(PDF) Stadium Atmosphere: Scale Development and Validation in Indian Context

Journal of Indian Business Research Stadium Atmosphere: Scale Development and Validation in Indian Context M S Balaji Rajdeep Chakraborti Article information: To cite this document: M S Balaji Rajdeep Chakraborti , (2015),"Stadium Atmosphere: Scale Development and Validation in Indian Context", Journal of Indian Business Research, Vol. 7 Iss 1 pp. - Permanent link to this document: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JIBR-05-2014-0029 Downloaded on: 01 March 2015, At: 14:11 (PT) References: this document contains references to 0 other documents. To copy this document:

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 6 times since 2015* Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 534421 [] Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) For Authors If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services. Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. *Related content and download information correct at time of download. STADIUM ATMOSPHERE: SCALE DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION IN INDIAN CONTEXT INTRODUCTION The global expansion of sports has resulted in professional sports becoming an increasingly popular leisure activity all over the world (Larson, Jensen and Bowman, 2011). This popularity has led to the establishment of new professional leagues and teams, which have provided sports consumers with a great number of options to partake and spectate (McDonald, Karg and Lock, Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) 2010). With such a highly competitive marketplace, sports managers are increasingly looking at ways to improve stadium attendance as gate receipts form a significant part of the team revenues (Alonso and O’Shea, 2013; Clowes and Clements, 2003; Theodorakis, Tsigilis and Alexandris, 2009). Given this, it would be an oversight to ignore the importance of stadium atmosphere as it makes up for a large component of spectator experience. Uhrich and Koenigstorfer (2009) describe stadium atmosphere as the “pivotal value-creating element of live sports consumption” (p. 326). Further, a number of researchers have noted that stadium atmosphere affect spectators’ intentions to return to stadium in future, willingness to recommend to others, and pay more on- site (Theodorakis, Tsigilis and Alexandris, 2009; Uhrich and Benkenstein, 2011). Whereas, the importance of store environment is well established in the marketing literature, stadium atmosphere has received limited attention. Although a number of prior studies have addressed what is required to implement a successful sportscape, there is limited research that conceptualizes and empirically validates what constitutes stadium atmosphere. For example, Hightower, Brady and Baker (2002) investigate the relationship between the physical environment and other key marketing constructs on spectator behavioral intentions in the context of minor league baseball in Midwest 1 USA. Similarly, Wakefield and Sloan (1995) draw on the responses obtained from spectators at Conference football to examine the effect of stadium factors such as cleanliness, parking, perceived crowding and food service on spectators’ desire to attend games and team loyalty. While these studies have incorporated a number of stadium factors, they have been inconsistent and divergent. This makes it difficult to employ and replicate the scale suggesting limited generalization and application of the results to a broad market of professional sports. Further, while most studies were carried out in western cultural countries such as the US or Europe, few Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) studies have examined professional sports consumption in eastern cultural context such as India. These gaps necessitate the rationale for developing a scale to measure stadium atmosphere. Thus, the present study aims to develop and validate a measure of stadium atmosphere. This study has two objectives: (1) to present a conceptual analysis for understanding stadium atmosphere and, (2) to develop a scale to measure stadium atmosphere construct. As part of this scale development process, literature pertaining to sports marketing and consumption was reviewed and linked to a conceptualization of the stadium atmosphere. Next, the scale development process employed over five phases is discussed. Finally, the discussion of the study results and additional research they suggest are presented. CONCEPTUALIZING STADIUM ATMOSPHERE The stadium atmosphere represents a phenomenon that can be viewed as the total of expressions experienced by spectators following their interaction with features and facilities of a stadium during the consumption of a live sports event. These expressions are subjective as they are “conditioned through the individual regulation of state of mind” (Maenning and Porsche, 2008, p.16). Furthermore, the stadium atmosphere creates a unique and distinctive experience for 2 spectators and forms catalyst to both short-term and long-term spectator behaviors (Uhrich and Benkenstein, 2010). Thus, we define stadium atmosphere as: “the functional, affective, and social aspects of the stadium that stimulate cognitive, affective and behavioral responses in spectators during the consumption of a live sports event.” Based on the review of pertinent literature, stadium atmosphere is conceptualized to encompass four related dimensions: (1) the physical layout of the stadium in providing ease of Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) access and convenience to spectators, (2) the design and décor of the stadium that contributes to the attractiveness of the stadium, (3) the live game that stimulates experience of spectators, and (4) behavior of spectators in affecting social interaction. These four dimensions (see Figure I) are described in more detail below: [Insert Figure I here] Physical layout dimension The facility layout dimension describes the spatial and functional design of the stadium. It is functional aspect of the stadium that draws spectators by offering an attractive setting, convenient layout, good signage, and ease of accessibility. Further, an effective layout can provide ease of access to particular points of interest in a stadium, flow of customers and space utility (Joseph-Mathews, Bonn and Snepenger, 2009). Research in sports marketing shows that physical surrounding area of consumption to influence spectators’ perception and behavior. For example, Greenwell, Fink and Pastore (2002) extensively discuss the role of physical facilities within minor league hockey context and propose that satisfaction and attendance decision is predicted by spectators’ perception of the facilities. They argued that “the facility in which a 3 team plays may significantly influence customers’ perceptions of the quality of the core product” (p. 142). Shonk and Chelladuria (2008) suggest that the salient dimensions of layout such as accessibility, seating, and equipment make significant contributions to sportscape quality as spectators spend a considerable amount of time observing and experiencing the game. In another study, Watanabe, Matsumoto and Sloan (2013) noted that the layout and physical design of the stadium might determine whether spectators stay and watch a game or avoid crowded games at Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) the stadium. The spectators consider stadium facilities and other tangential aspects as particularly relevant to perception of service quality (Hightower, Brady and Baker, 2012). It represents an important tangible aspect of sports consumptions, and an effective layout provides spectators a group experience, social identity, ease of access, flow of spectators and space utility (Joseph- Mathews, Boons and Snepenger 2009). Facility aesthetics dimension The facility aesthetics is conveyed primarily through the stadium’s architectural style and design and includes elements such as the external environment, interior construction, scoreboards, facility upkeep and cleanliness, and décor (Theodorakis and Alexandris, 2008). It includes the elements like color, lighting, aroma, ventilation, noise, temperature and music that have an apparent or non-apparent influence on spectators’ perception of stadium environment (Mullin, Hardy and Sutton, 2007; Shonk and Chelladuria, 2009). Further, the beauty, grace and other artistic characteristics of the sports event affect the perception of stadium quality and aesthetics (McDonald, Milne and Hong, 2002). For example, in a cricket game, the elegance with which a batsman strikes a ball to boundary or when a fielder takes a difficult catch form aspects of aesthetic facet. 