Factors and differential demographic effects on purchases of season tickets for intercollegiate basketball games.

Pan, David W. ; Gabert, Trent E. ; McGaugh, Eric C. 等

Athletic programs at the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division IA level have been popular for decades. Their reputation for attracting spectators has rivaled and often surpassed that of even professional sports. But in recent years, many universities have seen the popularity of their teams diminishing, and consequently, attendance at games has dropped. Among all the possible causes, elevated ticket prices, fluctuations in game schedules and team performance, and the proliferation of alternative forms of entertainment have played major roles in this decline. The increasing cost of running an athletic program has been a primary reason in driving ticket prices up, and ever-changing schedules and performance have often set the tone of spectator interest for attending a team's future games. In the past, the big weekend college game may have been the only event that people saved their money for and looked forward to attending. Today a growing number of pro and semi-pro sport teams, theme parks of all kinds, multi-screen movie theaters, and numerous viewing options on television are potential alternatives to attendance at intercollegiate sports.

Unfortunately, many athletic departments have not prepared themselves to overcome these challenges. The years of sold out stadiums and arenas lulled athletic directors into a false sense of security. Now that the stands are no longer full, athletic directors must find innovative ways to attract and maintain fans. However, many of their efforts have been characterized by a marketing myopia in which the focus has been on the production and sale of goods and services rather than on identifying the needs of consumers (Mullin, Hardy, & Sutton, 1993). Why spectators come to a game and what factors influence their behaviors in consumer sport appear to be the most important questions for us to answer. This research was therefore designed to study factors that contribute to season ticket purchasing behavior, and differential demographic characteristics of season ticket holders for an intercollegiate basketball team at an NCAA Division IA institution. The results of this study should assist athletic administrators to better understand consumer needs so that university athletic programs regain popularity among consumers, and consequently consumers' needs are better served.

Review of Literature

Winning Isn't Everything

For years the attitude existed that as long as winning teams were put on the field, the spectators would come. Researchers have realized that other factors besides winning also influence attendance. Mashiach (1980) pointed out that spectating behavior was not determined by a single motive or factor but rather occurred for a wide variety of reasons. While winning has often been thought to be the primary factor for drawing fans, Levine (cf Kennedy, 1980) found that only 25% of sports fans come to professional sporting events solely because of the team's winning record.

Functions of Spectator Sports

Schwartz (1973) pointed out some important functions of spectator sports: (a) creating a spectacle, (b) displaying talent, 8 relieving tension, (d) confirming cultural values, (e) providing continuity in fans' lives, (f) fostering social conformity and companionship, (g) building team spirit and allegiance to an organization, and (h) providing an avenue in which to foster business interests. These points suggested that the motives for people to attend sports events are multidimensional in nature. Duncan (1983) asserted that by understanding those dimensional items such as aesthetics, political and religious overtones, and societal values which sports symbolize, people can then come to realize their important social implications in a sporting event. Spreitzer and Snyder (1975) found while 75% of both men and women agreed that "sports are part of being a well rounded person," 84% of men and 75% of women felt that "sports are a good way of getting together with friends and having a good time." A theory of sports spectating and fan sociability proposed by Melnick (1993) who noted that the pressures of urbanization in American society have driven an increasing number of strangers into our daily lives while making the development of close social ties more difficult. Sports spectating has come to provide an avenue in which to enhance people's "social psychological lives by helping them experience the pure sociability, quasi-intimate relationships, and sense of belonging that are so indigenous to the stands" (p. 46).

Closely related to the social aspects of sporting events is the loyalty and affiliation which fans have to a particular institution. Schurr, Ruble, and Ellen (1985) concluded that sport consumers typically have a strong identification with the institution which the team represents. Additionally, Murrell and Dietz (1992) found that affiliation to an institution can enhance collective group identity, which in turn often has a positive influence on fan support for the team as well as actual attendance at games.

