except age.\u00a0 Any qustionnaire collected by the\u00a0researchers that had been completed by an individual under 18 years of age was excluded. Age discrimination was made subjectively in the effort to exclude children whose visit to the baseball stadium was believed to have been influenced by their parents. To promote fans’ participation in the survey, the BayBears organization provided to participants complimentary tickets to any upcoming regular season game in 2001.<\/p>\n

To obtain reliability estimates and to establish the construct validity of the instrument, a pilot study was conducted before the data were collected from the final target population. Administration of the existing instrument also served as a field test further establishing its content and face validity. After the questionnaire items had been formulated, the survey was administered to 46 United States Sports Academy graduate students who had survey experience. Their remarks were sought concerning the appropriateness of the questionnaire, relevance of its content, clarity of its questions, ease of completion, and time required for completion. Based on the 46 students’ responses, a few minor changes were made to the instrument. In its final form, the instrument contained 20 items on four pages; average time to complete the survey was 3\u20134 min.<\/p>\n

The 20 separate items comprising the survey covered both sociodemographic characteristics and environmental motivation factors. Participants\u2019 sociodemographic information included demographics as well as behavioral variables. Demographic variables were gender, ethnicity, age, marital status, education level, employment status, income, and residence. Behavioral variables were game attendance rate, type of ticket purchased, reasons for following favorite teams’ progress, and preferred means of following favorite teams’ progress\u00a0(e.g., at ball park, by television broadcast, by radio broadcast, etc.).<\/p>\n

The modified Stadium Factors Measurement questionnaire\u00a0was used with a 7-point Likert response scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree<\/em>) to 7 (strongly agree<\/em>). The scale was developed and employed in order to indicate respondents’ characteristics related to environmental motivation factors\u00a0and team loyalty.<\/p>\n

]Results[<\/p>\n

The data were collected from a stratified random sample of respondents (N <\/em>= 282) at the Hank Aaron Stadium in Mobile, Alabama. The sample consisted of 155 males (n <\/em>= 155, 55%) and 127 females (n<\/em> = 112, 45%) (Table 1). To simplify the data analysis, the variable age was first recoded in seven categories: 18\u201320 years, 21\u201330 years, 31\u201340 years, 41\u201350 years, 51\u201360 years, 61\u201370 years, and 71 or more years. Respondents ranged in age from 18 to 74 years (M <\/em>= 37.97, SD <\/em>= 13.07), with 89%\u00a0falling between age 21 and age 60. Those fans age 18\u201320 constituted 6% of the sample, while fans 61 years old or older constituted 5.3% of the sample.<\/p>\n

The majority of respondents were Caucasian (n<\/em> = 251, 89.0%), followed by African-American (n<\/em> = 27, 9.6%), Hispanic (n<\/em> = 2, 0.7%), Asian (n<\/em> =1, 0.4%), and other (n<\/em> = 1, 0.4%). The majority of respondents were married (n<\/em> = 180, 63.8%). Some 30% (n<\/em> = 82) had completed college, and approximately 29% (n<\/em> = 81) had some college education (respondents who had earned a graduate degree or completed some graduate study comprised 17.3% of the sample, n <\/em>= 49). About 71% (n<\/em> = 201) of the respondents were employed; 10% were full-time homemakers. Most of the respondents (n<\/em> = 236, 83.7%) were residents of Alabama, although 46 individuals (16.3%) were nonresidents. More than half the respondents had yearly\u00a0incomes between $20,000 and $59,999, while another 13.5% earned between $60,000 and $79,999 annually; those earning more than $80,000 comprised about 13% of the sample. The remaining 20% (approximately) had incomes below $20,000 (Table 1).<\/p>\n

Concerning game attendance rates, during the previous season, approximately 57.0% of the study respondents (n<\/em> = 159) had attended BayBears games (including home and away games) less than 3 times\u00a0per month. In addition, 18.1% of the sample (n<\/em> = 51) were attending their first BayBears game. The third largest group of respondents reported attending games\u00a0 3 to 5 times\u00a0per month during the previous season. Most of the survey participants were attending the game using a single-game ticket (n<\/em> = 183, 64.9%); 33 respondents had used a group ticket to attend the game (n<\/em> = 33, 11.7%). The remaining 23% of respondents fell in 5 categories: full-season ticket (4.6%), half-season ticket (2.5%), package ticket (5.7%), guest of season ticket holder (6.4%), and other, for instance a complimentary ticket (4.3%).<\/p>\n

More than 25.0% of the respondents (n<\/em> = 78) said that they followed a favorite baseball team because they had grown up in the host city or state; another 26.0%\u00a0said they\u00a0followed a particular\u00a0team because of its geographic location. Having family members who liked the team was a reason cited by 11.0% of the sample for following a particular team. The presence of a favorite player on the team was the reason\u00a0given by\u00a011.7% of the sample for following a given team. The majority of respondents (n<\/em> = 222, 78.7%) reported following a favorite baseball\u00a0team by watching television; other means employed to follow teams were going to ball parks (n<\/em> = 24, 8.5%), magazine and\/or newspaper coverage\u00a0(n <\/em>= 16, 5.7%), Internet coverage (n<\/em> = 9, 3.2%), radio coverage (n <\/em>= 3, 1.1%), and other, such as information gained from friends or family members (n<\/em> = 8, 2.8%) (Table 2).<\/p>\n

