Effects of sport event satisfaction on team identification and revisit intent.

Lee, Joon Sung ; Kang, Joon-Ho

Introduction

Not surprisingly, a sustainable sport fan base has been known to play an important role in the success of the sport industry. Sport fans consume sporting events either directly (attending live sporting events) or indirectly (watching games through other media; purchasing licensed goods). Taking the importance of fans into account, a body of fan behavior literature has made enormous efforts to investigate and identify sport consumers' diverse individual, psychological, social, and other characteristics to better understand fans' consumption patterns. One factor that has received considerable attention is sport fans' team identification, enabling researchers and marketers to explain and predict fans' behavior (e.g., Fink, Trail, & Anderson, 2002; Kwon, Trail, & James, 2007; Ogden & Hilt, 2003; Trail, Fink, & Anderson, 2003).

Team identification generally refers to psychological and behavioral attachment to a certain team or organization (Wann & Branscombe, 1993; Wann & Pierce, 2003). The literature on team identification has consistently indicated that team identification is a crucial factor in building a sustainable fan base. For instance, a body of research has documented positive impacts of identification on sport fans' attitudes toward a team and their consumption of products and services within various contexts of sport (e.g., Becker, Billings, Eveleth, & Gilbert, 1996; Bhattacharya, Rao, & Glynn, 1995; Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994; Kwon & Armstrong, 2002; Kwon et al., 2007; Trail et al., 2003). Notably, researchers found that team identification plays an important role in anticipating consumption behavior such as sport spectatorship (e.g., Fink et al., 2002; Ogden & Hilt, 2003). While many researchers have examined the impact of team identification on various sport fan behaviors, the research community has gained only limited understanding of the antecedents that generate sport fans' team identification (e.g., Heere, James, Yoshida, & Scremin, 2011; Theodorakis, Koustelios, Robinson, & Barlas, 2009). In particular, little is known about how sport fans' evaluation of actual consumption experiences at live sporting events can contribute to an increase in team identification. This limited understanding hinders the research community from gaining a better understanding of how identification is formulated and developed in sport consumers' minds. Thus, potential predictors that facilitate team identification in sport fans' minds deserve research attention and understanding them will in turn broaden our understanding of sport fan identification.

According to the service literature, a service product generally contains four main characteristics: intangibility, inseparability, heterogeneity, and perishability (e.g., Rathmell, 1966; Regan, 1963; Shostack, 1977; Zeithaml, Parasuraman, & Berry, 1985). Given that many sport-derived products (e.g., sporting events) have characteristics similar to those of service products, it is appropriate to consider that sport game and service products have characteristics in common. Taking this approach, relatively recent studies have investigated impacts of service factors in sporting events on sport fans' consumptive behavior (e.g., Kim & Kang, 2005; Kim, Ko, & Park, 2013; Ko, Zhang, Cattani, & Pastore, 2011; Theodorakis et al., 2009). For instance, Theodorakis and others (2009) examined moderating impacts of sport consumers' team identification on the relationship between service quality and repurchase intent. They demonstrated that among groups with low and medium levels of identification, overall service quality significantly affected consumers' repurchase intent, while service quality did not have a significant impact on repurchase intentions. However, the literature explaining the impact of satisfaction during sporting events on consumers' team identification has remained sparse.

In sum, while some researchers have explored potential predictors of team identification, thus far the research community has gained only a limited understanding as to how spectators' satisfaction with different experiences at the stadium contributes to increasing the levels of team identification. In particular, given the notion that overall satisfaction from a sporting event has a positive impact on team identification (Hur & Lee, 2004), it is also plausible to assume that team identification may be associated with specific elements of satisfaction that sport consumers experience at live sporting events: the core event as performance-related factors, and peripheral events as promotion-related activities. However, little has been understood about potential relationships between core and peripheral event satisfactions and fans' team identification and re-spectating intent. Therefore, this study aims to test causal relationships between both core and peripheral event satisfaction, and team identification and future revisit intent. Findings from this study will provide a better understanding of how sport fans' identification can be generated and developed. In addition, the present study will inform marketing managers regarding how to plan and conduct effective marketing strategies to build a sustainable and loyal fan base, and to attract sport fans to sporting events.

Theoretical Background

Team Identification

The broad concept of identification has been understood as "a oneness with or belongingness with an entity where the individual defines him or herself in terms of the entity to which he or she is a member" (Mael & Ashforth, 1992, p. 104). Identification has long been rooted in social identity theory. The theory proposes that individuals tend to categorize themselves and others into groups and compare each other (Hogg, Terry, & White, 1995). In the context of sport, as one specific type of identification, team identification can be described as "the extent to which (a) fan feels psychologically connected to a team" (Wann, Melnick, Russell, & Pease, 2001). Taking the previous premise of social identity theory, sport fans are more likely to make comparisons between their group (or team) and other groups.

