United States Sports Academy - "America's Sports University"

Introduction

Although many aspects of sport related research including history, psychology, sociology, and philosophy were discussed and studied, few studies on the environmental motivation factors (e.g., crowd control, quality of concession services, parking spaces) of sport fans for particular sports have been conducted. The reason to conduct a study on the environmental motivation factors of sport fans is based on the premise that each fan has different motivations and reasons to follow a certain sport team. Based on the Neo-Marxist critique of spectator sports in capitalist society, sports spectators are more likely than non-spectators to be actively involved not only in sports but in cultural activities of all kinds, including politics. Also, many spectator sports actually tend to increase the fan’s hostility and aggressiveness rather than to render them apathetic or to provide them with the lucid equivalent of an Aristotelian catharsis (Guttmann, 1981). From ancient times to the present, individuals who have allegiance or devotion to a particular sport, team, and/or player were classified as sport fans.

Review of Literature

According to the previous studies (Hansen & Gauthier, 1989; Zhang, Pease, Hui, & Michaud, 1995), there are four major factors that affect spectator decision making on game attendance.

First, team attractiveness (e.g., individual skills, team records, league standing, breaking the previous records, performance, and star players) is a vital factor that affects sport fans’ attendance on the games (Zhang et al., 1997). According to Greenstein and Marcum’s (1981) study on Major League Baseball 1946-1975, reasons for attendance at games were hypothesized as the won-loss record of the team, the pitching staff, and the home run batters. The researchers found that 25 percent of the variance in attendance was due to team performance. Jones (1984) found a number of significant factors related to hockey attendance: a winning home team relative to the league, a qualified visiting team relative to the league, the playoff drive as related to the importance of making the playoffs, the superstar player, and the preference for a fighting style team over a skating team. Second, visiting team attractiveness (e.g., team quality, star players, rival relationship, and etc.) is another motive for sport fans to attend the games (Zhang et al., 1997). Third, as Hansen and Gauthier (1989), and Zhang et al. (1995) mentioned that the aspect of economic consideration (e.g., ticket price, promotions, and advertising) had an effect on sport fans’ attendance. With respect to the economic variables, promotions and income have been found to be positively related to game attendance, while ticket price, substitute forms of entertainment, television effect, and competition of other sport events have generally been found to be negatively related to game attendance (Baade & Tiehen, 1990; Bird, 1982; Siegfried & Eisenberg, 1980; Zhang et al., 1995). Finally, audience preference (e.g., schedule, convenience, accommodation, weather, stadium quality, and team history in a community) is the fourth significant factor to get more attention from sport fans to attend games. For example, weekend games and end-of-season games increase attendance, afternoon games decrease attendance, and double headers and home dates seem to have no effect on attendance (Drever & MacDonald, 1981; Hansen & Gauthier, 1989; Hay & Thueson, 1986; Hill, Madura, & Zuber, 1982; Siegfried & Eisenberg, 1980). In addition, game attractiveness as well as audience preference variables have generally been found to be positively related to game attendance (Baade & Tiehen, 1990; Becker & Suls, 1983; Bird, 1982; Demmert, 1973; Godbey & Robinson, 1979; Hansen & Gauthier, 1989; Jones, 1984; Wall & Myers, 1989; Whitney, 1988; Zech, 1981).

Based on the psychological and sociological theories of sport fans, specific stadium factors were also studied by Wakefield and Sloan (1995). According to their study, spectators who enjoy spending time at the stadium are expected to be more likely to want to return to spend time at the stadium. Conversely, a negative experience at the stadium is expected to reduce the desire to stay at the stadium and to avoid returning to similar situations in the future. Specific explanations of stadium factors are indicated and presented below.

