Journal of Sport Management, 2012, 26, 490-505© 2012 Human Kinetics, inc.

A New Approach to Stadium Experience:The Dynamics of the Sensoryscape,

Sociai Interaction, and Sense of IHome

Seunghwan Lee, Hyun Jae Lee, Won Jae Seo, and Chris GreenUniversity of Texas at Austin

The purpose of this study was to develop a reliable, valid instrument of the sensory experiences of sportattendees. The initial scale development study (A' = 263) identified 22-items to represent five dimensions ofthe sensoryscape. The Sensoryscape scale was confirmed as a reliable scale using CFA. SEM was used in astudy of scale validity. The sensoryscape, social interaction, and sense of home each had a positive, directimpact on fans' satisfaction for both major (N = 259) and minor {N= 218) league venues. Satisfaction withthe stadium experience, in turn, had a positive, direct impact on intention to revisit. Similar models were con-firmed for both contexts; however the magnitude of effects varied. Implications for sport marketing practiceand future research are discussed.

The importance of the experience economy hasbeen widely recognized in consumer research (Pine& Gilmore, 1999). In the experience economy peoplereadily exchange valued resources for motivational andemotional experiences that are staged by service organi-zations or product producing organizations (Barlow &Maul, 2000). Experiences have always been at the heartof the entertainment business (Holbrook & Hirschman,1982), and sporting events are no exception. There isgreater inducement to fans' repeat attendance when theyhave good experiences in the facility. Although econo-mists have typically viewed experiences and services ina similar way, experiences are different from services inthe sense that experiences tend to be more memorable,personal, and interactive (Pine & Gilmore, 1999). Forspectator sports, creating more memorable and personallymeaningful experiences is important to sport marketersbecause these experiences can mitigate the effects of ateam's on-field performance (Hill & Green, 2000). Forexample, the Chicago Cubs have a history of poor on-fieldperformance, but have also had a staunchly loyal fan base(Woolsey & Bmner, 2008).

A number of consumer behavior studies have begunto pay close attention to consumers' experiences via theirfive senses: sight, sound, touch, smell and taste (Gobé,2001; Hultén, Broweus, & Dijk, 2009; Lindstrom, 2005;Schmitt, 1999). According to Anderson and Sullivan(1993), in a competitive marketing environment con-sumer satisfaction is one of the most important predictors

S. Lee, H.J. Lee, Seo, and Green are with the Dept. of Kine-siology and Health Education, University of Texas at Austin,Austin, TX.

of consumer retention. Consumers' sensual experience ofproducts and brands via the five senses are widely knownto affect consumer satisfaction. Indeed, consumers tend tobe driven less by the functional attributes of products andservices than the subconscious sensory elements derivedby the total experience (Zaltman, 2003). This is why theworld's most successful companies differentiate theirproducts and brands by utilizing the five senses to gain acompetitive advantage. For example, Singapore Airlineshas created a branded flying experience by adding a dis-tinct smell to its hot towel service and playing music inits cabins (Lindstrom, 2005).

In the professional sports industry, a stadium isan important venue in which sport consumers directlyconsume and experience sports (Westerbeek & Shilbury,1999). Although the long-term health of any sport facilityis directly affected by the quality of the sporting event,it is also dependent on the quality of the spectator expe-rience (Sheard, 2001). The experience of a sport eventthrough all five senses generates excitement, which canencourage sport consumers to attend live events ratherthan watch the same event on television. Althoughadvanced technologies, such as HDTV, have enrichedthe media viewing experience and surround sound mayenhance the auditory experience somewhat, the live expe-rience still presents a sensual experience that cannot yetbe fully reproduced. Fans seeking to stimulate all of thesenses are more willing to overcome constraints such astravel time and cost to obtain this experience. However,little attention has focused on the role of the five sensesin the creation of stadium satisfaction and subsequentintention to revisit.

Traditionally, consumer behavior approaches havetended to assume that product or service quality is one

490

' ' • • i Stadium Experience 491

of the most powerful determinants of customer satisfac-tion and behavioral intention (e.g., Anderson, Fomell, &Lehmann, 1994; Parasuraman, Zeithaml, & Berry, 1994).This approach is far more concerned with product func-tionality or service quality than with the sensual experi-ence of the customer. However, more recent work hasfocused on sustaining the brand and customer experience(e.g., Brakus, Schmitt, & Zarantonello, 2009; Gentile,Spiller, & Noci, 2007). This work recognizes the powerof the customers' full experiences, including sensory,emotional, and cognitive components of the experience,via its effect on consumer satisfaction and loyalty (Brakuset al., 2009; Gentile et al., 2007).

On the other hand, sport marketing researchers haveprimarily focused on two types of antecedents that leadto customer satisfaction and behavioral intention: coreproduct (i.e., game performance; Madrigal, 1995; Trail,Anderson, & Fink, 2005) and customer service (Wake-field & Blodgett, 1994, 1996; Wakefield, Blodgett, &Sloan, 1996; Wakefield & Sloan, 1995). In this approach,the concept of satisfaction is outcome-oriented. In otherwords, if the core product (e.g., performance) or ancil-lary services (e.g., facility environment or employees'service) meet or exceed sport consumers' expectations,they will be satisfied.

Of course, these product and service qualitiesare important components of the stadium experience.However, the consumption experience encompasses farmore than receiving a quality product or service; there isalso a significant hedonic component to the experience(Schmitt, 2003). Much of our customer service researchrelies heavily on consumers' cognitive evaluations ofthe sport facility and their interactions with stadiumstaff (e.g., Wakefield & Sloan, 1995; Yoshida & James,2010). While this is certainly an important componentwhen understanding the spectator experience, negativecognitive evaluations can be moderated by positive affec-tive experiences. For example, fans often complain aboutseat comfort, food quality, and overpriced concessions.Yet they continue to attend games. In the face of suchnegative evaluations of the stadium and its amenities, purecognitive evaluations would consider repeat attendanceirrational. Clearly, there is more to the attendance experi-ence than comfort, value, and polite staff.

Both positive and negative feelings are oftengrounded in the sensory experiences of attendance andhelp to complete the stadium experience. In fact, thesesensory experiences may influence and define the qualityand intensity of our experience as sport consumers. Ahigher quality or more powerful sensory experience hasbeen shown to influence the extent of the purchase and,when positive, result in a higher level of customer loyalty(Hultén et al., 2009; Lindstrom, 2005). Cleariy, the sen-sual experience can also have powerful negative effects.For example, a romantic dining experience may be ruinedby the noise of sitting near the kitchen. In stadia, negativesensual experiences may relate to unwelcome odors, suchas stale beer, or the tactile experience of overcrowding.Consequently, a more elaborated understanding of the

stadium experience, particularly through the five senses,is required.

Just as brand and customer experiences are thoughtto be a function of multiple components (e.g., Brakus,et al., 2009; Gentile et al., 2007), stadium experiencesare comprised of more than that experienced throughthe five senses. According to Westerbeek and Shilbury(1999), as a stadium serves as an outlet for social interac-tion, it is a key element that affects spectators' stadiumexperience. The critical element that sets the live expe-rience apart from its televised replica seems to be thesense of community derived from the social interactionthat a stadium affords. Indeed, sport spectators reportliminoid experiences and communitas as a functionof their interactions with other spectators, which canmake the sporting event more enjoyable (Chalip, 2006).Sport stadia provide spectators with a chance to haveconvivial but anonymous relationships with strangers(spectators) for games (Melnick, 1993). In this world ofstrangers, spectators experience freedom, excitement,and fun (Lofland, 1973). Despite the importance of socialinteraction to spectators' experience, no empirical studyhas tested the effect of social interaction on satisfactionwith the stadium experience itself. Sport researchershave instead examined social interaction as a motive forattendance (e.g.. Wann, 1995), or fanship (e.g.. Trail &James, 2001). It is not surprising that social interactionswould be an important part of diverse stadium experiencesthat spectators may have. Thus, this study, in keeping withthe multidimensional nature of the customer experience,examines the impact of social interaction on spectators'satisfaction with the stadium experience.