4 It is argued that facility aesthetics has an attribution effect, where the architectural design and décor produces first impression of the stadium which in turn establishes the spectators’ quality expectations, pleasure and attitude towards service provision at stadium (Wakefield and Blodgett, 1996). Yoshinda and James (2011) identified facility aesthetics (i.e., design, themes, and atmosphere) as one of the major factors of the aesthetics dimension. The stadium aesthetics elicits mood and stimulates spectators to form affect-based perception of stadium atmosphere. It affects the specific meaning spectators attach to the sports consumption and impacts the service Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) quality levels spectators’ expect from sports organizers (Joseph-Mathews, Bonn and Snepenger, 2009). Entertainment experience dimension The entertainment dimension includes the core product and its related elements that are unique to the spectator sports. According to Schaff (1995, p.22), “in the context of sports marketing, the “product” is either the entertainment of competition [the uncertainty], or a product/service associated with the excitement of the event, or both”. The entertainment facet includes elements such as the league, franchises/clubs, schedule of games, league-designed home territory, club rivalries, inter-club competitiveness, clubs competing for players, coaches, management, game promotion, schedule convenience uncertainty of the game’s outcome, and association of the teams to local or regional identifications (Mason, 1999). Holt (1992) highlights the role of sports product and uses a consumption analog which conceptualizes sports consumption as experience, play, integration and classification. Zhang et al. (1995) showed that four dimensions of core product namely game promotion, home team, opposing team and schedule convenience influenced the spectators’ decision to attend NBA games. Echoing the emphasis on sports product, Uhrich and Benkenstein (2010) noted that the 5 players’/team performance along with uncertainty in game outcome provides arousal and excitement among spectators and creates affective response to the stadium atmosphere. It is argued that the core product is highly inconsistent and varies across customer experiences. This inconsistency stems from the spontaneity, and emotional and sensual involvement of spectators in the sports game (Mullin, Hardy and Sutton, 2007). The sports product engages spectators directly in the consumption object and provides an opportunity for interpersonal interaction between spectators. In addition, the core-product in combination with other atmospheric Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) elements creates an enthralling atmosphere at sports events (Kuenzel and Yassim, 2007). Social interaction dimension The last dimension of stadium atmosphere concerns interpersonal interaction of spectators during sports events. Studies of sports consumption have frequently cited spectator interaction as an important determinant of attending live sports events (Uhrich and Benkenstein, 2010). The sports stadium provides spectators numerous opportunities to engage in chanting, booing, whistling, bantering, gesturing, and doing choreographic routines. It is through these “shared rituals, modes of interaction, events and experiences” that spectators form emotional bonds and social identification (Nash, 2000, p. 467). Spectators often relate sports events as means of communing, socializing and entertaining each other through humorous commentary about the game (Gainer, 1995). Thus, sports stadiums might well be interpreted as connecting place that takes on the social facilitation role. McDonald, Milne and Hong (2002, p. 103) describe “the social gratification of being with others enjoying same activity” as key motivational factor for spectators across wide variety of sports. In a study conducted by Won and Kitamura (2006) it was reported that social interaction significantly predicts the attendance frequency in Japan league. In another study on examination 6 of spectators’ socio-motivational factors in minor league hockey games, Zhang et al (2004) found recreation, team identification, crowd interaction, sensation and pleasure to be highly predictive of game attendance. This suggests that social influences might have a direct effect on spectator intentions to attend live sports events. The dimensions detailed above offers significant insights into the concept of stadium atmosphere. In an attempt to assess and meet the need for a measure of stadium atmosphere, a scale development project was undertaken. Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) METHOD The scale development process for stadium atmosphere was carried out over five phases. In the first phase, a description of the procedure used to generate and purify the initial pool of items is given. The second phase involved identifying the specific dimensions of stadium atmosphere using exploratory factor analysis. Confirmatory factor analysis was used in the third phase to examine the factor structure, as well as to provide evidence of dimensionality and scale reliability. Finally, in phase 4 and phase 5, different validity measures of the scale such as criterion and nomological validity were tested. Table I presents the phases and purpose of the five studies. Data were collected in India with a particular focus on Indian Premier League (IPL), a professional domestic cricket competition. The IPL was modeled along the franchise models of English Premier League (EPL) of England and National Basketball Association (NBA) of USA with players being auctioned through competitive bidding. Thus, the assessment of stadium atmosphere by cricket spectators was used in the scale development process. [Insert Table I here] Phase 1: Generation of pool items 7 An initial pool of potential items was generated based on review of research literature and in- depth interviews. The in-depth interviews (qualitative approach) were carried out with a range of participants including cricket spectators, sports journalist and stadium authorities to investigate what they perceived about stadium atmosphere. The literature review provided two important insights. First, it was a source of identification of existing and validated measures of stadium atmosphere and its dimension. Second, it also identified the factors that determined how spectators perceived the stadium and its quality. Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) An extensive review of literature pertaining to atmospherics using key-words-in-context was carried out (Ryan and Bernard, 2003). Following this, research studies in environmental psychology, retail, landscape, hospitality and tourism, museums, and sports management were reviewed to identify the various dimensions and measurement items of stadium atmosphere (Bell et al. 2001; Eroglu, Machleit and Davis, 2003; Grayson and McNeill, 2009; Mattila and Wirtz, 2008; Joseph-Mathews, Bonn and Snepenger, 2009). In-depth interviews were conducted with eight graduate students who had watched IPL games at the stadium, a sports journalist who covered IPL and three stadium ground staff members. The interview participants commented on stadium environment, spectator experience, player actions, and the role of the organizers during the IPL matches. Each interview lasted for approximately an hour. The interviews were tape-recorded, transcribed and analyzed separately. To ensure triangulation and generalizability, four independent raters analyzed, coded and discussed the transcripts independently with the researcher. Initially, open coding was employed to identify categories and dimensions. Following this, relationship between categories and sub- categories was examined in developing the final master categories. Lastly, categories were compared using selective coding to identify the central themes (Stewart, Shamdasani and Rook, 8 2007). The central themes were generated based on the various aspects of live sports event the spectator interacts with in a stadium. Following this, four dominant themes emerged from the interviews supporting the conceptualization of stadium atmosphere. Based on the themes identified from the interviews and review of pertinent literature, a large pool of scale items was generated to allow for further refinement in the later stages. A total of 63 scale items relating to the four dimensions of stadium atmosphere were generated, namely: layout (19 items), aesthetics (15 items), entertainment (12 items) and interaction (17 items). The Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) pool of scale items along with the definitions of stadium atmosphere and its dimensions was given to seven independent expert judges. This panel consisted of academicians who were considered to be experts in sports marketing, consumer behavior and scale development. The use of expert judges in the scale development process enhances the selection of appropriate items for the scale and face validity of the items (Hardesty and Bearden, 2004). The expert judges evaluated the representation of the items to the four dimensions as either “clearly representative”, “somewhat representative” or “not at all representative” of the definition provided. Only items that were rated as “clearly representative” by at least 80 percent of expert judges were retained. This analysis resulted in a set of 24 items for further evaluation. Based on the qualitative feedback provided by the expert judges, some items were reworded to improve clarity and explanation. In summary, the 24 items were considered to have good face validity and content validity, and was administered to a developmental sample for further scale purification. Phase 2: Scale dimensionality and purification (exploratory) The objective of Phase 2 was to examine the internal consistency of the stadium atmosphere scale identified in the earlier phase. Questionnaire survey was used to collect responses on the 9 stadium atmosphere scale from 247 spectators (66 per cent male and 34 per cent female, and ages ranged from 20 years to 53 years, with the mean being 31 years of age) of IPL sports. Snowball sampling method was used to contact respondents over a period of 4 months. Responses were collected on a seven-point Likert scale on the 24-item stadium atmosphere scale developed in Phase 1. A principle component analysis with oblique rotation was employed as it was anticipated that the extracted factors would be correlated. This analysis resulted in a seven- factor structure that explained 61 percent of the variance. Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) The corrected item-to-total correlations (less than 0.4) were used to identify the items for possible deletions. This was followed by a factor analysis to examine the item loadings. Item- factor loadings of less than 0.6 and cross-loadings of more than 0.4 were dropped from further analysis (Hair et al. 2006). Following this 10 items were deleted revealing a four-factor structure, with 14 items explaining 63 percent of the variance. The item-factor loadings ranged from 0.65 to 0.88 which were within the acceptable threshold as suggested by Nunally (1978). The stadium atmosphere dimensions were labeled as (1) physical layout (PL) (2) facility aesthetics (FA) (3) entertainment experience (EE) and (4) social interaction (SI). Table II presents results of the exploratory analysis. [Insert Table II here] Phase 3: Scale dimensionality and purification (confirmatory) In the phase three responses were collected from undergraduate and graduate management students who have watched IPL match in a stadium at least once in the last two years. These students were chosen from a large Asian University and were from diversified geographical backgrounds. This ensured the generalizability of the findings. The sample was appropriate as past literature have suggested that it is the young generation people who prefer to visit stadiums 10 to watch a match. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on the 226 usable sample collected to assess the dimensionality, reliability and validity of the stadium atmosphere scale. The sample consisted of 65 percent male and 35 percent female with an average of 23 years of age. As recommended by Hair et al. (2006), CFA was carried out to evaluate the measurement model. The following fit indices were used to evaluate the measurement model: Goodness of Fit (GFI ≥ 0.90), Comparative Fit Index (CFI ≥ 0.9), Tucker and Lewis Index (TLI ≥ 0.9) and Root Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) Mean Squared Error of Approximation (RMSEA ≤ 0.08) (Hair et al., 2006). The 14-item four- factor stadium atmosphere scale was found to have an adequate fit statistics with χ2 = 106.94, DF = 70, p = 0.00, GFI = 0.94, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96 and RMSEA = 0.05. All factor loadings exceeded the acceptable recommendation of 0.5 as they ranged from 0.65 to 0.81 (See Table III). [Insert Table III here] Convergent validity was assessed using the significance and strength of the item-factor loadings, average variance extracted (AVE), and construct reliability (Hair et al. 2006). As shown in Table 3, all item-factor loadings are significant and greater than recommended threshold level of 0.5 (Hair et al., 2006). Further, the AVE is greater than 0.5 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981), and construct reliability was greater than 0.7 suggesting adequate internal adequacy (Hair et al., 2006). Additionally, all the items loaded very highly under the respective factor. As a result, the convergent validity of the stadium atmosphere scale was established. The discriminant validity was assessed by comparing the AVE associated with each construct to the correlations among the constructs. As shown in Table IV, the AVE exceeded the squared correlations between constructs (Fornell and Larcker, 1981); therefore, the discriminant validity of each construct was established. 