Analysis of the data on environmental motivation factors in respondents’ attendance at\u00a0the baseball stadium (Table 3) showed that the most important such factor was cleanliness (M <\/em>= 5.47, SD<\/em> = 1.33). Next in importance was convenient facilities (M<\/em> = 5.40, SD<\/em> = 1.36), followed by parking (M<\/em> = 5.33, SD <\/em>= 1.52), and \u201cfan control\u201d (M<\/em> = 5.27, SD <\/em>= 1.36). In terms of team loyalty, the respondents demonstrated positive opinions about a favorite MiLB baseball team even when stadium-related environmental factors were unsatisfactory (M <\/em>= 5.00, SD <\/em>= 1.36).<\/p>\n

In addition,\u00a0a group of t<\/em> tests was employed to look for significant differences in environmental motivation factors affecting Alabama residents and nonresidents (Table 4). Those survey participants who were Alabama residents had significantly higher \u201cloyalty factor\u201d scores (M<\/em> = 5.15, SD <\/em>= 1.45) than did nonresident\u00a0participants\u00a0(M<\/em> = 4.26, SD <\/em>= 1.98), at the .01 level. No other significant difference between residents and nonresidents was observed for\u00a0the remaining environmental motivation factors considered in the study.<\/p>\n

Multiple regression analysis was employed to examine the relationship of loyalty to environmental motivation factors (Table 5). The multiple regression analysis showed three environmental motivation factors\u00a0to be significantly predictive of the loyalty variable: parking (at the .01 level), convenient facilities (at the .01 level), and food and beverage services (at the .05 level).\u00a0 The regression model explained 38.9% of variance.<\/p>\n

The results of correlation analyses indicated correlations among the environmental motivation factors (Table 6). Significant positive relationships were found among all environmental motivation items, as follows:<\/p>\n

1. correlation between parking and stadium cleanliness, r<\/em>\u00a0 =\u00a0 .697 (p<\/em> < .01)<\/p>\n

2. correlation between parking and convenient facilities, r <\/em>= .567 (p<\/em> < .01)<\/p>\n

3. correlation between parking and food and beverage services,\u00a0r\u00a0<\/em> =\u00a0 .489 (p<\/em> < .01)<\/p>\n

4. correlation between parking and fan control, r <\/em>= .598 (p<\/em> < .01)<\/p>\n

5. correlation between parking and team loyalty, r <\/em>= .499 (p <\/em>< .01)<\/p>\n

6. correlation between stadium cleanliness and convenient facilities, r <\/em>= .721 (p<\/em> < .01)<\/p>\n

7.\u00a0correlation between stadium cleanliness and food and beverage services, r <\/em>= .532 (p<\/em> < .01)<\/p>\n

8. correlation between stadium cleanliness and fan control, r <\/em>= .673 (p<\/em> < .01)<\/p>\n

9. correlation between stadium cleanliness and team\u00a0loyalty, r <\/em>= .459 (p<\/em> < .01)<\/p>\n

10. correlation between convenient facilities and food and beverage services, r <\/em>= .604 (p<\/em> < .01)<\/p>\n

11. correlation between convenient facilities and fan control,\u00a0r <\/em>= .745 (p<\/em> < .01)<\/p>\n

12. correlation between convenient facilities and team\u00a0loyalty, r<\/em> = .572 (p<\/em> < .01)<\/p>\n

Furthermore, significant positive relationships were found between food and beverage services and fan control (r\u00a0<\/em> =\u00a0 .710, p<\/em> < .01), between food and beverage services and team loyalty (r\u00a0<\/em>= .482, p<\/em> < .01), and between fan control and team loyalty (r <\/em>= .531, p<\/em> < .01). All correlations were significant at the .01 level.<\/p>\n

Finally, one-way multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) were performed to compare the mean vector scores for the six environmental motivation items with respect to the behavioral variables. The structural coefficients were used to define a function based on an eigenvalue equal to .30, while the standardized coefficients were used to test redundancy of environmental motivation items (Pease & Zhang, 2001). The results of MANOVA showed significant effects on environmental motivation items both for attendance rate, Multivariate F(30, 1086) = .807, p<\/em> = .001, and for ticket type, Multivariate F(36, 1188) = .811, p<\/em> =.013. On the other hand, remaining MANOVA results indicated no significant effect for reason for following favorite teams, Multivariate F(42, 1265) = .868, p<\/em> = .619, and no significant effect for\u00a0preferred means of following favorite teams, Multivariate F(30, 1086) = .879, p<\/em> = .224.<\/p>\n

