An examination of fantasy sport participation motives and substitution versus attendance intention.
Larkin, Ben
Introduction
Fantasy sports have become an increasingly pervasive and ubiquitous
phenomenon over the last decade. According to the Fantasy Sports Trade
Association (FSTA), there were 36 million fantasy sport players in the
United States and Canada in 2013, who on average spent approximately $95
annually on league-related costs (Fantasy Sports Trade Association,
2013). In fact, the FSTA has reported that $1.67 billion was spent on
the activity in 2012, a sum representing more than a 100% increase from
that which was spent on the activity just four years earlier (Rogers,
2013). In short, the fantasy sport consumer segment represents a very
robust, growing, and thus coveted segment of sport consumer.
It has been suggested that fantasy sport participation (hereafter
FSP) has cultivated a new, highly involved sport consumer who demands
interactivity and real-time information combined with the more
traditional, old-fashioned consumption behaviors associated with
professional sport spectatorship (Dwyer & Kim, 2011; Shipman, 2001).
Indeed, while the literature has largely been content to conclude that
FSP leads to heightened consumption through media (Drayer, Shapiro,
Dwyer, Morse, & White, 2010, Dwyer, Shapiro, & Drayer, 2011), it
has also suggested these fans attend more events (Drayer et al., 2010;
Shipman, 2001), a paradox with critical research implications.
Pritchard and Funk (2006) explained that sport media consumption
has become a predominant mode of consumption in recent years, finding
that there is a growing segment that is substituting for attendance
behavior by consuming exclusively through media. In a recent poll
published in SportsBusiness Journal, Luker (2012) reported that this
trend is among the top concerns among sport industry practitioners, as
even events as high profile as National Football League playoff games
have suffered from sparse ticket sales (Schwab, 2014). While fantasy
sport is thought to be a major culprit in this movement, the paradoxical
suggestions from past literature suggest it may not be that simple, and
a better understanding of this phenomenon can afford practitioners the
opportunity to tackle the intensifying issue of substitution through
media. Underlying the uncertainty surrounding fantasy sport users'
consumption behavior is the fact that, to this point, the literature
lacks a comprehensive explanation of precisely what type of product is
being consumed by the millions of people worldwide who participate in
the activity.
Dwyer et al. (2011) segmented fantasy sport users (hereafter FSUs)
based on motives for participating in the activity and modes of sport
media consumption; however, the extant literature has not examined
whether consumption patterns beyond media may differ depending on the
individual's motives for participating in the activity. Given the
notion that FSUs are a highly involved segment with a wide range of
consumption habits (e.g., Drayer et al., 2010; Shipman, 2001), this is
an area that warrants further exploration. Accordingly, the purpose of
this study was twofold. First, it sought to establish a three-tier
definition of the fantasy sport product as a means of better
understanding the complex nature of what fantasy sport consumption truly
entails. This definition served as a platform for the study's
second purpose, which was to determine whether an individual's
sport consumption patterns differ depending on their motives for FSP.
Specifically, the study applied cognitive evaluation theory to explore
the relationships between implicit and explicit motives and the two
predominant modes of consumption central to the phenomenon of
substitution through media (i.e., watching at home versus attending).
Literature Review
Fantasy Sport: A Three-Tier Product Definition
Fantasy sports have emerged as a preeminent consumption option for
a growing number of sport consumers. "Defined as an ancillary sport
service, heavily associated with real-world sport statistics, fantasy
sport participation is primarily an online activity that is completely
customizable, interactive, and involves nearly every major professional
sport, from the National Football League (NFL) to NASCAR" (Dwyer
& Drayer, 2010, p. 207). For consumers, the activity provides a
hybrid experience, whereby participatory and spectator sport are fused
into a unique and distinct sport consumption option (Lee, Seo, &
Green, 2013). Early work on the phenomenon has served to describe
basically what fantasy sport is; however, a comprehensive explanation of
the type of sport product that is actually being consumed has yet to be
established.
What follows is a three-tier definition of the fantasy sport
product (i.e., core product, actual product, and augmented product). The
core product is reflected in the intangible benefit(s) the product
provides (Armstrong & Kotler, 1999). This is similar in nature to
the service potential embedded within a good from the Vargo and Lusch
(2004) service dominant logic of marketing. At its core, fantasy sport
provides an array of benefits to FSUs. As will be discussed later, the
motives for participating reflect many of these benefits. For example,
it provides quality entertainment at low or no cost, the opportunity to
escape from the hassles of daily life, opportunities for social
interaction with friends and family, opportunities to compete and prove
sport knowledge superiority over other participants, and potentially a
substitute should one's favorite team suffer a losing season.
Therefore, while unique and distinct from traditional spectator sport,
fantasy sport offers many of the same core benefits, but can also serve
to fill the void for those whose needs are not being met by traditional
spectator sport. In this way, FSP can be thought of as a complement to
traditional spectator sport consumption (Dwyer, 2011).
It seems, then, that at its core, fantasy sport can be thought of
as a serious leisure activity. As Stebbins (2001) explained, serious
leisure offers uncommon rewards and benefits for participants. Defined
as the "steady pursuit of an amateur, hobbyist, or career volunteer
activity that captivates its participants with its complexity and many
challenges," serious leisure stands in contrast to casual leisure,
which contains no such challenges or complexities and is generally
short-lived and merely intrinsically pleasurable (Stebbins, 2001, p.
54). Serious leisure is thus quite satisfying and offers a full
existence. Like causal leisure, pleasure can be derived by such
pursuits, but it is often less important than the potential rewards
offered, be they social or otherwise. Indeed, fantasy sport offers an
array of benefits and rewards, some of which are intrinsic in nature
(e.g., hedonic value, social interaction, bonding, etc.), while others
are more of the extrinsic variety, including prizes, the opportunity to
prove knowledge superiority, and competition (Lee et al., 2013).
Therefore, from a core product standpoint, fantasy sport can be thought
of as a serious leisure activity offering an array of intrinsic and
extrinsic benefits to participants.
The core product stands in contrast to the actual product, which is
more tangible and physical in nature (Armstrong & Kotler, 1999).
Farquhar and Meeds (2007) described the physical fantasy sport product
in the following passage:
A fantasy sports league is made up of a dozen or
so participants who compete against each other
based on statistics from real-world competitions.
Fantasy leagues normally begin with a draft of
some sort, where owners either select players or are
randomly assigned players. During a sport's season,
points are generated for each of the participants'
"teams" based on real-world performances
of the owners' players. (p. 1208)
Indeed, fantasy sport is based on real-world competition, and the
actual product can thus be thought of as a simulation of the analogous
real-world competition. As Dalgarno (2001) explained, "typically a
simulation is defined as a model of a real world environment" (p.