Fans also report experiencing a feeling of homein their home stadium (Sigmon, Whitcomb, & Snyder,2002). To some fans, a professional team's stadium isnot just a facility; it also provides symbolic meaningin the sense that they have feelings of belongingness orrootedness and personal memories associated with theirhome stadium, just as they have toward their home places(Canter, Comber, & Uzzell, 1989; Giulianotti, 2004).Memories are often powerfully stimulated by sensualinput such as smells and tastes (Willander & Larsson,2006). A visit to a stadium with its attendant smells,sounds, and tastes can stimulate nostalgic memories ofearlier visits and even the people associated with thosevisits. Although it makes intuitive sense that fans couldhave feelings for their home stadium that mimic thoseof their own home places, only one study has shown thisrelationship. Charleston (2009) found that fans perceivedthe stadium as a psychological home; they both identi-fied with and felt a special affection for the physicallocale that was reminiscent of home. Yet, Charleston'sstudy makes no attempt to relate this sense of home toanything else. One would expect that stronger feelingsof the stadium as home would positively affect fans'stadium experiences, and thus their satisfaction withthe stadium experience. While it may be comfortableto feel at home in the stadium, unless this leads to otherimportant consumer behaviors, it is not a particularly

492 Lee et al.

useful construct. Consequently, this study examines therelationship between sense of home and satisfaction withthe stadium experience.

Previous work in sport consumer research has pre-dominantly focused attention on physical surroundings(i.e., sportscape) as a major determinant of consumerexperience (e.g., Wakefield & Blodgett, 1994, 1996;Wakefield et al, 1996; Wakefield & Sloan, 1995). Thephysical surroundings are clearly important, but they areinterpreted through the senses. Sensory integration is awidely recognized phenomenon in cognitive psychology,suggesting that one sense influences another (Jones, 1986;Power, 1980). Previous work with the sportscape hasfailed to consider the myriad ways in which consumersexperience physical surroundings. For example, comfort-able seats may be a function of touch (How much roomis there for your legs? How hard are the seats?), but thecomfort experienced cannot ignore the impact of the smellof those seated around you, or the sound of nearby fansscreaming in your ear. Fans interpret their surroundingsthrough a synthesis of all sensory input being experi-enced. Traditional measures of stadium satisfaction failto account for multiple sensory inputs.

The purpose of this study is to provide a more com-plete understanding of the sensual, social, and psycholog-ical aspects of the sport consumption experience withinthe stadium. Specifically, the purpose of this researchis to develop a reliable, valid scale of the sensoryscape.Consequently, it expands the insights of previous sensoryresearch to the field of sport consumption and examinesits relative impact (along with social interaction and senseof home) on spectators' satisfaction with the stadiumexperience and their intentions to return to a stadiumacross two different contexts (i.e., major and minor leagueprofessional baseball). The two settings were selected totest the validity and reliability of the scale.

Theoretical Background andHypotheses

Sensory Experience

It is well established in consumer behavior that con-sumers' sensory experiences play an important role intheir perceptions of the value companies provide. Bydeveloping the sensory elements to meet and exceed theexpectations of consumers, companies can deliver a posi-tive consumer experience that can turn casual consumersinto loyal consumers (Gobé, 2001; Lindstrom, 2005;Schmitt, 1999). For example, the Sydney Opera Houseis a trademark for not only a city, but a whole countryfor its attractive architecture (Lindstrom, 2005). The IntelInside jingle has built consumers' stronger emotionalconnection with the Intel brand (Schmitt, 1999). AfterCoca-Cola replaced its glass bottles with cans, its brandrecognition decreased because of the lack of the distinc-tive feel of the glass bottle (Gobé, 2001). Rolls-Royceadded the scent of classic models to new models to make

consumers recognize its unique scent (Lindstrom, 2005).The Alamo Drafthouse Cinema in Austin distinguishesitself by the food and drink service offered inside thetheater (Barlow & Maul, 2000).

However, the sensory experience alone may not guar-antee that consumers remember the experience. In orderfor the experience to exist in a consumer's mind, it mustbe memorable (Pine & Gilmore, 1999). According tomemory researchers, information that engages in multiplesenses is more likely to be remembered (Schacter, 1996).The effects of multisensory engagement of consumersvary. For example, brands that appeal to all five sensescan affect the perception of product quality, and thereforedemand a premium price over similar brands that appealto only one or two senses (Lindstrom, 2005). In thisregard, a stadium can be considered a "sensoryscape"which provides a memorable experience by appealing toall five senses; spectators can appreciate the visual beautyof a stadium's architecture and grounds, hear stimulatingmusic at the stadium, feel comfortable seats, experiencethe stadium's unique smell, and enjoy the taste of the foodavailable at the concession stands. This conceptualiza-tion of the stadium experience differs from most facilityresearch that has focused on cognitive evaluations of cus-tomer service, with some attention to sight (e.g., facilityaesthetics), seating comfort, and crowding. Yet even thesedimensions related to sight and touch require a sensoryevaluation in our current measures (cf. Wakefield et al.,1996). In short, sport facility researchers have paid littleattention to the sensory components of fans' experiencesat stadia and arenas. This research seeks to examine fans'sensory, rather than cognitive, evaluations of the stadium.

Although there is no empirical study regarding whatconstitutes a stadium experience through the five senses,several studies have provided some insight into thesedynamics. Gaffney and Bale (2004) suggested five sen-sual factors that affect stadium experiences: sight (e.g., astadium's appearance, interior, sightlines, façade, imageof a packed crowd); sound (e.g., the noise of spectators,chants and songs, acoustics); touch (e.g., feelings ofcompression by other spectators, comfortable seats);smell (e.g., a stadium's unique odor, evoked memoriesand nostalgia, crowd smells, food and beverage smells,tailgate party smells); and taste (e.g., tastes of stadiumfood and beverage, release from routine life by eating atthe stadium).

Other work has suggested at least one aspect ofthe five senses that can be experienced at the stadium.For example, visual experiences have focused mainlyon aesthetic and functional aspects of a stadium thatinclude a stadium's architecture, characteristics, design,color, landscape, decoration, scoreboards, and sightlines(Gladden & Funk, 2002; Hill & Green, 2000; Holt, 1995;Rein, Kotier, & Shields, 2006; Wakefield & Blodgett,1994, 1996; Wakefield et al., 1996; Westerbeek &Shilbury, 1999). Auditory experiences are composed ofsound systems, songs and music at the stadium, boom-ing announcers, and noise, cheering, and applause bythe crowd (Hocking, 1982; Holt, 1995; Rein et al., 2006;

Stadium Experience 493

Westerbeek & Shilbury, 1999). Tactile experiences havebeen discussed as comfortable seats, spatial arrangementof seats and aisles, intra-audience effects (i.e., specta-tors' reactions to each other), and crowd density (i.e.,a tightly packed crowd; Hill & Green, 2000; Hocking,1982; Rein et al, 2006; Wakefield & Blodgett, 1994,1996; Wakefield et al., 1996; Wakefield & Sloan, 1995).Olfactory experiences have been suggested to be relatedto the smell of stadium food and beverage (Westerbeek& Shilbury, 1999). Similarly, gustatory experienceshave been described as a full range of food and beverageservices, good tasting food, and feeling of better taste atthe stadium (Hill & Green, 2000; Holt, 1995; Rein et al.,2006; Wakefield & Sloan, 1995).

Previous studies have suggested that sensory expe-rience is a major determinant of consumer satisfaction(Hultén et al., 2009; Lindstrom, 2005; Schmitt, 1999).Since the sensoryscape is an amalgamation of experiencesderived from the five senses, it is likely that more positiveexperiences of the sensoryscape lead to higher levels ofsatisfaction with the stadium experience. Based on theliterature we suggest the following hypothesis:

H|: More positive experiences ofthe sensoryscapewill lead to higher levels of satisfaction with thestadium experience.

Furtber, it is expected that the sensoryscape and itseffects will remain stable across different settings.

Sociai Interaction

Social interaction has been widely studied as a keymotive for sports spectating (e.g.. Trail & James, 2001;Wann, 1995). Melnick (1993) argues that as Americansociety has become more urbanized and fragmented andpeople feel more isolated, the sport stadium has becomea "third place" for casual sociability. This is possiblebecause as spectators share interest and excitement forthe game or team, it is easier for them to engage in socialinteraction. In this regard, a stadium becomes an impor-tant outlet for social interaction in a society and gathersspectators to celebrate a unique experience (Westerbeek& Shilbury, 1999). As Holt (1995) suggested, for fanswho "consume as play," interpersonal actions, such ascommuning and socializing, are autotelic rather thaninstrumental. Therefore, they use their sport consumptionand resulting shared experiences as resources to interactwith fellow consumers. Even such interpersonal actionscan extend to a more exclusive domain—fan subculture(Green, 2001 ; Holt, 1995). Further, it is well recognizedthat social interaction is a key element of liminoid spacewhere social boundaries disappear and a heightened senseof connection with other spectators (i.e., communitas)occurs that adds excitement and fun to the overall stadiumexperience, at least for mega-events (Chalip, 2006; Kemp,1999). A new social structure (just fans, not white collaror blue collar) that exists only within the stadium as aliminoid space may be free of social restrictions or stig-mas and can reinforce fans' desire for social interaction.