Spectators and Ticket Purchasing Behavior

Considering many functions and effects of spectator sports, the study of fans and their ticket purchasing behavior has been somewhat limited. Melnick (1989) noted the relative lack of attention paid to the study of sports spectators. In two similar studies (Schurr et al. 1985; Schurr, Wittig, Ruble, & Ellen, 1987), such factors as student personality type, academic achievement, vocational interest, demographics, and distance of venue from home town were examined. Interestingly, they found that the personality types and declared academic majors for both males and females who went to games tended toward the societal expectations of males (i.e., more problem solving, assertive, and competitive). Frazier and Snyder (1991) observed the strong attraction that fans had to underdog teams in sport. Schofield (1983) compiled a review of 17 articles which assessed the impact of different factors on fan attendance at professional sporting events. He classified the first group of articles as "production function" studies in which various team offensive and defensive outputs were examined relative to attendance at games. More relevant to the purposes of this study were his second group of articles focusing on the demand for sport by the consumer. He divided these demand studies into four categories: economic variables, demographic variables, game attractiveness, and residual preference variables. Hansen and Gauthier (1989) used the 40 different items identified by Schofield which fell within these four categories and found that for the most part, items within the game attractiveness and residual preference categories appeared to be more important than those factors from the economic and demographic categories.

Overview of Literature

The literature concerning the sports spectator indicate that the motivations of fans for purchasing tickets are multidimensional in nature and are generally more complex than some have made them out to be. While putting a winning team on the field is still often thought to be the primary factor affecting the decision to purchase a ticket, research has indicated that there are also many other factors involved. Some of the possible motivations pointed out by previous studies included such things as social factors, the level of excitement, team quality and team performance, the atmosphere surrounding the sporting event, and economic factors. All these have constituted a rational basis for conducting the current study.

Purpose of Study

The first purpose of this research was to identify the constructs of individual motives that constitute the decision process of purchasing season tickets. This was achieved by using a factor analysis with a principal component extraction and orthogonal rotation. The second was to investigate the differential effects of demographic variables on the behavior of individuals holding a season ticket, the constructs of motives, and alternative sports preferences. This was achieved by comparing group mean responses of the identified constructs of motives according to gender, income level, family size, age, and driving time to games.

Methodology

Instrumentation

A questionnaire was constructed to enable respondents to provide information in three sections: perceived motives, demographic information, and attendance at alternative sport events. In the perceived motives section, respondents were first asked to rate the relative importance of 18 itemized motives on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (least important) to 7 (most important) in their decision to purchase season basketball tickets. These items were: Ancillary Prices (e.g., parking, concessions, etc.), Attending for Business Purposes, Attending with Family, Attending with Friends, Conference Games, Donor Fees, Excitement of the Event, Last Year's Record, Level of Basketball Performance, loyalty to the University's Team, Non-conference Games, Overall Atmosphere, Overall Outlook for the Season, Pageantry (e.g., band, cheerleaders, spirit, etc), Season Ticket Prices, Star Players, State of the Economy, and Top-Twenty Opponents.

In the demographic information section, data regarding age, gender, size of family, annual household income, driving time to attend home games, years holding season tickets, and number of season tickets purchased last year were requested. These variables were selected because of their assumed direct impact on the decision process of season ticket purchase.

Finally, respondents were asked in the alternative sports section to provide information regarding the frequency of their attendance at other local and adjacent sport events including minor league hockey, minor league basketball, minor league baseball, high school basketball, the university's football team, horse racing, and any sports in the nearest major metropolitan area. There was a blank space that allowed the respondent to write in any other local sport event which he or she has attended. This section was designed to reveal which competing sport events were most popular to season ticket holders.