186). In other words, for fantasy sport players, the real on-field
competition is represented by a model that is made up of the real-time
calculation of point values via the fantasy sport service provider. For
example, when a National Football League running back scores a
touchdown, FSUs who own that player will be assigned a point value
developed by the fantasy sport service provider to represent the scoring
of the touchdown. Thus, put in the most simplistic terms, the actual
product being consumed by FSUs is a simulation of real-world sport
competition.
Such activity typically takes place within a fantasy sport league
interface supplied by one of a plethora of fantasy sport service
providers (e.g., Yahoo! Sports, ESPN, etc.). This interface represents a
one-stop shop for participants to draft their team, set their lineups,
keep track of scores and standings, etc., and thus-consistent with
Armstrong and Kotler's (1999) conception of the augmented
product--can be understood to reflect the added value or support for the
actual product. The purpose of the augmented product is to tailor the
actual product and its benefits to the needs of the consumer (Armstrong
& Kotler, 1999). The features of the augmented product can in turn
become benefits for consumers. The augmented fantasy sport product is
reflected not just in the fantasy sport league interface, but in the
various media outlets that serve as support services for fantasy sport
performance. Websites like Rotoworld that contain advanced statistics,
trade analyzers, projections, and recommendations, as well as television
programs like ESPN's Fantasy Football Now, which features fantasy
football experts' rankings, advice, projections, and real-time
injury updates on Sunday morning, serve to support the performance of
FSUs. Such services can serve to tailor the actual and core consumption
of fantasy sport to the needs of participants. For example, as
previously mentioned, the ability to compete and prove one's sport
knowledge is superior to that of their competitors are potential
extrinsic benefits of fantasy sport. The support services making up the
augmented product can serve to tailor fantasy sport consumption for
those with a need to compete and prove knowledge superiority.
In brief, fantasy sport can be thought of as a three-tier product
whereby core benefits of the actual fantasy sport product are manifest
through the value added by the augmented product. Connecting the three
tiers of the fantasy sport product are the needs of FSUs, which are
reflected in their motives for FSP. Accordingly, a thorough review of
motives will be conducted in the subsequent section.
Fantasy Sport Participation Motivation
In 2000, the Sport & Entertainment Academy at Indiana
University conducted the first study on fantasy sport participation
motivation. The research found friendship and fun to be the top two
motives for fantasy sport consumption, with thrill of competition and
passing time also noted. Years later, Lomax's (2006) declaration
that the fantasy sport topic lacked academic writing spawned a series of
instruments designed to measure motivation for participation in fantasy
sport. Farquhar and Meeds (2007) reported that Entertainment, Escape,
Social Interaction, Surveillance, and Arousal represent the primary
motives for FSP, results that were consistent with many aspects of past
sport spectator literature (e.g., Trail & James, 2001; Wann, 1995).
Surveillance was representative of information gathering, statistical
analysis, and observation of real-world sport events. Interestingly,
individuals motivated by surveillance viewed fantasy sport as a game of
skill, whereas those motivated by arousal saw it as a game of chance.
Further, the latter segment was less involved and invested less time and
money in the activity. Subsequent years produced further examination of
the motivations behind FSP (Dwyer & Kim, 2011; Ruihley & Hardin,
2011; Spinda & Haraidakis, 2008; Suh, Lim, Kwak, & Pedersen,
2010). Suh et al., (2010) followed up the work of Farquhar and Meeds
(2007) by providing further examination of fantasy football
participation through the lens of the uses & gratifications theory
(i.e., Katz, Blumler, & Gurevitch, 1974). They found participation
in fantasy sport to be a gratification behavior motivated by Economic
Gains, Social Interaction, Escape, Fantasy, Achievement, and the Pursuit
of Knowledge. While consistent with Suh et al. (2010) on many factors
(e.g., Social Interaction, Pursuit of Knowledge/Surveillance,
Achievement), Ruihley and Hardin (2011) found additional factors such as
Fanship and Competition to be most impactful in explaining the
motivation to participate in fantasy sport. In comparison to other
research (Ruihley & Hardin, 2011; Suh et al., 2010), Dwyer and Kim
(2011) produced a more parsimonious instrument suitable for the
measurement of fantasy football participation motives. The final
instrument included just three factors (e.g., Social Interaction,
Entertainment/Escape, and Competition).
Much of the aforementioned work (e.g., Dwyer & Kim, 2011;
Farquhar & Meeds, 2007; Suh et al., 2010) was limited in the sense
that they assumed fantasy sport to represent a form of sport fanship. As
such, they restricted the item pool to factors that had been identified
in past work on sport spectator motivation. Spinda and Haradakis (2008),
however, engaged in a more comprehensive approach, where they drew on
prior research on media-use, interpersonal, and sport fan motivation.
This work produced six motives (Ownership, Achievement/Self-Esteem,
Escape/Pass Time, Socialization, Bragging Rights, and Amusement). The
addition of Bragging Rights was a major contribution of the study, as
this was previously unidentified in the past work. This factor referred
to an individual's ability to show their victory and win money.
In 2013, Lee et al. produced the Fantasy Sport Motivation Inventory
(FanSMI), an instrument designed to encompass the range of dimensions
beyond fanship and spectator motivations that the authors asserted are
inherent to FSP. They noted that although Spinda and Haradakis (2008)
acknowledged this idea, they still failed to include the participatory
elements of fantasy sport that may be reflected in the literature on
motivation for sport participation. Thus, Lee et al. (2013) reviewed
this relevant literature stream as well as the aforementioned sport
spectator literature, research dealing with online sport consumption,
gambling motivation, sport video gaming motivation, and the previous
work on fantasy sport motivation. Their argument was that all of these
various literatures had strong ties that were largely overlooked in the
extant literature. The researchers even went beyond past literature
streams and conducted a qualitative survey of FSUs on fantasy sport
service providers' message boards, asking them simply: Why do you
participate in fantasy sport? Their final instrument included many of
the same motives identified in the previous literature, including
Competition, Escape, and Social Interaction. Their work, however,
included some differences and some new factors not covered in the extant
literature. The final product encompassed 12 dimensions of FSP
motivation, including: (1) Game Interest, (2) Becoming a General
Manager/Head Coach, (3) Love for the Sport, (4) Prize, (5) Competition,
(6) Entertainment Value, (7) Bonding with Friends/Family, (8) Social
Interaction with Other Participants, (9) Knowledge Application, (10)
Hedonic Experience, (11) Escape, and (12) Substitute for a Losing Team
(see Table 1 for a summary of Lee et al.'s factors as well as
common FSP motives across various studies).