The concept of team identification has been broadly accepted to play an important role in sport consumers' attitudes and behaviors. For instance, in the Psychological Continuum Model (PCM), Funk and James (2001) classified sport fans' connection to sport into four stages (i.e., Awareness, Attraction, Attachment, and Allegiance stages). In that conceptual model, team identification is one of the chief attributes reflecting the "Attachment stage." This implies that sport fans with deep and rich psychological attachments to certain sports teams are more likely to become loyal fans. Furthermore, it has been argued that as one's identification level increases, one's game attendance is less likely to be affected by previous unfavorable game outcomes such as losses (Sutton, McDonald, Milne, & Cimperman, 1997). Therefore, the level of fans' team identification could be one barometer showing how loyal the fans are to their teams.

Team Identification and Consumptive Behaviors

Over the past decades, many researchers have made numerous efforts to extensively investigate interesting roles of sport consumers' team identification using various consumption contexts (e.g., sponsorship, licensed goods, spectatorship, etc.). For instance, several studies (e.g., Gwinner & Swanson, 2003; Kwon et al., 2007; Levin, Beasley, & Gamble, 2004) uncovered that team identification has positive impacts on attitude formation and purchase intent. In particular, Levin et al. (2004) conducted an empirical study in the context of NASCAR and revealed that fans highly identified with NASCAR events tend to demonstrate greater levels of brand loyalty. Likewise, Kwon and others (2007) found that team identification leads sport fans to purchase team licensed goods.

As for game attendance, a body of literature has found positive impacts of team identification on sport fans' willingness to attend sporting events. One line of research has found that team identification can play a role as a crucial predictor of sport fans' spectatorship (e.g., Bhattacharya et al., 1995; Hill & Green, 2000; Matsuoka, Chelladurai, & Harada, 2003; Pooley, 1978; Sutton et al., 1997; Wakefield & Sloan, 1995; Wann & Branscombe, 1993). According to Wakefield and Sloan (1995), sport fans who highly identify with a team are more willing to attend games to support their favorite teams even if the teams are struggling during the season. In a similar vein, Hill and Green (2000) demonstrated that sport fans' psychological attachment to a team functions as a significant predictor of game attendance. Matsuoka et al. (2003) also showed that highly identified fans are more likely to attend games despite unsatisfactory performance, while less identified fans are not. Pooley (1978) explored sport fans' post-attendance behavior based on the fans' identification levels. The results revealed that fans with a lower level of identification tend to forget a competition when the game is over, whereas highly identified fans do not. More specifically, fans showing a higher level of team identification keep paying attention to the competition itself and other relevant topics even after the match is over. Furthermore, highly identified fans were found to spend their time and money consistently on attending games.

While previous studies focusing on the relationship between team identification and consumer behavior have contributed to our understanding of how team identification, as a predictor, affects sport fans' attitudinal and behavioral outcomes (e.g., attitude formation, purchase intent), relatively less is understood about the antecedents of team identification. To date, the issue of how team identification is formed and developed based on sport consumers' experiences at live sporting events has been under-researched. Thus, discerning the factors generating and developing team identification is expected to provide a theoretical basis to better understand team identification, and thereby, consumers' patronage behaviors.

Consumer Satisfaction at Sporting Events

A body of literature has pointed out that perceived quality of products is positively associated with consumers' satisfaction, which in turn predisposes consumers to make purchase decisions (Carlson & O'Cass, 2010; Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Dagger & Sweeney, 2007; Lassar, Manolis, & Winsor, 2000; Zeithaml, Bitner, & Gremler, 2006). In the context of sport, a line of literature has demonstrated that consumer satisfaction is significantly associated with future behavioral intention, such as attending future sporting events (Cronin, Brady, & Hult, 2000; Kwon, Trail, & Anderson; 2005; Wakefield & Blodgett, 1996; Yoshida & James, 2010). Moreover, previous studies have suggested that consumer satisfaction from consumption experiences is closely related to the development of consumers' identification (Fisher & Wakefield, 1998; Funk & James, 2001; Hur & Lee, 2004).

With this in mind, we incorporate two potential sub-dimensions of satisfaction (i.e., core and peripheral event satisfaction: Kim & Kang, 2005, Yoshida & James, 2010) to evaluate sport consumers' satisfaction gained from a live sporting event. Yoshida and James (2010) divided sport consumer satisfaction into two dimensions: satisfaction with core service (team performance-related factors) and satisfaction with peripheral services (ancillary service elements such as promotional activities). Moreover, by employing two dimensions of satisfaction (core and peripheral event), Kim and Kang (2005) examined the moderating effect of team loyalty on the relationships between spectators' perceptions of the two different dimensions (core and peripheral) and their overall satisfaction levels at the sporting event. These studies have provided theoretical background as to important roles of each sub-dimension of event satisfaction. Taking this two-dimensional approach should allow a better understanding of the potential contribution of each dimension to the development of identification. In particular, the present study follows Kim and Kang's (2005) two-dimensional approach because the aforementioned characteristics (e.g., intangibility, inseparability, heterogeneity, perishability) of service products are not applicable to other functional aspects of sporting events (e.g., physical surroundings).