Subjects

A list of 402 mailing address labels was obtained from the University Athletic Ticket Office. The list was randomly generated in a ticket computer system from the population of approximately 5,600 season ticket holders/donors for men's basketball at an NCAA Division IA institution located in the South-Central region of the United States. The population was labeled as season ticket holders/donors because they were required to donate a predetermined amount of money to the University's athletic department in addition to the price of each season ticket. The population from which the sample was drawn accounted for approximately 50% of seating in the University's arena. This population was selected because of their high commitment to the University basketball team. A cover letter explaining the purpose of the survey, its importance, the institutional sponsor, with a questionnaire and a business-reply-mail envelope were mailed to the sample of subjects prior to the start of a recent NCAA basketball season.

Data Analysis

The data of 18 perceived motives were first factor analyzed in an attempt to identify their underlying constructs. A series of Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) procedures were then performed to study the effects of demographic variables on the behavior of individuals holding a season ticket package, the identified constructs of motives, and the attendance data at alternative sports. A post hoc comparison procedure followed to reveal differences between demographic groups of subjects. The established rejection level for ANOVA analysis was p [less than] .05.

Results

Return of Questionnaires

Of 402 questionnaires sent out to season ticket holders/donors, 200 (approximately 50%) were returned. Of these, 28 questionnaires were deemed unusable, and therefore, 172 (43%) were used in the final analysis (see Table 1).

Factor Analysis

Using the predetermined criteria (i.e., a factor's eigenvalue equal to or greater than one, a motive with a factor loading equal to or greater than .50 without double loading, a factor having at least two motives, and both a factor and loaded motives are interpretable), five constructs explaining a total of 61% variance and comprising 16 perceived motives were derived (see Table 2). The descriptors "Athletic Event," "Economic Factors," "Schedule," "Social Factors," and "Team Success" were respectively given to these five constructs based on the nature of motives contained within each. Loyalty to the University's Team did not meet the criteria, but was retained as a unique variable in further analysis because of its importance found in the documented literature, and its factor loading close to the cut-off criterion (.49).

Analysis of Variance

One-way ANOVA's were further performed to identify the differential characteristics of season ticket holders. The significant results of these analyses are summarized as follows.

Gender. There was a significant gender effect for the ratings on the relative importance of the following variables: Social Factors, F(1, 160) = 3.22 (p =.0423), and the motive of Loyalty, F(1, 160) = 6.09 (p =.0146). The post hoc test further revealed there was a significant difference of ratings between males and females (e.g., Social Factors: M = 12.3, SD = 8.7 for males, and M = 17.4, SD = 6.6 for females; and Loyalty: M = 17.3, SD = 9.3 for males, and M = 22.8, SD = 9.1 for females). No other significant differences were found between male and female respondents.

Table 1

Composition of Questionnaire Returns by Demographic Characteristics

Gender n %

Female 17 9.88
Male 155 90.12

Income

$20,001-$40,000 11 6.40
$40,001-$60,000 38 22.09
[greater than] $60,000 123 71.51

Family Members

1-2 70 40.70
3-4 69 40.12
5 or more 33 19.19

Age in Years

[less than] 40 38 22.09
41-50 62 36.05
51-60 35 20.35
[greater than] 60

 37 21.51

Driving Time in Minutes

[less than] 30 61 35.47
31-60 84 48.84
61-120 17 9.88
[greater than] 120 10 5.81

[TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 2 OMITTED]

Age. There were significant Age Group effects for the ratings on the relative importance of the following variables: Team Success, F(3, 160) = 3.43 (p =.0186); Social Factors, F(3, 160) = 3.52 (p =.0164); Loyalty, F(3, 160) = 4.42 (p =.0052); and Attendance to High School Basketball, F(3, 160) = 2.85 (p =.0393). Post hoc tests further revealed significant differences existed among respondents for different age groups (see Table 3). No other significant differences between age groups were found.

[TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 3 OMITTED]

Household Income. There were significant Household Income effects for the ratings on the relative importance of the following variables: Economic Factors, F(3, 160) = 3.43 (p =.0186); Team Success, F(3,160) = 3.52 (p =.0164); and Loyalty, F(3, 160) = 4.42 (p =.0052). Post hoc tests further revealed significant differences existed among respondents at different levels of household income (see Table 4). No other significant differences among household income levels were found.

