PR1 Radio Shows

Soundcloud Link to Radio Show

Script

Introduction to Radio Show and Presentation of Aims

Hello and welcome to our radio presentation on research methods. Today we are going critically analyse two papers. Our research question is What is the main factor which affects match day stadium attendance in lower division sports. Our hypothesis is ‘there are many factors which affect individuals ability to attend sports matches and a magnitude of external and internal medians that impact a fans decision’.

The qualitative paper which we chose to analyse to find out factors which affect stadium attendance was by Gibbons and Nuttall. It primarily looks at authenticity of football fans by answering two main research questions.

This paper is primary research about spectator attendance and why fans attend their local college football teams. This research was conducted in Mississippi USA with a specific focus on selected stadium factors in addition to team loyalty.

The sampling used in this systematic random sampling this means

The data was collected from five different south eastern football conference teams.

The following effects were investigated, team loyalty,. stadium parking, stadium cleanliness, perceived crowding, food service, and fan behaviour control on spectators’ desire to stay and attend games at the stadium.

It is important because although the teams performance is a big part of attendance towards game it has been found that fans also go for a social and entertainment aspects which are directly effected from the investigated effects previously mentioned.

This was concluded from a number of factors throughout the paper.

Positivist epistemology is a key feature throughout our qualitative paper this is because only facts are assumed due to the scientific method can make legitimate knowledge claims

Summary of Qualitative Research Method

The qualitative paper which we chose to analyse to find out factors which affect stadium attendance was by Gibbons and Nuttall. It primarily looks at authenticity of football fans by answering two main research questions: do academic typologies of fandom fully represent what fans themselves say regarding the ‘authenticity’ of their practices? And do fans themselves view match attendance as the core criterion of ‘authentic’ support?

Previous researchers such as Crawford stated that ‘it is possible to identify different levels of commitment and dedication to a sport and different patterns of behaviour of fans, therefore Gibbons and Nuttall chose to look into further detail as to how and why people support their local club and whether fans are authentic if they attend matches regularly.

The methodology of this paper was a 3-year case study of 151 non-league fans, whereby Gibbons and Nuttall carried out primary research by attending Northern League division home matches. The clubs and participants remained unnamed to ensure ethical considerations were met and therefore all answers remained anonymous.

The link to an open response questionnaire was posted online using Bristol Online Survey software, which contained information about the study. It’s important to note here that the survey was online because Palmer and Thompson in previous research concluded that ‘fans who used online forums were also the most involved fans offline’. This implies that those who were at the matches were likely to be the most authentic, however this could cause validity issues within the study as only a small proportion of fans were being asked for their opinion. It would have been more valid to offer the questionnaire to people who watched football on TV, because they could have explained why they weren’t able to attend. By only offering the questionnaire to those fans who were at the match meant non-probability convenience sampling was used because they were the most accessible to the researchers. This method is likely to be bias as these fans are likely to be the most interested in subjects relating to football. By using a non-probability sampling method, it meant the information was only collected until the saturation point was reached, which can also be seen as biased because it is up to the researcher as to when this occurs.

Qualitative researchers adhering to an interpretivist epistemology are interested in understanding and interpreting the world from participants’ point of view. The study of fans authenticity holds an interpretivist viewpoint because it accounts for fans feelings and tries to offer different viewpoints in the results. For example, fan no. 32 states, ‘how can you support a team if you don’t even go to watch them?’ and contradictory to this fan no. 142 describes how ‘some people cannot afford to travel to matches. They can follow with their heart’. In this statement alone it can be concluded that a factor which affects match attendance is financial implications.