If this is true, it is reasonable to expect that experiencesof social interaction may contribute to spectators' overallsatisfaction with the stadium experience.

Although the effect of social interaction as a majormotive or autotelic factor of spectators has been testedwith vatious variables such as fanship, team loyalty, mer-chandise and media consumption, and game attendance,it seems that the effect of social interaction on stadiumsatisfaction may be more direct and salient. That is, socialinteraction and stadium experience (and subsequent sat-isfaction) occur together in the stadium while the effectof social interaction on consumers' other behavior (e.g.,fanship, game, media, and merchandise consumption)seems to be less direct. Further, there is some evidencethat social interaction can stimulate communitas, but thiseffect has been shown only in the case of mega-events.It is not clear whether social interaction can and doesevince the same experience at smaller, more regularlyoccurring events. Recognizing the lack of knowledgeregarding the effect of social interaction, the followinghypothesis is proposed:

H2: Social interaction will have a positive and directimpact on stadium experience satisfaction.

Sense of Home

The importance of emotional attachment to sport venuesthat represent sport teams has been widely acknowledgedin the field of sport sociology (e.g.. Bale, 2000). Profes-sional sport teams have a significant link to the specificplace where they are located (Crawford, 2004). Forexample, professional sport teams tend to be named afterthe specific place where they are nested (Canter et al.,1989). According to Bale (2000), as fans become attachedto their home team, they also develop a topophilic (love ofplace) relationship with its venue. As a result, a sport teamand its respective stadium are often imbued with a senseof home; it is their home team and home ground at theindividual level (Bale, 1993; Sandvoss, 2005). This con-nection between the stadium and fans can be attributed tothe fact that fans attach various meanings, such as feelingsof belongingness or rootedness, and personal memories, tothe stadium which are similar to those attached to their ownhome places (Giulianotti, 2004; Moore, 2000). Further, atthe societal level, the sport venue becomes an "emblem oflocaUty" that represents a town and its residents (Taylor,1991). In an empirical study of English football Charles-ton (2009) found that supporters considered the stadiuma "symbolic home." The football team's home stadiumembodied the same meanings to supporters as those iden-tified with their own home places including place attach-ment, establishment/maintenance of social relationships,ownership, and personal identity. Interestingly, feelings ofa stadium as home are not dependent on live attendance.Instead, fans can associate home and place with a stadiumthey grew up seeing on television. Still, one would expectthat fans with more actual experience of the stadium wouldbe more likely to feel that it is "home."

494 Lee et al.

Although the work of Charleston (2009) clearlyshows that fans do indeed associate the stadium withfeelings of home, there has been no research linking thissense of home with consumption behaviors. It is impor-tant to note that although sense of home to some degreecan be considered a preexisting feeling that spectatorsbring to the sport venue, this feeling may also reflectan ongoing stadium experience that can be maintained,enhanced, or even mitigated with further stadium experi-ence. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that when fansexperience their team's stadium as home, their overallstadium satisfaction with the venue will increase. Thefollowing hypothesis is proposed:

H3: A sense of home will have a positive and directimpact on stadium experience satisfaction.

spectators within the stadium where social interactionsare more likely to occur.

Spectators' emotional attachment to place—sense ofhome—seems to be formed based on their sensory experi-ences of the team and its sport venues. Tuan ( 1975) arguesthat home as a place is a center of meaning constmctedby experience and can be experienced through sensorymodes. Consequently, it is reasonable to expect that thesensory scape may contribute to spectators' experience ofthe stadium as home. On the other hand, those who seekto feel a sense of home are more likely to be receptiveto the sensory scape. Therefore, the following hypothesisis proposed:

H4: Sensoryscape, social interaction, and sense ofhome will be correlated with one another.

Relationship Among Sensoryscape,Social Interaction, and Sense of Home

Research clearly suggests that the sensoryscape, socialinteraction, and sense of home should each affect fans'satisfaction with the stadium. However, there are fewersuggestions regarding the relationships among senso-ryscape, social interaction, and sense of home. There aregrounds for expecting the three factors to be related withone another. It is likely that social interactions within thestadium may contribute to feelings of the sport venue ashome. Just as social interactions are a part of feeling athome, the stadium too can offer fans home-like benefits(e.g., comfort, sense of neighborhood or belongingness)from social connections available at the stadium (Charles-ton, 2009; Hildago & Hernandez, 2001). In other words,fans' consideration ofthe stadium as home should be, atleast in part, a function of the fan's level of social inter-action. On the other hand, it can be expected that thosethat seek a sense of home are more likely to engage ininteractions with other spectators.

In addition, the physical environment can affect thenature of social interaction among consumers (Bennett &Bennett, 1970; Bitner, 1992). Previous work in organiza-tional behavior has found that behaviors related to socialinteraction, such as small group interaction, friendshipformation, group cohesion, and communication pattems,can be influenced by physical conditions (e.g., Sundstorm& Sundstorm, 1986). Similarly, in the stadium context,Melnick (1993) argues that the physical conditions atthe stadium (e.g., spatial arrangement of seats and aisles,amount of room afforded for concessions) can be impor-tant means to promote social interaction. Although a sta-dium's physical environment, what Wakefield and Sloan(1995) label the "sportscape," clearly seems to be a majorfactor in promoting (or inhibiting) social interaction, thehuman element (other spectators) that are encompassedby the "sensoryscape" presented in this study can alsoenhance social interaction. Alternatively, it is equallyplausible that those who desire more social interactionwould identify the physical environment and potential

Stadium Satisfaction andRepeat Attendance

Because of its influence on consumers' behavioral inten-tions and customer retention (Anderson & Sullivan, 1993;Oliver, 1980), consumer satisfaction bas been the subjectof much attention in the context of spectator sports (e.g.,Cronin, Brady, & Huit, 2000; Yoshida & James, 2010).Satisfied consumers tend to report stronger repurchaseintentions, and are more likely to recommend the prod-ucts or services purchased to others (Zeithaml, Berry,& Parasuraman, 1996). In the context of sport venues,Wakefield and Blodgett ( 1994,1996) found that consumersatisfaction with the sportscape had a positive effect onrepeat patronage.

Oliver (1993) distinguished overall (cumulative) sat-isfaction from transaction-specific consumer satisfaction,which is an immediate postpurchase evaluation. HoweverGarbarino and Johnson (1999) argue that measuringconsumer satisfaction as the consumer's cumulative levelof satisfaction based on all experiences with the productor service provider is more useful to capture the endur-ing and general level of consumer satisfaction. Sincespectators at the stadium may experience a variety ofstadium elements, such as services provided, interactionwith other spectators, emotional attachment to a stadium,and the physical environment, stadium satisfaction willbe defined as a sport consumer's overall evaluation andassociated emotions based on all experiences within thestadium. In this regard, this study focuses on consumers'stadium experience satisfaction rather than their gamesatisfaction. With the refined definition of stadium satis-faction, the following was hypothesized:

H5: Stadium experience satisfaction will have a posi-tive and direct impact on future intention to revisit.

The study was conducted in two stages: scale devel-opment and validation. The scale development stage iden-tified and generated potential items for the sensoryscapethrough a review of relevant literatures. Items were thenevaluated by an expert panel for content validity. Lastly,

Stadium Experience 495

confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted toconfirm the hypothesized factor model by examining thefit of the model to the observed data. The scale validationstage examined the relationships among the sensoryscape,social interaction, sense of home, satisfaction with thestadium experience, and intention to revisit using stmc-tural equation modeling (SEM). (Figure 1)

Sensoryscape Scale DevelopmentBased on the literature reviewed (e.g., Gaffney & Bale,2004; Gladden & Funk, 2002; Hill & Green, 2000; Hock-ing, 1982; Holt, 1995; Rein et al., 2006; Wakefield &Blodgett, 1994, 1996; Wakefield et al, 1996; Wakefield& Sloan, 1995; Westerbeek & Shilbury, 1999), 24 itemsrepresenting the sensoryscape were generated. The sightdimension of the sensoryscape was determined to be com-posed of a stadium's architecture, landscape, sightlines,scoreboards, decorations, and colors. The sound dimen-sion consists of the noise of other spectators, cheering, thesound system, announcer, and stadium music. The touchdimension includes psychological touch (that derivesfrom a tightly packed crowd), physical contact withother spectators, seat comfort, and spatial arrangement

of the aisles and seats. The smell dimension contains astadium's unique smells, past, pleasant memories evokedby the stadium smells, crowd smells, food smells, andtailgate party smells. The taste dimension is composedof a wide range of food and beverage choices, the tasteof food, psychological taste (i.e., stadium's foods tastebetter than those purchased outside), and release fromroutine life by eating at the stadium. To ensure contentvalidity, an expert panel review was conducted. A fourperson panel of experts consisting of professors andgraduate students majoring in sport management andbusiness examined the 24 items that were identifiedfrom the literature. They identified ambiguous items andsuggested some rewording of items. In response to thesuggestions of the expert panel, two items representingthe sound dimension and two items representing the touchdimension were reworded.