First, the availability of stadium parking spaces may enhance spectator pleasure with the stadium experience. Excessive time spent searching for parking or walking to the stadium may add frustration for some low-tolerance or task-oriented individuals (Bitner, 1992; Snodgrass, Russell, & Ward, 1988). Spectators who are dissatisfied with parking condition will be more likely to leave the game early and will be less satisfied with the stadium experience. Second, stadium cleanliness is primarily a function of stadium service quality. For instance, restrooms and concession areas may become overflowed with trash and spilled drinks by the middle and latter parts of the event. In these situations in which restrooms are covered with trash and refuse, spectators are likely to be discouraged from using the facilities and may become dissatisfied (Wakefield & Sloan, 1995). Third, as Melnick (1993) found, the quality of stadium facilities is another important factor. For example, the width of the aisles and hallways, the space and arrangements of seats, as well as the amount of room afforded for concessions and restroom facilities should be enough for social interaction and should facilitate enjoyment of the game. A spectator who feels uncomfortable because other spectators are too close or who feels hampered in attempting to exit the stands and gain access to restrooms or concessions may not wish to stay in the place or return (Wakefield & Sloan, 1995). Fourth, from a food service perspective, spectators are virtually held captive in the stadium for approximately three or more hours before and during the game (Wakefield & Sloan, 1995). Hence, stadia with a variety and good tasting food are expected to enhance the sports encounter experience. Fifth, as Bernstein (1991) noted, the behavior of the players and the intensity of the rivalry between teams and their fans may incite some spectators to become offensive and abusive to other spectators. This behavior may be intensified by the consumption of alcohol. Spectators who are subjected to offensive behavior, perhaps for what may be the entire game, are not likely to enjoy the experience and may opt to leave the game early. Stadium management and personnel who carefully monitor fan behavior and move quickly to deal with unpleasant situations help prevent such negative experiences for their patrons (Wakefield & Sloan, 1995). Finally, while each of the preceding stadium factors are expected to influence all spectators, some of the spectators may be more likely to stay and return to the stadium due to their loyalty to the team. In other words, it is expected that spectators who are loyal to the home team are likely to want to spend time at the stadium and to return, primarily due to their desire to see the team play (Wakefield & Sloan, 1995).

Statement of Purpose

The purpose of this study was to examine the environmental motivation factors and fan loyalty for people who live in the state of Alabama in communities that do not have Major League Baseball (MLB) teams. Specifically, this study was to ascertain what types of environmental and physical factors (e.g., parking space, crowd control, cleanliness of stadium, convenient facilities, and food and beverage service) would affect the fans that are attending professional baseball games. Fan loyalty to specific teams was also analyzed.

Methodology

In order to obtain baseball fan responses that were based on realistic evaluations of the related stadium and environmental factors, the adapted Stadium Factors Measurement (SFM) questionnaire (Wakefield & Sloan , 1995) was modified and used with an on-site distribution and collection strategy employed and conducted at home games of the Mobile BayBears team that is a Class AA MiLB team in the Southern League. Using a stratified random sampling method with no discriminating factors except for age was employed in distributing the surveys. After the surveys were collected, any survey which was completed by an individual who was under 18 years of age was excluded. The age discrimination was made subjectively in order to exclude children whose visit the baseball stadium was believed to be influenced by their parents. To obtain a higher rate of consent from the survey participants to be involved in the survey, complimentary tickets for any future game in the regular 2001 season were provided from the Mobile BayBears organization. The baseball stadium, the Hank Aaron stadium, for the study had 14 sections. Every section was assigned to receive the study instrument. The primary date were collected at each BayBears’ home game in the month of July, 2001.

Design and Procedures

To obtain reliability estimates and to establish the construct validity of the instrument, a pilot study was conducted before collecting data from the final target population. The administration of the existing instrument also served as a field test for further establishing its content and face validity. Following the initial formulation of the questionnaire items, the survey was pilot tested by 46 graduate students who had survey experiences at the United States Sports Academy for the appropriateness of questionnaire, the relevance of content, the clarity of questions, the simplicity of completion, and the time of completion. A final instrument with a few minor changes was developed after receiving comments and suggestions from the 46 pilot study respondents. The final baseball fan survey was four pages in length and contained 20 items. The average time to complete the survey was three to four minutes.