Specifically, respondents’ mean vector scores differed significantly,\u00a0 at the .01 level,\u00a0based on\u00a0attendance rate for the preceding baseball season. The loyalty item was the main contributing factor: Respondents who had attended every home game\u00a0of the preceding\u00a0season had a higher mean. In addition, their mean vector scores differed significantly, at the .05 level, based on type of ticket used\u00a0for game attendance. Two factors, parking and loyalty, were the main contributing factors. Respondents\u00a0using single-game tickets had higher mean scores for parking and stadium cleanliness than did respondents using other kinds of tickets. Respondents using package tickets scored higher\u00a0than other respondents on items pertaining to convenient facilities and fan control.\u00a0Respondents who were guests of season ticket holders scored higher than other respondents on items pertaining to food and beverage services and team loyalty. Mean vector scores did not differ significantly, however, in terms of respondents’ reasons for following or preferred means of following a favorite team (Table 7).<\/p>\n

Discussion and Recommendations<\/p>\n

Mahony, Madrigal, and Howard (2000) have argued that\u00a0a variety of marketing strategies should be applied with different types of sports consumers they refer\u00a0to as\u00a0“high loyal fans,” “spurious loyal fans,” “latent loyal fans,” and “low loyal fans.” Varied strategies are necessary in light of the different consumers’ differing motivations and\/or reasons for attending professional sports events\u00a0and\u00a0making commitments\u00a0to professional sports teams. The present\u00a0study focused on sociodemographics and environmental motivation factors, knowledge of which\u00a0may affect professional baseball franchises’ marketing strategies and frameworks. While the present\u00a0study focused on\u00a0residents of\u00a0a state\u00a0that hosts no major-league professional teams, its results may inform the development of\u00a0efficient business concepts for minor-league professional teams.<\/p>\n

The study respondents’ views on environmental motivation items suggest a number of ways to maintain fan satisfaction, perhaps thereby increasing attendance. The three most important concern stadium cleanliness, parking, and convenient facilities; relative satisfaction with these factors affects the likelihood that a spectator will return to the stadium in the future. Wakefield\u00a0and Sloan’s\u00a0similar results\u00a0(1995) led them to advise MiLB administrators to emphasize efforts to ensure that parking, cleanliness, convenience, food and beverage services, and crowd control\u00a0satisfy the baseball fans who attend games. The present study found, in particular, a correlation between team loyalty and the other environmental motivation factors, and loyalty of course plays one of the biggest roles in determining fans\u2019 willingness to attend games. For this reason, administrators of MiLB teams should\u00a0use a well-prepared stadium\u00a0environment to appeal to each of Mahony, Madrigal, and Howard’s types\u00a0of sports consumer.<\/p>\n

Recommendations for future studies are, first, an extension of the\u00a0scaled motivation items to include psychological and sociological motivation, adding for example promotional events, frequency of media exposure, family effects, and gambling factors. Second, the findings of this study suggest a link to be explored between baseball fans\u2019 motivation to attend games and judgments about satisfaction with game attendance.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Table 1 Sociodemographic Characteristics, Frequency and Percentage<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
Sociodemographic Characteristic<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Frequency<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Percentage<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
Age, in Years<\/strong>\u00a0(N<\/em> = 282)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
18\u201320<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
17<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
<\/div>\n
6.0\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
21\u201330<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
19<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
28.0<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
31\u201340<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
84<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
29.8<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
41\u201350<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
47<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
16.7<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
51\u201360<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
40<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
14.2<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
61\u201370<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
11<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
3.9<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
71 or over<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
4<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
1.4<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
<\/div>\n
Gender<\/strong> (N<\/em> = 282)\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
Male<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
155\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
55.0<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
Female<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
127<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
45.0<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
 <\/p>\n

Ethnicity<\/strong> (N<\/em> = 282)<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Caucasian<\/td>\n251<\/td>\n89.0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
African-American<\/td>\n27<\/td>\n9.6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Asian<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Hispanic<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n.7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Other<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
 <\/p>\n

Marital Status<\/strong> (N<\/em> = 282)<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Never married<\/td>\n65<\/td>\n23.0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Married<\/td>\n180<\/td>\n63.8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Divorced<\/td>\n26<\/td>\n9.2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Separated<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n.7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Widowed<\/td>\n5<\/td>\n1.8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Other<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n1.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
 <\/p>\n

Education Level<\/strong> (N<\/em> = 282)<\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Lower than high school<\/td>\n9<\/td>\n3.2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Graduated from high school<\/td>\n61<\/td>\n21.6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Some college<\/td>\n81<\/td>\n28.7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Completed college<\/td>\n82<\/td>\n29.1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Some graduate study<\/td>\n19<\/td>\n6.7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Earned graduate degree<\/td>\n30<\/td>\n10.6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
 <\/p>\n

Employment Status <\/strong>(N<\/em> = 282)<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Employed<\/td>\n201<\/td>\n71.3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Unemployed<\/td>\n9<\/td>\n3.2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Retired<\/td>\n23<\/td>\n8.2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Full-time homemaker<\/td>\n28<\/td>\n9.9<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Student<\/td>\n17<\/td>\n6.0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Other<\/td>\n4<\/td>\n1.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
 <\/p>\n