Sample and Procedure

A convenience sample consisted of 263 respondentswho were members of 20 MLB fan forum websites. Toobtain participants who had actually attended a game atthe stadium, one screening question was asked, "WhichMLB team's stadium did you attend most recently?"

Figure 1 — Hypothesized model: Antecedents and consequences of stadium experience satisfaction

496 Lee et al.

Age of respondents ranged from 16 to 78 years (M =35.3), with males contributing 77% of the total sample.Data were collected via an online survey. A link to a websurvey of the 24 items was posted to 20 MLB fan forumwebsites. The survey contained a brief statement of thepurpose of the research and asked respondents for theirconsent to participate. Participants were free to end thesurvey at anytime. The anonymous responses were sentdirectly to the researchers' server.

Measurement

To identify and confirm the dimensions of the senso-ryscape, the researchers used the 5 dimensions and24-items that were identified in the literature review andreworded by expert review. The sight dimension wasmeasured using 6-items. Four of the six items (stadiumarchitecture, scoreboards, decorations, and colors) weremodifications of items derived from Wakefield et al.'s(1996) measure. The sound dimension was measuredusing 5-items. The touch dimension was measured using4-items. The two items of the touch dimension (comfort-able seating and spatial arrangement of the aisles andseats) were derived from Wakefield et al.'s (1996) mea-sure. The smell dimension was measured using 5-items.The taste dimension was measured using 4-items. Two ofthe four items (a wide range of food and beverage choicesand good tasting food) were derived from Wakefield andSloan's (1995) measure of food service. Respondentswere asked to rate each item on a 7-point Likert scaleranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Data Analysis

Because items were selected to represent consumers'experience of the stadium through the five senses, CFAwas used to confirm the expected relationships betweenindicators and their corresponding dimensions.

Results

Initial Measurement Model. The initial measurementmodel was assessed to (1) confirm the measurementstructure of the Sensoryscape scale, and (2) to identifycorrelations among the five latent factors. As Cronbach'salpha coefficients ranged from .74 for Touch to .87 forSight, the identified constructs were internally consistent(Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). All loadings of items onlatent factors were statistically significant (/? < .01). Theloadings ranged from .36 for Touch_l to .89 for Taste_4.CFA revealed an inadequate fit to the data (CFI = .826,RMSEA = .095, SRMR = .081 ). Consequently, the modelfit left room for improvement.

A competing model emerged based on examinationof the modification indices and the item loading values.Two items showed loaded poorly on their respective factors(.46 for Sound_l and .36 for Touch_l ). Closer examinationrevealed that Sound_l (the noise of other spectators) andTouch_l (a tightly packed crowd) are similar in nature to

Sound_2 (the sound of cheering) and Touch_2 (physicalcontact with other spectators), respectively. Therefore,these two items, Sound_l and Touch_l, were deemedredundant and dropped from the model. All Cronbach'salpha coefficients of the five dimensions exceeded .70,ranging from .75 for Sound to .87 for Sight. The revisedmodel fit the data better than did the original model (%^difference = 177, df= 43, /? < .01; CH = .857; RMSEA =.092; SRMR = .075). Overall, the model is a moderate fitto the data (cf. Hu & Bentier, 1999). Marsh, Hau, and Wen(2004) argue that research should be evaluated in relationto theoretical issues such that every hypothesized link islogically supported rather than relying strictly on the rulesof thumb. The final sensoryscape model is a clear, logical,conceptually sound representation of 22 items representingfive sensory dimensions.

Highly correlated latent factors propose the need toexplore the probability of a second-order structure for theSensoryscape scale. Conceptually, the hierarchical modelexamines whether the correlations among latent factorsare the product of another latent factor, the sensoryscape.All five factors were significantly correlated with oneanother (.61 < r < .75, p < .01 throughout).

Test of the Second-Order-Factor Model. As the fivelatent factors were significantly correlated, a second-order-factor-model was tested. Keith (2005) recommendsa hierarchical model as a more constrained, parsimoniousversion of the first-order model. Figure 2 shows that allitems loaded significantly on their respective factors (p <.01), and factor loadings ranged from .45 for Sound_2 to.89 for Taste_4. The loadings of first-order factors on thesecond-order factor were also significant (p<.01) rangingfrom .80 for Sight and Touch to .86 for Sound. Overall,the fit of the model to the data were moderate (CFI = .854;RMSEA = .092; SRMR = .078). The second-order-factormodel for the sensoryscape is shown in Figure 2.

Scale Validation

Contexts

The purpose of this study was to determine the valid-ity of the Sensoryscape scale by examining the relativeimpact of the sensoryscape, social interaction, and senseof home on stadium satisfaction and, ultimately, inten-tion to revisit. To evaluate the generalizability of thesensoryscape, the relationships were investigated in twodifferent contexts: a professional major league baseballfacility and a minor league baseball facility. The logicbehind the differentiation was to identify the differencesexpected in contexts that often produce very differentexperiences, at least in terms of magnitude, with respectto the identified factors. For example, Lienert (1998)suggested that minor league teams pay more attention tothe quality of experiences offered at the stadium and seekto provide them in different ways. Hill and Green (2000)also identified that the components of overall stadiumexperience that are important in the minor league context

Stadium Experience 497

Sensoryscape

Figure 2 — The second-order-factor model for the Sensoryscape scale

are different than those that are important in the majorleague context. To investigate the effect of the leaguelevel, a MLB team, the Houston Astros, and a minorleague (AAA) baseball team, the Round Rock Express,were chosen for this study.

Sample and Procedures

Data were collected in person for the minor league context.The sampling for the Round Rock Express was stratifiedby seating section. Spectators within each of 23 sectionswere approached randomly until an expected number (230)

498 Lee et al.

of surveys were completed. The survey participation wasvoluntary. A total of 218 completed, useable responseswere obtained from the Round Rock Express site. Maleswere 59% of total sample, and respondents ranged in agefrom 11 to 85 years (M = 40.7). Most respondents wereWhite (71%) followed by Hispanic (16%).

Data for the Houston Astros were collected via anonline survey, as the researchers could not obtain accessto survey fans onsite. The researchers posted a surveyon twelve Houston Astros' fan websites. Since some ofthe members of the fan websites may not have actuallyattended the games, one screening question was asked,"Have you ever attended a Houston Astros game before?"The responses were sent directly to the researchers'server. A total of 259 completed responses were obtainedfor the study. Males were 64% of the total sample, andage of respondents ranged from 15 to 77 years (M= 34.6).Similar to the Round Rock Express sample, most respon-dents were White (67%) followed by Hispanic (21%).

Measurement

The questionnaire for the scale validation study includedfive measures: the sensoryscape, social interaction, senseof home, consumer satisfaction at the stadium, and repeatattendance. Demographic information was also collected.The sensoryscape was measured with the 22 items con-firmed in the first study. Spectators rated each item on a7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)to 7 (strongly agree). Trail and James's (2001) three-itemscale was used to measure respondents' social interactionat the stadium using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Sense ofthesport venue as home was measured with four items fromCharleston's (2009) measure using a 7-point Likert scaleranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).Consumer satisfaction at the stadium was measured withthree items from Bitner and Hubbert (1994), using a7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree)to 7 (strongly agree). Intention to revisit was measuredwith a single item using a 7-point Likert scale rangingfrom 1 (strongly uninterested) to 7 (strongly interested).A summary of the measures and the items within eachmeasure is given in Table 1. Demographic informationincluded gender, age, and ethnicity.

Data Analysis

Structural equation models (SEM) using AMOS wereconducted separately for each context (i.e., major leagueand minor league) to test the hypothesized relationshipsamong the sensoryscape, social interaction, sense ofhome, stadium experience satisfaction, and intention torevisit in both major and minor league settings.