Family Size. There were significant Family Size effects for the ratings on the relative importance of the following factors: Season Ticket Holdings, F(3, 160) = 3.43 (p =.0186); Economic Factors, F(3, 160) = 3.43 (p =.0186); and Social Factors, F(3, 160) = 3.52 (p =.0164). Post hoc tests further revealed significant differences among respondents with different family sizes (see Table 5). No other significant differences among family size groups were found.

Table 4

Significant Differences Among Household Income Levels

 Household Income
Variables $20-40K $40-60K [greater than] $60K

Economic Factors 14.1(a) 9.1(b) 8.4(b)
Team Success 7.5(a) 14.3(b) 13.0(b)
Loyalty 19.7(a) 24.0(b) 24.6(b)

Note. Ratings were made on 7-point scale (1 = least important, 7 =
most important). Means in the same row that do not share subscripts
differ at p [less than] .05 in the post hoc significant difference
comparison.
Table 5

Significant Differences Among Family Size Groups

 People in Family
Variables 1-2 3-4 5 or More

Season Ticket Holding 1.7(a) 0.9(b) 0.7(b)
Economic Factors 6.7(a) 10.3(b) 10.7(b)
Social Factors 10.8(a) 13.8(b) 13.8(b)

Note. Ratings were made on 7-point scale (1 = least important, 7 =
most important). Means in the same row that do not share subscripts
differ at p [less than] .05 in the post hoc significant difference
comparison.

Driving Time. Only one significant Driving Time effect was found on attendance to high school basketball games, F(3 , 160) = 3.52 (p =.0164). The post hoc test further revealed there was a significant difference of ratings by respondents whose driving time varied, for example, M = 1.3 (SD = 2.1) and 1.5 (SD = 2.2) for people whose driving time was 60 minutes or less, and M = 1.9 (SD = 2.3) and 3.0 (SD = 3.2) for people whose driving time was two hours or more. No other significant differences were found among people with different driving times.

Discussions

This study recognized that the behavior of holding a season ticket/donor package was a function of the spectator's decision making process. Presumably, this process was influenced preponderantly by interactions between different variables such as spectators' evaluations on various motives and their relevance in the decision process, demographic characteristics, and behavior of attendance at alternative sporting events. This study has identified five underlying constructs of motives that influence season ticket purchasing. The study also probed the effects of various demographic variables on: (1) the behavior of holding a season ticket package, (2) the constructs of motives plus Loyalty to the University's Team, and (3) attendance at alternative sport events. Significant differential effects of demographic variables were found on behavioral patterns.

Characteristics of Respondents

Results indicated that the majority of season ticket holders/donors were white male, 41-60 years old, with an annual household income of greater than $60,000. The income pattern is consistent with a study by Cage (1989) who revealed that individuals with higher income such as managers and professionals spend a larger percentage of their income on tickets for sporting events than those earning less money. The average travel time to games by the majority of season ticket holders was less than 60 minutes. This indicated that most fans lived in the adjacent area, and probably included many fans from the major city 20 miles from the University's location. The typical fan had an average travel time of 30 to 45 minutes to the basketball arena.