Residential Status<\/strong> (N<\/em> = 282)<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Alabama resident<\/td>\n236<\/td>\n83.7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Not a resident of Alabama<\/td>\n46<\/td>\n16.3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
 <\/p>\n

Annual Income Level<\/strong> (N<\/em> = 266)<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Below $20,000<\/td>\n55<\/td>\n20.7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
$20,000\u2013$39,999<\/td>\n65<\/td>\n24.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
$40,000\u2013$59,999<\/td>\n76<\/td>\n28.6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
$60,000\u2013$79,999<\/td>\n36<\/td>\n13.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
$80,000\u2013$99,999<\/td>\n16<\/td>\n6.0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Above $100,000<\/td>\n18<\/td>\n6.8<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Table 2 Fan Behavior, Frequency and Percentage<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
Behavior Variable <\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
Frequency <\/strong><\/td>\nPercentage<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
 <\/p>\n

Game Attendance Rate<\/strong><\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
First time attending a game<\/td>\n51<\/td>\n18.1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Less than 3 times\u00a0per month during preceding season<\/td>\n159<\/td>\n56.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3\u20135 times\u00a0per month during preceding season<\/td>\n44<\/td>\n15.6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
6\u201310 times\u00a0per month during preceding season<\/td>\n11<\/td>\n3.9<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Every home game during preceding season<\/td>\n14<\/td>\n5.0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Every BayBears game during preceding season<\/td>\n3<\/td>\n1.1<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
 <\/p>\n

Ticket Type<\/strong><\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Full-season ticket<\/td>\n13<\/td>\n4.6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Half-season ticket<\/td>\n7<\/td>\n2.5<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Package ticket<\/td>\n16<\/td>\n5.7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Single-game ticket<\/td>\n183<\/td>\n64.9<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Group ticket<\/td>\n33<\/td>\n11.7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Guest of season ticket holder<\/td>\n18<\/td>\n6.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Other<\/td>\n12<\/td>\n4.3<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
 <\/p>\n

Reasons for Following Favorite Teams’ Progress<\/strong><\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Because I grew up in that state and\/or city<\/td>\n78<\/td>\n27.7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Because I frequently visited the team\u2019s ballpark with my parents<\/td>\n23<\/td>\n8.2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Because of the team’s location near my current hometown<\/td>\n74<\/td>\n26.2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Because my family (spouse, parents, children) likes the team<\/td>\n31<\/td>\n11.0<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Because I remember the team treated me well as a customer<\/td>\n2<\/td>\n.7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Because the team has my favorite players<\/td>\n33<\/td>\n11.7<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Because I have a membership of the team<\/td>\n1<\/td>\n.4<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Other reasons<\/td>\n40<\/td>\n14.2<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
 <\/p>\n