11 [Insert Table IV here] To further assess the dimensionality of the four-factor stadium atmosphere scale, CFA was carried out to compare the model fit statistics (best fitting model) between four competing models. First, a one-factor model was estimated with all items loading on one factor. Second, a three factor model was estimated by combining the two highly correlated factors (that is, facility aesthetics and social interaction together) and entertainment experience and physical layout comprising second and third factor. As shown in Table V, the one-factor model was significantly Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) worse with chi-square difference of 503.06 on 6 degrees of freedom. Similarly, the three-factor model was significantly worse than the four-factor model with chi-square difference of 42.22 on 1 degree of freedom. Finally, the one-factor higher order model showed good fit to the data. The Chi-square and other fit statistics (GFI, CFI, RMSEA and AIC) of the one-factor higher order model and four factor correlated model were not significantly different, indicating that the four- dimensions namely facility aesthetics, facility aesthetics, entertainment experience and social interaction measured a higher-order construct of stadium atmosphere (∆χ2 = 2.46, ∆df = 1, p>0.05). Carver, Scheier and Weintraub (1989) and Bloch, Brunel and Arnold (2003) in such case propose computing a composite score to represent an overall scale measurement. Following this, a composite measure of the four dimensions was used to represent the stadium atmosphere. [Insert Table V here] These findings corroborate with previous work on atmosphere in service settings (Joseph- Mathews, Bonn and Snepenger, 2009; Grayson and McNeill, 2009). Grayson and McNeill (2009) posited that different elements of bar atmosphere namely design, ambience, social and exterior to exert considerable influence on customer emotions and behaviors. Design element refers to the layout that allows accessibility of the various areas in the bar. Ambience refers to 12 the music and lighting in the bar that generates moods and emotions in customers. Exterior element is similar to the facility aesthetics dimension of our stadium atmosphere scale. It includes display windows, architectural design, location and other external environment elements. Social element is described as the social interaction that customers engage with others and employees. Similarly Joseph-Mathews, Boons and Snepenger (2009) in their study suggested that service environment can connote both explicit and implicit cues and proposed three dimensions ambience, design and layout, and social to predict service environment in Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) hedonic settings. Thus, the results of our CFA suggest that the four dimensions of stadium atmosphere are logical with all the elements interacting to create stadium atmosphere. Phase 4: Scale validation (criterion validity) To establish criterion validity, known-groups validity was carried out by comparing the mean score of stadium atmosphere scale for stadium spectators (who often watch games at stadium) with non-stadium spectators (who do not watch games at stadium). Known-groups validity, a form of concurrent validity assesses whether the instrument accurately differentiates between groups known to differ in regard to the variable being measured (Rubin and Babbie, 2009). It was expected that the stadium atmosphere scores of stadium spectators differ markedly from the scores of non-stadium spectators i.e. stadium spectators would evaluate the stadium atmosphere higher than the non-stadium spectators. The stadium spectators sample was randomly drawn from Study 2 and Study 3. A total of 100 responses were drawn (50 responses from study 2 and 3) for the stadium spectator sample. Further, responses were collected on the 14-item stadium atmosphere scale from 83 non-stadium spectators. The total sample consists of 70 percent males and 30 percent females with a mean age of 29 years. CFA conducted on the total sample revealed adequate model fit to the data with χ2 = 13 131.43, DF = 70, GFI = 0.91, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.069 (stadium spectators model fit statistics - χ2 = 109.09, DF = 71, GFI = 0.86, CFI = 0.94, TLI = 0.93, RMSEA = 0.074; non-stadium spectators model fit statistics - χ2 = 101.75, DF = 70, GFI = 0.86, CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.94, RMSEA = 0.074). The four-factor stadium atmosphere solution yielded an AVE of 0.63 (stadium spectators AVE = 0.60; non-stadium spectators AVE = 0.57) and composite reliability of 0.93 (stadium spectator sample = 0.89; non-stadium spectator sample = 0.86), all within the acceptable threshold levels (Hair et al., 2006). Analysis of the means revealed that the stadium Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) atmosphere score (mean of 14 item scale) was significantly greater in stadium spectators sample (M = 5.66) than non-stadium spectators sample (M = 3.90), t = 12.99, p = 0.001. Further, post- hoc findings show significant difference between non-stadium spectators and stadium spectators (Mean difference of non-stadium spectators and study 2 sample = 1.91, p< .01; Mean difference of non-stadium spectators and study 3 sample = 1.61, p < .01), As a result, evidence was provided to support the criterion validity of the stadium atmosphere scale. Phase 5: Scale validation (discriminant and nomological validity) The objective of Phase 5 was threefold. The first aim was to confirm the scale dimensionality and replicate the appropriate fit in a sample of general population (non-student sample). The second objective was to establish discriminant validity between stadium atmosphere scale and related constructs such as sports involvement (SI) and spectator motivation (SM). Finally, this study assessed the nomological validity by examining the relationship between the constructs of stadium atmosphere, sports involvement and spectator motivation. Data was collected on a questionnaire survey containing the 14 stadium atmosphere scale items, 9 items measuring spectator motivations (Gwinner and Swanson, 2003) and 6 items measuring sports involvement (Hightower, Brady and Baker, 2002). Various online sources and 14 snowball sampling were used for collecting a usable sample of 348 responses over a three months period. The respondents ranged in age from 18 to 60+ years with mean age of 34 years. Majority of the respondents were males (73.6 percent) and were in full-time employment (42.2 percent). About 60 percent of the sample respondents had viewed more than one IPL match at a stadium. CFA using maximum likelihood estimation in AMOS was used to assess the psychometric properties of the stadium atmosphere scale. A covariance matrix was used as the input data to Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) estimate the parameter and model fit. The results of the CFA are presented in Table VI. The parameter estimates and the accompanying tests of significance for all items were significant (p< 0.01). The standardized regression coefficients were well within the acceptable benchmarks (Hair et al. 2006) and ranged from β = 0.65 for SI7 to β = 0.91 for EE6. The four-factor solution yielded a composite reliability of 0.88 and AVE of 0.59, all within the acceptable parameters (Hair et al., 2006). The measurement model was found to be a good fit to the data with χ2 = 129.96, DF = 71, p =.000, a GFI of 0.95, a CFI of 0.97, a TLI of 0.96, and a RMSEA of 0.05. Based on the above findings, the stadium atmosphere scale was further validated. Additionally, CFA was carried out to test the dimensionality of sports involvement and spectator motivation. The six item sports involvement scale produced a one-factor model with adequate fit statistics of χ2 = 11.14, DF = 7, GFI = 0.99, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.04. Factor loadings ranged from 0.69 to 0.81, while the AVE and composite reliability was 0.56 and 0.88 respectively, well above the recommended levels (see Table VI). The one-factor measurement model for spectator motivation was good with fit statistics of χ 2 = 56.5, DF = 25, GFI = 0.97, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.06. As