Summary of Quantitative Research Method

This quantitative research paper is titled The Effects of Team Loyalty and Selected Stadium Factors on Spectator Attendance by (Kirk L. Wakefield and Hugh K. Sloan in 1995). This paper a mixture of primary and secondary research with the purpose to investigate the effects of various stadium factors (crowding, food service quality, fan behaviour control, stadium parking and cleanliness), which are expected to have a direct effect on spectators’ desire to stay in the stadium. It is ontology-based research, centred around objectivism as results from this paper are interpreted as external facts. In addition to this, it is a top-down deductive theory, that starts with a hypothesis and ends with the confirmation/rejection of it. Secondary research for this paper is collected via social, economic and psychological journals from researchers such as (Bateson, Domazlicky and Noil, 1988). These papers demonstrated that no prior research has been made to study what individual spectators think are important factors in their decision to attend. With all of this secondary research taken into account, the intent of this study was to overcome these methodological weaknesses and to provide an empirical basis for effective sports management decisions.

With reference to how the primary research was conducted, field studies at five different South-eastern Conference football stadiums in America took place during games in the middle of the season. These stadiums represented teams that included two bowl teams and three weaker teams for the year in which the survey was conducted. Pre-tests were conducted at two SEC football games; factor & reliability analysis were performed after each pre-test to refine the scales. For these pre-tests, five-point, agree or disagree Likert scales were used. Likert Scales are used appropriately for this pre-test as they are easy to understand and complete. It is important to note that sections dedicated solely to student seating were generally avoided because pre-tests indicated that the response rate from students was negligible.

Systematic random sampling method is when you select units directly from the sampling frame; according to Bryman. This method is used where every fifth spectator were given surveys at the stadium gates and asked to complete the surveys before the end of the first quarter of the game, when they would be picked up by stadium attendants. Across five stadiums, three-thousand four-hundred surveys were distributed and one-thousand, four hundred and ninety-one were returned for usable analysis, leaving a response rate of 43.9%. The Covariance Structural Modelling (CSM) method was chosen for the analysis. CSM methods are being used more and more frequently to show such complex casual relationships, especially a method called linear structural relations (LISREL), created by (Joreskog & Sorbom in 1990). LISREL is sensitive to data that is not typically distributed. Negatively skewed data is typical in this type of research, in which respondents tend to be fairly satisfied with the service they are currently using.

Results from this paper suggests that stadium administrators should make every effort to ensure that each sports encounter is a positive one to enhance the probability of that spectators will be likely to return.  What this really implies is that administrators need to consider the customers’ viewpoints when making any decisions regarding stadium operations. Primary research by (Bitner in 1992) proposed that the ‘servicescape’ model or the physical surroundings of service encounters would lead to individuals approaching or avoiding places. Using this model in the survey showed that spectators’ physical surroundings had a direct influence on their desire to stay or leave the stadium. For example, perceived crowding is shown to have the strongest effects on spectators’ desire to stay or leave, with 91.8% of respondents highlighting this as the main issue. Providing more ample seating can lead to this issue being rectified. This shows that spectators’ desire to stay at the stadium will have a positive impact on spectators’ intentions to return for future games. It is important that sports administrators focus on stadium facilities that they can control, such as food service, cleanliness and stadium parking, if they want to improve their attendance figures and spectator retention.

Advantages of QUAL methods used – Based on paper & in general.

The fact that the research used purposeful sampling could be an advantage because the fans who answered are likely to have expertise in attending football matches regularly. They will hopefully understand all the factors and challenges involved in getting to games, and therefore be able to provide a balanced conclusion on both sides of the argument. These fans will also be able to explain in greater detail adverse factors which statistics from quantitative research will not. For example, fan no. 24 explained ‘I don’t live in the North East but still retain my strong emotional attachments to the area and my football teams’. Therefore, it can be assumed that he can’t attend games due to travel commitments.

The answers to the open response items of the questionnaire were ‘coded’ using an inductive coding approach. Using both open coding and axial coding was advantageous to the research as it allowed the Gibbons and Nuttall to categorise the answers and hence draw conclusions. For example, one assumption from the research was that ‘attendance is the most important way to support a club’ and this became linked in the results with the view ‘there’s a possibility of a fan/supporter being two different things. A supporter supports, a fan is just that – a fan’. This could be due to the fact they are both implying the word supporter holds significance, only a view which could be observed using qualitative research.