Preferred Means of Following Favorite Teams’ Progress<\/strong><\/td>\n

<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
At ball park<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
By television broadcast<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
By radio broadcast By Internet<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Magazine and\/or newspaper coverage<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Other<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Table 3 Relative Importance of Environmental Motivation Variables<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Variable<\/strong><\/td>\nMean<\/strong><\/td>\nStandard Deviation<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
I like to come back to the Hank Aaron Stadium to watch BayBears games because convenient parking spaces are easily available.<\/td>\n5.33<\/td>\n1.52<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
I like to come back to the Hank Aaron Stadium to watch BayBears games because I like the cleanliness of the stadium.<\/td>\n5.47<\/td>\n1.33<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
I like to come back to the Hank Aaron Stadium to watch BayBears games because there are enough and convenient facilities, including hallways, space and arrangements of seats, concessions, restrooms, etc.<\/td>\n5.40<\/td>\n1.36<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
I like to come back to the Hank Aaron Stadium to watch BayBears games because the food and beverage services are very good.<\/td>\n4.91<\/td>\n1.42<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
I like to come back to the Hank Aaron Stadium to watch BayBears games because of good stadium fan control.<\/td>\n5.27<\/td>\n1.36<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Even if the above question items (E1 through E5) are not satisfied, I like to come back to the Hank Aaron Stadium to watch BayBears games because I am loyal to the BayBears.<\/td>\n5.00<\/td>\n1.58<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Table 4 Importance of Environmental Motivation Factors by Alabama Residence vs. Nonresidence<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Variable<\/strong><\/td>\nAlabama Resident<\/strong><\/td>\nMean<\/strong><\/td>\nNumber of Respondents<\/strong><\/td>\nStandard Deviation<\/strong><\/td>\nt<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\np<\/em><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Parking<\/td>\nYes
\nNo<\/td>\n		5.39
\n5.02<\/td>\n		236
\n46<\/td>\n		1.51
\n1.51<\/td>\n		1.54<\/td>\n.125<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Cleanliness<\/td>\nYes
\nNo<\/td>\n		5.50
\n5.32<\/td>\n		236
\n46<\/td>\n		1.32
\n1.38<\/td>\n		0.81<\/td>\n.420<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Convenient facilities<\/td>\nYes
\nNo<\/td>\n		5.44
\n5.19<\/td>\n		236
\n46<\/td>\n		1.33
\n1.48<\/td>\n		1.14<\/td>\n.256<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Food \/ beverage services<\/td>\nYes
\nNo<\/td>\n		4.93
\n4.80<\/td>\n		236
\n46<\/td>\n		1.37
\n1.66<\/td>\n		0.51<\/td>\n.616<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fan control<\/td>\nYes
\nNo<\/td>\n		5.27
\n5.23<\/td>\n		236
\n46<\/td>\n		1.35
\n1.44<\/td>\n		0.18<\/td>\n.855<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Team loyalty<\/td>\nYes
\nNo<\/td>\n		5.15
\n4.26<\/td>\n		236
\n46<\/td>\n		1.45
\n1.98<\/td>\n		2.90**<\/td>\n.005<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
\n
Note: Yes = residents of Alabama, No = nonresidents of Alabama
\n** Indicates significance at the .01 level\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Table 5 Multiple Regression Analysis Examining Relationship of Team Loyalty to Environmental Motivation<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
Variable<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
B<\/em><\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
SE B<\/em><\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
B<\/em><\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
t<\/em><\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
p<\/em><\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Constant<\/td>\n.730<\/td>\n.348<\/td>\n<\/td>\n2.097*<\/td>\n.037<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Parking<\/td>\n.261<\/td>\n.071<\/td>\n.250<\/td>\n3.662**<\/td>\n.000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Cleanliness<\/td>\n-.124<\/td>\n.098<\/td>\n-.104<\/td>\n-1.255<\/td>\n.210<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Convenient facilities<\/td>\n.453<\/td>\n.092<\/td>\n.388<\/td>\n4.900**<\/td>\n.000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Food<\/td>\n.178<\/td>\n.074<\/td>\n.160<\/td>\n2.424*<\/td>\n.016<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fan control<\/td>\n.045<\/td>\n.100<\/td>\n.039<\/td>\n.447<\/td>\n.655<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n\n\n
R = .623; R2 = .389<\/em>; F<\/em> = 35.099** Dependent variable: team loyalty
\n* Indicates significance at the .05 level
\n** Indicates significance at the .01 level<\/td>\n		\n
Dependent variable: team loyalty<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Table 6 Correlations Among Environmental Motivation Items<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\nParking<\/strong><\/td>\nCleanliness<\/strong><\/td>\nConvenient Facilities<\/strong><\/td>\nFood\/Beverage Services<\/strong><\/td>\nFan Control<\/strong><\/td>\nTeam Loyalty<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Parking<\/td>\n1.00<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Cleanliness<\/td>\n.697**<\/td>\n1.00<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Facility<\/td>\n.567**<\/td>\n.721**<\/td>\n1.00<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Food<\/td>\n.489**<\/td>\n.532**<\/td>\n.604**<\/td>\n1.00<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Fan control<\/td>\n.598**<\/td>\n.673**<\/td>\n.745**<\/td>\n.710**<\/td>\n1.00<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Loyalty<\/td>\n.499**<\/td>\n.459**<\/td>\n.572**<\/td>\n.482**<\/td>\n.531**<\/td>\n1.00<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
\n

Spearman rho, ** Indicates significance at the .01 level<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Table 7 Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Environmental Motivation Items with Respect to Behavioral Variables<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
Behavior Variable<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Parking<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Clean<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
 <\/p>\n

Facility<\/strong><\/td>\n

 <\/p>\n

Food<\/strong><\/td>\n

\n
Fan Control<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
Loyalty<\/strong><\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
Attendance Rate in Preceding Season:<\/strong>
\nWilks’s (30, 1086) = .807,
\np<\/em> = .001<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\u00a0Mean<\/p>\n

