The multi-phase nature of event and festival experiences.

THE MULTI-PHASE NATURE OF

EVENT AND FESTIVAL EXPERIENCES.

Mandy Geurtsen (u1262090)

Tilburg University Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences

Master Leisure Studies

Supervisor: Drs. S. de Geus. Second assessor: Prof. dr. G.W. Richards

Amount of words: 8.376 (including in-text referencing)

1

Abstract The concept of the multi-phasic nature of experience has been applied to various areas of leisure research such as tourism, consumer behavior, therapeutic recreation, women’s issues, programming, leisure education and outdoor recreation (Lee, Dattilo, Howard 1994). Although research based on outdoor recreation and wilderness-like settings has contributed to existing body of literature and has provided evidence that experiences are multi-phasic, these studies have not investigated the interaction between the multi-phase nature of leisure experiences and the link to event and festivals. Leisure experience consist of five distinct and yet interacting decision ‘packages’: (a) an anticipation, (b) travel to the site, (c) the on-site activity, (d) return travel, and (e) a recollection (Lee, Dattilo and Howard 1994). However, these experience phases in time haven’t been studied in the domain of event and festival experiences. There is little understanding of the complexity and dynamics of the elusive nature of leisure and event experience. Therefore, a gap occurs between research on the multi-phase nature of leisure experiences and event and festivals. The current study examines event and festival experiences over time and explores if and how these experiences change in the abovementioned phases. The research question for this study is formulated as:

(How) do event and festival experiences differ in time (in the anticipation, on-site and recollection phase)?

In order to grasp the research question, sub questions are formulated: How are event and festivals experienced before the festival (in the anticipation phase)? How are events and festivals experienced during the festival (on-site)? How are events and festivals experienced after the festival (in the recollection phase)? On the basis of the literature review, the relationships between experience and the multi-phase nature of event and festival experiences can be hypothesized. The three phases of anticipation, the actual on-site experience, and recollection will be researched and therefore hypotheses are formulated. H1. The experience dimensions will change during the different time phases. H2. The anticipation phase will be distinguished by the affective dimension of experience. H3. The on-site phase will be distinguished by the conative dimension of experience. H4. The recollection phase will be distinguished by the cognitive dimension of experience. The data, collected through an online questionnaire, is processed in SPPS where it was prepared for analyses. All items of the scales were translated in Dutch to make them applicable for the current research. The first step for analyzing the data was to conduct 3 Principal Component Analysis (PCA), all on the 18 items of the Event Experience Scale with orthogonal rotation (Varimax). In this analysis four factors were secured which represent the experience dimensions of Geus, Richards and Toepoel (2013) to make sure it fits the hypothesized measurement model. To measure the reliability of the data, a common measure of internal consistency is used, Cronbach's alpha. Furthermore a repeated measures ANOVA is performed to test the equality of related means and to detect any overall differences between those means. The analyses are done for all the three phases: anticipation, on-site, and recollection. The multi-phase model approach of experience provided by Clawson and Knetch (1966) is used in this study as a theoretical model to test the multi-phase nature of event and festival experiences. Results indicate that event and festival experiences differ in time, even if it is not in the way previously thought.

2

Content

Abstract .................................................................................................................................................. 1

Preface ................................................................................................................................................... 4

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Problem definition ........................................................................................................................ 6

1.2 Aim and relevance of the research ............................................................................................... 6

1.3 Outline .......................................................................................................................................... 7

2. Theoretical framework ....................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Event and festival experience in leisure ....................................................................................... 7

Leisure .......................................................................................................................................... 7

(Extraordinary) experience........................................................................................................... 7

Event and festival experiences ..................................................................................................... 8

2.2 Multi-phase nature of leisure experiences ................................................................................... 9

The dynamic role of leisure experience ....................................................................................... 9

The multi-phase model approach of experience .......................................................................... 9

Complexity of experience........................................................................................................... 10

2.3 Hypotheses ................................................................................................................................. 10

3. Methodology .................................................................................................................................... 11

3.1 Research design .......................................................................................................................... 11

3.2 Instrument .................................................................................................................................. 11

3.3 Sample and data collection ........................................................................................................ 12

3.4 Data analysis ............................................................................................................................... 12

4. Results .............................................................................................................................................. 13

Descriptives .................................................................................................................................. 13

Principal Component Analysis ...................................................................................................... 13

Repeated Measures ANOVA ......................................................................................................... 17

3

5. Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 18

How are event and festivals experienced before the festival (in the anticipation phase)? .......... 18