Implicit and Explicit Motivation
The purpose of Lee et al.'s (2013) work was to provide further
understanding of the critical motives for FSP as well as evidence of the
reliability of their set of motives and preliminary evidence of
concurrent validity. However, although they measured the correlations
between the motives and fantasy sport involvement, information seeking,
and spending, little is known about the applicability of any of the
factors in relation to FSUs' game consumption behavior. In
addition, while the sport spectator literature has developed a taxonomy
classifying motives as either internal "push" or external
environmental "pull" factors (Trail & James, 2012),
fantasy sport motivation literature has largely failed to methodically
categorize the motives. To that end, the conceptualization of implicit
and explicit motives from social psychology research appears to pertain
to this context. Implicit motives are related to unconscious (Maslow,
1943) and basic (Deci & Ryan, 2000) needs and they are
subconsciously rather than consciously aroused (McClelland, 1985;
McClelland, Koestner, & Weinberger, 1989). They often result in
pleasurable behavior (McClelland et al., 1989) that is largely
independent of social demands (McClelland, 1985). Like implicit motives,
factors such as game interest, entertainment value, bonding with friends
and family, social interaction with other participants, love for sport,
and escape from routine are largely independent of social demands such
as successful performance, and thus are largely satisfied within the
individual simply from the pleasure derived from participating in
fantasy sport. Explicit motives, on the other hand, are more
representative of the rationale people attach to their behavior
(McClelland et al., 1989). Unlike implicit motives they are greatly
impacted by social demands and normative pressures (McClelland, 1985).
Motives such as becoming a general manager/head coach, knowledge
application, competition, prize, and substitute for a losing team are
all contingent upon performance and thus are satisfied (extrinsically)
outside the individual. For example, while social interaction with other
participants is largely a reflection of an individual's inherent
need for love and belonging (e.g., Maslow, 1943) and thus occurs within
the person, the competition motive occurs outside the person through
opposition to other participants and is largely contingent upon
performance, thus having ties to external rewards (Lee et al., 2013). It
seems such a distinction may have critical implications for FSUs'
consumption behavior. This idea will be discussed in the subsequent
section.
Fantasy Sport and Media Consumption
The notion that in fantasy sport contexts, sport media consumption
is for the purpose of information gathering (Drayer et al., 2010),
indicates that sport media consumption serves as a support mechanism for
fantasy sport performance. Consistent with this idea, Lee et al. (2013)
found that performance contingent motives such as Competition, Prize,
Knowledge Application, Becoming a General Manager/Head Coach, Game
Interest, and Substitute for a Losing Team were significantly correlated
with information-seeking behaviors of FSUs. In contrast, motives
unrelated to performance had lower correlations (i.e., Social
Interaction) or were not significantly correlated (i.e., Bonding with
Friends and Family, Escape, and Entertainment Value) with FSUs'
information-seeking behavior. While the remaining motive unrelated to
performance (i.e., Love for Sport) was significantly correlated with
information seeking, this is not surprising given this motive suggests
high levels of importance given to the sport.
Theoretical Framework
Cognitive evaluation theory (CET) explains that individuals have
the tendency to feel more constrained in behavioral contexts involving
extrinsic rewards (Deci, 1975). In these situations, they perceive the
locus of causality to be external and feel less self-determining in
their behavior. Indeed, FSP motivated by performance contingent
(Explicit) motives is characterized by an extrinsic reward structure. In
essence, CET suggests that individuals highly motivated by these factors
would feel compelled to consume sport events through immediate and
varied forms of media (e.g., Twitter, injury reports, real-time game
stats, NFL Satellite packages, etc.) as a means of increasing their
likelihood of successfully satisfying these performance contingent
(explicit) motives. On the other hand, CET also explains that behavioral
contexts characterized by a lack of strong external rewards enable
individuals to feel less constrained. In these situations, individuals
maintain a more internal perception of the locus of causality and feel
more self-determining. It follows that FSUs motivated to participate in
fantasy sport by less performance contingent (implicit) motives reflect
FSP motivation independent of external control and rewards. Therefore,
FSUs motivated by these factors will feel less compelled to support
their fantasy performance through media consumption, and if given the
chance, would be more likely to attend sport events in person rather
than consume them at home. Accordingly, the following two hypotheses are
presented:
H1: FSUs motivated by performance contingent (Explicit) motives
will be more likely to consume sport events at home even if given the
chance to attend in person.
H2: FSUs motivated by less performance contingent (Implicit)
motives will be more likely to attend a game if given the choice between
staying home and attending the event.
The Role of Team Identification
Social identity theory holds that individuals are spurred by the
need for high self-esteem, satisfied in part by membership in social
groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Consistent with this notion, Dwyer
and Drayer (2010) found that, given the option, heavy FSUs are apt to
associate more strongly with their favorite team than their fantasy
team. Viewed through social identity theory (e.g., Tajfel & Turner,
1979), literature on highly identified sport fans has long held that
they have a higher propensity to attend games (Wann, Melnick, Russell,
& Pease, 2001). This is due in part to the fact that this is the
primary venue by which one can publicly display their association with
their favorite team, via the wearing of team merchandise and vocal
expression of support during the game (Fisher & Wakefield, 1998).
Moreover, the live atmosphere comes with the benefit of having the
greatest number of in-group members in the same location at one time. In
addition, team identification has been found to increase the strength of
the relationship between motives and attendance intention (Kim, Trail,
& Magnusen, 2013). Therefore, it would be expected that FSUs who are
more highly identified with a particular team would be more apt to
attend if given the chance in deference to their favorite team rather
than their fantasy team. Furthermore, because they are not as motivated
by explicit motives, those motivated by implicit motives and high on
team identification should be most likely to attend (see Figure 1 for an
illustration of proposed relationships).
H3: The relationship between both (a) Implicit Motives and (b)
Explicit Motives and Intention to Watch at Home will be reduced for
those high on Team Identification.
H4: The relationship between both (a) Implicit Motives and (b)
Explicit Motives and Attendance Intention will be increased for those
high on Team Identification.
Methods
The target population for the study was current FSUs 18 years of
age and older. A sample of 320 FSUs was recruited from fantasy sport
blogs, message boards, social media groups, and fantasy baseball live
drafts to complete a questionnaire consisting of the fantasy sport
motives, behavioral measures, and demographic information. The sample
consisted of 91% males with an average age of 30.2 years old. Items were
measured using a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree). Lee et al.'s (2013) FanSMI was used, which
consisted of 12 subscales with three items each; however, the Hedonic
Value subscale was excluded from the study, as it was considered far too
general for the purpose of this study. That is, the hedonic motive is
related to the pleasure, fun, and enjoyment one derives from playing
fantasy sport; however, it does not ascertain why the activity is
considered fun and enjoyable. One could find the activity pleasurable
because they like to compete, win prizes, and prove their superior sport
knowledge (explicit motives), or their pleasure could stem from bonding
with friends and family or socializing with other participants (implicit
motives).
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
The remaining 11 subscales in this study displayed strong
psychometric properties and evidence of convergent validity, with alpha
coefficients ranging from .818 to .887 and average variance explained
(AVE) values ranging from .605 to .725, and evidence of discriminant
validity in past research (Lee et al., 2013). Team Identification was
measured using the Attachment to Team subscale from the Points of
Attachment Index (e.g., Robinson, Trail, & Kwon, 2004). Behavioral
measures (dependent variables) were adapted from Trail and James (2012).