Another advantage is that the paper is inductive because fans answers are interpreted in order to conclude for example, the theory that match attendance is not an essential element of support for a club. This is an advantage because it can lead to further unbiased research on other ways to support a club, as observations can be made on peoples changing perceptions over time such as supporting from watching on the TV.

The final advantage of the research carried out is that its valid, because it is transferable to other studies. For example, Greenhalgh, Dwyer and Biggio’s study followed on from Gibbons and Nuttall’s research by analysing one particular factor which affects stadium attendance and that was technological advances. Again, linking to the fact the questionnaire was online as it becomes more apparent that technology is changing the way fans attend football matches.  

Disadvantages of QUANT methods used – Based on paper & in general.

The topic had several complex constructs which means that it had factors that cannot be controlled and are different for every person they ask.

This is a disadvantage because the results they get back might not necessarily be accurate because for example someone’s idea of cleanliness can be very different to another.

This multivariate technique is also subject to negatively skew the data because the vast majority of participants are already satisfied with their current experience when attending stadia.

As they handed out surveys at the gates of the stadium it’ll have a negative effect on who responds to the survey. They also didn’t include students which is removing a demographic completely.

In addition to this, because the survey is asking for personal opinion it could suggest that the survey would take too long for individuals to complete which means that the survey isn’t good enough and needs to be shortened in order to increase levels of completion.

Spectators who do not choose to attend specific fixture will not have a chance of filling out the survey

Statistical analysis is used throughout the paper as measurable data to find a conclusion.

Another way they could widen their research is by asking survey recipients in different areas of the stadium this way they can find out if it’s a specific area of the stadium or a generalised problem.

Bryman (2016) states Social Construct factors of the world are all subjective realities and everyone has a difference of opinion. Therefore, social construct is a big factor within this study.

This is because all results are derived from fan opinion therefore opinions will consistently differ.

Advantages of QUANT methods used – Based on paper & in general.

With reference to the advantages of the quantitative methods used, there are a variety of positive aspects that can be taken away. The use of systematic probability sampling enabled the results to be representative and avoid sampling bias due to the research population all being given an equal opportunity of being given a survey. I believe this is the appropriate choice of method, as spectators are diverse and it is important to obtain a sample that can be considered representative.

Research for this paper is conclusive and quantifiable, allowing the variables surrounding spectator retention at stadiums to be compared. One of the intentions of this paper was to overcome these methodological weaknesses and to provide an empirical basis for effective sports management decisions. Data from this study is easy to execute and understand, which can now allow sports administrators and owners to understand what aspects of a club to work on in order to improve attendance figures.

Other advantages of systematic random sampling are that you have control over your research method. This allows for specifically formed hypothesis’ to be reliably tested, for as long as that the sampling is formed appropriately. This sense of control and understanding of how the process is being conducted is favourable amongst statisticians and researchers.

Disadvantages of QUANT methods used – Based on paper & in general.

From the research we learnt that… there are also some disadvantages throughout the qualitative research of this paper and throughout qualitative papers generally. Generally speaking, an important part of qualitative research is that it depends on the experience of the researcher – with questions being more subjective and not directly correlating into data. They need to be confident in building rapport or being able to ask good follow up questions. Additionally, it can be influenced by researcher bias. Controls must be part of the data collection process to prevent researches from influencing results. Finally, it can also create misleading conclusions. There is no way of making a direct correlation from a sample size to a whole demographic based on questions that are so subjective. In this specific paper, there could be many problems with the way that qualitative research is conducted that may affect the results. Firstly, the paper itself states in the final discussion section that ‘Further research is required to confirm or refute the findings presented here, especially considering the relatively small sample of fan respondents and the low number of women and ethnic minorities who responded to the survey.’ This in itself shows that the sample size used itself is too exclusive to a certain group, and not representative of all football fan at all. The paper also specifically focused on non-league football when the bigger problem and more statistics would come from the higher leagues, based on the fact they have a bigger fan base and you are therefore more likely to get more participants. It’s also mentioned in the paper that ‘The e-survey findings presented above suggest that typologies of soccer fandom, such as Redhead’s and Giulianotti’s, do not fully represent the views of soccer fans themselves regarding the ‘authenticity’ debate.’, almost nullifying the effectiveness of their survey and data collected. This in itself may show that qualitative research may not accurately reflect what the researcher is trying to portray. With factors such as the small sample size as well having reservations about the surveys authenticity and how well it actually represents their target fanbase, there are many disadvantages to how the qualitative research in this study has been conducted and found. 