Core event satisfaction. In sporting event contexts, the core event can be regarded as the athletic performance (Van Leeuwen, Quick, & Daniel, 2002). Hirt and Clarkson (2011) argue that one chief motivation for attending sporting events is the intense level of arousal and excitement experienced while watching an ardent competition among either individual athletes or groups of athletes. From the social psychology standpoint, sport fans intentionally select sporting events that will provide the aforementioned feelings (e.g., Biswas, Riffe, & Zillmann, 1994; Knobloch & Zillmann, 2002; Zillmann & Bryant, 1985). Following this logic, athletes' performance on the court/field can be one important factor that evokes and triggers the feelings that fans aspire to experience. Ko et al. (2011) define perceived game performance as "spectators' perceptions of the quality of athletic performance through which they experience the esthetics, excitement, and drama of the accrual sporting event" (p. 308). One line of research has found that the core product has significant and direct impacts on consumer satisfaction in positive ways (e.g., Grace & O'Cass, 2004; McDougall & Levesque, 2000). In this sense, the core product (competition) within sporting events can be regarded as one significant factor resulting in positive responses (e.g., revisit intent) from the consumers. In particular, previous studies have suggested that team identification may be formed and developed over time based on affectively fulfilling experiences derived from a favorite team's performance (e.g., Fisher & Wakefield, 1998; Funk & James, 2001), highlighting potential impacts of core event satisfaction on sport fans' team identification. Moreover, previous studies have found that satisfaction gained from spectatorship is positively associated with team identification (Hur & Lee, 2004). Taking all the discussions above, we developed the following hypotheses:

H1: Core event satisfaction will be positively associated with team identification.

H2: Core event satisfaction will be positively associated with revisit intent.

Peripheral event satisfaction. The other dimension of satisfaction is the peripheral event, which refers to the promotions and entertaining activities that are provided to sport consumers during sporting events (Kim & Kang, 2005). Most sporting events are packed with various types of entertaining and promotional activities inside and outside of games. Arguably another of the most basic motives of sport fans, which has long been investigated, is that of consuming entertainment (e.g., Gantz, 1981; Gantz & Wenner, 1991, 1995; Krohn, Clarke, Preston, McDonald, & Preston, 1998; Wann, 1995; Wenner & Gantz, 1998). Sport fans have been known to watch sporting events with the expectation of being entertained. Researchers have argued that the enjoyment and the affective satisfaction that can be experienced from several types of activities during sporting events (e.g., cheering, entertaining events) are undeniable driving forces behind sport consumption (Hirt & Clarkson, 2011). As for in-game promotions, Ko and others (2011) classified promotions as secondary products provided in conjunction with core events. This type of peripheral event can encompass a half-court shot for a prize, a half-time show, music, and other promotional events that enhance spectators' game experience other than athletic performance (Kim et al., 2013). A body of literature has documented that promotional elements entertaining sport consumers have a significant impact on consumer satisfaction during sporting events. Although researchers have investigated how sport consumers' satisfaction can affect consumers' perceptions and behavioral intent, less has been understood about how satisfaction from the peripheral event dimension influences team identification. However, previous findings suggest that sport consumers' satisfaction is a direct function of their overall perception of product or service (e.g., Theodorakis et al., 2009, Yoshida & James, 2010), and sporting event spectators' overall satisfaction has positive impacts on team identification (Hur & Lee, 2004). Given this, it is plausible that peripheral event satisfaction (e.g., satisfaction with promotional events), as another significant experience delivered during sporting events, would positively affect sport consumers' team identification and future revisit intent. Taking the aforementioned expected causal impact of core event satisfaction on team identification and revisit intent, we proposed following hypotheses:

H3: Peripheral event satisfaction will be positively associated with team identification.

H4: Peripheral event satisfaction will be positively associated with revisit intent.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Lastly, based on previous findings from team identification studies, consumers' revisit intent has been investigated as one significant outcome of identification. According to the findings, team identification has a significant impact on consumers' revisit intent (e.g., Hill & Green, 2000; Matsuoka et al., 2003; Wakefield & Sloan, 1995). Thus, we expect a direct impact of team identification on consumers' revisit intent. Moreover, if core and peripheral event satisfaction, as predictors of team identification, could positively affect team identification, indirect impacts of each dimension of event satisfaction on revisit intent through team identification can be expected. Thus, the following hypotheses were generated.

H5: Team identification will be positively associated with revisit intent.

H6: Core and peripheral event satisfaction will have positive indirect impacts on revisit intent through team identification.

Based on the hypotheses, we proposed a model depicting the causal relationships between fan identification, event satisfactions, and revisit intent.