Development of Questionnaire

The survey was comprised of 20 separate items including participants’ socio-demographic characteristics and environmental motivation factors. Participants’ socio-demographic information included both demographics and behavioral variables. The demographic characteristics included: age, gender, ethnicity, marital status, education level, employment status, residential status, and income. The behavioral variables for this study were game attendance rate, ticket types, reasons for following favorite teams, and following types to favorite teams (e.g., physically attend at the ball park, watch TV, listen radio, and etc).

The Stadium Factors Measurement (SFM) questionnaire by Wakefield and Sloan (1995) was modified and used with 7-point Likert scales ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. These scales were developed and administered to indicate the characteristics of the respondents about environmental motivations and loyalty.

Results

In summarizing the results of the study, data were collected from a stratified random sample of respondents (N=282) at the Hank Aaron Stadium, Mobile, Alabama. As indicated in Table 1, the sample of respondents consisted of 155 males (N=155, 55%) and 127 females (N=112, 45%). Before the analyses were conducted, the variable of age was recoded into seven categories for the convenience of analysis: 18-20, 21-30, 31-40, 41-50, 51-60, 61-70, and 71 or over. The age of the subject ranged from 18 to 74 years old (M=37.97; SD=13.07). Eighty-nine percent of the respondents were between 21 and 60 years old. Six percent were in the range of 18 to 20 years old. Those aged 61 years old or over comprised 5.3% of the entire group. The majority of survey respondents were Caucasian (N=251, 89%), followed by African-American (N=27, 9.6%), Hispanic (N=2, .7%), Asian (N=1, .4%), and other (N=1, .4%). Also, the majority of respondents (N=180, 63.8%) were married. Approximately Thirty (N=82) had completed college and another approximately twenty-nine percent (N=81) had some college education, while those who had some graduate work or had a graduate degree comprised 17.3% (N=49) of the respondents. About seventy-one percent (N=201) of the respondents were employed and another 10% were full-time homemakers. Most of the respondents (N=236, 83.7%) were residents in the state of Alabama, while only 46 respondents (16.3%) were non-Alabama residents. More than half of the respondents had incomes between $20,000 and $59,999 and another 13.5% between $60,000 and $79,999. Those who had incomes of more than $80,000 comprised approximately 13% of the sample. The other about 20% was below $20,000 (see Table 1).

Regarding game attendance rates, approximately fifty-seven percent of participants (N=159) attended BayBears games less than three times a month in the previous season including home and away games. Also, 18.1% (N=51) were first time BayBears’ attendees and the third largest group of subjects to attend the games were three to five times a month in the previous season. Of those survey participants, the majority of ticket type to attend the games were single game tickets (N=183, 64.9%), followed by group ticket (N=33, 11.7%). The other 23% were distributed into five categories, full season ticket (4.6%), half season ticket (2.5%), package ticket (5.7%), guest of season ticket holder (6.4%), and other (e.g. complimentary ticket) (4.3%). More than 25% of respondents (N=78) followed their favorite baseball teams because they grew up in that state and/or city. 26% had a reason to follow MLB teams because of its geographic location. Also, both 11% and 11.7% of the sample had reasons to follow their favorite teams because their family members like the team and their favorite player is in that team respectively. The majority of respondents (N=222, 78.7%) follow their favorite MLB teams by watching television, followed by attending baseball parks (N=24, 8.5%), reading magazines and/or newspapers (N=16, 5.7%), using the Internet (N=9, 3.2%), listening radio (N=3, 1.1%), and other (e.g., getting information from friends and family members) (N=8, 2.8%) (see Table 2).

For the analysis of environmental motivation to visit and attend the baseball park, the “cleanliness of stadium” (M=5.47; SD=1.33) was the most important factor to visit the baseball park, followed by the factor of “convenient facilities,” (M=5.40; SD=1.36), “parking spaces,” (M=5.33; SD=1.52), and “fan control.”(M=5.27; SD=1.36). Also, for the loyalty item, the respondents showed positive opinions toward their favorite MiLB baseball teams even though environmental factors were not satisfied (M=5.00; SD=1.36). In summary, the results of environmental motivation analysis showed that the factors of “cleanliness of stadium” and “convenient facilities” are regarded as the most important factors to visit and attend the baseball stadium (see Table 3).