Results

Major League Context. The structural model shows anacceptable fit to the data for tbe major league context: xV

df= 2.015; CFI = .899; RMSEA = .063; SRMR = .064(cf. Marsh et al., 2004). All three correlations amongthe sensoryscape, social interaction, and sense of homewere significant: .35 < r < .49, p < .01 throughout (seeTable 2), thus providing evidence of convergent validity.Therefore, H4 in the major league setting was supported.The four paths between latent factors were all significant:.22 < g < .68,j9< .01 throughout. The sensoryscape, socialinteraction, and sense of home each had a positive anddirect impact on stadium experience satisfaction. Stadiumexperience satisfaction, in turn, had a positive and directimpact on intention to revisit. Therefore, H|, H2, H3,and H5 in the major league setting were supported, andprovide evidence of predictive validity. The structuralmodel indicated that the sensoryscape, social interaction,and sense of home explained 71.1% of the variance insatisfaction with the Houston Astros' stadium, and thatthese four factors predicted 45.1% of the variance inspectators' intention to retum to the stadium.

Minor League Context. Like the major league context,the structural model for the minor league stadium alsoshows an adequate fit to the data: X^/df= 2.133; CFI= .872; RMSEA = .072; SRMR = .079. Evidence ofconvergent validity is shown; the correlations amongthe sensoryscape, social interaction, and sense of homewere significant: .19 < r < .44, p < .01 throughout.Consequently, H4 for the minor league context wassupported. All the four paths between latent variableswere significant: .17 < g < .15, p < .01 throughout, thusproviding evidence of predictive validity. Therefore,H], H2, H3, and H5 for the minor league context weresupported. The structural model indicated that thesensoryscape, social interaction, and sense of homeexplained 70.5% ofthe variance in satisfaction with theRound Rock Express stadium experience; these fourfactors predicted 55% of the variance in spectators'intention to retum to the Round Rock Express' stadium.

DiscussionThis study proposed an expanded approach to under-standing the stadium experience by shifting focus froma physical, instrumental perspective to a more holisticperspective that encompasses sensory, social, and psycho-logical aspects that spectators experience at the stadium.The model is a powerful one, with the sensoryscape,social interaction, and sense of home predicting over 70%ofthe variance in satisfaction with the stadium experiencein both settings. Further, stadium satisfaction had a strong,positive impact on intention to return in both contexts.

Sensoryscape

The Sensoryscape scale is a reliable and valid instrumentto measure fans' stadium experience. The 22-item, five-dimension scale is parsimonious, and shows good intemalconsistency. It shows strong validity, as it relates to exist-ing constructs in expected ways and is highly predictive

Table 1 Summary of Measures

Constructs Items

Sensoryscape

S i g h t ' " •• • • '

The stadium's architecture is attractive. -̂ - --i.

The stadium's landscape is attractive. :

The stadium provides good sightlines to watch the game.

The stadium's scoreboards are entertaining to watch.

The stadium's decorations are enjoyable.

The stadium's colors are attractive.

Sound

The sound of cheering in the stadium adds excitement.

The stadium has a quality sound system.

The stadium announcer is entertaining. ,

The music at the stadium is exciting.

Touch

Physical contact with other spectators when cheering is exciting.

The stadium provides comfortable seating.

The stadium has appropriate spatial arrangement of the aisles and seats.

Smell , . .

The stadium has a unique smell.

The smells at the stadium bring back pleasant memories.

The smell of the crowd is exciting.

I like the smell of stadium foods. ' i

The smell of the tailgate parties is exciting.

Taste

The stadium offers a wide range of food and beverage.

When eating at this stadium, I feel like I am released from everyday life.

It feels üke foods purchased inside the stadium taste better than foods purchased outside.

The stadium provides good tasting food.

Social Interaction

Interacting with other fans is a very important part of attending [team name] games.

I like to talk to other people sitting near me during [team name] games.

[Team name] games are great opportunities to socialize with other people.

Sense of Home

The one place that most represents who I am is [stadium name].

[Stadium name] means as much to me as my own home.

I feel more at home at [stadium name] than at my own house.

I feel more comfortable at [stadium name] than anywhere else.

Stadium Experience Satisfaction

Compared with other stadiums' experience, I am very satisfied with [stadium name].

My experience at [stadium name] has always been pleasant.

Based on all my experience with [stadium name], I am very satisfied.

Intention to Revisit

How interested are you in returning to [stadium name] for other games?

499

500 Lee et al.

Table 2 Summary of Structural Models

Path/Correlation

Hl Sensoryscape —> Stadium Satisfaction

H2 Social Interaction —> StadiumSatisfaction

H3 Sense of Home —> StadiumSatisfaction

H4 Sensoryscape <-̂ Social Interaction

Sensoryscape <-̂ Sense of Home

Social Interaction <r-> Sense of Home

H5 Stadium Satisfaction -* Intention toRevisit

X2/df

Houston Astros 2.015

Round Rock Express 2.133

Houston

Astros

Coefficients

.55

.22

.30

.35

.48

.24

.67

CFI

.899

.872

R2

.711

.451

RMSEA

.063

.072

Round Rock

Express

Coefficients R^

.51

.40

.18 .705

.37

.20

.43

.74 .550

SRMR

.064

.079

Note. All path and correlation coefficients are significant at .01 level.

of satisfaction with the stadium experience. Further, theSensoryscape scale dimensions and associations withother constructs maintain their structure across contexts.

The most significant factor affecting spectators'overall stadium satisfaction was the sensoryscape. Thiswas true for both major and minor league contexts. Thisfinding suggests the utility of the 5-dimensional sensory-scape approach as a basic but powerful way to leveragehuman senses in the spectator sport industry. This hassignificant theoretical implications for sport consumerbehavior. It is well recognized in cognitive research thatwhen all five senses are engaged people are more likelyto form, retain, and revisit memory (Schacter, 1996).From a sport marketing point of view, sport teams canbuild a stronger and longer-lasting connection with sportconsumers by understanding what constitutes the stadiumexperience through the five senses and leveraging themto build emotional attachments to place.

Specifically, the sport venue's physical environmentwas a major element of the sensoryscape and infiuencedspectators' overall satisfaction with the stadium experi-ence. This is consistent with previous work that empha-sized the importance of a stadium's physical attributes(Wakefield & Blodgett, 1994, 1996; Wakefield, et al.,1996; Wakefield & Sloan, 1995). However, the senso-ryscape extends the scope of the conventional sportscapeby adopting a more complex sensory perspective (e.g.,Brakus et al., 2009; Gentile et al., 2007). That is, whilethe sportscape has largely focused on sight (e.g., facilityaesthetics), touch (e.g., seating comfort), and occasionallytaste (e.g., food services) dimensions, the sensoryscapeadds other two dimensions, sound and smell, to thesportscape. These two dimensions are important to the

stadium experience in that they can add further excite-ment to the game atmosphere. Smell is increasinglyrecognized as an important component of experience,enhancing the sense of immersion in the experience(Willander & Larsson, 2006). Thus, stadium smells maystimulate a more holistic experience of the game andstadium. Importantly, smell is strongly associated withmemory (Willander & Larsson, 2006), and can stimulatefans' previous associations with the stadium.

The sensoryscape incorporates fans' sensory experi-ence of other customers (i.e., sound, touch, smell) in waysthat other conceptualizations do not. Not only do fanssee one another, but they also hear, touch and smell theirfellow spectators. Clearly, presence of other spectatorsat the stadium plays a critical role in sport consumers'experience. Recent work supports this finding, suggestingthat watching the crowd and experiencing the atmospherethat attracts them are significant drivers of sport eventattendance (Crawford, 2004). However, sport businessesstill know very little about how to leverage spectatorsthemselves to create a unique stadium experience. In thisregard, lessons from European soccer and South Koreanand Japanese baseball may provide some insight into therole of spectators in the creation of spectacle and atmo-sphere within sport venues. Spectators in those countriesare not passive consumers; rather, they play a criticalrole in creating the spectacle and atmosphere withinthe sport venues through coordinated crowd activitiessuch as doing the wave, wearing team-related costumes,chanting and singing, and playing musical instruments orballoon sticks. Interestingly, Korean baseball teams havecheering songs for individual players, as well as for theteams as an important tool for fan unity. It has the added

Stadium Experience 501

benefit of the game atmosphere more exciting. In thischeering process, the spectators form a key aspect of theentertainment experience through the visual, aural, andsometimes tactile (e.g., coordinated movement) elementsthey bring. The challenge in leveraging the human ele-ment of the stadium experience is not merely a matter ofthe spatial arrangement of sport venues. It also depends onthe ways that crowd participation is facilitated, designed,implemented, or at least encouraged.