Summary/Conclusions – which methods best? Qual or Quant? Why?

In conclusion, both papers demonstrate positives and negatives that can be taken away from it. The qualitive paper uses a successful form of purposeful sampling and is an inductive paper meaning it may lead to further research that could conclude more definitively in the area. The quantitative paper has many positives also though, again using a good form of systematic random sampling, showing control over research. That paper, contrastingly to the qualitative though is very conclusive and quantifiable. The quantitative paper did not include students which means has missed out an entire demographic and excluded them purposefully. Additionally, multivariate techniques may have skewed the data negatively which does not help or support the paper at all. However, there were also negatives with the qualitative paper also, things such as a small sample size and the fact that the externally, the paper does have very little use in terms of application. Primary and secondary data is used in the quantitative paper, whereas it is solely primary data that is used in the qualitative papers, meaning contrastingly that the qualitative data may have more validity. Based on the two papers we studied though, as a group we have come to the conclusion that for our hypothesis and research question, the best form of research would be quantitative. Having data that is conclusive and quantifiable as well as easy to execute and understand is invaluable when undertaking a hypothesis that ultimately is all about how something is affected such as attendances. We believe that it would be predominantly data driven and for this reason, for our specific hypothesis we believe that a quantitative method of research is preferred. 

Finally, our research question has not been answered through the qualitative paper, but the quantitative paper conclusively stated that stadium facilities and factors that can be controlled internally and that external factors are not as important to that. Our hypothesis has not been proved, as through the quantitative paper its been confirmed that there would only be one internal factor that affects this – however, if we were to add research within the area, we could add many different things and more depth to the research across different sports to ensure a more definitive conclusion, such as TV Broadcasting and advances in technology. We could also explore further secondary research papers as they will have bigger sample sizes and we would look to use quantitative driven questionnaires to find out more data across more leagues, relating to more clubs in order to find a way to applicate our data in a more effective manner. We have learned that we would need a considerable sample size as well as a good sampling system, ideally purposeful and we would need to ensure that. I would also ensure that we use predominantly primary research as it’s the safest and most affective way of making sure research is reliable.

Individual Research

Research Paper Notes:

• Data collected from spectators at five South-eastern Conference football stadiums.
• Effects of team loyalty, stadium parking, stadium cleanliness, perceived crowding, food service and fan behaviour control on spectators’ desire to stay and attend games at the stadium were investigated.
• Covariance structural modelling (LISREL) was employed to test the casual relationships among the hypothesized relationships.
• Results support hypothesis that although team loyalty strong affects attendance, stadium designs services also directly influence spectators’ desire to stay.
• Research conducted in Mississippi, USA.
• As long as the team are winning, spectators will attend accordingly. (Baade & Tiehen, 1990; Domazlicky & Kerr, 1990; Noll, 1974).
• Counteracts these studies, spectators seek for more than this. (Melnick, 1993; Bitner 1992).
• Purpose of this paper is to investigate the effects of various stadium factors (crowding, food service quality, fan behaviour control, stadium parking and cleanliness), which are expected to have a direct effect on spectators’ desire to stay in the stay.
• Although fan loyalty to the team (performance and history) is an important factor in explaining why spectators attend games, the stadium surroundings play an important role in determining spectators’ attendance tendencies.
• Analysing the impact of new stadiums; Chicago, Texas and Toronto in MLB).
• Practical perspective, this paper seeks to provide empirical support for stadium planning and management decisions that enhance the spectator’s experience and likelihood of future attendance.
• Methodologically, this study includes field survey responses from 1491 college football spectators collected at five South-eastern conference football stadiums.
• Employs structural equations modelling (LISREL VII, Joreskog & Sorbom, 1990) to analyse the various simultaneous relationships.