Participants responded to single items such as "I am likely to
attend future games," or "I am likely to watch future games at
home," in relation to a root statement that read "Given the
choice between attending and watching at home ..."
Results
The study employed the two-step modeling approach, using maximum
likelihood estimation to first assess the fit of the measurement model
through a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) before proceeding to assess
the structural model. Subsequently, a multi-group CFA was conducted
before assessing whether the hypothesized paths differed across groups,
as was hypothesized in H3 and H4. Prior to the assessment of the
measurement model, normality of distribution was assessed through an
examination of the skewness and kurtosis of the data. All values were
within the [+ or -] 2.58 range for skewness and [+ or -] 2.56 range for
kurtosis recommended by Hair, Black, Babin, and Anderson (2009) and thus
could be considered normally distributed.
The measurement model was first assessed through a 1st order CFA
using Mplus 5.1 and exhibited the following fit statistics [RMSEA =
.038, CFI = .972, TLI = .967, SRMR = .035, and [chi square]/df ratio =
(771.107/528 = 1.46)], indicating good model fit, as the [chi square]/df
ratio fell below 3.0 (Bollen, 1989; Kline, 2011), the TLI and CFI were
both above .90, SRMR was less than .08, and RMSEA fell below .06 (Hu
& Bentler, 1999). Subsequently, a 2nd order CFA was conducted where
the 1st order factors were loaded onto 2nd order Implicit Motive (e.g.,
Bonding with Friends and Family, Entertainment Value, Social
Interaction, Love for Sport, and Escape) and Explicit Motive (e.g., Game
Interest, Becoming a GM/HC, Knowledge Application, Competition, Prize,
and Substitute for a Losing Team) variables. The model exhibited the
following fit statistics [RMSEA = .040, CFI = .967, TLI = .964, SRMR =
.057, and [chi square]/df ratio = (872.521/580 = 1.50)], again
indicating good model fit per widely accepted SEM guidelines (e.g.,
Bollen, 1989; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2011). Further, all
standardized factor loadings ranged between .777 and .967 for the 1st
order latent variables and between .401 and .723 on the 2nd order
Implicit and Explicit Motive latent variables, with the exception of
just one that fell below .40 (see Table 2 for the psychometric
properties of the variables). Therefore, convergent validity was
demonstrated. Further, with no squared correlations between latent
variables exceeding the AVE values of the subscales, and with the factor
loadings exceeding the correlations between the latent variables,
evidence of discriminant validity was exhibited (Fornell & Larcker,
1981; see Table 3 for the correlations among 1st order latent
variables). Since the measurement model was shown to represent a good
fit to the data, the analyses proceeded to assess the structural model.
The structural model exhibited the following fit statistics [RMSEA =
.045, CFI = .953, TLI = .949, SRMR = .059, and [chi square]/df ratio =
(892.290/545 = 1.64)], indicating slightly worse, but still good model
fit.
Evaluating Hypotheses 1 & 2
In H1 it was predicted that FSUs motivated by Explicit Motives
would be more apt to watch sport events at home than attend if given the
choice. Results of the analysis indicated that Explicit Motives had an
insignificant relationship with Attendance Intention (P= -.095, p =
.180) and a significant positive relationship with Intention to Watch at
Home (P= .204, p = .003). Therefore, H1 was supported. In H2 it was
predicted that FSUs motivated by Implicit Motives would be more apt to
attend live sport events than watch them at home. Results of the
analysis indicated that Implicit Motives had an insignificant
relationship with both Attendance Intention ([beta]= .101, p = .161) and
Intention to Watch at Home ([beta]= -.089, p = .198). Therefore, H2 was
not supported.
Evaluating Hypotheses 3 & 4
To test the moderating effect of Team Identification on the effect
of Implicit and Explicit Motives on consumption intentions, a
multi-group SEM was conducted where Team Identification levels were
split up into two groups (i.e., high and low) and the model was assessed
accordingly. Participants who assessed Team Identification at the
midpoint (4 on a 7-point scale) and below were placed in the low group
(M = 2.33) and those who assessed Team Identification above the midpoint
were placed in the high group (M = 6.40). Results of a t-test indicated
that the means of the two groups were indeed significantly different (t
= -36.414, p < .001). Prior to the assessment of the multi-group
structural model, a multi-group CFA was conducted and exhibited the
following fit statistics [RMSEA = .056, CFI = .929, TLI = .923, SRMR =
.078, and [chi square]/df ratio = (1629.725/1090 = 1.50)], indicating
reasonably good model fit.
In H3 it was predicted that the relationship between both Implicit
and Explicit Motives and Intention to Watch at Home would be reduced for
those high on Team Identification, while in H4 it was predicted that the
relationship between both Implicit and Explicit Motives and Attendance
Intention would be increased for those high on Team Identification. The
multigroup structural model exhibited the following fit statistics
[RMSEA = .056, CFI = .927, TLI = .923, SRMR = .080, and [chi square]/df
ratio = (1678.496/1123 = 1.49). Furthermore, the [chi square] difference
was significant (p < .01), indicating significant differences across
groups. To examine where these significant differences occurred, the
paths were examined for both low and high Team Identification groups.
The relationship between Implicit Motives and Intention to Watch at Home
for those low on Team Identification was not significant ([beta] = .135,
p = .217), whereas the relationship between Implicit Motives and
Intention to Watch at Home for those high on Team Identification was
significantly negative ([beta] = -.193, p = .025). Thus, in support of
H3a, the relationship between Implicit Motives and Intention to Watch at
Home was significantly reduced for those high on Team Identification.
With regard to H3b, the relationship between Explicit Motives and
Intention to Watch at Home was positive and significant for those both
low ([beta] = .253, p = .013) and high ([beta] = .211, p = .020) on Team
Identification. Therefore, while the paths were significant, they were
not significantly different across groups, and thus H3b was not
supported. With respect to H4a, the relationship between Implicit
Motives and Attendance Intention was not significant for those low on
Team Identification ([beta] = .162, p = .140), but was positive and
significant for those high on Team Identification ([beta] = .195, p =
.023). Thus, in support of H4a, the relationship between Implicit
Motives and Attendance Intention was significantly increased for those
high on Team Identification. Finally, with respect to H4b, the
relationship between Explicit Motives and Attendance Intention for low
Team Identification was not significant ([beta]= -.058, p = .581);
however, interestingly, the relationship between Explicit Motives and
Attendance Intention for those high on Team Identification was
significantly negative ([beta]= -.196, p = .031). Therefore, while the
results were significantly different across groups, the relationship
between Explicit Motives and Attendance Intention was significantly
reduced for those high on Team Identification. Thus, H4b was not
supported (see Table 4 for the results of all paths hypothesized in the
study).
To help ensure that the results of the study were not inflated by
common methods variance, the marker variable technique was used (e.g.,
Lindell & Whitney, 2001). Specifically, the correlations between
age, a variable theoretically unrelated to all others in the study, and
the other variables were measured. Results indicated that none of the
correlations were significant, save for one marginally significant
correlation between age and Social Interaction (r = .125, p = .026),
thus instilling confidence that the results were not inflated due to
common methods variance.