(Standard Deviation)<\/td>\n

\u00a0Mean(Standard Deviation)<\/td>\n\u00a0Mean(Standard Deviation)<\/td>\n\u00a0Mean(Standard Deviation)<\/td>\n\u00a0Mean(Standard Deviation)<\/td>\n\u00a0Mean(Standard Deviation)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Never<\/td>\n5.06
\n(1.27)<\/td>\n		5.20
\n(1.23)<\/td>\n		5.21
\n(1.37)<\/td>\n		5.02
\n(1.33)<\/td>\n		5.16
\n(1.35)<\/td>\n		4.47
\n(1.56)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
Less than 3 times\u00a0per month<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.42
\n(1.45)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.49
\n(1.34)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.36
\n(1.33)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
4.92
\n(1.34)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.21
\n(1.32)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
4.90
\n(1.51)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
3\u20135 times\u00a0per month<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.32
\n(1.76)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.61
\n(1.35)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.59
\n(1.35)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
4.82
\n(1.50)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.41
\n(1.33)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.36
\n(1.49)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
6\u201310 times\u00a0per month<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.27
\n(1.79)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.82
\n(1.17)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.63
\n(1.29)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
4.27
\n(2.37)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.18
\n(1.89)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
6.09
\n(1.64)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
Every home game<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.50
\n(2.17)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.86
\n(1.61)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
6.00
\n(1.66)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.21
\n(1.72)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.86
\n(1.66)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
6.28
\n(1.73)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
Every BayBears game<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.33
\n(1.53)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
4.67
\n(1.53)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
4.67
\n(1.15)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.00
\n(1.00)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
6.00
\n(1.00)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
4.67
\n(1.15)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
Ticket Type:<\/strong>
\nWilks’s (36, 1188) = .811,<\/div>\n
p<\/em> = .013\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
Full-season ticket<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.00
\n(1.73)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.31
\n(1.70)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.23
\n(1.64)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
4.85
\n(1.07)\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.08
\n(1.66)\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.46
\n(1.76)\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
Half-season ticket<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.43
\n(1.13)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.43
\n(1.40)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.14
\n(.90)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
4.71
\n(.76)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.00
\n(.00)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
4.86
\n(1.86)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
Package ticket<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.44
\n(1.96)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.87
\n(1.45)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.56
\n(1.71)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
4.62
\n(2.06)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.62
\n(1.78)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.44
\n(1.90)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
Single-game ticket<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.55
\n(1.38)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.60
\n(1.21)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.51
\n(1.25)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
4.98
\n(1.42)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.41
\n(1.28)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.11
\n(1.53)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
Group ticket<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
4.64
\n(1.76)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.00
\n(1.66)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
4.85
\n(1.72)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
4.57
\n(1.58)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
4.57
\n(1.52)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
4.18
\n(1.45)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
Guest of season ticket holder<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
4.94
\n(1.70)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.00
\n(1.53)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.55
\n(1.46)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.17
\n(1.29)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.17
\n(1.54)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.61
\n(1.19)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\n
Other<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
4.75
\n(1.42)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.17
\n(.83)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.17
\n(.94)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.08
\n(.67)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.08
\n(.79)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
3.83
\n(1.58)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Reasons for Following Favorite Teams’ Progress<\/strong>:
\nWilks’s (42, 1265) = .868,
\np<\/em> = .619<\/td>\n		<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Because I grew up in that state and\/or city<\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n

\n
5.49
\n(1.37)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.46
\n(1.24)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.37
\n(1.33)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
4.99
\n(1.49)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.32
\n(1.39)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.00
\n(1.59)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Because I frequently visited the team\u2019s ballpark with my parents<\/td>\n\n
6.09
\n(1.00)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.78
\n(.90)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.22
\n(1.28)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
4.91
\n(1.00)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.30
\n(1.02)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.17
\n(1.37)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Because of the team’s location near my current hometown<\/td>\n\n
5.16
\n(1.53)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.43
\n(1.43)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.32
\n(1.28)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
4.67
\n(1.43)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.08
\n(1.33)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
4.85
\n(1.35)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Because my family (spouse, parents, children) likes the team<\/td>\n\n
5.32
\n(1.64)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.52
\n(1.52)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.68
\n(1.42)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.00
\n(1.37)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.45
\n(1.50)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.32
\n(1.74)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Because I remember the team treated me well as a customer<\/td>\n\n
6.00
\n(1.41)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
6.00
\n(1.41)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
6.00
\n(1.41)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.50
\n(2.12)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
\n

6.00
\n(1.41)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/td>\n

\n
6.00
\n(1.41)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Because the team has my favorite players<\/td>\n\n
5.21
\n(1.93)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.45
\n(1.56)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.51
\n(1.62)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
4.79
\n(1.71)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.27
\n(1.58)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
5.30
\n(1.69)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Because I have a membership of the team<\/td>\n\n
7.00
\n(.00)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
6.00
\n(.00)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
6.00
\n(.00)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
6.00
\n(.00)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
7.00
\n(.00)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n
\n
6.00
\n(.00)<\/div>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Other reasons<\/td>\n4.97
\n(1.46)<\/td>\n		5.32
\n(1.23)<\/td>\n		5.37
\n(1.41)<\/td>\n		5.20
\n(1.28)<\/td>\n		5.30
\n(1.32)<\/td>\n		4.65
\n(1.87)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Preferred Means of Following Favorite Teams’ Progress:
\n<\/strong>
\nWilks’s (30, 1086) = .879,
\np<\/em> = .224<\/td>\n		<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
At ball park<\/td>\n5.33
\n(1.61)<\/td>\n		5.67
\n(1.20)<\/td>\n		5.50
\n(1.32)<\/td>\n		4.71
\n(1.71)<\/td>\n		5.21
\n(1.47)<\/td>\n		5.17
\n(1.43)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
By television broadcast<\/td>\n5.35
\n(1.55)<\/td>\n		5.47
\n(1.32)<\/td>\n		5.41
\n(1.34)<\/td>\n		4.92
\n(1.40)<\/td>\n		5.30
\n(1.34)<\/td>\n		5.06
\n(1.55)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
By radio broadcast<\/td>\n4.67
\n(.58)<\/td>\n		4.33
\n(1.15)<\/td>\n		4.33
\n(2.08)<\/td>\n		4.33
\n(.58)<\/td>\n		4.00
\n(2.64)<\/td>\n		5.33
\n(1.53)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
By Internet<\/td>\n5.78
\n(.97)<\/td>\n		6.11
\n(.78)<\/td>\n		6.00
\n(.71)<\/td>\n		5.67
\n(1.00)<\/td>\n		5.67
\n(1.12)<\/td>\n		4.44
\n(2.01)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Magazine and\/or newspaper coverage<\/td>\n5.44
\n(1.09)<\/td>\n		5.44
\n(1.59)<\/td>\n		5.31
\n(1.54)<\/td>\n		5.06
\n(1.48)<\/td>\n		5.25
\n(1.18)<\/td>\n		5.25
\n(1.69)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Other<\/td>\n4.50
\n(2.00)<\/td>\n		4.62
\n(1.77)<\/td>\n		4.75
\n(1.83)<\/td>\n		4.37
\n(1.68)<\/td>\n		4.75
\n(1.98)<\/td>\n		3.00
\n(1.31)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