Constructs of Motives

The factor analysis determined five constructs of perceived motives in holding a season ticket package. Among these, Economic Factors were identified to have an important role in their decision of purchasing a season ticket (24% of variance). This finding cautions that any administrative change in the cost to attend a basketball game shall be prudently studied. Athletic event and a winning team were also important in the decision. In this vein, promotional efforts should be focused on high skill of players, the excitement of game, and the pageantry of college basketball events. Schedule and Social Factors were found to be less accountable, with fans being most attracted to games when the opponent was a Top-20 caliber and/or conference member. The conference race seemed to draw significant attention, and should be accentuated in marketing efforts. These findings appear to partially support the Hansen and Gauthier study (1989) about attendance at professional sporting events in which they found attractiveness and residual preference factors to be more important than other non-economic factors. Contrary to the study by Hansen and Gauthier in professional sports, however, this study of college sport found that factors in the economic category accounted for the most variance, while the game (Athletic Event) was determined as being secondary, and team success as being of tertiary importance in attracting fans. It should be noted that Hansen and Gauthier focused on a variety of professional sports rather than on intercollegiate sport, and the respondents also were much different. The current study surveyed actual fans while the Hansen and Gauthier study surveyed the directors of marketing/promotion for a variety of professional teams. It is feasible that the perceptions of the directors in the Hansen and Gauthier study may not have been harmonious with the actual views of fans. Another construct in the current study was Social Factors (i.e., attending for business purposes, with family members, and with friends). The university's basketball games apparently were viewed as an excellent way for a social gathering.

Significant Effects of Demographic Variables

Gender. Perceived motives for purchasing the tickets and attending games varied among males and females. Females seemed more attentive to social factors than males. A further examination of ratings on individual motives revealed that female ratings were higher on the factors of Athletic Event, Social Factors, and Loyalty, while male ratings were higher on the factors of Team Success and Schedule. It appeared that the primary concern for males was the action taking place on the court while for females, the game itself was only one element of many which served to make the overall event attractive to attend. This finding supports a study by Auchincloss (cf. Smith Muniz, 1988) in terms of how to best market sports to women. The game taking place on the court may not necessarily be the most important thing to females. "When appealing to women, you have to emphasize personality. They care about what is going on around them as well as what is happening in the arena" (p. 20). Furthermore, females appeared to indicate that attending with friends and family was a greater concern than for males. The opportunity for a family outing and being with friends seemed important to the females attending games. This is consistent with findings by Pan and Baker (1995) in which college female students were satisfied with social factors such as attending with family and friends, and enjoying the overall atmosphere and pageantry of the event as well. Considering data from only 17 females respondents were included and tested significantly in this study, a farther understanding of these differential characteristics between males and females is needed to adjust corresponding marketing efforts in order to understand what may attract women to become season ticket holders/donors.

Age. The motives in the social factors was rated significantly higher by the youngest age group than the three older ones. Respondents of age of 40 or below most likely have children still living at home, and therefore may view attending games as a good way to have family outings. A promotional theme that seems to appeal to this youngest group may stress social issues by pointing out that basketball games are an excellent place for family and friend gatherings.

Somewhat surprisingly, ratings of the motives in the team success by respondents under 40 years of age were significantly lower than those by respondents of 41-50 years of age. It was also noted that those under 40 years of age rated loyalty significantly higher than any of the other age groups. It would seem logical to assume that since the older people have followed the university's team(s) longer, they would therefore be more loyal. In this study, perhaps since this youngest group was the closest to college age, they had most recent and more emotionally deep ties to the school than older people. Not surprisingly, the senior respondents attended fewer high school basketball games than the other groups.

Household Income. The average annual household income for this study was very high. All respondents indicated they fell into one of three levels of household income: $20,001-$40,000, $40,001-$60,000, and $60,001 or more. A high majority (72%) of respondents were in the category of $60,001 or more. The fact that the majority of fans in the present study were from high income households seemed to be reasonable since one must have a fairly high level of disposable income in order to become a donor for a university athletic team. Ratings of economic factors highlighted this point. Those in the lowest level of income rated all of the economic factors as being more important concerns than those from the two higher income levels. At the same time, the fans in the lowest income range rated loyalty as being more important than the other two groups. In addition, they perceived the importance of such motives as Last Year's Record, Star Players, and the Outlook for the Season as less important than those in the middle and high income ranges. Thus, it appeared that individuals with lower incomes were motivated by a high level of loyalty rather than team quality and performance. It would be expected that their loyalty is very high as season ticket holders, which is compounded by their economic constraints and donor status. It is likely that it is this type of fans who would cheer for the team and attend games even when the team's fortune is down. Consequently, it would be advisable for college athletic administrators to reward these people on a regular basis.