In addition, as revealed in Table 4, a group of t tests were employed to determine if significant differences existed between Alabama residents and non-Alabama residents in terms of environmental motivation factors. Of those results, Alabama residents (M=5.15; SD=1.45) showed significantly higher “loyalty factor” score than non-Alabama residents (M=4.26; SD=1.98) at the .01 level. There were no other significant differences in other environmental motivation factors between Alabama residents and non-Alabama residents.

Multiple regression analysis was employed to examine the relationship of loyalty to environmental motivation factors as presented in Table 5. Multiple regression analysis revealed that three environmental motivation factors (parking spaces, convenient facilities, and food and beverage services) were significantly predictive of loyalty variable at the .05 and .01 levels. Specifically, factors of “parking spaces” and “convenient facilities” were found to be significantly related to the loyalty variable at the .01 level. Also, “food and beverage services” was found to be significantly related to the “loyalty factor” at the .05 level. Variance explained in the regression model was 38.9%.

The results from the correlation analyses indicated correlations among the environmental motivation factors (see Table 6). Particularly, significant positive relationships were found among all environmental motivation items. Specifically, there was a correlation of r = .697 (p<.01) between “parking spaces” and “cleanliness of stadium”; a correlation of r = .567 (p<.01) between “parking spaces” and “convenient facilities”; a correlation of r = .489 (p<.01) between “parking spaces” and “food and beverage services”; a correlation of r = .598 (p<.01) between “parking spaces” and “fan control”; a correlation of r = .499 (p<.01) between “parking spaces” and “loyalty factor”; a correlation of r = .721 (p<.01) between “cleanliness of stadium” and “convenient facilities”; a correlation of r = .532 (p<.01) between “cleanliness of stadium” and “food and beverage services”; a correlation of r = .673 (p<.01) between “cleanliness of stadium” and “fan control”; a correlation of r = .459 (p<.01) between “cleanliness of stadium” and “loyalty factor”; a correlation of r = .604 (p<.01) between “convenient facilities” and “food and beverage services”; a correlation of r = .745 (p<.01) between “convenient facilities” and “fan control”; and a correlation of r = .572 (p<.01) between “convenient facilities” and “loyalty factor”. Also, significant positive relationships were also found between “food and beverage services” and “fan control” (r = .710, p<.01), “food and beverage services” and “loyalty factor” (r = .482, p<.01), and “fan control” and “loyalty factor” (r = .531, p<.01). All correlations were significant at the .01 level.

As the final analysis for the study, one-way multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) were applied to compare six environmental motivation items’ mean vector scores with respect to the behavioral variables. The structural coefficients were used to define a function based on an eigenvalue equal to .30, while the standardized coefficients were used to test redundancy of environmental motivation items (Pease & Zhang, 2001). The results of the MANOVA showed that the effects of attendance rate (Multivariate F(30, 1086) = .807; p =.001) and ticket types (Multivariate F(36, 1188) = .811; p =.013) on environmental motivation items were significant. On the other hand, the rest results of MANOVA indicated that the effects of reasons for following favorite teams (Multivariate F(42, 1265) = .868; p =.619) and types of following favorite teams (Multivariate F(30, 1086) = .879; p =.224) were not significant. Specifically, the mean vector scores were significantly different among the respondents who answered their attendance rate in the last season on baseball games at the .01 level. Loyalty item was the main contributing factor, with respondents who attended every homegame in the last season having a higher mean. In addition, another mean vector scores were significantly different at the .05 level among respondents who responded to their ticket type. Two factors, the items of parking and loyalty, were the main contributing factors. Respondents who had single game tickets reported higher mean scores in the items of “parking spaces” and “cleanliness of stadium” than other types of ticket. Respondents who had package ticket were higher in the items of “convenient facilities” and “fan control” than other ticket types. Respondents who were guests of season ticket holders were higher in the items of “food and beverage services” and “loyalty factor” than other types of ticket. However, the mean vector scores were not significantly different among respondents who answered reasons and types of following favorite teams (see Table 7).