Discussion
Results of the current study provide initial support for the use of
CET as a lens with which to examine whether FSUs' intention to
substitute media for attendance differs depending on motives for FSP.
FSUs motivated to participate in fantasy sport by Explicit Motives, a
context constrained by an extrinsic reward structure (Deci, 1975),
showed a significant intention to consume sport events at home given the
choice between watching at home and attending. Indeed, it is evident
that individuals highly motivated by these explicit factors feel
compelled to consume sport events at home where they are supported by
immediate and varied media, giving them a heightened chance of
successfully satisfying these performance contingent (explicit) motives.
Deci (1975) also posits that contexts lacking an external reward
structure enable individuals to feel less constrained. Therefore, given
that FSP motivated by Implicit Motives is independent of external
controls and rewards, it was expected that FSUs motivated by these
factors would feel less compelled to support performance through media,
and thus attend sport events if given the choice between watching at
home and attending. Nevertheless, no significant relationship was found
between Implicit Motives and Attendance Intention on the full sample of
FSUs. While unexpected, the finding does seem logical. CET explains that
in externally controlled behavioral contexts involving extrinsic
rewards, individuals have the tendency to perceive the locus of
causality to be external and feel less self-determining in their
behavior (Deci, 1975). In contrast, behavioral contexts characterized by
a lack of strong external controls and rewards enable individuals to
maintain a more internal perception of the locus of causality and to
feel more self-determining. Thus, although explicitly motivated FSUs
feel less self-determining and more constrained to consume at home,
where they can satisfy these performance-contingent motives, implicitly
motivated FSUs feel more self-determining and less constrained. That
they are more self-determining may not necessarily mean they would
prefer to attend, as some implicitly motivated FSUs may simply prefer to
watch at home due to reasons beyond supporting their fantasy sport
performance. Overall, Explicit Motives were considered at least
marginally important to participants (mean greater than 4 on a 1 to 7
scale), while Implicit Motives were slightly less important, falling
just below the mid-point (see Table 5 for a list of means and standard
deviations).
Where there was a significant relationship between Implicit Motives
and Attendance Intention was for those FSUs who were highly identified
with their favorite team. Consistent with Dwyer and Drayer (2010), it
appears these FSUs maintained their association with their favorite team
over their fantasy team. The results are also consistent with the body
of literature that has consistently found highly identified fans to show
distinct behavioral patterns from those low on identification, most
notably a higher propensity to attend games (Fisher & Wakefield,
1998; Wann et al., 2001). Nevertheless, these patterns did not hold for
those explicitly motivated to participate in fantasy sport, as
relationships between Explicit Motives and Attendance Intention were
insignificant for those low on Team Identification, and actually were
significantly negative for those high on Team Identification. It seems,
then, that while these individuals do indeed attach high levels of
importance to their favorite team, they prefer to consume the team at
home, where they can also simultaneously bolster their fantasy sport
performance. Past research has portrayed FSP as an enhancement vehicle
(e.g., Dwyer, 2011) for or complement (e.g., Dwyer et al., 2011) to
traditional consumption rather than as a mechanism contributing to
substitution through media. Results of the current study suggest that
this may be the case for those implicitly motivated for FSP, but FSP
spurred by explicit motives could be contributing to a growing trend of
substitution through media, even for fans who are quite highly involved,
as was suggested by Pritchard and Funk (2006). Therefore, it is evident
that with regard to explicit motivation, the tenets of CET hold even for
those high on team identification. With respect to work on FSP
motivation (e.g., Dwyer & Kim, 2011; Lee et al., 2013), the current
work provides initial evidence of a potential 2nd order classification
of fantasy sport motives. Consistent with motivation literature from
social psychology (e.g., McClelland, 1985; McClelland et al., 1989), it
is evident that performance contingent (explicit) motives hang together
distinctly from less performance contingent (implicit) motives. This
represents a new way to think about fantasy sport motivation grounded in
literature from social psychology.
Despite the significant paths, the motives failed to explain a
practically meaningful amount of variance in the endogenous variables.
For example, the path between Explicit Motives and Intention to Watch at
Home was significant at p < .01, but this explained just 4.1% of the
variance in Intention to Watch at Home. The two exogenous variables
explained just 4.9% of the variance in Intention to Watch at Home, while
they explained just 1.9% of the variance in Attendance Intention.
However, this should be interpreted relative to the context of other
sport spectator research; that is, research on spectator motives has
never explained a high amount of variance in attendance intentions (Kim
et al., 2013). Given that this study sought to explore the relationship
between fantasy sport motives and consumption intentions, it is not
particularly surprising that a limited amount of variance was explained.
To that end, although the study explained only a limited amount of
variance in the endogenous variables, it was successful in accomplishing
its primary objectives. Following from the three-tier definition of the
fantasy sport product discussed at the beginning of this study, it is
now clear that FSP provides unique core benefits for both implicitly and
explicitly motivated FSUs alike. However, while they are both consuming
the same actual product, the augmented product (i.e., fantasy sport
interface, support services, etc.) seems to take on different degrees of
meaning for those who are explicitly compared to implicitly motivated.
In brief, the study thus accomplishes its primary objective, which was
to show that the heightened media consumption and purported preference
to watch at home for FSUs seems to be the case more so for those who are
explicitly rather than implicitly motivated.
Implications, Limitations, and Future Research
From a theoretical standpoint, the current research makes a number
of contributions. First, it extends CET to a fantasy sport context.
While much past work on fantasy sport motivation has been examined
through the lens of the uses and gratifications paradigm (e.g., Dwyer
& Kim, 2011; Suh et al., 2010), this application of CET provides a
unique perspective on the consumption behaviors of FSUs. In addition,
while the literature has largely been content to conclude that FSP
results in heightened sport media consumption (Drayer et al., 2010;
Dwyer, 2011; Dwyer & Drayer, 2010; Dwyer et al., 2011), the results
of this study show that it may not be that simple. Specifically, the
paradox that has emerged from studies that have argued these consumers
also attend more events (Drayer et al., 2010; Shipman, 2001) has been
cleared up by providing evidence derivative of CET that shows explicitly
motivated FSUs are more inclined to watch sport events at home, while
highly identified and implicitly motivated FSUs are more inclined to
attend. Second, the study provides a comprehensive three-tier definition
of the fantasy sport product. The research shows that while FSUs of all
types are consuming the same actual product, the core and augmented
product may differ depending on one's FSP needs and motives.
Finally, the current study provides a new way to classify fantasy sport
motives. The results suggest that fantasy sport motives can be viewed as
implicit and explicit, depending on their contingency on performance.