shown in Table VI, the factor loadings ranged from 0.65 to 0.79, the AVE was 0.54 and composite reliability was 0.92. Further, the 15 discriminant validity analysis revealed that the AVE associated with each construct exceeded the squared correlations between the constructs. These findings establish the psychometric properties of the constructs. [Insert Table VI here] As proposed by Hinkin (1995), nomological validity was established by examining the nomological network between stadium atmosphere, sports involvement and spectator Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) motivations. Sports involvement and spectator motivations were included in the analysis, as previous research has shown that these constructs impact the evaluation of stadium atmosphere. For example, Wakefield and Blodgett (1994) showed that the level of customer involvement with major league baseball increases the evaluation of sportscape and future attendance. Similarly, spectator motivations to attend sporting events at stadium include the inherent game characteristics, stadium environment and atmosphere and emotions (Hall, O’Mahony and Vieceli, 2010). The nomological relationship between the constructs was examined using AMOS 16.0 with maximum likelihood estimation. Figure II presents the results of the analysis. The results show that evaluation of stadium atmosphere is significantly influenced by sports involvement (β = 0.77), and spectator motivation (β = 0.23), and also the relationship between sports involvement and spectator motivation being significant (β = 0.78). This provides evidence of nomological validity for stadium atmosphere scale. [Insert Figure II here] In summary, a strong empirical evidence for the stadium atmosphere scale was provided by employing various psychometric procedures in testing and validating the four-factor model with data from different samples. In particular, by providing evidence of face, content, convergent, 16 discriminant and nomological validity and replicating the scale across different samples and phases, the stability and generalizability of the stadium atmosphere scale was confirmed. DISCUSSION The stadium atmosphere represents probably the most essential part of the total service provided by the organizers of sports event. As suggested by Yoshinda and James (2011), the model of stadium atmosphere can be used to understand how spectator experience may be improved. In this study, we conceptualize stadium atmosphere as the interactions between a spectator and Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) every aspect of stadium during the consumption of a live sports event. The stadium atmosphere scale developed in this study is simple and consisted of 14-items divided over four dimensions namely physical layout, facility aesthetics, entertainment experience, and social interaction. We found that the stadium atmosphere scale emerged as a single higher-order construct that consisted of elements drawn from all four dimensions: value attached to layout and physical condition of the stadium, the design and architecture of the stadium, experience from watching a live game and behavior of the other spectators. A high level of internal consistency was observed for the stadium atmosphere scale across the various samples and phases. The scale also successfully passed the standards for various validity tests, including known-groups, face and criterion-related validity. The four-factor structure showed high levels of internal consistency. The evidence of discriminant validity between the factors demonstrated that the stadium atmosphere scale includes four distinct dimensions. Further, we demonstrated the stadium atmosphere scale to be distinct from other related scales such as sports involvement and spectator motivation. Thus, the combined measure of these four dimensions determines how spectators evaluate the stadium atmosphere. This 17 stadium atmosphere scale developed through a rigorous approach of scale development process has important theoretical and practical implications. THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS Compared with prior studies, the results of our studies present a more complete coverage and understanding of the factors spectators use in evaluating the atmosphere in a stadium. Moreover, methodologically, this study expands on the existing stadium atmosphere measurement research Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) (see Table VII for how our present study adds to previous studies). We provide a strong empirical evidence for the stadium atmosphere scale by employing vigorous psychometric procedures in testing and validating the four-factor model with data from different samples. In particular, by replicating and validating the scale across different samples and studies, we confirmed the stability of the factor structure and generalizability of STAT scale. [Insert Table VII here] This study presents a more complete coverage and understanding of factors that influence spectators’ evaluation of stadium atmosphere. This study broadens our knowledge about what constitutes stadium atmosphere as some of the stadium atmosphere dimensions identified are ignored in the previous studies. This study gives due consideration to these factors and extends our understanding of the spectator assessment of the stadium atmosphere during the consumption of the live sports event. Moreover, the stadium atmosphere scale contributes to the sports marketing literature by addressing the absence of a measure of environment in the consumption of live sports events. This study adds to the existing research by conceptualizing and operationalizing the stadium atmosphere scale by employing more rigorous psychometric procedures in testing and validating the four dimension model with data from different samples and phases. 18 Despite the importance of physical environment in sporting events, no significant measurement was available to empirically measure stadium atmosphere. It is suggested that the stadium atmosphere scale addresses this paucity by providing an efficient way of measurement that can be used when examining therevisit intentions of spectators to sporting events. In this study, the stadium atmosphere scale was conceptualized and operationalized as reliable and valid scale that effectively measures the spectators’ perception of atmosphere in sports event. The evidence of nomological validity shows that the stadium atmosphere scale developed in this Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) study behaves as it should. Further, the demonstration of discriminant validity between stadium atmosphere and the related constructs of sports involvement and spectator motivations indicate that the stadium atmosphere scale can be confidently used to measure spectator experience in live sports events. The stability and generalizability of the stadium atmosphere scale was confirmed by replicating the dimensionality, reliability and validity across different samples and phases. MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS The stadium atmosphere scale developed will be of particular use for sports marketers and management. It could be inferred that the stadium managers could expect high spectator attendance and satisfaction by focusing on stadium atmosphere factors such as the accessibility of seats and allocation of seat spaces, stadium architecture, the game characteristics and the attitudes and behaviors of spectators during live games. Further, the measure of stadium atmosphere will allow organizers of sports events determine the manner in which the sports events are evaluated and consumed by consumers. This might have a profound influence as the spectator experience is rooted in the stadium, the place in which the sport is simultaneously “produced, consumed and delivered to sports fans” (Westerbeek and Shilbury, 1999, p. 2). 