]References[<\/p>\n

Baade, R. A., & Tiehen, L. J. (1990). An analysis of major league baseball attendance, 1969\u20131987. Journal of Sport\u00a0and Social Issues, 14<\/em>(1), 14\u201331.<\/p>\n

Becker, M. A., & Suls, J. (1983). Take me out to the ball game: The effect of objective, social, and temporal performance information on attendance at major league baseball games. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5<\/em>(3), 302\u2013313.<\/p>\n

Bernstein, S. (1991). The sorry state of \u201csports heroes\u201d: Antisocial behavior of well-paid sports figures. Advertising Age, 62<\/em>(15), 25.<\/p>\n

Bird, P. J. (1982). The demand for league football. Applied Economics, 14<\/em>(6), 637\u2013649.<\/p>\n

Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing, 56<\/em>(2), 57\u201371.<\/p>\n

Demmert, H. G. (1973). The economics of professional team sport<\/em>. Lexington, MA: Heath.<\/p>\n

Drever, P., & MacDonald, J. (1981). Attendance at South Australian football games. International Review of Sport Sociology, 16<\/em>(2), 103.<\/p>\n

Godbey, G., & Robinson, J. (1979). The American sports fan: \u201cSpectatoritis\u201d revisited. Review of Sport\u00a0and Leisure, 4<\/em>(1), 1\u201311.<\/p>\n

Greenstein, T. N., & Marcum, J. P. (1981). Factors affecting attendance of major league baseball: Team performance. Review of Sport\u00a0and Leisure, 6<\/em>(2), 21.<\/p>\n

Guttmann, A. (1981). Sports spectators from antiquity to the Renaissance. Journal of Sport History, 8<\/em>(2), 5\u201327.<\/p>\n

Hansen, H., & Gauthier, R. (1989). Factors affecting attendance at professional sport events. Journal of Sport Management, 3<\/em>(1), 15\u201332.<\/p>\n

Hay, R. D., & Thueson, N. C. (1986, October). High school attendance and related factors<\/em>. Paper presented at the conference of the Canadian Congress on Leisure Research, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.<\/p>\n

Hill, J. R., Madura, J., & Zuber, R. A. (1982). The short run demand for major league baseball. Atlantic Economic Journal, 10<\/em>(2), 31.<\/p>\n

Jones, J. C. H. (1984). Winners, losers and hosers: Demand and survival in the National Hockey League. Atlantic Economic Journal, 12<\/em>(3), 54.<\/p>\n

Mahony, D. F., Madrigal, R., & Howard, D. (2000). Using the Psychological Commitment to Team (PCT) Scale to segment sport consumers based on loyalty. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 9<\/em>(1), 15\u201325.<\/p>\n

Melnick, M. J. (1993). Searching for sociability in the stands: A theory of sports spectating. Journal of Sport Management, 7<\/em>(1), 44\u201360.<\/p>\n

Pease, D. G., & Zhang, J. J. (2001). Socio-motivational factors affecting spectator attendance at professional basketball games. International Journal of Sport Management, 2<\/em>(1), 31\u201359.<\/p>\n

Siegfried, J. J., & Eisenberg, J. D. (1980). The demand for minor league baseball. Atlantic Economic Journal, 8<\/em>(1), 59\u201371.<\/p>\n

Snodgrass, J., Russell, J. A., & Ward, L. M. (1988). Planning, mood and place-liking. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 8<\/em>(3), 209\u2013222.<\/p>\n

Wakefield, K. L., & Sloan, H. J. (1995). The effects of team loyalty and selected stadium factors on spectator attendance. Journal of Sport Management, 9<\/em>(2), 153\u2013172.<\/p>\n

Wall, G. V., & Myers, K. (1989). Factors influencing attendance: Toronto Blue Jays games. Sport Place International: An International Magazine of Sports, 3<\/em>(1 & 2), 29\u201333.<\/p>\n

Whitney, J. D. (1988). Winning games versus winning championships: The economics of fan interest and team performance. Economic Inquiry, 26<\/em>(4), 703\u2013724.<\/p>\n

Zech, C. F. (1981). An empirical estimation of a production function: The case of major league baseball. American Economist, 25<\/em>(2), 19\u201323.<\/p>\n