With respect to practice, the results suggest that with sport
consumers increasingly gravitating toward mediated consumption
(Pritchard & Funk, 2006), stadiums must provide FSUs with increased
support and information at the live venue. Since explicitly motivated
FSUs represent the segment of FSU most likely to substitute media
consumption for attendance, practitioners may be able to increase the
draw of attending for this segment if they provide these consumers with
more tools to satisfy these explicit needs at the stadium. Nevertheless,
it should provide practitioners with some measure of peace of mind given
that not all FSUs seem to gravitate toward substitution through media.
Rather, it is only those explicitly motivated to participate in fantasy
sport, while highly identified implicitly motivated FSUs are
significantly more likely to attend. In addition, the ability to
distinguish consumers based on motives and consumption modes allows
practitioners to design more effective marketing strategies as a means
of targeting specific sub-segments of FSUs.
Despite the many theoretical and practical implications, the
current study does come with some limitations. First, the study takes an
"either/or" stance on fantasy sport motivation. While the
classification of motives as either explicit or implicit does represent
a novel and unique way to consider FSP motivation, the study fails to
account for those who could be both explicitly and implicitly motivated
for FSP. For example, Dwyer et al. (2011) described a segment of FSU as
"Advocates"--a segment that seems to attach a great deal of
importance to both competition (explicit) and social interaction
(implicit). Nevertheless, the current conceptualization of motives hung
together well in the current study, and represents a starting point for
future grouping of this nature. Second, participants were recruited from
fantasy sport blogs, websites, social media groups, and live mock
drafts. While this was considered a suitable sample for the purposes of
this study, the fact remains that this was a convenience sample and not
a true random sample. Thus, it is possible that results could differ
with a true random sample. Finally, comprising just 9% of the sample,
females were underrepresented in the study. Given that females have
exhibited significant differences in motivation in past research (e.g.,
Fink & Parker, 2009), results could differ in a study with a larger
proportion of females.
As for future research, the current study represents a solid
starting point for the classification of fantasy sport motives as either
explicit or implicit. Future work should extend this conceptualization,
providing further evidence of the viability of this taxonomy. Second,
the current study provides little in the way of information about FSUs
who are implicitly motivated and low on identification. While explicitly
motivated FSUs showed a greater propensity to watch sport events at home
and implicitly motivated FSUs who are also highly identified with a
favorite team showed a greater inclination to attend live, implicitly
motivated FSUs who are also low on team identification showed no
significant consumption intentions. Future work should explore this
segment further to provide valuable insight about their consumption
behavior. Finally, given that past research has shown significant
differences between genders in consumer motivation, future work should
take a cross-sectional look at FSP motivation in an effort to explore
differences between genders.
Ben Larkin, MS, is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Sport
Management at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. His research
interests include marketing, consumer behavior, sport media consumption,
and consumer emotion.
References
Armstrong, G., & Kotler, P. (1999). Marketing: An introduction
(5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equation with latent variables.
New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Dalgarno, B. (2001). Interpretations of constructivism and
consequences of computer assisted learning. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 32, 183-194.
Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York, NY: Plenum
Publishing Co.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and
"why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination
of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
Drayer, J., Shapiro, S. L., Dwyer, B., Morse, A. L., & White,
J. (2010). The effects of fantasy football participation on NFL
consumption: A qualitative analysis. Sport Management Review, 13,
129-141.
Dwyer, B. (2011). The impact of fantasy football involvement on
intentions to watch National Football League games on television.
International Journal of Sport Communication, 4, 375-396.
Dwyer, B., & Drayer, J. (2010). Fantasy sport consumer
segmentation: An investigation into the differing consumption modes of
fantasy football participants. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 19, 207-216.
Dwyer, B., & Kim, Y. (2011). For love or money: Developing and
validating a motivational scale for fantasy football participation.
Journal Of Sport Management, 25, 70-83.
Dwyer, B., Shapiro, S. L., & Drayer, J. (2011). Segmenting
motivation: An analysis of fantasy baseball motives and mediated sport
consumption. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 20, 129-137.
Fantasy Sports Trade Association. (2013). 2013 media kit. Retrieved
from https://fsta.org/mk/MediaKit.pdf
Farquhar, L. K., & Meeds, R. (2007). Types of fantasy sports
users and their motivations. Journal of Computer-Meditated
Communications, 12, 12081228.
Fink, J. S., Parker, H. P., Brett, M., Higgins, J. (2009). Off
field behavior of athletes and team identification. Using social
identity theory and balance theory to explain fan reactions. Journal of
Sport Management, 22, 142-155.
Fisher, R. J., & Wakefield, K. J. (1998). Factors leading to
group identification: A field study of winners and losers. Psychology
& Marketing, 15, 23-40.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural
equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error.
Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39-50.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E.
(2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Fit indices in covariance
structure modeling: Sensitivity under parameterized model
misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424-453.
Indiana University, Sports and Entertainment Academy, Kelley School
of Business. (2000). It's football, friends, and fun, but few women
interested in sports fantasy leagues, study finds. Retrieved from
http://www.luinfo.indiana.edu/ocm/releases/fantasy.htm
Katz, E., Blumler, J., & Gurevitch, M. (1974). Utilization of
mass communication by the individual. In J. Blumler & E. Katz
(Eds.), The uses of mass communication: Current perspectives on
gratifications research (pp. 19-34). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Kim, Y. K., Trail, G. T., & Magnusen, M. J. (2013). Transition
from motivation to behaviour: Examining the moderating role of
identification (ID) on the relationship between motives and attendance.
International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 14,
190-211.
Kline, R. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation
modeling (3 ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Lee, S., Seo, W., & Green, B. (2013). Understanding why people
play fantasy sport: Development of the fantasy sport motivation
inventory (FanSMI). European Sport Management Quarterly, 13, 166-199.
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common
methods variance in cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86, 114-121.
Lomax, R. G. (2006). Fantasy sports: History, game types, and
research. In A. A. Raney & J. Bryant (Eds.), Handbook of sports and
media (pp. 383392). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Luker, R. (2012, October 1). Shifting interest by age, gender gives
MMA a fighting chance. Street & Smith's SportsBusiness Journal,
15(24), 17.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological
Review, 50, 370-396.
McClelland, D. C. (1985). How motives, skills, and values determine
what people do. American Psychologist, 40, 812-825.
McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How
do self-attributed and implicit motives differ? Psychological Review,
96, 690-702.
Pritchard, M. P., & Funk, D. C. (2006). Symbiosis and
substitution in spectator sport. Journal of Sport Management, 20,
299-321.
Robinson, M. J., Trail, G. T., & Kwon, H. (2004). Motives and
points of attachment of professional golf spectators. Sport Management
Review, 7, 167-192.
Rogers, B. (2013, September 4). The finances of a fantasy football
players. Fox Business. Retrieved from
http://www.foxbusiness.com/personalfinance/2013/09/04/finances-fantasy-football-player/
Ruihley, B. J., & Hardin, R. L. (2011). Beyond touchdowns,
homeruns, and three-pointers: An examination of fantasy sport
participation motivation. International Sport Management &
Marketing, 10, 232-256.