Secondary Research

• Previous empirical studies regarding spectators’ attendance at sporting events have included psychological, social and economic perspectives but have largely over-looked aspects of the sports encounter that would be of practical interest to team sports administrators who are interested in maximising stadium capacity.
• Psychological research has found that violence in hockey games may or may not increase attendance (Russell, 1986). These findings have limited practical applications, except perhaps for rules committees.
• Social studies regarding the effect of professional sports on urban development may have some effect on public policy but contain little managerial relevance (Baade & Dye, 1990).
• Aggregate economic studies of sports attendance may be of greater practical use to team sports owners and administrators.
• MLB attendance have noted that various aspects, such as star players, high scoring and team standings, appear to affect season attendance. These studies also found that ticket prices do not significantly influence attendance, the age of a stadium does (Baade & Tiehen, 1990; Domazlicky & Kerr, 1990; Noll, 1974).
• No attempt has been made to study what individual spectators think are important factors in their decision to attend.
• Economic studies are limited, they only measure variables that can be directly observed.
• Intent of the study was to overcome these methodological weaknesses and to provide an empirical basis for effective sports management decisions.
• Primary research by (Bitner, 1992) proposed that the ‘servicescape’ or the physical surroundings of service encounters would lead to individuals approaching or avoiding places. Basic hypothesis is spectators’ desire to stay at the stadium will have a positive impact on spectators’ intentions to return for future games.
• Stadium parking will have a positive impact on spectators’ desire to stay at the stadium (Hui & Bateson, 1991; Anderson, 1991).
• Cleanliness will have a positive impact on spectators’ desire to stay at the stadium (Deckard, 1989).
• Perceived crowding will have a negative impact on spectators’ desire to stay at the stadium (Melnick, 1993; Brauer, 1992; Eroglu & Machleit, 1990, Hui & Bateson, 1991).
• Food service quality will have a positive impact on spectators’ desire to stay at the stadium (Frost, 1990; Kurkijan, 1991; Wood, 1988; Brennan, 1990; Morgenson, 1992).
• Stadium fan control will have a positive impact on spectators’ desire to stay at the stadium (Leerhsen, 1998; Sullivan 1986; Bernstein; 1991).
• Team loyalty will have a positive impact on spectators’ desire to stay at the stadium & attend future games (Beatty, Kahle, & Homer, 1988; Mano & Oliver, 1993; Oliver & Bearden, 1983).

Methodology

• Field studies at five different South-eastern Conference football stadiums at games in the middle of the season. These stadiums represented teams that included two bowl teams and three weaker teams for the year in which the survey was conducted.
• Systematic random sampling method, spectators were given surveys at the stadium gates and asked to complete the surveys before the end of the first quarter of the game, when they would be picked up by stadium attendants.
• Sections dedicated solely to student seating were generally avoided because pre-tests indicated that the response rate from students was negligible.
• Across five stadiums, 3400 surveys were distributed and 1491 were returned for usable analysis; response rate of 43.9%.
• Adapted scale from Hui and Bateson was used to assess spectators’ responses to the physical surroundings of the stadium were used for pre-tests.
• Conducted at two SEC football games, factor & reliability analysis were performed after each pre-test to refine the scales.
• Five-point, agree-disagree Likert scales.
• Remaining scales developed specifically for this study.
• Covariance Structural Modelling (CSM) method was chosen for the analysis.
• CSM methods are being used more and more frequently to show such complex casual relationships, especially a method called linear structural relations (LISREL), created by Joreskog & Sorbom, 1990.
• LISREL is sensitive data that is not typically distributed. Negatively skewed data is typical in this type of research, in which respondents tend to be fairly satisfied with the service they are currently using.
• This model is good until the sample size grows beyond 200.