Methods

Participants and Procedures

The data for the current study was collected from spectators of a Korean men's professional basketball league--the Korean Basketball League (KBL)--regular season game in Seoul, which is the capital city of Korea. A total of 224 participants were recruited; 19 incomplete responses were excluded from data analyses. Males accounted for 60% (n = 123) of the total sample, and the mean age of the participants was 25.55 years old (SD = 7.38), with ages ranging from 18 to 50. An approximately five-minute long survey was administered during the halftime break. After consenting to participate in a short survey, the respondents were asked to complete questionnaires measuring their team identification, event satisfactions, and revisit intent. Lastly, the questionnaire concluded with questions about the respondents' demographics. After completing the survey, each participant was thanked and debriefed about the research project (purposes, procedures, etc.).

Instruments

All measures in the present study were taken from previous literature and measured using a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree; 7 = strongly disagree). With regard to the items measuring individuals' team identification (ID) levels, five items were adapted and modified from the Sport Spectator Identification Scale (SSIS) suggested by Wann and Branscombe (1993). Core and peripheral event satisfaction (CS/PS) were measured by three items each. All six items regarding core and peripheral event satisfaction were employed from Kim and Kang (2005). Lastly, three items were adapted and modified from Cronin, Brady, and Hult (2000) to estimate individuals' revisit intent regarding future games.

Data Analyses

After data was collected, analytical procedures were conducted in several steps. In order to test the reliability of measurement items, a series of Cronbach's alpha tests was conducted to test the internal consistency of measurement items for each construct using SPSS 21. Before running structural equation modeling (SEM), we examined several statistical assumptions underlying SEM. In particular, multivariate normality was tested by assessing multivariate kurtosis, and multivariate outliers were examined through Mahalonobis distance (Ullman, 2006). All critical ratios of Mardia's coefficient were less than 3.00, indicating that the normality assumption was met. In terms of multivariate outliers, no cases with a Mahalanobis distance greater than a critical distance specified by a p < .001 (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2006) were detected. Then, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to examine the convergent and discriminant validity of the scale items utilizing AMOS 21. Finally, structural equation modeling (SEM) was conducted to test the proposed hypotheses about relationships between each event satisfaction dimension and team identification and revisit intention.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

Results

Reliability Test

A Cronbach's alpha test was conducted to examine the internal consistency of each multi-item construct (see Table 1). Accordingly, the scaled measures in the current study were deemed to be reliable in this sample (a ranged .82 -.94).

SEM Analysis

Before testing the proposed structural model, a first-order confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to evaluate appropriateness of measurements with the theoretical constructs (i.e., core event satisfaction, peripheral event satisfaction, team identification, and revisit intention). The measurement model showed an acceptable level of S-B [chi square]/df ratio (i.e., 99.76/71 = 1.41, p < .05). Moreover, other fit indices also suggested that the model reached an acceptable level of fit for the data (i.e., CFI = .98; RMSEA = .05; SRMR = .05: Hu & Bentler, 1999). As reported earlier, all scaled measures in the measurement model met acceptable Cronbach's alpha levels. Likewise, the correlations between latent factors were lower than .85, as Kline (2005) suggested (see Table 2). Furthermore, the theoretical constructs in the model showed acceptable levels of average variance extracted (i.e., team identification = .57, core event satisfaction = .62, peripheral event satisfaction = .67, and revisit intent = .83; see Table 1), greater than .50 (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2005). Lastly, the model could be deemed to reach a satisfactory discriminant validity level because all construct AVE estimates were greater than the corresponding squared interconstruct correlation (SIC) estimates, as Fornell and Larcker (1981) suggested.

After testing the measurement model incorporating all constructs, the proposed structural model was tested. With regard to the structural model, the model fit indices met satisfactory levels on the basis of suggested criteria (i.e., S-B [chi square]/df = 99.76/71 = 1.41, CFI = .98, SRMR = .04, RMSEA = .03: Hu & Bentler, 1999). Core event satisfaction had a positive and significant impact on team identification (standardized [gamma] = .23, p < .01; H1 supported) and the direct path from core satisfaction to revisit intent was also positive and significant (standardized [gamma] = .26, p < .01; H2 supported). However, regarding the relationships between peripheral event satisfaction, team identification, and revisit intent, the path from peripheral satisfaction to team identification was not significant (p = .22, H3 rejected), while the direct path from peripheral satisfaction to revisit intent was positive and significant (standardized [gamma] = .22, p < .01; H4 supported). In addition, the direct path from team identification to revisit intent was significant (standardized p = .39, p < .01; H5 supported). Furthermore, a bootstrapping method (Cheung & Lau, 2008) was performed to examine the mediating effect of team identification in the relationship between core event satisfaction and revisit intent. The results indicated that the relationship between core event satisfaction and revisit intent was mediated by team identification. The mediation effect (core satisfaction [right arrow] team identification [right arrow] revisit intent; standardized indirect effect was .09) was significant (p < .01). Therefore, the results revealed that team identification partially mediates the relationship between core event satisfaction and revisit intent (H6partially supported).