Each of the five senses can be leveraged to create astronger bond with the facility. Visually, a stadium canreflect its locality via its attractive architectural appear-ance. The San Diego Padres incorporated the historicWestem Metal Supply Company building into PETCOPark, and the left-field train at Minute Maid Park of theAstros was designed to evoke the spirit of early industrialHouston. Meadowlands stadium, where both the NewYork Giants and Jets play, can change its interior lightingdepending on which team plays at home.

The sounds of the ballpark can be incorporated intopre- and postgame soundtracks. Consider hearing thecrack of bat on ball played through the loudspeakers asyou walk from your car to the stadium. Feel your heartrace a bit as you hear the organ play the chords leadingto a crowd pleasing, "Charge!" Further, spectators havetheir own sounds that can increase fans' sense of excite-ment. Collegiate sport fans have their fight song, soccerfans have their supporter songs, and home teams developcrowd chants. Many of these sounds are crowd createdand spontaneous. The challenge to sport marketers is tofind ways to facilitate fans to develop their own sounds,chants, and songs. This would enhance game atmosphereand make spectators more excited.

The stadium is nothing if not a tactile environment.Comfortable seats with appropriate aisle space canenhance the fan experience. Quality surfaces throughoutthe stadium can also enhance fans' tactile evaluations ofthe venue. As with sounds, other spectators play a largerole in the tactile environment of sport venues. Smallcrowds provide each individual with more space, but dolittle to enhance the hedonic value or excitement of thegame. On the other hand, too much crowding can resultin high levels of physical contact (and discomfort) amongspectators. Touch requires a delicate balance to positivelyenhance the venue experience. Physical modifications andadjustments, such as closing down sections of seating, canhelp to optimize the perceptions of crowds as exciting.Further, sport organizations can use music and visualsto encourage physical contact with other spectators byencouraging fan interactions via such activities as theMexican Wave or the 7th Inning Stretch. These wouldenhance spectators' stadium experience, and more impor-tantly, motivate those who had the feeling of immersionin the activities to repeatedly attend the future games.

The integration of smell and locality can provide amemorable experience to fans. For example, Texas bar-beque brings with it smoke and an immediately identifi-able smell to which fans may have positive associations.AT&T Park in San Francisco brings the sights and the

smells of the San Francisco Bay into the ballpark via itslocation and architecture. In addition, the smell of freshlycut grass or a newly watered and raked infield is verydistinctive. The consistency of smells at the venue cancontribute to powerful olfactory cues to memories. Forexample, the smell of hotdogs and beer may stimulatepositive memories of attending a game with friends orfamily. On the other hand, the stench of poorly maintainedrestrooms can stimulate negative thoughts and memoriesof the venue.

Sense of smell is highly related to taste. Thus thescent of foods and beverages available at a sports venuecan stimulate hunger and even cause more saliva to beformed. Consequently, sport teams can provide locallyfamous dishes, and franchise food providers can createa special dish only available at the stadium. The strongerspectators' positive associations with these tastes, themore likely that just smelling them cook will stimulatepositive emotions.

In terms of sensory integration, the sensoryscapeprovides an opportunity for cross-leveraging. Chalip(1992) showed that neighboring environments themedto sporting events were a key element for a successfulIndyCar event. The opposite may also be true. That is,sport marketers may be able to take advantage of strongcommunity identification by theming the stadium's sen-sory environment to evoke the broader sense of placewhere the team is located (Taylor, 1991). Although pre-vious work has primarily focused on visual elements totheme sporting events, theming is more than mere visualdecorations; it can appeal to all senses of spectators. Forexample, the stadium can evoke the sense of localitythrough decorating the stadium with local (or state) his-toric landmarks or symbols, playing local music, install-ing mosaic seating sections themed to local symbols, andoffering local cuisine.

Social InteractionThe study revealed that social interaction had a positiveimpact on stadium satisfaction in both the major andminor league contexts, although the magnitude of theeffect was much higher in the minor league context thanin the major league context. It is not surprising when con-sidering that interpersonal motivation is a dominant fanmotive for minor league sports (James & Ross, 2002), andthat fewer than half of fans attend minor league games forthe game itself (Johnson, 2004). While previous researchhas highlighted the importance of social interaction asan attractor or motive to attend games, this study foundit to be an important antecedent to satisfaction. This sug-gests that minor league ballparks are doing a good job offacilitating social interaction.

As many minor league teams have tried to differenti-ate themselves from major league teams by offering fan-and family-friendly experiences (Lachowetz, Dees, Todd,& Ryan, 2009; Lienert, 1998), social interaction seemsto be a more influential aspect of the stadium experiencefor minor league fans than it is for major league fans.

502 Lee et al.

Nevertheless, the significant effect of social interactionon overall stadium satisfaction hints that marketers shouldconsider providing more spaces for formal and informalsocializing, as a significant means for enhancing thestadium experience and ultimately repeat attendance.Importantly, social interaction that surrounds the sportingevent can also add value; it can facilitate the creation ofliminoid space, which in turn can evoke a sense of com-munitas through which spectators can attribute deepermeaning and satisfaction to their stadium experience(e.g., Chalip, 2006).

From a marketing perspective, social interactioncan be enabled in and around sport venues by providingappropriate spacing of seats that allows spectators toturn and talk to one another, ample space with tables andchairs around concessions, or enough sites for picnicsand tailgates outside the sport venues. Further, sportteams can create an opportunity for social interactionby providing a "park inside the ballpark" behind theoutfield fence where families and children can interactbefore and during games. By providing TV screensin those areas, adults can watch the game while theirchildren are playing. Sport fans in many sports haveattempted to create spaces for social interaction outsidethe stadium via tailgating. Some sport organizations aretaking a more active role by creating (and sometimesselling) spots for tailgating. Yet, few organizations areactively facilitating fans' social interactions. Whilespaces are necessary, space alone is not sufficient. Sportorganizations can do more to facilitate social interactionby placing these spaces near well-traveled paths to thestadium, extending access to the areas, perhaps evencreating special programming which can occur in thesespaces (e.g., contests, player/mascot appearances). It isimportant to note that any programming offered in thesespaces should be interactive.

In short, many venues already offer fans a place tosocialize with one another. In addition, the game andthe team provide highly identified fans with a commonsuperordinate goal (i.e., winning) that provides fodderfor interactions. This study did not differentiate betweensocial interactions with known versus unknown others.Future research should examine the types of interactionsas well as the relationships among fans to determineappropriate ways to facilitate social interactions amongfan groups. Further, future research should examine thestructural and sociological factors associated with posi-tive fan interactions.

Sense of Home

This study extends Charleston's (2009) work by showingthat sense of home positively and meaningfully impactedspectators' satisfaction with the stadium experience inboth major and minor-league settings. Contrary to theimpact of social interaction, the magnitude of the effectof sense of home on stadium experience satisfaction wasmuch higher in the major league context than it was in

the minor league context. This result may be affected bydifferences in fan identification or perhaps by familiaritywith mediated images of the venue. While consumers ofmajor league teams tend to have higher levels of fan iden-tification, consumers of minor league teams often reportlower levels of fan identification (James & Ross, 2002).Therefore it is reasonable to argue that as consumers ofminor league teams have a weaker personal connection tothe team; their emotional attachment to the home stadiumwould not weigh heavily in their evaluation of the stadiumexperience, at least in comparison with consumers ofmajor league teams. In fact, the effect of sense of homeon satisfaction with the stadium experience is somewhatunexpected in the minor league context. Although minorleague stadiums purport to link their identity to the localcommunity, they do not typically have the same advan-tages (most notably media coverage and the resultingfamiliarity) of major league stadiums.

One would expect major league venues to have anatural advantage in creating a sense of home for theirfans. After all, home is associated with a sense of stabil-ity, permanency, and familiarity (Mallett, 2004). For themost part, major league teams (and often their venues)have been part of their community for a long time.Major league fanship is often a family tradition. Unlikeminor league venues, fans are able to become familiarwith major league venues through televised broadcastsof games. While this is, albeit, a superficial familiarity,the stability of those images would clearly impact majorleague fans' sense of the stadium as home. Consequently,one would expect that a sense of the stadium as homewould take longer to obtain for minor league fans as itwould be entirely dependent on direct experience of thestadium. In this sense, major league venues may have ahead start in creating a sense of home in their venues.