Discussion and Recommendations

As indicated in a previous study by Mahony, Madrigal, and Howard (2000), a variety of marketing strategies should be applied to different types of sports consumers including high loyal fans, spurious loyal fans, latent loyal fans, and low loyal fans because their motivations and/or reasons to attend and commit to professional sport teams are different. This study concentrated on several important factors including socio-demographics and environmental motivation factors that may affect to build new marketing strategies and frameworks for the professional baseball franchises. In addition, this study focused on people who live in a state which has no major professional sports teams. The results of this study may give another point to develop efficient business concepts for minor league professional sports.

The adapted instrument of this study found that most items were related to the findings of previous study that examined the influences of environmental motivation factors (Wakefield & Sloan, 1995).

Based upon the analyses for the environmental motivation items, the findings of this study provide minor league professional baseball teams with significant ideas for ways to maintain fan satisfaction and increase attendance. Of those environmental motivation items, “cleanliness of stadium,” “parking spaces,” and “convenient facilities” were the important factors influencing a greater likelihood of returning to the stadium for future games. As pointed out in the previous study (Wakefield & Sloan, 1995), this result suggests to administrators of MiLB teams that efforts concerning physical and environmental factors including parking, facilities, cleanliness, concession services, and crowd control should be prepared to create a positive image to enhance the probability that baseball fans will be likely to return. Particularly, based on the correlation between loyalty factor and other environmental motivation items, loyalty played one of the biggest role in determining fans’ desire to visit and stay at the minor league baseball stadium. Therefore, administrators of MiLB teams should pay a special attention to each fan category to let them have a certain type of loyalty and/or commitment with well- prepared physical and environmental conditions.

The results of this study suggest a few recommendations for future studies. First, future research should extend motivation scaled items regarding psychological and sociological motivation such as promotional events, frequency of media exposures, family effects, and gambling factors. Second, the findings of this study suggest a casual link between baseball fans’ motivation to involve in baseball games and judgments about satisfaction with game attendance.

References

Baade, R. A., & Tiehen, L. J. (1990). An analysis of major league baseball attendance, 1969-1987. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 14(1), 14-31.

Becker, M. A., & Suls, J. (1983). Take me out to the ball game: The effect of objective, social, and temporal performance information on attendance at major league baseball games. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5(3), 302-313.

Bernstein, S. (1991). The sorry state of “sports heroes” (antisocial behavior of well-paid sports figures). Advertising Age, 62(15), 25.

Bird, P. J. (1982). The demand for league football. Applied Economics, 14(6), 637-649.

Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing, 56(2), 57-71.

Demmert, H. G. (1973). The economics of professional team sport. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

Drever, P., & MacDonald, J. (1981). Attendance at South Australian football games. International Review of Sport Sociology, 16(2), 103.

Godbey, G., & Robinson, J. (1979). The American sports fan: “Spectatoritis” revisited. Review of Sport & Leisure, 4(1), 1-11.

Greenstein, T. N., & Marcum, J. P. (1981). Factors affecting attendance of major league baseball: Team performance. Review of Sport & Leisure, 6(2), 21.

Guttmann, A. (1981). Sports spectators from antiquity to the Renaissance. Journal of Sport History, 8(2), 5-27.

Hansen, H., & Gauthier, R. (1989). Factors affecting attendance at professional sport events. Journal of Sport Management, 3(1), 15-32.

Hay, R. D., & Thueson, N. C. (1986, October). High school attendance and related
Factors. Paper presented at the Conference of Canadian Congress on Leisure Research, University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada.

Hill, J. R., Madura, J., & Zuber, R. A. (1982). The short run demand for major league baseball. Atlantic Economic Journal, 10(2), 31.

Jones, J. C. H. (1984). Winners, losers and hosers: Demand and survival in the National Hockey League. Atlantic Economic Journal, 12(3), 54.

Mahony, D. F., Madrigal, R., & Howard, D. (2000). Using the psychological
commitment to team (PCT) scale to segment sport consumers based on loyalty. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 9(1), 15-25.