Discussion

The purpose of the current study was to empirically test causal relationships between both core and peripheral event satisfaction gained from a sporting event and team identification and future revisit intent. By doing so, the current study aimed to examine the role of fans' evaluation of their experiences at the live sporting event (satisfaction) in developing team identification and revisit intent. Based on the existing literature, we proposed a causal structure among core/peripheral event satisfaction, team identification, and revisit intent (see Figure 1). From the results, it can be understood that sport fans' core event (i.e., game-related experience) satisfaction influences the fans' team identification and intention to attend games again in the future. Moreover, team identification also leads to sport consumers' intention to attend sporting events. With regard to the indirect effect of core event satisfaction on revisit intent, core satisfaction positively influences revisit intent by increasing the team identification level. In other words, satisfaction with the core event increases sport fans' attachment to teams, which in turn leads the fans to the stadium. These findings shed light on the importance of core event satisfaction in bolstering not only team identification level but also fans' intention to attend more live sporting events. In terms of peripheral event satisfaction, it was found to only have positive and direct effects on sport consumers' revisit intention. From the results, it can be understood that although satisfaction with promotional events and other additional entertaining activities are not effective in generating fans' team identification, such satisfaction can still attract fans to attend sporting events.

Theoretical Contributions

The current study makes several theoretical contributions to the body of sport marketing literature. First, the current study identified a potential predictor of sport fans' team identification, core event satisfaction. This study uncovered significant impacts of core event (athletic performance on the field) satisfaction as one predictor of team identification, while peripheral event (promotion and entertaining events) satisfaction did not have a significant impact. To date, a relatively small number of studies have paid only limited attention to potential predictors of team identification (e.g., regional relative deprivation: Rhee & Kang, 2009; team image: Son & Hong, 2008). In this respect, the current study contributes to the literature by adding another potential antecedent that can trigger and boost sport fan identification. The findings of the current study suggest that sport consumers' team identification can be generated and increased by experiencing a satisfactory performance level during sporting events. More specifically, satisfaction from game-related factors (e.g., moods during games, athletic performance, and players' manners) can form and develop team identification in consumers' minds by providing affectively fulfilling event experiences (Fisher & Wakefield, 1998; Funk & James, 2001).

Second, the present research employed two sub-dimensions of event satisfaction (i.e., game- and promotion-related satisfaction) and examined the causal relationships between the sporting event satisfaction, team identification, and revisit intentions. The results showed that both core and peripheral satisfaction can increase sport fans' intention to attend games in the future. Although the findings of the present study might be in line with previous studies suggesting that overall satisfaction with a product is positively associated with consumers' consumption behaviors (e.g., Carlson & O'Cass, 2010; Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Dagger & Sweeney, 2007; Lassar et al., 2000; Yoshida & James, 2010; Zeithaml et al., 2006), previous studies have ignored the potential mediating impacts of team identification in the causal relationships between event satisfactions and revisit intent. However, this study delved deeper into the mediating role of team identification in the causal relationships between two different sub-dimensions of event satisfaction and revisit intent. The results of the current study demonstrate that the causal relationship between core event satisfaction and revisit intent is partially mediated by team identification. This suggests that performance-related satisfaction plays a critical role in directly increasing fans' revisit intent, as well as indirectly developing team identification. Findings from the present study also underline the importance of promotional activities during live sporting events. Based on the results, it could be suggested that although additional entertainment activities cannot evoke audiences' identification, the audience's satisfaction with the promotional events can still attract spectators to sporting events again in the future.

Practical Implications

The results of the present study confirmed previous findings that an increase in team identification can lead sport fans to sporting events. Given the finding that sport consumers' revisit intent is a direct function of team identification, managers should be aware of the significant impact of team identification on fans' patronage behaviors. Furthermore, unfortunately, since managers have little control over excellence in team performance, managers should make a more deliberate effort to establish marketing strategies that may increase fans' identification levels. According to Sutton et al. (1997), for instance, fans' identification could be enhanced and increased by four controllable features: 1) access to players (e.g., fan meeting), 2) community involvement activities (e.g., community service), 3) a team's history and tradition (e.g., bonding with home fans), and 4) opportunities for fans to affiliate and participate (e.g., off-season basketball camp).