How are events and festivals experienced during the festival (on-site)? ..................................... 18

How are events and festivals experienced after the festival (in the recollection phase)? ............ 18

(How) do event and festival experiences differ in time (in the anticipation, on-site and

recollection phase)? ..................................................................................................................... 19

6. Discussion ......................................................................................................................................... 19

References ........................................................................................................................................... 21

Appendix .............................................................................................................................................. 23

Appendix 1: Questionnaire ............................................................................................................... 23

Appendix 2: Analyses ....................................................................................................................... 26

Principal Component Analyses – Anticipation .............................................................................. 26

Principal Component Analyses – On-site ...................................................................................... 28

Principal Component Analyses – Recollection .............................................................................. 30

Reliability Statistics – Anticipation................................................................................................ 32

Reliability Statistics – On-Site ....................................................................................................... 33

Reliability Statistics – Recollection ............................................................................................... 34

Repeated Measures ANOVA – Anticipation .................................................................................. 35

Repeated Measures ANOVA – On-site ......................................................................................... 35

Repeated Measures ANOVA – Recollection ................................................................................. 36

4

Preface Within the events domain, research on event experiences is becoming more and more important. Active and pleasure seeking consumers look for “fantasy, feelings and fun” through consumption (Holbrook and Hirschman 1982) which has served to popularize experience marketing as it has given rise to the need to entertain, stimulate and emotionally affect consumers through the consumption experience (Schmitt 1999a). According to Prahalad (2004) value is not only added to goods, or created by services, but is placed in the actual personalized experiences created through active participation. As the number of events and festivals grows, there is more pressure to create distinctive experiences to gain competitive advantage (Geus, Richards and Toepoel 2013). However, event experiences have generally been overlooked in previous research, despite the fact that proper operationalization and measurement of event experiences could provide valuable insights for both academics and management. Researchers have noted the multi-dimensional nature of leisure experience in which leisure is characterized by a variety of experiences, including positive experiences as well as stressful or unpleasant ones (Kelly 1987). Previous studies (such as Botteril & Crompton 1996, Crompton & McKay 1997 and Borrie & Roggenbuck 2001) show that both tourism and leisure experiences are dynamic/multi-phasic and change over time. Although these studies provide important insights into characteristics of the leisure experience, there is little understanding of the complexity and dynamics of these experiences. The current study examines event and festival experiences over time and explores if and how these experiences change during different phases. Event organizers can use this information to gain insight and optimize the customer journey.

5

1. Introduction Event and festival experiences fall within the domain of leisure experiences and although previous studies provide important insights into characteristics of such leisure experience, there is little understanding of the multi-phase nature of leisure and event experience. Most research on event and festival experiences focused on motivation and satisfaction, and not on the experience itself (Morgan, 2008; Getz, 2010). Leisure experience consist of five distinct and yet interacting decision ‘packages’: (a) an anticipation, (b) travel to the site, (c) the on-site activity, (d) return travel, and (e) a recollection (Lee, Dattilo and Howard 1994). However, these experience phases in time haven’t been studied in the domain of event and festival experiences. An experience can start before the festival terrain is reached and, event and festival experiences will not just stop after the festival ends. ‘Festival visitors leave the festival with a number of experiences, but it does not stop there. Festival visitors will reach a judgment about the festival and will also show certain behavior as a result of their festival visit: they upload photos to websites, they are telling stories to their friends, they buy music of artists, they buy tickets for the next edition, etc.’ (Van Vliet, 2012, p126). Thus, the total experience is almost always much broader than the actual activity on site. Within outdoor recreation for example it has been noted that the whole experience is a package deal; each part have a different capability to produce unique experiences and all parts are necessary (Clawson and Knetch, 1966, p35). At least five rather distinctly different phases can be identified and each phase has a different capability to produce unique experiences. Lee, Datillo and Howard (1994) clarify that leisure experience consist of five distinct decision ‘packages’: (a) an anticipation, (b) travel to the site, (c) the on-site activity, (d) return travel, and (e) a recollection (Lee, Dattilo and Howard 1994). However, these experience phases haven’t been studied in the domain of event and festival experiences. Recently, the core of event and festival experiences has been conceptualized as consisting of the following 4 experience dimensions: cognitive, affective, conative and novelty (Geus, Richards and Toepoel 2013). The first experience dimension is cognitive engagement; do people interpreter, learn and/or acquire knowledge from an event or festival? The second dimension represents affective engagement; do people feel excitement, emotional energy, intimacy, adventure, values and/or recollection from an event? The conative dimension represents physical engagement, so the behavior, (active) participation, and creativity of people during an event or festival. Experiencing novelty is the last experience dimension; what aspects of the event are distinctive, unfamiliar, and/or unique? Based on the theorizing of Geus, Richards and Toepoel (2013), it is possible to make a reference to the operationalization of experience. So, the cognitive dimension can predict future learning effects of events, for example; have visitors learned new things? Furthermore, the affective dimension can predict emotional judgments and satisfaction, such as excitement among visitors. The conative dimension can predict active participation during events, and the novelty dimension can predict whether the events are regarded as unique and/or distinctive. The current study explores the most distinct or substantial time phases of festival experiences: anticipation, the actual on-site experience, and the recollection phase. The phases travel to and from site are purposefully omitted, because the festival researched in this study is a local one and it attracts mostly local visitors. The participants visit a festival a short distance away; hence the phases regarding traveling are seen as an act rather than an experience, which means it is not possible to assess these phases.