19 Studies of stadium atmosphere may enhance the understanding of why individuals have an interest in sports and what factors motivate them to attend sports events at a stadium? Further, measuring stadium atmosphere may allow sports marketers to identify various spectator segments better and make necessary resource commitments in designing a sports’ offering that meets the fans expectations. Finally, measuring stadium atmosphere may allow researchers and practitioners greater insights into differences in spectator experience culturally and geographically. This can guide sports marketers in effectively modifying the sport offering for Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) export as cultural meaning and individual tendencies influence each other. While the stadium manager has little or no control on some of the factors considered for the stadium atmosphere, it is still important to understand their influence on stadium experience. Some of the stadium atmosphere factors are difficult to manage and could have disastrous consequences on the stadium atmosphere evaluation. Consequently, this study can provide valuable insights into the factors that contribute to spectator evaluation of the stadium atmosphere. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS This study is not without limitations. First, the stadium atmosphere scale in the present study was developed based on responses obtained from spectators of one sport i.e. cricket and in one country. Thus, future research studies examining the stadium atmosphere in different sports context such as football and in different countries may provide generalizability of the scale. Furthermore, it is suggested that the stadium atmosphere scale may have applications in cross- cultural and cross-national research. In subsequent studies, researchers should empirically examine the scale dimensions across different geographies and cultures. Third, this study provides support for the psychometric properties of the stadium atmosphere scale; however, the 20 relationship between the stadium atmosphere scale and spectator outcomes is not explicated. As prior studies suggest that the stadium quality and game outcomes impacts spectator loyalty and whether spectators watch the game at a stadium or on TV (Schmidt and Berri, 2001), further research should examine the impact of stadium atmosphere on spectator loyalty and other behavioral outcomes. Finally, it is suggested that various motivations influence the spectator decision to attend the live sports game in a stadium. Thus, further research may examine the influence of spectator motivations, involvement and interest in the spectators’ evaluation of Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) stadium atmosphere. REFERENCES Alonso, A. D., and O'Shea, M. (2013). The links between reasons for game attendance of a new professional sports league and revenue management: an exploratory study. International Journal of Revenue Management, 7(1), 56-74 Bell, P. A., Greene, T. C., Fisher, J. D., and Baum, A. (2001).Environmental psychology (5th ed.). USA: Hancourt College Publishers. Bloch, P. H., Brunel, F. F., and Arnold, T. J. (2003). Individual differences in the centrality of visual product aesthetics: concept and measurement. Journal of consumer research, 29(4), 551-565. Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., and Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: a theoretically based approach. Journal of personality and social psychology, 56(2), 267-283. Chen, C. Y., Lin, Y. H., & Chiu, H. T. (2013). Development and psychometric evaluation of sport stadium atmosphere scale in spectator sport events. European Sport Management Quarterly, 13(2), 200-215. 21 Clowes, J., and Clements, N. (2003).An exploration of discriminatory ticket pricing practice in the English football Premier League. Managing Leisure, 8(3), 105-120. Eroglu, S. A., Machleit, K. A., and Davis, L. M. (2003).Empirical testing of a model of online store atmospherics and shopper responses. Psychology and Marketing, 20(2), 139-150. Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F. (1981).Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. Gainer, B. (1995). Ritual and relationships: Interpersonal influences on shared consumption. Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) Journal of Business Research, 32(3), 253-260. Grayson, R. A. S., and McNeill, L. S. (2009). Using atmospheric elements in service retailing: Understanding the bar environment. Journal of Services Marketing, 23(7), 517-527. Greenwell, T. C., Fink, J. S., and Pastore, D. L. (2002). Assessing the influence of the physical sports facility on customer satisfaction within the context of the service experience. Sport Management Review, 5(2), 129-148. Gwinner, K., and Swanson, S. R. (2003). A model of fan identification: Antecedents and sponsorship outcomes. Journal of Services Marketing, 17(3), 275-294. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, A., Anderson, R. E., and Tatham, R. L. (2006) Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson International Edition. Hall, J., O'Mahony, B., and Vieceli, J. (2010). An empirical model of attendance factors at major sporting events. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29(2), 328-334. Hardesty, D. M., and Bearden, W. O. (2004). The use of expert judges in scale development: Implications for improving face validity of measures of unobservable constructs. Journal of Business Research, 57(2), 98-107. 22 Hill, B., & Christine Green, B. (2000). Repeat attendance as a function of involvement, loyalty, and the sportscape across three football contexts. Sport Management Review, 3(2), 145-162. Holt, D. B. (1992). Examining the Descriptive Value of" Ritual" in Consumer Behavior: View From the Field. Advances in Consumer Research, 19(1). Hightower, R., Brady, M. K., and Baker, T. L. (2002).Investigating the role of the physical environment in hedonic service consumption: An exploratory study of sporting events. Journal of Business Research, 55(9), 697-707. Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5), 967-988. Joseph-Mathews, S., Bonn, M. A., and Snepenger, D. (2009).Atmospherics and consumers' symbolic interpretations of hedonic services. International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 3(3), 193-210. Kelley, S. W., & Turley, L. W. (2001). Consumer perceptions of service quality attributes at sporting events. Journal of Business Research, 54(2), 161-166. Kuenzel, S., andYassim, M. (2007). The effect of joy on the behaviour of cricket spectators: the mediating role of satisfaction. Managing Leisure, 12(1), 43-57. Larson, B. V., Jensen, R., and Bowman, N. D. (2011). Developing International Sports Markets: Professional Sports Selling to New Segments with New Promotions. Journal of International Business Disciplines, 6(2), 9 – 24. Maenning, W., and Porshe, M. (2008).The feel good effect at mega sport events: Recommendations for public and private administration informed by the experience of the FIFA world cup 2006.Unpublished manuscript. 23 Mason, D. S. (1999). What is the sports product and who buys it? the marketing of professional sports leagues. European Journal of Marketing, 33(3/4), 402-419. Mattila, A. S., and Wirtz, J. (2008).The role of store environmental stimulation and social factors on impulse purchasing. Journal of Services Marketing, 22(7), 562-567. McDonald, H., Karg, A. J., and Lock, D. (2010).Leveraging fans' global football allegiances to build domestic league support. Asia Pacific journal of marketing and logistics, 22(1), 67-89. McDonald, M. A., Milne, G. R., and Hong, J. (2002). Motivational factors for evaluating sport Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) spectator and participant markets. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11(2), 100-113. Mullin, B. J., Hardy, S., and Sutton, W. A. (2007). Sport marketing. United States: Human Kinetics Publishers. Nash, R. (2000). Contestation in modern English professional football.International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 35(4), 465. Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Rubin, A., and Babbie, E. R. (2009).Essential research methods for social work. USA: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning. Ryan, G. W., and Bernard, H. R. (2003).Techniques to identify themes. Field Methods, 15(1), 85-109. Schaff, P. (1995). Sports marketing: It's not just a game anymore. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. Schmidt, M. B., and Berri, D. J. (2001).Competitive balance and attendance. Journal of Sports Economics, 2(2), 145-167. Shonk, D. J., and Chelladurai, P. (2008). Service quality, satisfaction, and intent to return in event sport tourism. Journal of Sport Management, 22(5), 587-602. 24 Shonk, D. J., and Chelladurai, P. (2009). Model of service quality in event sport tourism: Development of a scale. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 6(3), 292-307. Stewart, D. W., Shamdasani, P. N., and Rook, D. W. (2007). Focus groups - theory and practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Theodorakis, N. D., andAlexandris, K. (2008). Can service quality predict spectators' behavioral intentions in professional soccer?. Managing Leisure,13(3-4), 162-178. Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) Theodorakis, N. D., Tsigilis, N., and Alexandris, K. (2009).The mediating role of place attachment on the relationship between service quality and loyalty in the context of skiing. International Journal of Sport Management and Marketing, 6(3), 277-291. Uhrich, S., and Benkenstein, M. (2010). Sport stadium atmosphere: Formative and reflective indicators for operationalizing the construct. Journal of Sport Management, 24(2), 211-237. Uhrich, S., and Benkenstein, M. (2011). Physical and social atmospheric effects in hedonic service consumption: Customers' roles at sporting events. Advance Online Publication, Uhrich, S. and Koenigstorfer, J. (2009). Effects of atmosphere at major sports events: A perspective from environmental psychology. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 10(4), 325-344. Wakefield, K. L., and Blodgett, J. G. (1994).The importance of servicescapes in leisure service settings. Journal of Services Marketing, 8(3), 66-76. Wakefield, K. L., and Blodgett, J. G. (1996).The effect of the servicescape on customers’ behavioral intentions in leisure service settings. Journal of Services Marketing, 10(6), 45- 61. 25 Wakefield, K. L., Blodgett, J. G., & Sloan, H.J. (1996). Measurement and management of the sportscape. Journal of Sport Management, 10, pp. 15–31 Wakefield, K. L., and Sloan, H. J. (1995).The effects of team loyalty and selected stadium factors on spectator attendance. Journal of Sport Management, 9(2), 153-172. Watanabe, Y., Matsumoto, K., and Nogawa, H. (2013). Variables Influencing Spectators’ Desire to Stay at A Professional Golf Tournament In Japan. Contemporary Management Research, 9(3). Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) Westerbeek, H. M., and Shilbury, D. (1999).Increasing the focus on. Sport Management Review, 2(1), 1-23. Won, J., and Kitamura, K. (2006). Motivational factors affecting sports consumption behavior of K-league and J-league spectators. International Journal of Sport and Health Science, 4(0), 233-251. Yoshinda, M. and James, J.D. (2011). Service quality at sports events: Is aesthetics quality a missing dimension?Sport Management Review, 14(2011), 13-24 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, 29-40. Zhang, J. J., Lam, E. T., Connaughton, E. P., Bennett, G., Pease, D. G., Pham, U. L., & Duley, A. R. (2004). Variables affecting spectator enjoyment of minor league hockey games. Int J Sport Manage Market, 5, 1-26. 26 Running Head: Stadium Atmosphere Figures STADIUM ATMOSPHERE Physical Facility Entertainment Social Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) Layout Aesthetics Experience Interaction Figure 1. Stadium Atmosphere Dimensions 1 Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) Running Head: Stadium Atmosphere PL6 PL9 PL15 PL18 FA2 FA7 FA11 FA12 EE5 EE6 EE9 SI7 SI2 SI15 0.71 0.71 0.73 0.86 0.90 0.73 0.67 0.68 0.83 0.86 0.79 0.72 0.66 0.85 Physical Facility Entertainment Social Layout Aesthetics Experience Interaction 0.50 0.73 0.73 0.70 Stadium Atmosphere 0.77 0.23 0.78 Spectator Sports 0.75 Motivation Involvement 0.66 SM9 0.77 0.69 0.71 0.81 0.76 0.67 0.77 0.80 0.78 0.76 0.69 0.77 0.72 SM5 SM6 SM8 SM1 SM2 SM3 SM4 SM7 SPI1 SPI2 SPI3 SPI4 SPI5 SPI6 Figure II: Phase five - Scale validation 2 Tables Table I: Study phases and details Research phase Source of data Evidence of Literature review Face validity Phase I: Generation of pool items In depth-interviews Content validity Expert judges Phase II: Scale dimensionality and Survey I – Stadium Dimensionality purification (exploratory) spectator sample (n = 247) Phase III: Scale dimensionality and Survey II – Student Dimensionality purification (confirmatory) sample (n = 226) Reliability Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) Convergent validity Discriminant validity Phase IV: Scale validation Survey III – Non- Criterion validity stadium spectator Concurrent validity sample (n = 83) Phase V: Scale validation Survey IV – General Dimensionality population (n = 348) Reliability Convergent validity Discriminant validity Nomological validity 1 Table II: Stadium atmosphere scale – Phase two (exploratory) Mean SD Factor analysis VE EV 1 2 3 4 Physical Layout: PL6 The general physical condition of the stadium is 6.17 1.05 0.66 - - - - - good PL9 The layout of the stadium allows to get where one 5.92 1.05 0.75 - - - - - wants PL15 The signs (gates, toilets, parking, seat) in the stadium 5.34 1.16 0.81 - - - - - are adequate Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) PL18 The stadium’s physical 5.60 1.13 0.70 - - - 32.9 4.6 facilities is comfortable Facility Aesthetics: FA2 The overall design of the 5.83 1.19 - 0.74 - - - - stadium is pleasing FA7 The stadium has an open and 5.62 1.20 0.79 - - - - airy feeling FA11 The stadium’s decor is 5.81 1.06 - 0.73 - - - - appealing FA12 The exteriors of the stadium 5.30 1.01 - 0.62 - - 12.6 1.8 is visually appealing Entertainment Experience: EE5 The game is much exhilarating to watch at 5.58 1.00 - - 0.73 - - - stadium EE6 Watching the game at the stadium provides an escape 5.69 1.19 - - 0.88 - - - from my every day activities EE9 Watching the game at the 5.66 1.18 - - 0.70 - 9.4 1.3 stadium is really entertaining Social Interaction: SI2 I enjoy socializing with other 5.83 1.03 - - - 0.65 - - spectators at the game. SI7 It excites seeing other spectators whistling, singing, 5.73 0.97 - - - 0.84 - - chanting and screaming in stadium SI15 I enjoy interacting with other 5.85 1.11 - - - 0.81 7.9 1.1 spectators at the game Overall VE 63% Overall CR 0.84 Abbreviations: SD – Standard deviation; VE – Variance extracted; EV – Eigen value; CR = Composite Reliability 2 Table III: Stadium atmosphere scale –Phase three (confirmatory) Standardized Fit Statistics Loadings Physical Layout (AVE = 0.57; Construct reliability = 0.84): PL6 The general physical condition of the stadium is good 0.79 - PL9 The layout of the stadium allows to get where one wants 0.76 - PL15 The signs (gates, toilets, parking, seat) in the stadium 0.81 - are excellent PL18 The stadium’s