Melnick, M. J. (1993). Searching for sociability in the stands: A theory of sports
spectating. Journal of Sport Management, 7(1), 44-60.

Pease, D. G., & Zhang, J. J. (2001). Socio-Motivational factors affecting spectator attendance at professional basketball games. International Journal of Sport Management, 2(1), 31-59.

Siegfried, J. J., & Eisenberg, J. D. (1980). The demand for minor league baseball.
Atlantic Economic Journal, 8(1), 59-71.

Snodgrass, J., Russell, J. A., & Ward, L. M. (1988). Planning, mood and place-liking. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 8(3), 209-222.

Wakefield, K. L., & Sloan, H. J. (1995). The effects of team loyalty and selected stadium factors on spectator attendance. Journal of Sport Management, 9(2), 153-172.

Wall, G. V., & Myers, K. (1989). Factors influencing attendance Toronto Blue Jays
game. Sport Place International: An International Magazine of Sports, 3(1/2), 29-33.

Whitney, J. D. (1988). Winning games versus winning championships: The economics of fan interest and team performance. Economic Inquiry, 26(4), 703-724.

Zech, C. F. (1981). An empirical estimation of a production function: The case of major league baseball. American Economist, 25(2), 19-23.

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(4), 29-39.

Zhang, J. J., Pease, D. G., Smith, D. W., Lee, J. T., Lam, E. T., & Jambor, E. A. (1997, Summer). Factors affecting the decision making of spectators to attend Minor League Hockey games. International Sports Journal, 1(1), 39-53.

Table 1 Demographic Characteristics by Frequency and Percentage

Socio-demographic Characteristics	Frequency	Percentage
Age (n=282)
18 – 20	17	6.0
21 – 30	19	28.0
31 – 40	84	29.8
41 – 50	47	16.7
51 – 60	40	14.2
61 – 70	11	3.9
71 or over	4	1.4
Gender (n=282)
Male	155	55.0
Female	127	45.0
Ethnicity (n=282)
Caucasian	251	89.0
African-American	27	9.6
Asian	1	.4
Hispanic	2	.7
Other	1	.4
Marital Status (n=282)
Never married	65	23.0
Married	180	63.8
Divorced	26	9.2
Separated	2	.7
Widowed	5	1.8
Other	4	1.4
Education Level (n=282)
Lower than high school	9	3.2
Graduated high school	61	21.6
Some college	81	28.7
Completed college	82	29.1
Some graduate work	19	6.7
A graduate degree	30	10.6
Employment Status (n=282)
Employed	201	71.3
Unemployed	9	3.2
Retired	23	8.2
Full-time homemaker	28	9.9
Student	17	6.0
Other	4	1.4
Residential Status (n=282)
Resident of Alabama	236	83.7
Other States	46	16.3
Income Level (n=266)
Below $20,000	55	20.7
$20,000 ~ $39,999	65	24.4
$40,000 ~ $59,999	76	28.6
$60,000 ~ $79,999	36	13.5
$80,000 ~ $99,999	16	6.0
Above $100,000	18	6.8

Table 2 Frequency and Percentage of Fan Behavior

Behavior Variables	Frequency	Percentage
Attendance Rate
First time	51	18.1
Less than three times a month	159	56.4
3 to 5 times a month	44	15.6
6 to 10 times a month	11	3.9
Every homegame	14	5.0
Every BayBears game	3	1.1
Ticket Types
Full season ticket	13	4.6
Half season ticket	7	2.5
Package ticket	16	5.7
Single game ticket	183	64.9
Group ticket	33	11.7
Guest of season ticket holder	18	6.4
Other	12	4.3
Reasons for following Favorite Teams
Because I grew up in that state and/or city	78	27.7
Because I frequently visited the team’s ballpark with my parents	23	8.2
Because the team is the nearest location from my current hometown	74	26.2
Because my family (spouse, parents, children) likes the team	31	11.0
Because I remember the team treated me well as a customer	2	.7
Because the team has my favorite players	33	11.7
Because I have a membership of the team	1	.4
Other reasons	40	14.2
Types of Following Favorite Teams
Physically attend the ball park
Watch television
Listen radio Use Internet
Read magazine and/or newspaper
Other