This also offers suggestions for enhancing fans' senseof the stadium as home. First, marketers should find moreways for spectators (and potential spectators) to come intocontact with the stadium and images of the stadium. Ide-ally, this would be done by encouraging people to attendgames. However, minor league ballparks can also hostcommunity events throughout the year to enhance fans'familiarity with the venue and to position the venue firmlywithin the community. The more fans see the link betweenthe stadium and positive aspects of the community, themore likely they are to feel that it is like home. Sport teamscan provide spectators with a chance to tour the stadiumto increase the levels of familiarity and comfort that arebases for sense of home. Further, sport teams can host morefantasy camps where fantasy camp participants can playwith or have lessons from the team's players.

Similarly, it would be beneficial to enhance specta-tors' team identification. The more positive associationsthat people have with the team, players, and coaches, themore likely those associations are to affect their attach-ment to the venue as well. In effect, this would function asa cobranding exercise between the team, the community,and the venue.

Stadium Experience 503

Relationship Among Sensoryscape,Social Interaction, and Sense of HomeThe study found that while the correlation between thesensoryscape and social interaction in both contexts wassimilar in its magnitude, the correlation between socialinteraction and sense of home was much higher in theminor league context than in major league context, andthe correlation between sensoryscape and sense of homewas much higher in major league context than in majorleague context. This may be attributed to the dynamics offan identification (and subsequent emotional attachmentto the stadium) and social interaction. Since consumers ofmajor league teams may have the higher level of attach-ment with a team and its respective stadium, the experi-ence or memories associated with physical environmentsand other spectators may be more salient contributors inthe creation of sense of home. On the other hand, sinceconsumers of minor league teams are more likely toengage in social interaction, due perhaps to the less stable,less familiar but friendlier, interactive environment,experiences associated with social interaction may playa critical role in the creation of sense of home at minorleague venues. These results provide marketers withsome initial insights for leveraging the sense of home,but we still know little about the antecedents to a senseof home or the individual sensory experiences that canlead to a sense of the stadium as home. The impact of asense of home had a positive effect on stadium experiencesatisfaction (as per H3). Consequently, more research isneeded to identify the key antecedents. In practice, minorleague teams may do well to create and enhance a sense ofhome by promoting social interaction while major leagueteams may need to focus on promoting the sensoryscape.

LimitationsThe model confirmed by this study is an important firststep in exploring the role of the sensoryscape in market-ing to sport spectators. The hypothesized model is anadequate fit to the data in both major and minor leaguecontexts (Figure 1). This supports the validity ofthe Sen-soryscape instrument, at least in major and minor leaguebaseball contexts. The instrument's ability to predictsatisfaction directly and intention to retum (indirectly)is a strong indication of convergent validity. Its abilityto predict in both contexts serves as intemal replicationproviding a glimpse of the generalizability of the instru-ment. However, the instrument has room for improve-ment. Specifically, the measurement model (Figure 2)showed only a moderate fit to the data. That is, there maybe other potentially missing constructs or items that arenot included in the model. Consequentiy, future researchshould explore other ways in which fans use their fivesenses to experience the stadium, to continue to improvethe Sensoryscape scale. To this end, other contexts couldbe explored (e.g., college sport, individual sport settingssuch as golf and tennis, road races).

Another limitation comes from the sampling pro-cedure employed in the major league context. Although

the on-line sampling for the major league context used ascreening procedure to obtain actual game attendees, theon-line survey may constrain the ability of respondentsto recall their stadium experiences, compared with theon-field survey. Future research should seek to confirmthe proposed model with data collected from major leaguesites, or to compare fans' responses to the same facilityvia on-line and on-site methods.

Implications for Future Research

The overall sensoryscape construct explained the mostvariance in spectators' satisfaction with the stadiumexperience. While this finding is profoundly valuable,from a practical perspective, it may be useful to under-stand which of the sensoryscape dimensions are mostpredictive. The Sensoryscape instrument can be used todetermine the relative importance of each dimension topredict satisfaction, future intentions, or other outcomesof interest. Future research should also consider the rela-tive impacts ofthe sensoryscape elements across differentcontexts (e.g., sports, levels of sport, cultures).

Scant attention has been paid to scents at sport venues,yet smells are a powerful stimulator of memories, par-ticularly memories from long ago (Willander & Larsson,2006). In this sense, entertainment providers are increas-ingly recognizing the potential of scent as an experienceenhancer. For example, scientists have created productsdesigned to enhance video gaming experiences via theaddition of scent modules which provide an olfactory layerto games which further Immerse players in the online worldby wafting scents related to the images shown (Bingham,2009). This suggests the potential importance of scent tospectators' immersion in the game experience. It may bethat sensory inputs such as scent are in important point ofdifferentiation between attending a live event and watchinga broadcast of the same event. Future research could beginto look experimentally at the impact of scent on viewers'affective responses to sport contests.

In addition, future research could explore the valueto minor league venues of incorporating sensory elementsof the major league partner's venue to take advantageof the familiarity and existing associations (includingfeelings of nostalgia) that fans may have toward themajor league partner. While this may not be feasible forall minor league venues, it is an interesting avenue forexploration. Lastly, future research could explore thepotential value of the sensoryscape for branding and thecreation of brand extensions (e.g., restaurants, camps,clinics, participation facilities).

ConclusionThis research suggests a new direction for experiencemarketing in sport that leverages each of the five senses(i.e., the sensoryscape). The challenge is to identify themeans to capitalize on the stadium experience that sportevents engender. A positive experience of the stadiummakes the sporting event more enjoyable and more

504 Lee et al.

memorable, thus increasing spectators' desire to retum.This more holistic approach to understanding spectators'satisfaction through their attendance experience offersan important counterbalance to an oven^eliance on teamperformance to attract spectators. By cultivating thesensoryscape, facilitating social interaction, and provid-ing a sense of home, sport consumers can have a moreenjoyable and memorable game experience, regardlessof the game outcome.

ReferencesAnderson, E.W., Fornell, C , & Lehmann, D.R. (1994).

Customer satisfaction, market share, and profitability:Findings from Sweden. Journal of Marketing, 58, 53-66.doi: 10.2307/1252310

Anderson, E.W., & Sullivan, M.W. (1993). The antecedents andconsequences of customer satisfaction for firms. MarketingScience, 12, 125-143. doi:10.1287/mksc.l2.2.125

Bale, J. (1993). Sport, space, and the city. London: Routledge.Bale, J. (2000). The changing face of football: Stadium and

communities. In J. Garland, D. Malcolm, & M. Rowe(Eds.), The future of football: Challenges for the twenty-first century (pp. 91-101). London: Frank Cass.

Barlow, J., & Maul, D. (2000). Emotional value: Creatingstrong bonds with your customers. San Francisco, CA:Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Bennett, D.J., & Bennett, J.D. (1970). Making the scene. In G.Stone & H. Farberman (Eds.), Social psychology throughsymbolic interactionism (pp. 190-196). Waltham, MA:Ginn-BIaisdell.

Bingham, M. (2009, April 26). Computer scientists add smellto games: Using scent delivery system like biopac couldhelp train military as players can experience odours of thebattlefield. The Sunday Times. Retrieved from http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/

Bitner, M.J. (1992). Servicescapes: The impact of physicalsurroundings on customers and employees. Journal ofMarketing, 56, 57-71. doi: 10.2307/1252042

Bitner, M.J., & Hubbert, A.R. (1994). Encounter satisfactionversus overall satisfaction versus quality. In R.T. Rust& R.L. Oliver (Eds.), Service quality: New directions intheory and practice (pp. 72-94). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.

Brakus, J.J., Schmitt, B.H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). Brandexperience: What is it? How is it measured? Does it affectloyalty? Journal of Marketing, 73, 52-68. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.73.3.52

Canter, D., Comber, M., & Uzzell, D. (1989). Eootball in itsplace: An environmental psychology of football grounds.London: Routledge.

Chalip, L. (1992). The construction and use of polysémiestructures: Olympic lessons for sport marketing. Journalof Sport Management, 6, 87-98.

Chalip, L. (2006). Towards social leverage of sportevents. Journal of Sport & Tourism, 11(2), 109-127.doi: 10.1080/14775080601155126

Charleston, S. (2009). The English football ground as a repre-sentation of home. Journal of Environmental Psychology,29, 144-150. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.06.002

Crawford, G. (2004). Consuming sport: Eans, sport and culture.London: Routledge.

Cronin, J.J., Brady, M.K., & Huit, G.T.M. (2000). Assessingthe effects of quality, value, and customer satisfaction onconsumer behavioral intentions in service environments.Journal of Retailing, 76(2), 193-218. doi:10.1016/S0022-4359(00)00028-2

Gaffney, C , & Bale, J. (2004). Sensing the stadium. In P Ver-tinsky & J. Bale (Eds.), Site of sport: Space, place andexperience (pp. 25-38). London: Routledge.

Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M.S. (1999). The differentroles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment in cus-tomer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63, 70-87.doi: 10.2307/1251946

Gentile, C , Spiller, N., & Noci, G. (2007). How to sustain thecustomer experience: An overview of experience compo-nents that co-create value with the customer. EuropeanManagement Journal, 25(5), 395-410. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2007.08.005

Giulianotti, R. (2004). Football grounds: Emotional attach-ments and social control. In R. Giulianotti (Ed.), Eootball:A sociology of the global game (pp. 65-85). London:Polity Press.

Gladden, J.M., & Funk, D.C. (2002). Developing an under-standing of brand associations in team sport: Empiricalevidence from consumers of professional sport. Journalof Sport Management, 16, 54-81.

Gobé, M. (2001). Emotional branding: The new paradigm forconnecting brands to people. New York: Allworth Press.

Green, B.C. (2001). Leveraging subculture and identity topromote sport events. Sport Management Review, 4, 1-19.doi:10.1016/S1441-3523(01)70067-B

Hildago, M.C., & Hernandez, B. (2001). Place attachment: Con-ceptual and empirical questions. Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology, 21, 273-281. doi: 10.1006/jevp.2001.0221

Hill, B., & Green, B.C. (2000). Repeat attendance as a functionof involvement, loyalty, and the sportscape across threefootball contexts. Sport Management Review, 3, 145-162.doi:10.1016/S1441-3523(00)70083-0

Hocking, J.E. (1982). Sports and spectators: Intra-audienceeffects. The Journal of Communication, 32, 100-108.doi:10.1111/j.l460-2466.1982.tb00481.x

Holbrook, M.B., & Hirschman, E.C. (1982). The experientialaspects of consumption: Consumer fantasies, feelings,and fun. The Journal of Consumer Research, 9, 132-140.doi: 10.1086/208906

Holt, D.B. (1995). How consumers consume: A typology of con-sumption practices. The Journal of Consumer Research,22, 1-16. doi:10.1086/209431

Hu, L., & Bentler, PM. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexesin covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteriaversus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling,6(1), 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118

Hultén, B., Broweus, N., & van Dijk, M. (2009). Sensory mar-keting. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

James, J.D., & Ross, S.D. (2002). The motives of sportsconsumers: A comparison of Major and Minor LeagueBaseball. International Journal of Sport Management,3{3), 180-198.

Johnson, A.T. (2004). Minor league baseball and local economicdevelopment. In S.R. Rosner & K.L. Shropshire (Eds.),The business of sports (pp. 331-337). Sudbury, MA: Jonesand Bartlett Puhlishers.

Jones, L.A. (1986). Perception of force and weight: Theoryand research. Psychological Bulletin, 100{\), 29-42.doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.100.1.29

Stadium Experience 505

Keith, TZ. (2005). Multiple regression and beyond. Boston,MA: Pearson.

Kemp, S.F. (1999). Sled dog racing: The celebration of coop-eration in a competitive sport. Ethnology, 38, 81-95.doi: 10.2307/3774088

Lachowetz, T., Dees, W., Todd, S., & Ryan, E. (2009). SavannahSand Gnats: Macro strategies for using identity to increaseattendance in minor league baseball. Sport MarketingQuarterly, 18, 222-227.

Lienert, A. (1998). Managing in minorville. ManagementReview, 87(7), 53-57.

Lindstrom, M. (2005). Brand sense: How to build powerfulbrands through touch, taste, smell, sight and sound. NewYork: The Free Press.

Lofland, L.H. (1973). A world of strangers: Order and actionin urban public space. New York: Basic Books.

Madrigal, R. (1995). Cognitive and affective determinants offan satisfaction with sporting event attendance. Journal ofLeisure Research, 27(3), 205-227.

Mallett, S. (2004). Understanding home: A critical review ofthe literature. The Sociological Review, 52(1), 62-89.doi: 10.1111/J.1467-954X.2004.00442.X

Marsh, H.W., Hau, K-T, & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of goldenrules. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320-341.doi: 10.1207/s 15328007seml 103_2

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

Moore, J. (2000). Placing home in context. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 20, 207-217. doi:10.1006/jevp.2000.0178

Nunnally, J.C, & Bernstein, I.H. (1994). Psychometric theory(3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Oliver, R.L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents andconsequences of satisfaction decisions. JMR, Journal ofMarketing Research, 17, 460-469. doi: 10.2307/3150499

Oliver, R.L. (1993). Cognitive, affective, and attribute basesof the satisfaction response. The Journal of ConsumerResearch, 20, 418-430. doi: 10.1086/209358

Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V.A., & Berry, L.L. (1994). Reas-sessment of expectations as a comparison standard inmeasuring service quality: Implications for future research.Journal of Marketing, 58, 111-124. doi: 10.2307/1252255

Pine, B.J., & Gilmore, J.H. (1999). The experience economy:Work is theater & every business a stage. Boston, MA:Harvard Business School Press.

Power, R.P. (1980). The dominance of touch by vision: Some-times incomplete. Perception, 9, 457^66. doi:10.1068/p090457

Rein, I., Kotier, P, & Shields, B. (2006). The elusive fan:Reinventing sports in a crowded marketplace. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Sandvoss, C. (2005). Eans. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Schacter, D.L. (1996). Searching for memory: The brain, the

mind, and the past. New York: Basic Books.Schmitt, B.H. (1999). Experiential marketing: How to get

customers to sense, feel, think, act, relate to your companyand brands. New York: The Free Press.

Schmitt, B.H. (2003). Customer experience management: Arevolutionary approach to connecting with your customers.Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Sheard, R. (2001). Sports architecture. New York: Spon Press.Sigmon, S., Whitcomb, S., & Snyder, C.R. (2002). Psychologi-

cal home. In A.T. Fisher, C.C. Sonn, & B.J. Bishop (Eds.),Psychological sense of community: Research applica-tions, and implications (pp. 25^2). New York: KluwerAcademic/Plenum Publishers.

Sundstrom, E., & Sundstrom, G. (1986). Work places. Cam-bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, I. (1991). English football in the 1990s: Taking Hills-borough seriously? In J. William & S. Wagg (Eds.), Brit-ish football and social change. Leicester, UK: LeicesterUniversity Press.

Trial, G.T., Anderson, D.F., & Fink, J.S. (2005). Consumersatisfaction and identity theory: A model of sport specta-tor conative loyalty. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 14(2),98-112.

Trail, G.T., & James, J.D. (2001). The motivation scale for sportconsumption: Assessment of the scale's psychometricTpTopexties. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24, 108-127.

Tuan, Y-F. (1975). Place: An experiential perspective. Geo-graphical Review, 65(2), 151-165. doi:10.2307/213970

Wakefield, K.L., & Blodgett, J.G. (1994). The importance ofservicescape in leisure service settings. Journal of ServicesMarketing, 8(3), 66-76. doi: 10.1108/08876049410065624

Wakefield, K.L., & Blodgett, J.G. (1996). The effect of theservicescape on customers' behavioral intentions in leisureservice settings. Journal of Services Marketing, 10(6),45-61. doi:10.1108/08876049610148594

Wakefield, K.L., Blodgett, J.G., & Sloan, H.J. (1996). Measure-ment and management of sportscape. Journal of SportManagement, 10, 15-31.

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

Wann, D.L. (1995). Preliminary validation of the sport fanmotivation scale. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 19,377-396. doi:10.1177/019372395019004004

Westerbeek, H.M., & Shilbury, D. (1999). Increasing the focuson "place" in the marketing mix for facility dependentsport services. Sport Management Review, 2, 1-23.doi:10.1016/S1441-3523(99)70087-2

Willander, J., & Larsson, M. (2006). Smell your way back tochildhood: Autobiographical odor memory. PsychonomicBulletin & Review, 13, 240-244. doi:10.3758/BF03193837

Woolsey, M., & Bruner, J. (2008, August 7). America's mostloyal baseball fans. Eorbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/2008/08/07/baseball-fans-loyal-forbeslife-cx_mw_0807sport.html

Yoshida, M., & James, J.D. (2010). Customer satisfaction withgame and service experiences: Antecedents and conse-quences. Journal of Sport Management, 24, 338-361.

Zaltman, G. (2003). How customers think: Essential insightsinto the mind of the market. Boston, MA: Harvard Busi-ness School Press.

Zeithaml, V.A., Berry, L.L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). Thebehavioral consequences of service quality. Journal ofMarketing, 60(2), 31-46. doi:10.2307/1251929

Copyright of Journal of Sport Management is the property of Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc. and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.