Zhang, J. J., Pease, D. G., Hui, S. C., & Michaud, T. J. (1995). Variables affecting the spectator decision to attend NBA games. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 4<\/em>(4), 29\u201339.<\/p>\n

Zhang, J. J., Pease, D. G., Smith, D. W., Lee, J. T., Lam, E. T., & Jambor, E. A. (1997, Summer). Factors affecting the decision making of spectators to attend Minor League Hockey games. International Sports Journal, 1<\/em>(1), 39\u201353.<\/p>\n

]Author Note[<\/p>\n

Soonhwan Lee ; Cynthia Ryder, United States Sports Academy;\u00a0Hee-Joon Shin<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Submitted by: Dr. Soonhwan Lee, Dr. Cynthia Ryder and Dr. Hee-Joon Shin<\/div>\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n Although many aspects of sport related research including
\n history, psychology, sociology, and philosophy were discussed
\n and studied, few studies on the environmental motivation factors
\n (e.g., crowd control, quality of concession services, parking
\n spaces) of sport fans for particular sports have been conducted.
\n The reason to conduct a study on the environmental motivation
\n factors of sport fans is based on the premise that each fan
\n has different motivations and reasons to follow a certain
\n sport team. Based on the Neo-Marxist critique of spectator
\n sports in capitalist society, sports spectators are more likely
\n than non-spectators to be actively involved not only in sports
\n but in cultural activities of all kinds, including politics.
\n Also, many spectator sports actually tend to increase the
\n fan’s hostility and aggressiveness rather than to render
\n them apathetic or to provide them with the lucid equivalent
\n of an Aristotelian catharsis (Guttmann, 1981). From ancient
\n times to the present, individuals who have allegiance or devotion
\n to a particular sport, team, and\/or player were classified
\n as sport fans. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_is_tweetstorm":false,"jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_options":[]},"categories":[290,293,291],"tags":[8,23,47,53],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4btio-2r","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":312,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/factors-affecting-attendance-at-bowl-games-during-the-bcs-era\/","url_meta":{"origin":151,"position":0},"title":"Factors Affecting Attendance at Bowl Games During the BCS Era","date":"July 7, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Kelly E. Flanagan, M.S.S., D.S.M. - United States Sports Academy Abstract","rel":"","context":"In "Sports Management"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":104,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/british-soccer-superhooligans-emergence-and-establishment-1982-2000\/","url_meta":{"origin":151,"position":1},"title":"British Soccer Superhooligans: Emergence and Establishment: 1982-2000","date":"February 14, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: By defining match days and football grounds as times and places in which fighting could be engaged in and aggressive forms of masculinity displayed, the media, especially the national tabloid press, played a part of some moment in stimulating and shaping the development of soccer hooliganism (p. 122).\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":71,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/ioc-culture-and-olympic-education-forum-thesis-on-culture\/","url_meta":{"origin":151,"position":2},"title":"IOC Culture and Olympic Education Forum : Thesis on Culture and Olympism","date":"February 13, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Dr. Ren Hai In the human species individuals are born cultureless. Ancient Greeks successfully used sport in building up their brilliant civilizations. Impacts of culture and education on sport are undeniable. Sport is not only the exalting of physical activities. \"To place everywhere sport at the service of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Sports History"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":7771,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/concessions-traditions-and-staying-safe-considering-sport-food-and-the-lasting-impact-of-the-covid-19-pandemic\/","url_meta":{"origin":151,"position":3},"title":"Concessions, traditions, and staying safe: Considering sport, food, and the lasting impact of the Covid-19 pandemic","date":"January 29, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Author: Alana N. Seaman, PhD Corresponding Author:Alana N. Seaman, Ph.D.University of North Carolina Wilmington601 South College RoadWilmington, NC 28403-5956910-962-7568SeamanA@uncw.edu Dr. Alana Seaman is an Assistant Professor of Recreation, Sports, & Tourism at the University of North Carolina Wilmington. Her research centers on heritage and tourism particularly as related to sport,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Commentary"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":43,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/portable-defibrillators-protect-fans\/","url_meta":{"origin":151,"position":4},"title":"Portable Defibrillators Protect Fans, Players at High School Athletic Events","date":"February 11, 2008","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Linda Del Monte, R.N., Medtronic Physio-Control Redmond, Wash.-January 1999-In big cities, sports arenas are among the top five places where sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) occurs-but what about towns that don't have major league stadiums? If little league or the varsity squad is the only game in town, that's\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":248,"url":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/article\/a-model-of-the-factors-contributing-to-fan-support-at-small-college-athletic-events\/","url_meta":{"origin":151,"position":5},"title":"A Model of the Factors Contributing to Fan Support at Small-College Athletic Events","date":"September 1, 2006","format":false,"excerpt":"Submitted by: Alan Brokaw , Dr. George W. Stone & Michael A. Jones Introduction A great deal has been written in both academic and popular periodicals about the value of college athletic programs. While some argue that the net outcome of college athletic programs is favorable in terms of benefits\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Contemporary Sports Issues"","img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=151"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1140,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/151\/revisions\/1140"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=151"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=151"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/thesportjournal.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=151"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}