Moreover, managers should still pay close attention to a team's performance level because fans who are highly satisfied with the game attributes will be more likely to feel greater levels of identification, which in turn will attract the fans to the games. Therefore, managers should make an effort to improve and develop teams' performance levels (e.g., recruiting talented players and coaches). However, as mentioned, a team's performance is not entirely controllable by its manager. Improved athletic performance of a sport team cannot be achieved in a short time, but takes a considerable amount of time to accomplish. Therefore, the findings from the current study suggest that managers also should pay close attention to controllable factors (e.g., promotion-related activities), which can make progress in the short term. As the results demonstrate, satisfaction with promotional and entertainment events has a direct and positive impact on sport fans' future revisit intent, although this dimension of satisfaction cannot increase team identification. Given that promotions and entertainment events are more marketer-controllable, activation of well-planned entertainment during games could attract sport fans to stadiums by providing another type of event satisfaction. For instance, marketing managers could actively advertise promotional and entertainment activities during sporting events through various social media channels (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, etc.). As previous research has indicated, social media has provided one of the most effective platforms that individuals can conveniently access (Fisher, 2011; Hutchins, 2014; Wenner, 2014). Interactive communication channels could provide managers with a better chance to leverage planned promotional and entertainment activities (peripheral events) to attract sport consumers to the stadium. In addition, the peripheral events might be customized based on consumers' wants and demands to enhance event satisfaction with the sporting event. For instance, when planning and organizing half-time shows, marketing managers may reflect the consumers' opinions, as Major League Baseball has done by allowing fans to elect the final player who will participate in the All-Star Game after other selections have been made. Social media could play a crucial role in coordinating peripheral events that could meet consumer demand.

Limitations and Future Directions

This study obviously includes several limitations. First, there may exist other factors that may affect consumers' experiences at the stadium. For instance, a line of research has suggested that functional aspects of sporting events such as physical surroundings (e.g., facility layout, accessibility, seating comfort, and information signs) can also affect overall satisfaction with sporting events (Greenwell, Fink, & Pastore, 2002; Wakefield & Blodgett, 1996; Zhang, Smith, Pease, & Lam, 1998). Although the current study excluded these functional factors due to the aforementioned characteristics of service products (intangibility, inseparability, heterogeneity, and perishability), these elements could impact sport fans' evaluations of experiences during a live sporting event, and in turn on team identification formation. Therefore, future research should consider including other potential factors in predicting sport fans' satisfaction. Moreover, the current study was conducted using only a Korean men's professional basketball event. Future studies could expand this study using different contexts such as amateur or female teams (e.g., Kim et al., 2013). Further studies utilizing other types of sports (e.g., baseball, soccer) are also warranted. More in-depth investigations exploring the impacts of satisfaction with live sporting events on the levels of fans' team identification within different settings would broaden our understanding of how sport fans' identification can be formed at different types of sporting events. Likewise, it would be interesting to investigate whether the findings of this study can be applied in other countries. Lastly, the current study also includes a limitation as to sample composition. The only demographic variables the survey took into account were gender and age. However, there exist other sociodemographic factors that may contribute to a better understanding of the current results, such as ethnicity (although the present study excluded the ethnicity item because all participants were native Koreans, which means Asians), educational background, and household income. Further studies might examine relationships between sociodemographic variables and the current findings.

Joon Sung Lee and Joon-Ho Kang

Joon Sung Lee, PhD, is lecturer and post doctoral fellow in the School of Kinesiology at the University of Michigan. His research interests include sport consumer behavior, athlete endorsement, moral judgments, and experimental designs.

Joon-Ho Kang, PhD, is the director of the Center for Sport Industry and a professor in the Department of Physical Education at Seoul National University. His research interests include sponsorship, sport consumer behavior, event legacy, and sport for development.

References

Becker, T. E., Billings, R. S., & Eveleth, D. M., & Gilbert, N. L. (1996). Foci and bases of employee commitment: Implications for job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 464-482.

Bhattacharya, C. B., Rao, H., & Glynn, M. A. (1995). Understanding the bond of identification: An investigation of its correlates among art museum members. Journal of Marketing, 59(4), 46-57.

Biswas, R., Riffe, D., & Zillmann, D. (1994). Mood influence on the appeal of bad news. Journalism Quarterly, 71, 689-696.

Carlson, J., & O'Cass, A. (2010). Exploring the relationships between e-service quality, satisfaction, attitudes and behaviours in content-driven e-service web sites. Journal of Services Marketing, 24, 112-127.

Cronin, J. J. Jr., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). Measuring service quality: A reexamination and extension. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55-68.

Cheung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (2008). Testing mediation and suppression effects of latent variables: Bootstrapping with structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 296-325.

Cronin, J. J. Jr., Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. (2000). Assessing the effect of quality, value, and customer satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments. Journal of Retailing, 76, 193-218.

Dagger, T. S., & Sweeney, J. C. (2007). Service quality attribute weights: How do novice and longer-term customers construct service quality performance? Journal of Service Research, 10, 22-42.

Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational image and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 239-263.

Fink, J. S., Trail, G. T., & Anderson, D. F. (2002). Environmental factors associated with spectator attendance and sport consumption behavior: Gender and team differences. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11, 8-19.

Fisher, E. (2011). 20 Great uses of social media in sports. Sport-Business Journal. Retrieved from www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/ 2011/08/01/In-Depth/Social-media.aspx

Fisher, R., & Wakefield, K. (1998). Factors leading to group identification: A field study of winners and losers. Psychology & Marketing, 15, 23-40.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.

Funk, D. C., & James, J. (2001). The Psychological Continuum Model: A conceptual framework for understanding an individual's psychological connection to sport. Sport Management Review, 4, 119-150.