The finding regarding the high level of loyalty for lower income fans as season ticket holders is partially supported by Cage (1989) who found that people of lower income levels tended not only to spend less money on sporting events than wealthy people, but also spend a lower percentage of total income. Therefore, only the extremely loyal fans would spend a large portion of their income on a season ticket package.

Family Size. Respondents from a family of one or two members had a higher probability of holding a season ticket package than those from the other family size groups. The respondents in this category rated the motives in Economic Factors and Social Factors lower than did the respondents from the other categories. It might be true that the respondents of this group had few dependents to support and thus, would be financially capable in purchasing a season ticket package, and also have low concern for social factors. Conversely, larger families are likely to have members who do not contribute to the income of the family, and therefore they tend to stress the importance of both Economic and Social Factors in maintaining a season ticket package.

Driving Time to Home Games. The four categories of driving time were: 30 minutes or less, 31-60 minutes, 61-120 minutes, and 120 minutes or more. Respondents driving more than one hour to the university's game also attended high school basketball significantly more than the rest groups. This may demonstrate the individuals' enthusiasm toward the sport of basketball and the distance is not a deterrent for this group of people to determine if they purchase a season ticket package. In addition, a further examination of data revealed a large number of respondents drove less than 60 minutes to home games, with the largest single group being in the category of 31-60 minutes. This indicates that the largest group of fans lived in or around the major city, which is 20 miles from the university's basketball arena. The factor of distance convenience seems to apply to basketball games that are often played during the week. This may be compounded by the fact that basketball games typically last under two hours. Not surprisingly, It was also found that fans driving more than two hours seemed to display the highest level of loyalty. Those willing to drive 1-2 hours to games, were the group of oldest individuals on average. Perhaps they had more spare leisure time to spend traveling to games. Likewise, this group of fans were also most likely to attend university football games. As can be expected, those in the less than 60 minute driving time ranges appeared most likely to attend other local major sporting events.

There are other possible reasons available which may help to explain the motivations of fans who live near the arena, as well as the motivations of those who live further away. Melnick's (1993) theory of sports spectating asserted that part of the reason for fans attending games has to do with the increasing pressures of urbanization. While more and more strangers seem to be thrust into our everyday lives, the opportunity to develop close social ties with friends, family, and neighbors is actually becoming more difficult. Stadiums and sports arenas, then, have become avenues for improving people's socio-psychological lives. This seems to be supported by the data in the present study. Those traveling the longest distances appeared to place less importance on social factors than those living closer to the metropolitan area near the university. Perhaps those people traveling the furthest distance have not experienced the pressures of urbanization as much, and therefore did not need basketball games to improve their social lives. Rather, it would seem that they were more motivated by their high level of loyalty to both the University and the sport of basketball as well.

The high level of loyalty of those traveling long distances may be further explained by the fact that they are not around the college atmosphere as often as those living closer to the university. Therefore, the urge to experience the college atmosphere may become stronger while they are away, and thus, buying basketball season tickets becomes a way that they may return and experience the excitement surrounding university life. This is also evidenced in studies by Schurr et al. (1985) and Schurr et al. (1987) which found that students who were from home towns far away from the university would more likely attend basketball games. The authors explained this by pointing out that due to the long distance they had lived from the university, they had little opportunity in the past to experience the excitement of the college community. When they finally became a part of it, they likely felt compelled to engage in such university activities as basketball games. The enthusiasm and loyalty of this group of students is likely very comparable to the enthusiasm and loyalty experienced by season ticket holders living a long distance from the arena in this study.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The factor analysis procedure used in this study identified five constructs of perceived motives influencing the decision to hold a season ticket package. Of these constructs, concerns in Economic Factors, Athletic Event, and Team Success are vital for fans to purchase a season ticket package. One-way ANOVA's revealed numerous significant differences between sub-groups of season ticket holder/donors based on varying demographic characteristics. Female season ticket holders demonstrated a stronger loyalty to the team and had a higher ratings on Social Factors than males. Fans under 40 years of age viewed Social Factors viable in purchasing season tickets, and showed the highest level of loyalty, while individuals between 41-50 years of age displayed the strongest interest in the team winning record. Not surprisingly, individuals of low household income prioritized economic factors over team success and loyalty. Fans from a family of one or two members were more likely to hold a season ticket package because of their affordability, while fans from a larger family purchased the package primarily for their social needs.