Results

• Results of this study provide team and facility administrators with ample support for using the sportscape as a tool to maintain customer satisfaction and boost attendance.
• Player prices are escalating, investments need to have a positive effect.
• Small market teams may find that focusing time on things they can control, such as the stadium facility and marketing strategy, rather than on factors they can’t control, such as the market size of competitors and competitors’ performance, may significantly benefit the team and the spectators.
• This relationship suggests that stadium administrators that every effort should be made to make each sports encounter a positive one to enhance the probability of that spectators will be likely to return.  What this really implies is that administrators need to consider the customers’ viewpoints when making any decisions regarding stadium operations.
• Implementation may have less pronounced effects than those studied in this paper, impact should be evaluated. Personnel wiping off stadium seats on rainy days.
• Minor issues being resolved can have major ramifications.
• Arranging shuttle buses could help troubleshoot the issue of stadium parking and keep spectators inside the stadium knowing they do not have to worry about travel.
• Going above and beyond for cleanliness expectations can increase spectator retention.
• Perceived crowding is shown to have the strongest effects on spectators’ desire to stay or leaving. Providing more ample seating can lead to this issue being rectified.
• Relationship between fan control and spectators’ desire to stay at the stadium is the weakest among the stadium factors. Primarily concerned when they have been confronted. Doesn’t affect the majority.

References

Anderson, B. (1991, August 26). Anaheim’s lost patrol; Night after night, the angel of parking precincts is Kevin (I’ll find your) Carr. Sports Illustrated, 75, 5a.

Anderson, J.C, & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411- 423.

Baade, R.A., & Dye, R.F. (1990). The impact of stadiums and professional sports on metropolitan area development. Growth and Change, 21, 1-14.

Baade, R.A., & Tiehen, L.J. (1990). An analysis of Major League Baseball anendance, 1969-1987. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 14, 14-32.

Balnaves, M. and Caputi, P., 2001. Quantitative research methods: An investigative approach.

Bateson, J., & Hui, M.K. (1992). The ecological validity of photographic slides and videotapes in simulating the service setting. Journal of Consumer Research, 19, 271-280.

Beatty’, S.E., Kahle, L.R., & Homer, P. (1988). The involvement-commitment model; Theory and implications. Journal of Business Research, 16, 149-167.

Bemstein, S. (1991, April 8). The sorry state of ‘”sports heroes” (antisocial behavior of well-paid sports figures). Advertising Age, 62, 25. Bitner, MJ. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing, 56, 57-71.

Brauer, R.L. (1992). Facilities planning: The user requirements method. New York: AMACOM.

Brennan, D.M. (1990, November 20). Major league: Pilot Field provides Buffalo Bison fans with a full menu of foodservice options. Restaurant Business Magazine, 89, 103-104.

Carmines, E., & Mclver, J. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables: Analysis of covariance structures. In G. Bohmstedt and E. Borgatta (Eds.), Social measurement: Current issues. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Crawford, Garry. Consuming Sport: Fans, Sport and Culture. London: Routledge, 2004.

Creswell, J.W., 2014. Research design: International student edition.

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

Deckard. L. (1989, May 20). A’s Coliseum, Procter & Gamble bring “clean team” to ballpark (Spotless restrooms promised at Oakland Coliseum). Amusement Business, 101, 13-14.

Domazlicky B.R., & Kerr, P.M. (1990). Baseball attendance and the designated hitter. American Economist, 34, 62-68.

Eroglu, S.A., & Machleit, K.A. (1990). An empirical study of retail crowding: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Retailing, 66, 201-221.

Flick, U., 2018. Designing qualitative research. Sage.

Fomell, C. (1992). A nalional customer satisfaction barometra’: The Swedish experience. Journal of Marketing, 56, 6-21.

Frost, D. (1990). Stadium marketers go soft. American Demographics, 12, 22-23.

Gibbons, T. and Nuttall, D., 2016. ‘True fan= watch match’? In search of the ‘Authentic’ soccer fan. Soccer & Society, 17(4), pp.527-539.

Goldman, K. (1992, October 9). Baseball’s appeal fizzles for ad buyers. Wall Street Journal, pp. Bl, B3.

Gratton, C. and Jones, I., 2014. Research methods for sports studies. Routledge.