Schwab, F. (2014, January 1). NFL should be alarmed that three of
four playoff games, including Green Bay's home game, still not sold
out. Yahoo! Sports. Retrieved from
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nflshutdown-corner/nfl-alarmed-three-four-playoff-gamesincludinggreen-213137570--nfl.html
Shipman, F. M. (2001). Blending the real and virtual: Activity and
spectatorship in fantasy sports. Proceedings from DAC '01: The
Conference on Digital Arts and Culture. Retrieved from
http://www.stg.brown.edu/conferences/ DAC/
Spinda, J. S. W., & Haridakis, P. M. (2008). Exploring the
motives of fantasy sports: A use and gratifications approach. In L. W.
Hugenberg, P. M. Haridakis, & A. C. Earnheardt (Eds.), Sports mania:
Essays on fandom and the media in the 21st century (pp. 187-199).
Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Stebbins, R. A. (2001). Serious leisure. Society, 38, 53-57.
Suh, Y. I., Lim, C., Kwak, D. H., & Pedersen, P. M. (2010).
Examining the psychological factors associated with involvement in
fantasy sports: An analysis of participants' motivations and
constraints. International Journal of Sport Management, Recreation, and
Tourism, 5, 1-28.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of
intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social
psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Trail, G. T., & James, J. D. (2001). The motivation scale for
sport consumption: Assessment of the scale's psychometric
properties. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 108-127.
Trail, G. T., & James, J. D. (2012). Sport consumer behavior.
Seattle, WA: Sport Consumer Research Consultants LLC.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant
logic of marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68, 1-17.
Wann, D. L. (1995). Preliminary validation of the sport fan
motivation scale. Journal of Sport & Social Issues, 19, 377-396.
Wann, D. L., Melnick, M. J., Russell, G. W., & Pease, D. G.
(2001). Sport fans: The psychology and social impact of spectators. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Table 1
Summary Table of Common Motives
Motive Definition
Game Interest To simulate interest in live games
(Lee et al., 2013)
Becoming General To compare myself to real GMs/HCs
Manager/Head Coach (Lee et ah, 2013)
Love for Sport Because I love the sport (Lee et ah, 2013)
Prize To win prizes (Lee et al., 2013)
Competition To compete with other people (Lee et
al., 2013)
Entertainment Because it is an inexpensive form of
Value entertainment (Lee et al., 2013)
Bonding with To bond with friends or family (Lee
Friends and Family et al., 2013)
Social Interaction Because I enjoy interacting with other
fantasy sport participants (Lee et
al., 2013)
Knowledge Application To test my knowledge of players and/or the
sport (Lee et al., 2013)
Hedonic Experience To experience enjoyment (Lee et al., 2013)
Escape To escape from routine life (Lee et
al., 2013)
Substitute for a Because I am a fan of a losing team
Losing Team (Lee et al., 2013)
Entertainment Participation for pure enjoyment of the
game (Farquhar & Meeds, 2007)
Passing Time Participation because fantasy sports are
seen as a fun way to pass the time
(Faquhar & Meeds, 2007)
Achievement The feeling of achievement when one's
favorite player or team is successful
(Suh et al., 2010)
Surveillance/Pursuit Participation for information gathering,
of Knowledge working with statistics, and staying in
touch with real-world sports (Farquhar
& Meeds, 2007)
Thrill of Participation for the thrill of victory ...
Competition/Arousal and the belief that the next victory is
just around the corner (Farquhar &
Meeds, 2007)
Motive Cited in Implicit/
Explicit
Game Interest (Lee et al., 2013) Explicit
Becoming General (Lee et al., 2013) Explicit
Manager/Head Coach
Love for Sport (Lee et al., 2013) Implicit
Prize (Lee et al., 2013; Suh et Explicit
al., 2010)
Competition (Dwyer & Kim, 2011; Lee et al., Explicit
2013; Ruihley & Hardin, 2011)
Entertainment (Lee et al., 2013) Implicit
Value
Bonding with (Lee et al., 2013) Implicit
Friends and Family
Social Interaction (Dwyer & Kim, 2011; Farquhar & Implicit
Meeds, 2007; Lee et al., 2013;
Suh et al., 2010)
Knowledge Application (Lee et al., 2013) Explicit
Hedonic Experience (Lee et al., 2013; Sport N/A
& Entertainment Academy at
Indiana University, 2000)
Escape (Dwyer & Kim, 2011; Farquhar & Implicit
Meeds, 2007; Lee et al., 2013;
Ruihley & Hardin, 2011; Spinda
& Haradakis, 2008; Suh et al.,
2010)
Substitute for a (Lee et al., 2013) Explicit
Losing Team
Entertainment (Dwyer & Kim, 2011; Farquhar
& Meeds, 2007)
Passing Time (Farquhar & Meeds, 2007; Spinda
& Haradakis, 2008; Sport &
Entertainment Academy at
Indiana University, 2000)
Achievement (Ruihley & Hardin, 2011; Spinda
& Haradakis, 2008; Suh et
al., 2010)
Surveillance/Pursuit (Farquhar & Meeds, 2007;
of Knowledge Ruihley & Hardin, 2011; Suh et
al., 2010)
Thrill of (Farquhar & Meeds, 2007; Sport
Competition/Arousal & Entertainment Academy at
Indiana University, 2000)
Table 2
Second Order Factor Loadings ([beta]) First Order Factor Loadings
([lambda]) Alpha Coefficients ([alpha]) and Average Variance
Extracted (AVE)
Items [beta] [lambda]
Implicit Motives
Bonding with Friends or Family .563
I play fantasy sport to bond with .913
friends or family
Fantasy sport is something that my friends or .885
family and I can enjoy together
Fantasy sport provides a chance to communicate .850
with friends or family
Entertainment Value .491
Fantasy sport is great entertainment at low .908
or no cost
Fantasy sport is a cheap form of entertainment .798
Fantasy sport is an inexpensive form of .825
entertainment
Social Interaction .511
I enjoy interacting with other fantasy .893
sport participants
Fantasy sport provides a chance to develop .808
friendships/relationships with other
participants
I enjoy talking with other fantasy sport players .903
Love for Sport .403
I play fantasy sport because I love the sport .927
I play fantasy sport because it is about all .777
the sport, not just my favorite team/players
Fantasy sport makes my love for the .919
sport continue
Escape .711
Fantasy sport provides a means to escape from .842
many burdensome tasks
Fantasy sport provides a relaxing break .823
from work
Fantasy sport provides a chance to forget my .860
routine life for a while
Explicit Motives
Game Interest .545
Fantasy sport keeps me interested in games I .899
would normally care less about
Fantasy sport keeps me interested in other games .880
Fantasy sport makes every game more interesting .896
Becoming a General Manager/Head Coach .467