Table 3 Relative Importance of Environmental Motivation Variables

Variable	M	SD
I like to come back to the Hank Aaron stadium to watch BayBears games because convenient parking spaces are easily available	5.33	1.52
I like to come back to the Hank Aaron stadium to watch BayBears games because I like the cleanliness of the stadium	5.47	1.33
I like to come back to the Hank Aaron stadium to watch BayBears games because there are enough and convenient facilities including hallways, space and arrangements of seats, concessions, restrooms, and etc	5.40	1.36
I like to come back to the Hank Aaron stadium to watch BayBears games because the food and beverage services are very good	4.91	1.42
I like to come back to the Hank Aaron stadium to watch BayBears games because of good stadium fan control	5.27	1.36
Even if the above question items (E1 through E5) are not satisfied, I like to come back to the Hank Aaron stadium to watch BayBears games because I am loyal to the BayBears	5.00	1.58

Table 4 Comparisons of Residence Status on Environmental Motivation

Variable	Residence	M	N	SD	t	p
Parking	Yes No	5.39 5.02	236 46	1.51 1.51	1.54	.125
Cleanliness	Yes No	5.50 5.32	236 46	1.32 1.38	.81	.420
Facility	Yes No	5.44 5.19	236 46	1.33 1.48	1.14	.256
Food	Yes No	4.93 4.80	236 46	1.37 1.66	.51	.616
Fan control	Yes No	5.27 5.23	236 46	1.35 1.44	.18	.855
Loyalty	Yes No	5.15 4.26	236 46	1.45 1.98	2.90**	.005
Note: Yes = Alabama residents; No = Non-Alabama residents ** Indicates significance at the .01 level

Table 5 Multiple Regression Analysis Examining the Relationship
of Loyalty to Environmental Motivation

Variable	B	SE B	B	t	p
Constant	.730	.348		2.097*	.037
Parking	.261	.071	.250	3.662**	.000
Cleanliness	-.124	.098	-.104	-1.255	.210
Facility	.453	.092	.388	4.900**	.000
Food	.178	.074	.160	2.424*	.016
Fan control	.045	.100	.039	.447	.655

R = .623; R2 = .389; F = 35.099** Dependent Variable: Loyalty * Indicates significance at the .05 level ** Indicates significance at the .01 level

Dependent Variable: Loyalty

Table 6 Correlations Among Environmental Motivation Items

	Parking	Cleanliness	Facility	Food	Fan control	Loyalty
Parking	1.00
Cleanliness	.697**	1.00
Facility	.567**	.721**	1.00
Food	.489**	.532**	.604**	1.00
Fan control	.598**	.673**	.745**	.710**	1.00
Loyalty	.499**	.459**	.572**	.482**	.531**	1.00
Spearman rho, ** Indicates significance at the .01 level

Table 7 Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) for Environmental
Motivation Items with Respect to Behavioral Variables