Greenhalgh, G., Dwyer, B. and Biggio, B., 2014. There’s an App for That: The Development of an NFL Team Mobile Application. Journal of Applied Sport Management, 6(4).

Haire, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L. & Black, W.C. (1992). Multivariate Data Analysis. New York: MacMillan.

Hansen, H., & Gautheir, R. (1992). Marketing objectives of professional and university sports organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 6(1), 27-37.

Hayduk, L.A. (1987). Structural equation modeling: Essentials and advances. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Hui, M.K., & Bateson, J. (1991). Perceived conu-ol and the effects of crowding and consumer choice on the .service experience. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, 174-184.

Joreskog, K.G., and Sorbom, D. (1990). LJSREL VII: Analysis of linear structural relationships hy the method of maximum likelihood: User’s guide. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.

Kerin, R.A., Jain, A., & Howard, D.J. (1992). Store shopping experience and consumer price-quality-value perceptions. Journal of Retailing, 68, 376-397.

Kurkjian, T. (1991, June 17). But how much Pepto-Bismol was sold? (Food sold during 18-inning game in Kansas City). Sports Illustrated, 75, 75.

Leerhsen, C. (1988, May 16). When push comes to shove: Baseball faces a crisis in crowd control, fueled by beer and rowdies. Newsweek, 111, 72-73.

 Maister, D.H. (1985). The psychology of waiting lines. In J.A. Czepiel, M.R. Solomon, & CF. Surprenant (Eds.), The service encounter: Managing employee/customer interaction in service businesses. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Mano, H., & Oliver, R. (1993). Assessing the dimensionality and .structure of the consumption experience: Evaluation, feeling and satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Research, 20,451-466.

McCarthy, M.J. (1993. July 6). Sinking anendance leads baseball clubs to come up with a new play: Marketing. Wall Street Journal, pp. Bl, B7.

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

Morgenson, G. (1992. April 27). Where the fans still come first (minor league baseball owners). Forbes, 149, 40-42.

Noll, R.G. (1974). Attendance and price sensing. In Roger Noll (Ed.), Government and the sports business (pp. 115-157). Wa.shington, DC: Brookings Institute.

of Sport Journal 24 (2007): 187–205.

Oliver, R.L.. & Bearden, W.O. (1983). The role of involvement in satisfaction processes. In R. Bagozzi and A. Tybout (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (pp. 250- 255). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.

On-field and Online Expressions of Social Capital Among the “Grog Squad”’. Sociology

Palmer, Catherine, and Kirrilly Thompson. ‘The Paradoxes of Football Spectatorship:

Parasuraman, A., Berry. L.L.. & Zeithaml, V.A. (1991). Refinement and reassessment of the SERVQUAL scale. Journal of Retailing, 67, 420-450.

Parasuraman, A.. Beny, L.L., & Zeithaml, V.A. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64, 12-40.

Parasuraman, A.. Berry, L.L., & Zeithaml. V.A. (1993). More on improving sen’ice quality measurement. Journal of Retailing, 69, 140-147.

Research, S. (2020). Strengths and Weaknesses of Quantitative and Qualitative Research :: UXmatters. [online] Uxmatters.com. Available at: https://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2012/09/strengths-and-weaknesses-of-quantitative-and-qualitative-research.php [Accessed 25 Feb. 2020].

Richins, M.L., & Bloch, P. (1991). Post purchase product satisfaction: Incorporating the effects of involvement and time. Journal of Business Research, 23, 145-158.

Richins, M.L.. & Bloch, P. (1986). After the new wears off: The temporal context of product involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 43. 280-285.

Russell. G. (1986). Does sports violence increase box office receipts? International Journal of Sport Psychology, 17, 173-182.

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

Stokes, J., 2012. How to do media and cultural studies. Sage.

Sullivan, R. (1986, Januarj’ 6). Foxboro flow (Violence ac Patriots’ stadium subsided when only low-alcohol beer was served). Sports Illustrated, 64, 7.

Wood. B. (1988). Dodger dogs to fenway franks (And all the wieners in between). New York: McGraw-Hill.