Gantz, W. (1981). An exploration of viewing motives and behaviors associated with television sports. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 25, 263-275.

Gantz, W., & Wenner, L. A. (1991). Men, women, and sports: Audience experiences and effects. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 35, 233-243.

Gantz, W., & Wenner, L. A. (1995). Fanship and the television sports viewing experience. Sociology of Sport Journal, 12, 56-74.

Grace, D., & O'Cass, A. (2004). Examining service experiences and post-consumption evaluations. Journal of Services Marketing, 18, 450-461.

Greenwell, T. C., Fink, J. S., & 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, 129-148.

Gwinner, K., & Swanson, S. R. (2003). A model of fan identification: antecedents and sponsorship outcomes. Journal of Service Marketing, 17, 275-294.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2005). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Heere, B., James, J. D., Yoshida, M., & Scremin, G. (2011). The effect of associated group identities on team identity. Journal of Sport Management, 25, 606-621.

Hill, B., & Green, B. C. (2000). Repeat attendance as a function of involvement, loyalty, and the sportscape across three football contexts. Sport Management Review, 3, 145-162.

Hirt, E. R., & Clarkson, J. J. (2011). The psychology of fandom: understanding the etiology, motives, and implications of fanship. In L. R.

Kahle & A. G. Close (Eds.), Consumer behavior knowledge for effective sports and event marketing (pp. 59-85). New York, NY: Routledge Academic.

Hogg, M. A., Terry, D. J., & White, K. M. (1995). A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of identity theory with social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 255-269.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.

Hur, J., & Lee, K. (2004). A study of spectator's motive, satisfaction, team identification, and re-viewing in professional baseball. Korean Journal of Sport Management, 9, 105-121.

Hutchins, B. (2014). Twitter: Follow the money and look beyond sports. Communication & Sport, 2, 122-126.

Knobloch, S., & Zillmann, D. (2002). Mood management via the digital jukebox. Journal of Communication, 52, 351-366

Kim, Y., & Kang, J. H. (2005). The effect of perceived spectator sport product quality on spectator satisfaction according to sport loyalty of the spectators. Korean Journal of Sports Science, 16, 100-111.

Kim, T. H., Ko, Y. J., & Park, C. M. (2013). The influence of event quality on revisit intention: Gender difference and segmentation strategy. Managing Service Quality, 23, 205-224.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Ko, Y. J., Zhang, J. J., Cattani, K., & Pastore, D. L. (2011). Assessment of event quality of major spectator sports. Managing Service Quality, 21, 304-322.

Krohn, F. B., Clarke, M., Preston, E., McDonald, M., & Preston, B. (1998). Psychological and sociological influences on attendance at small college sporting events. College Student Journal, 32, 277-288.

Kwon, H. H., & Armstrong, K. L. (2002). Factors influencing impulse buying of sport licensed merchandise. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 11, 151-163.

Kwon, H. H., Trail, G. T., & Anderson, D. (2005). Are points of attachment necessary in predicting cognitive, affective, conative, or behavioral loyalty? A case analysis. Sport Management Review, 8, 255-270.

Kwon, H. H., Trail, G. T., & James, J. D. (2007). The mediating role of perceived value: Team identification and purchase intention of team-licensed apparel. Journal of Sport Management, 21, 540-554.

Lassar, W. M., Manolis, C., & Winsor, R. D. (2000). Service quality perspectives and satisfaction in private banking. Journal of Services Marketing, 14, 244-271.

Levin, A. M., Beasley, F., & Gamble, T. (2004). Brand loyalty of NASCAR fans towards sponsors: The impact of fan identification. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 6, 11-21.

Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13, 103-123.

Matsuoka, H., Chelladurai, P., & Harada, M. (2003). Direct and interaction effects of team identification and satisfaction on intention to attend games. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12, 244-253.

McDougall, G. H. G., & Levesque, T. (2000). Customer satisfaction with services: Putting perceived value into the equation. Journal of Services Marketing, 14, 392-410.

Ogden, D. C., & Hilt, M. L. (2003). Collective identity and basketball: An explanation for the decreasing number of African-Americans on America's baseball diamonds. Journal of Leisure Research, 35, 213-227.

Pooley, J. C. (1978). The sport fan: A social-psychology of misbehaviour. In Sociology of Sport Monograph Series. University of Calgary, Canada.

Rathmell, J. M. (1966). What is meant by services? Journal of Marketing, 30, 32-36.

Regan, W. J. (1963). The service revolution. Journal of Marketing, 47, 57-62.

Rhee, Y. C., & Kang, J. (2009). The causal effects of relative deprivation on team identification and regional identification: An experimental study. Korean Journal of Sport Management, 14, 87-103.

Son, S., & Hong, S. (2008). The relationships among sport team brand image, team brand identification and team loyalty of professional sports. Korean Journal of Physical Education, 47, 221-231.