Behavior Variables	Parking	Clean	Mean Facility	(SD) Food	Fan Control	Loyalty
Attendance Rate: Wilk’s (30, 1086) = .807; p = .001
Never	5.06 (1.27)	5.20 (1.23)	5.21 (1.37)	5.02 (1.33)	5.16 (1.35)	4.47 (1.56)
Less than three times a month	5.42 (1.45)	5.49 (1.34)	5.36 (1.33)	4.92 (1.34)	5.21 (1.32)	4.90 (1.51)
3 to 5 times a month	5.32 (1.76)	5.61 (1.35)	5.59 (1.35)	4.82 (1.50)	5.41 (1.33)	5.36 (1.49)
6 to 10 times a month	5.27 (1.79)	5.82 (1.17)	5.63 (1.29)	4.27 (2.37)	5.18 (1.89)	6.09 (1.64)
Every homegame	5.50 (2.17)	5.86 (1.61)	6.00 (1.66)	5.21 (1.72)	5.86 (1.66)	6.28 (1.73)
Every BayBears game	5.33 (1.53)	4.67 (1.53)	4.67 (1.15)	5.00 (1.00)	6.00 (1.00)	4.67 (1.15)
Ticket Types: Wilk’s (36, 1188) = .811; p = .013
Full season ticket	5.00 (1.73)	5.31 (1.70)	5.23 (1.64)	4.85 (1.07)	5.08 (1.66)	5.46 (1.76)
Half season ticket	5.43 (1.13)	5.43 (1.40)	5.14 (.90)	4.71 (.76)	5.00 (.00)	4.86 (1.86)
Package ticket	5.44 (1.96)	5.87 (1.45)	5.56 (1.71)	4.62 (2.06)	5.62 (1.78)	5.44 (1.90)
Single game ticket	5.55 (1.38)	5.60 (1.21)	5.51 (1.25)	4.98 (1.42)	5.41 (1.28)	5.11 (1.53)
Group ticket	4.64 (1.76)	5.00 (1.66)	4.85 (1.72)	4.57 (1.58)	4.57 (1.52)	4.18 (1.45)
Guest of season ticket holder	4.94 (1.70)	5.00 (1.53)	5.55 (1.46)	5.17 (1.29)	5.17 (1.54)	5.61 (1.19)
Other	4.75 (1.42)	5.17 (.83)	5.17 (.94)	5.08 (.67)	5.08 (.79)	3.83 (1.58)
Reasons for following Favorite Teams: Wilk’s (42, 1265) = .868; p = .619
Because I grew up in that state and/or city	5.49 (1.37)	5.46 (1.24)	5.37 (1.33)	4.99 (1.49)	5.32 (1.39)	5.00 (1.59)
Because I frequently visited the team’s ballpark with my parents	6.09 (1.00)	5.78 (.90)	5.22 (1.28)	4.91 (1.00)	5.30 (1.02)	5.17 (1.37)
Because the team is the nearest location from my current hometown	5.16 (1.53)	5.43 (1.43)	5.32 (1.28)	4.67 (1.43)	5.08 (1.33)	4.85 (1.35)
Because my family (spouse, parents, children) likes the team	5.32 (1.64)	5.52 (1.52)	5.68 (1.42)	5.00 (1.37)	5.45 (1.50)	5.32 (1.74)
Because I remember the team treated me well as a customer	6.00 (1.41)	6.00 (1.41)	6.00 (1.41)	5.50 (2.12)	6.00 (1.41)	6.00 (1.41)
Because the team has my favorite players	5.21 (1.93)	5.45 (1.56)	5.51 (1.62)	4.79 (1.71)	5.27 (1.58)	5.30 (1.69)
Because I have a membership of the team	7.00 (.00)	6.00 (.00)	6.00 (.00)	6.00 (.00)	7.00 (.00)	6.00 (.00)
Other reasons	4.97 (1.46)	5.32 (1.23)	5.37 (1.41)	5.20 (1.28)	5.30 (1.32)	4.65 (1.87)
Types of Following Favorite Teams: Wilk’s (30, 1086) = .879; p = .224
Physically attend the ball park	5.33 (1.61)	5.67 (1.20)	5.50 (1.32)	4.71 (1.71)	5.21 (1.47)	5.17 (1.43)
Watch television	5.35 (1.55)	5.47 (1.32)	5.41 (1.34)	4.92 (1.40)	5.30 (1.34)	5.06 (1.55)
Listen radio	4.67 (.58)	4.33 (1.15)	4.33 (2.08)	4.33 (.58)	4.00 (2.64)	5.33 (1.53)
Use Internet	5.78 (.97)	6.11 (.78)	6.00 (.71)	5.67 (1.00)	5.67 (1.12)	4.44 (2.01)
Read magazine and/or newspaper	5.44 (1.09)	5.44 (1.59)	5.31 (1.54)	5.06 (1.48)	5.25 (1.18)	5.25 (1.69)
Other	4.50 (2.00)	4.62 (1.77)	4.75 (1.83)	4.37 (1.68)	4.75 (1.98)	3.00 (1.31)