Fantasy sport makes me feel like I am a better .893
general manager/head coach than the real ones
Fantasy sport gives me a chance to compare .873
myself to real general managers/head coaches
Fantasy sport makes me feel like I am a .826
talented general manager/head coach
Knowledge Application .472
Fantasy sport provides a chance to prove my .913
sport knowledge
Fantasy sport provides a chance to test .900
my knowledge of players
Fantasy sport provides a chance to show off .891
my sport knowledge
Competition .627
I play fantasy sport to compete with other .904
people
Competition is an important part of .894
playing fantasy sport
The better the opposition, the more I enjoy .790
playing fantasy sport
Prize .393
Winning prizes helps keep me involved throughout .840
the long season
Without prizes, I am less likely to play .799
fantasy sport
Winning prizes is an important part of playing .825
fantasy sport
Substitute for a Losing Team .474
Fantasy sport gives me a chance to have a .824
winning team, even when my
favorite team is losing
When my favorite team is not doing well, fantasy .892
sport makes the season more enjoyable
If my favorite team is losing, fantasy sport is .889
a good subsitute
Team Identification
Being a fan of my favorite team is .965
important to me
I am a committed fan of my favorite team .902
I consider myself a "real" fan of my .967
favorite team
Items [alpha] AVE
Implicit Motives
Bonding with Friends or Family .914 .78
I play fantasy sport to bond with
friends or family
Fantasy sport is something that my friends or
family and I can enjoy together
Fantasy sport provides a chance to communicate
with friends or family
Entertainment Value .881 .71
Fantasy sport is great entertainment at low
or no cost
Fantasy sport is a cheap form of entertainment
Fantasy sport is an inexpensive form of
entertainment
Social Interaction .901 .76
I enjoy interacting with other fantasy
sport participants
Fantasy sport provides a chance to develop
friendships/relationships with other
participants
I enjoy talking with other fantasy sport players
Love for Sport .906 .77
I play fantasy sport because I love the sport
I play fantasy sport because it is about all
the sport, not just my favorite team/players
Fantasy sport makes my love for the
sport continue
Escape .879 .71
Fantasy sport provides a means to escape from
many burdensome tasks
Fantasy sport provides a relaxing break
from work
Fantasy sport provides a chance to forget my
routine life for a while
Explicit Motives
Game Interest .920 .80
Fantasy sport keeps me interested in games I
would normally care less about
Fantasy sport keeps me interested in other games
Fantasy sport makes every game more interesting
Becoming a General Manager/Head Coach .897 .75
Fantasy sport makes me feel like I am a better
general manager/head coach than the real ones
Fantasy sport gives me a chance to compare
myself to real general managers/head coaches
Fantasy sport makes me feel like I am a
talented general manager/head coach
Knowledge Application .928 .81
Fantasy sport provides a chance to prove my
sport knowledge
Fantasy sport provides a chance to test
my knowledge of players
Fantasy sport provides a chance to show off
my sport knowledge
Competition .896 .75
I play fantasy sport to compete with other
people
Competition is an important part of
playing fantasy sport
The better the opposition, the more I enjoy
playing fantasy sport
Prize .859 .67
Winning prizes helps keep me involved throughout
the long season
Without prizes, I am less likely to play
fantasy sport
Winning prizes is an important part of playing
fantasy sport
Substitute for a Losing Team .901 .75
Fantasy sport gives me a chance to have a
winning team, even when my
favorite team is losing
When my favorite team is not doing well, fantasy
sport makes the season more enjoyable
If my favorite team is losing, fantasy sport is
a good subsitute
Team Identification .970 .89
Being a fan of my favorite team is
important to me
I am a committed fan of my favorite team
I consider myself a "real" fan of my
favorite team
Table 3
Correlations among 1st Order Latent Variables
1 2 3 4
1. Bonding with 1
Friends/Family
2. Entertainment Value .259 1
3. Social Interaction .267 .218 1
4. Love for Sport .252 .336 .174 1
5. Escape .422 .324 .402 .216
6. Game Interest .009 .015 -.067 -.057
7. Becoming a General -.038 -.104 -.156 -.114
Manager/Head Coach
8. Knowledge .004 -.066 -.076 -.045
Application
9. Competition .065 .012 -.026 .088
10. Prize .008 -.161 -.044 -.171
11. Substitute for a -.053 .016 -.017 -.063
Losing Team
12. Team Identification -.172 -.014 .000 -.007
5 6 7 8
1. Bonding with
Friends/Family
2. Entertainment Value
3. Social Interaction
4. Love for Sport
5. Escape 1
6. Game Interest -.082 1
7. Becoming a General -.085 .198 1
Manager/Head Coach
8. Knowledge -.076 .225 .309 1
Application
9. Competition -.076 .429 .246 .280
10. Prize -.210 .070 .340 .175
11. Substitute for a -.051 .305 .151 .209
Losing Team
12. Team Identification .063 -.055 -.051 -.058
9 10 11 12
1. Bonding with
Friends/Family
2. Entertainment Value
3. Social Interaction
4. Love for Sport
5. Escape
6. Game Interest
7. Becoming a General
Manager/Head Coach
8. Knowledge
Application
9. Competition 1
10. Prize .212 1
11. Substitute for a .288 .238 1
Losing Team
12. Team Identification -.004 -.074 -.018 1
Table 4
Test of Hypothesized Relationships
Low Team ID (N=129) High Team ID (N=191)
Explicit [right [beta] = .253 * (-.009, [beta] = .211 * (-.122,
arrow] Home .515), p = .013 .444), p = .02
Explicit [right [beta] = = .058 (-.331, [beta] = -.196 * (-.431,
arrow] Attend .214), p = .581 -.038), p = .031
Implicit [right [beta] = .135 (-.146, [beta] = -.193 * (-.414,
arrow] Home .416), p = .416 .029), p = .025
Implicit [right [beta] =. 162 (-.120, [beta] =. 195 * (-.027,
arrow] Attend .444), p = .140 .417), p =. 023
Whole Group (N=320)
Explicit [right [beta]= .204 ** (.026, .382), p = .003
arrow] Home
Explicit [right [beta]= -.095 (-.279, .088), p = .180
arrow] Attend
Implicit [right [beta]= -.089 (-.268, .089), p = .198
arrow] Home
Implicit [right [beta]= .101 (-.085, .288) , p = .161
arrow] Attend
Table 5
Means and Standard Deviations
Factors Mean SD
Implicit Motives 3.98
Bonding with Friends or Family 3.87 1.81
Entertainment Value 3.86 1.73
Social Interaction 4.19 1.76
Love for Sport 4.42 1.82
Escape 3.56 1.82
Explicit Motives 4.03
Game Interest 4.29 1.82
Becoming a General Manager/Head Coach 3.49 1.68
Knowledge Application 4.13 1.82
Competition 4.42 1.80
Prize 3.65 1.80
Substitute for a Losing Team 4.17 1.78
Team Identification 4.76 2.29
Attendance Intention 5.18 1.82
Intention to Watch at Home 5.66 2.00