This study has investigated numerous factors and demographic effects influencing the decision to hold a season ticket for a university basketball team. However, the authors believe that other variables also may contribute to the decision of purchasing season tickets, and they have not been included in the survey. It is obviously impossible for any single instrument to include all variables, and some of the motives are also idiosyncratic and ever-changing that makes it even more difficult to capture the nature of them at one time. Despite these limitations, the results of this study are believed to be helpful in better understanding those motives contributing to the decision to become a season ticket holder/donor for the university basketball. Consequently, athletic administrators can enhance and improve their current business plan for basketball in order to attract more people to become season ticket holders/donors.

In the future, similar research should be conducted on those basketball fans who attend games but do not purchase season tickets, as well as on those season ticket holders who are not donors so that comparisons can be made between groups. It would be also beneficial to collect data from similar football fans to better understand their decision process, and compare the results with these of this study. Fans of professional sports teams could also serve as another possible study group. Perhaps most important, research should be conducted on those people who attend other forms of entertainment events other than sport events so that the determinant variables for attending a sport event may be better understood at a conceptual level.

References

Cage, R. (1989). Spending differences across occupational fields. Monthly Labor Review, 112, (2), 33-43.

Duncan, M.C. (1983). The symbolic dimensions of spectator sport. Quest, 35, 29-36.

Frazier, J.A., & Snyder, E.E. (1991). The underdog concept in sport. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8, 380-388.

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

Kennedy, R. (1980). More Victories Equals More Fans Equals More Profits, Right? Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. Sports Illustrated, 52, 34-45.

Mashiach, A. (1980). A study to determine the factors which influence American spectators to go to see the Summer Olympics in Montreal, 1976. Journal of Sport Behavior, 3, (1), 16-28.

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

Mullin, B.J., Hardy, S., & Sutton, W. (1993). Sport marketing. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Murrell, A.J., & Dietz, B. (1992). Fan support of sport teams: The effect of a common group identity. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 14, 28-39.

Pan, D.W., & Baker, J. (1995). Gender differences in positioning intercollegiate men's sports and value differentiation. Manuscript prepared in Norman, OK: The University of Oklahoma.

Schofield, J.A. (1983). Performance and attendance at professional team sports. Journal of Sport Behavior, 6, (4), 196-206.

Schurr, K.T., Ruble, V.E., & Ellen, A.S. (1985). Myers-Briggs type inventory and demographic characteristics of students attending and not attending a college basketball game. Journal of Sport Behavior, 8, (4), 181-194.

Schurr, K.T., Wittig, A.F., Ruble, V.E., & Ellen, A.S. (1987). Demographic and personality characteristics associated with persistent, occasional, and non-attendance of university male basketball games by college students. Journal of Sport Behavior, 11, (1), 3-17.

Schwartz, M.J. (1973). Causes and effects of spectator sports. International Review of Sport Sociology, 3, (8), 25-45.

Smith Muniz, C.L. (1988). Women and sports. Sports inc., 1, (3), 16-22.

Spreitzer, E., & Snyder, E. (1975). The psychosocial functions of sport as perceived by the general population. International Review of Sport Sociology, 3-4, (10), 87-95.