Shostack, G. (1977). Breaking free from product marketing. Journal of Marketing, 41, 73-80.

Sutton, W. A., McDonald, M. M., Milne, G. R., & Cimperman, J. (1997). Creating and fostering fan identification in professional sports. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 6, 15-22.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2006). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Theodorakis, N. D., Koustelios, A., Robinson, L., & Barlas, A. (2009). Moderating role of team identification on the relationship between service quality and repurchase intentions among spectators of professional sports. Managing Service Quality, 19, 456-473.

Trail, G. T., Fink, J. S., & Anderson, D. F. (2003). Sports spectator consumption behavior. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 12, 8-17.

Trail, G., & James, J. (2001). The motivation scale for sport consumption: Assessment of the scale's psychometric properties. Journal of Sport Behaviour, 24, 108-127.

Ullman, J. B. (2006). Structural equation modeling: Reviewing the basics and moving forward. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 35-50.

Van Leeuwen, L., Quick, S., & Daniel, K. (2002). The sport spectator satisfaction model: A conceptual framework for understanding the satisfaction of spectators. Sport Management Review, 5, 99-128.

Wakefield, K. L., & Blodgett, J. G. (1996). The effect of servicescape on customers' behavioral intentions in leisure service settings. Journal of Services Marketing, 10(6), 45-61.

Wakefield, K. L., & Sloan, H. J. (1995). The effects of team loyalty and selected stadium factors on spectator. Journal of Sport Management, 9, 153-172.

Wann, D. L. (1995). Preliminary validation of the sport fan motivation scale. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 19, 377-396.

Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1993). Sports fans: Measuring degree of identification with their team. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 24, 1-17.

Wann, D. L., Melnick, M. J., Russell, G. W., & Pease, D. G. (2001). Sport fans: The psychology and social impact of spectators. New York, NY: Routledge.

Wann, D. L., & Pierce, S. (2003). Measuring sport team identification and commitment: An empirical comparison of the Sport Spectator Identification Scale and the Psychological Commitment to Team Scale. North American Journal of Psychology, 5, 365-372.

Wenner, L. A. (2014). Much ado (or not) about Twitter? Assessing an emergent communication and sport research agenda. Communication & Sport, 2, 103-106.

Wenner, L. A., & Gantz, W. (1998). Watching sports on television: Audience experience, gender, fanship, and marriage. In L. A. Wenner (Ed.), Mediasport (pp. 233-251). London, UK: Routledge.

Yoshida, M., & James, J. D. (2010). Customer satisfaction with game and service experiences: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Sport Management, 24, 338-361.

Zeithaml, V., Bitner, M. J., & Gremler, D. D. (2006). Services marketing: Integrating customer focus across the firm. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Zeithaml, V. A., Parasuraman, A., & Berry L. L. (1985). Problems and strategies in services marketing. Journal of Marketing, 49, 33-46.

Zhang, J. J., Smith, D. W., Pease, D. G., & Lam, E. T. C. (1998). Dimensions of spectator satisfaction toward support programs of professional hockey games. International Sports Journal, 2(2), 1-17.

Zillmann, D., & Bryant, J. (1985). Selective exposure to communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Table 1

Factor Loadings (), Reliability Coefficients (), and
Average Variance Extracted (AVE)

Factors (scale sources):        [lambda]   [alpha]   AVE
Items

Team identification (Wann &                  .86     .57
Branscombe, 1993)

The win of my favorite team       .66
is very important to me.

I strongly see myself as a        .78
fan of my favorite team.

My friends strongly see me        .67
as a fan of my favorite
team.

During the season, I closely      .78
follow my favorite team via
any of the following: a) in
person or on television, b)
on the radio, or c)
television news or a
newspaper.

Being a fan of my favorite        .86
team is very important to
me.

Core event satisfaction (Kim                 .82     .62
& Kang, 2005)

I am satisfied with the game      .69
(e.g., fun, excitement,
dynamic).

I am satisfied with players'      .93
performance on the court.

I am satisfied with players'      .70
manner and behaviors on the
court.

Peripheral event                             .84     .67
satisfaction (Kim & Kang,
2005)

I am satisfied with the           .81
public relationship
activities for the team or
the game.

I am satisfied with the           .68
promotion events for fans.

I am satisfied with the           .95
gifts provided during the
game.

Revisit intent (Cronin,                      .94     .83
Brady, & Hult, 2000)

I will come to the stadium        .91
again to spectate a game in
the future.

I will recommend spectating       .89
a game to other people.

I will make a decision to         .94
spectate a game if I have
chance to spectate a game in
the future.

Table 2

Interconstruct Correlations

       1     2     3     4   Mean   SD

1 ID   1                     4.75   1.28
2 CS   .27   1               4.77   1.04
3 PS   .20   .43   1         4.37   1.17
4 RI   .51   .46   .41   1   5.66   1.27

Note. ID = team identification; CS = core
event satisfaction; PS = peripheral event
satisfaction; RI = revisit intent.