Wann’ SFMS (1995)
Kahle et al. (1996)
Milne & McDonald’s MSC (1999)
Trail & James’ MSSC (2001)
Motive
α
AVE
Motive
α
Motive
α
AVE
Motive
α
AVE
Aesthetics
.81
.60
Internalization
.80
Sport-Based Needs
Aesthetics
.88
.36
Aesthetics
.88
.72
Drama (Eustress)
.89
.78
Self-expressive experience
.56
Stress Release
.79
Drama
.80
.58
Economics
.84
.65
Camaraderie
.72
Skill Mastery
.83
Physical attraction
.78
.69
Entertainment
.85
.69
Compliance
.53
Mental Well Being Needs
Self-esteem
.93
.55
Physical skills
.75
.53
Escape
.85
.70
Obligation
.64
Self-actualization
.92
Escape
.72
.51
Family
.63
.61
Self-defining experience
.61
Value Development
.85
Family
.68
.48
Group Affiliation
.72
.51
Identification with winning
.59
Social Needs
Social facilitation
.84
.38
Social
.78
.54
Self-esteem
.78
.68
Affiliation
.84
Achievement
.89
.74
Personal Needs
Achievement
.82
.23
Knowledge
.80
.59
Risk-taking
.90
Aggression
.85
Competition
.72
Mahony’ et al. SII (2001) | Correia and Esteves (2007) | Funk’ et al. SPEED (2009) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Motive | α | AVE | Motive | alpha | AVE | Motive | α | AVE |
Soccer | .87 | .52 | Material Reasons | .81 | .42 | Socialization | .86 | .60 |
Vicarious achievement | .86 | .44 | Team Affiliation | .71 | .46 | Performance | .83 | .78 |
Excitement | .84 | .40 | Extras & Facilities | .74 | .37 | Excitement | .77 | .77 |
Team Identification | .83 | .40 | Star Players | .65 | .40 | Esteem | .85 | .75 |
Supporting Women’s Opportunity in sport | .80 | .32 | Form of Entertainment | .63 | .58 | Diversion | .83 | .75 |
Aesthetics | .71 | .35 | ||||||
Socialization | .70 | .31 | ||||||
National Pride | .78 | .27 | ||||||
Drama | .72 | .26 | ||||||
Interest in Player | .81 | .35 | ||||||
Wann developed ‘The Sport Fan Motivation Scale’ (1995) and confirmed the internal consistency of the scale (1999). However, when Kwon and Trail (2001) generalized the scale to American students and international students, the reliabilities for group affiliation (.55), economic or betting on sport (.64), and eustress (.69) were below the .70 benchmark (Hair et al. 2010). Since most of the participants in those studies were students, the scale might not generalize the to the normal mix of spectators in a stadium or arena.
‘The Motivation Scale for Sport Consumption’ (Trail and James 2001) showed good reliability when used in several empirical studies (Trail et al. 2003b; Fink and Parker 2009; James et al. 2009). However, the participants for those studies were students, season tickets holders or consumers of a special team. In one study, 683 Japanese professional baseball spectators completed the questionnaire as they left the stadium (James et al. 2009). Since the performance of the teams or the outcome of the game clearly has an effect on the spectators’ emotions, it would have been better to have collected data before the game.
‘The Sport Interest Inventory’ (Funk et al. 2001, 2002, 2003) was developed especially for spectators who attend women’s games. In the final version of the scale, eighteen motives were included. However, the discriminant validities for the first (AVE ranged from .26 to .52) and second (AVE ranged from .22 to .60) versions of the scale were far below the acceptable level (Hair et al. 2010). Further, data collection was conducted by sending the questionnaires directly to 800 season ticket holders and 800 single game attendees (in the third study). Among the 623 usable respondents, 60 % were season ticket holders. To some extend, the sample was relatively unique and thus difficult to generalize. Thus, further empirical research should be done to reconfirm the reliability of the scale. In addition, participants responded the questionnaire after the game, which also decreased the reliability of the results.
The SPEED scale (Socialization, Performance, Excitement, Esteem, and Diversion) was developed by Funk et al. (2009) and represented a good hybrid approach for measuring and explaining sport consumers’ behavior. However, when Homma (2009) used it to evaluate the motives of Japanese spectators, the reliability of factor ‘Excitement’ was only .395. This is substantially lower than the benchmark of .70 (Hair et al. 2010).
4.4.2 The Scale for Chinese and Japanese Spectators
Unfortunately, all previous studies attempting to develop scales for measuring sport spectators’ motives have major limitations in reliability, validity, and/or data collection. This limits their ability to generalize the findings to other spectator groups.
Wang and Matsuoka (2013a) developed a scale to examine the motives of Chinese and Japanese spectators. This study utilized a focus group which included Chinese students enrolled in Waseda University as well as in the Tsinghua Alumni Association in Japan. Data collection took place from June 20, 2012 until July 10, 2012. Twelve motives were utilized: Aesthetics, achievement, drama, sport interest, family bonding, interest in player, support the city, escape, knowledge, socialization, entertainment, and wholesome environment. Items for those motives were generated from previous studies and translated into Chinese by two individuals who each produced a separate version. The translators were majors in sport sciences and fluent in both English and Chinese. A back translation indicated that the content of the items was consistent. The 12-motive-38-item scale was distributed to the spectators before the Chinese Super League games on October 6, 2012 and October 20, 2012. The 333 completely responded questionnaires were divided into group 1 and group 2. Two Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) were conducted using data from group 1 and group 2 respectively to purify and confirm the scale. A 9-motive-24-item scale was confirmed following the aforementioned procedures. On August 31, 2013 and October 6, 2013, the confirmed scale was distributed to CSL and J2-League spectators separately. When the CFA was conducted again, the results showed that data from both Chinese and Japanese spectators adequately fit the 9-motive-24-item scale. Detailed reliability and validity information regarding the scale are reported in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2
Reliabilities and discriminant validities for Wang & Matsuoka’s Scale