physical facilities is comfortable 0.65 - Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) Facility Aesthetics (AVE = 0.55; Construct reliability = 0.83): FA2 The overall design of the stadium is pleasing 0.67 - FA7 The stadium has an open and airy feeling 0.76 - FA11 The stadium’s decor is appealing 0.82 - FA12 The exteriors of the stadium is visually appealing 0.71 - Entertainment Experience (AVE = 0.60; Construct reliability = 0.82): EE5 The game is much exhilarating to watch at stadium 0.78 χ2 = 106.9 EE6 Watching the game at the stadium provides an escape 0.74 DF = 70 from my every day activities EE9 Watching the game at the stadium is really entertaining 0.81 GFI = 0.94 Social Interaction (AVE = 0.56; Construct reliability = 0.79): CFI = 0.97 SI2 I enjoy socializing with other spectators at the game. 0.77 TLI = 0.96 SI7 It excites seeing other spectators whistling, singing, RMSEA = 0.70 chanting and screaming in stadium 0.05 SI15 I enjoy interacting with other spectators at the game 0.76 3 Table IV: Stadium atmosphere scale – Research phase three (discriminant validity) PL FA EE SI Physical Layout (0.57)† 0.17 0.02 0.06 Facility Aesthetics 0.41* (0.55) 0.02 0.05 Entertainment Experience 0.13* 0.14* (0.60) 0.01 Social Interaction 0.25* 0.23* 0.10* (0.56) * - p < 0.05 † - diagonal values represent the average variance extracted of the constructs. Lower diagonal vales represent the correlations while the upper diagonal values represent squared correlations. Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) 4 Table V: Stadium atmosphere scale – Research phase three (model comparisons) Model comparisons χ2 GFI CFI TLI RMSEA AIC One-factor model 610.0 0.68 0.58 0.49 0.18 668.03 Three-factor model 149.16 0.92 0.94 0.92 0.07 231.27 Four-factor model 106.94 0.94 0.97 0.96 0.05 176.94 One-factor higher order 104.49 0.94 0.97 0.97 0.05 172.49 model Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) 5 Table VI: Stadium atmosphere scale – Research phase 5 (validation) Factor loadings AVE CR 1 2 3 4 Stadium atmosphere scale (four factors) χ 2 = 129.96, DF = 71, GFI = 0.95, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.05 Physical layout: PL6: The general physical condition of the stadium 0.73 - - - - - is good PL9: The layout of the stadium allows to get where Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) 0.72 - - - - - one wants PL15: The signs (gates, toilets, parking, seat) in the 0.71 - - - - - stadium are excellent PL18: The stadium’s physical facilities is 0.68 - - - - - comfortable Facility aesthetics: FA2: The overall design of the stadium is pleasing - 0.69 - - - - FA7: The stadium has an open and airy feeling - 0.72 - - - - FA11: The stadium’s decor is appealing - 0.86 - - - - FA12: The exteriors of the stadium is visually - 0.83 - - - - appealing Entertainment experience: EE5: The game is much exhilarating to watch at - - 0.86 - - - stadium EE6: Watching the game at the stadium provides an - - 0.91 - - - escape from my every day activities EE9: Watching the game at the stadium is really - - 0.78 - - - entertaining Social interaction: SI2: I enjoy socializing with other spectators at the - - - 0.71 - - game. SI7: It excites seeing other spectators whistling, - - - 0.65 - - singing, chanting and screaming in stadium. SI15: I enjoy talking with other spectators at the game. - - - 0.86 0.59 0.88 6 Sports involvement (one factor) χ 2 = 11.14, DF = 7, GFI = 0.99, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.04 SPI1: I go to stadium to watch the game quite often 0.81 - - - - - SPI2: I consider myself knowledgeable about the 0.77 - - - - - game SPI3: I have attended the game at stadium quite 0.69 - - - - - frequently SPI4: I am very familiar with the game 0.72 - - - - - SPI5: I watch the game at stadium whenever I can 0.75 - - - - - SPI6: I think about the game all of the time 0.77 - - - 0.56 0.88 Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) Spectator motivations (one-factor) χ 2 = 56.5, DF = 25, GFI = 0.97, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.06 I attend the game at stadium SM1: to seek excitement and stimulation 0.65 - - - - - SM2: to be entertained 0.76 - - - - - SM3: to use it as form of recreation 0.68 - - - - - SM4: to have good time with friends 0.76 - - - - - SM5: for pleasure I experience 0.79 - - - - - SM6: to make me feel good 0.78 - - - - - SM7: for the beauty and grace of the game 0.70 - - - - - SM8: to relax 0.71 - - - - - SM9: for the artistic value of the game 0.76 - - - 0.54 0.92 7 Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) Table VII. Methodological comparison with previous studies Study (Stadium Phase 1: item Phase 2: scale Phase 3: scale Phase 4: scale Phase 5: Construct atmosphere generation refinement validation replication relationship Dimensions) Current Study Sample: 247 Sample: 226 spectators Sample: 183 Sample: 348 Physical layout, spectators and students spectators spectators Facility aesthetics, Literature review Exploratory factor Exploratory factor Non-cricket sample Confirmatory factor Entertainment analysis analysis replication: analysis experience and In-depth interviews Corrected item-to- Confirmatory factor Confirmatory factor Social Interaction Nomological validity total correlation analysis analysis Subject matter Composite Reliability Discriminant validity Known-groups Reliability experts validity Variance Extracted Model comparison Discriminant validity Chen et al. (2013) In-depth interviews Sample: 303 Sample: 703 responses Ten dimensions spectators based on Uhrich Expert judges Exploratory factor Confirmatory factor and Benkenstein’s analysis analysis None None (2010) stadium 65 open ended Model comparison and atmosphere model questionnaires segmentation analysis 115 questionnaires Relationship with satisfaction and behavioral intentions Uhrich and Sample: 44 experts Sample: 130 spectators Benkenstein and students (2010) Delphi Method Exploratory research Indicator sort task Stimuli elicited by Expert Panel – Interviews None None Organizers, Subject and Game MIMIC (Multiple Spectators and experts Indicator Multiple Game Interviews causes) model Heuristic technique Greenwell, Fink Sample: 20 students Sample: 121 Sample: 218 spectators Various elements of and Pastore (2002) spectators sports facility were Access, Aesthetics, Literature review Reliability Reliability None found to significantly Scoreboard, Face validity Convergent validity affect spectator Comfort, Layout, satisfaction 8 Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) Core and Staff Kelly and Turley Sample: 316 fans Showed that the (2001) Literature review Exploratory factor Exploratory factor None perception of stadium Employees, Price, Student panel analysis analysis quality attributes are Facility access, influenced by Concessions, Fan demographic and fan comfort, Game identification Experience, characteristics Showtime, Convenience and Smoking Hill and Green Sample: 530 Various elements of (2000) spectators sportscape were found Parking, Food and Prior research Reliability None None to significantly affect Beverages, Convergent validity: future attendance Cleanliness, Fan 2 methods Control, Crowded and Spend time Wakefield, Sample: 150 Sample: 559 spectators Affective response Blodgett and Sloan spectators (pleasure) mediates (1996) Literature review Exploratory factor Confirmatory factor None the relationship Parking, Authors’ extensive analysis analysis between sportscape Aesthetics, experience with Confirmatory factor Reliability elements and staying Scoreboards, Seat wide variety of analysis and repatronage Comfort, stadiums Accessibility, Reliability Space Allocation, Signage and Desire to stay 9 Downloaded by Taylor's University SDN BHD At 14:11 01 March 2015 (PT) 10