6

1.1 Problem definition

The concept of the multi-phasic nature of experience has been applied to various areas of leisure research such as tourism, consumer behavior, therapeutic recreation, women’s issues, programming, leisure education and outdoor recreation (Lee, Dattilo, Howard 1994). Although research based on outdoor recreation and wilderness-like settings has contributed to existing body of literature and has provided evidence that experiences are multi-phasic, these studies have not investigated the interaction between the multi-phase nature of leisure experiences and the link to event and festivals. There is little understanding of the complexity and dynamics of the elusive nature of leisure and event experience. Therefore, a gap occurs between research on the multi-phase nature of leisure experiences and event and festivals. The current study examines event and festival experiences over time and explores if and how these experiences change in the abovementioned phases. The research question for this study is formulated as: (How) do event and festival experiences differ in time (in the anticipation, on-site and recollection phase)? In order to grasp the research question, sub questions are formulated: How are event and festivals experienced before the festival (in the anticipation phase)? How are events and festivals experienced during the festival (on-site)? How are events and festivals experienced after the festival (in the recollection phase)?

1.2 Aim and relevance of the research

Within the events domain, research on event experiences is becoming more and more important. Each event or festival is unique because of interactions among the setting, people, and management systems. The appeal of events and festivals is that they are never the same, and you have to be present to enjoy the unique experience fully. Active and pleasure seeking consumers look for “fantasy, feelings and fun” through consumption (Holbrook and Hirschman 1982) which has served to popularize experience marketing as it has given rise to the need to entertain, stimulate and emotionally affect consumers through the consumption experience (Schmitt 1999a). According to Prahalad (2004) value is not added to goods, or created by services, but is placed in the actual personalized experiences created through active participation. ‘Events are gaining social and economic relevance as they contribute to the animation and social cohesion of a city, region or country, and yield income as tourist attractions and spending outlets for local inhabitants.’ (Van Vliet, 2012, p134) By means of exploring the multi-phase nature of leisure experiences, event organizers may gain insights into the experience their events and festivals deliver to their visitors. They can use this information to improve their event for visitors and meet their needs. “How people describe event experiences as they occur, and talk about them afterwards, remains in large part a mystery and therefore must be of considerable interest to event researchers and producers” (Getz 2012, p191). The relevance of this study to society can be seen in the attempt to provide festival organizers with new information on what visitors want and expect. Festival visitors generate meaningful experiences from the festival based on its physical location, the type of event and its social environment (Morgan, Lugosi and Ritchie 2010). This will increase the likelihood that visitors have fun at the festival, appreciate the festival positively, talk in positive terms with others and may come back another time. The scientific relevance of this research is to contribute to the theory building regarding the multi-phase nature of leisure experience and to fill in the gap between the multi-phase nature of leisure experience and the link to event and festivals.

7

1.3 Outline

In the following chapter a theoretical framework is provided. First it will focus on event experiences in general, followed by the five time phases provided by Clawson (1966). Chapter three will provide the description of the research methodology. This section explains how the strategy for this research was conducted and how the method of the data analysis is chosen. In chapter 4, the described research design is performed. It describes how the research has expired and analyzes the results from the questionnaires. In the conclusion, chapter 5, an answer is given to the research question “(How) do event and festival experiences differ in time (in the anticipation, on-site and recollection phase)?”. This section presents the conclusions drawn from the study by comparing the study results from visitor experiences with the existing theory and hypothesis. In the discussion section, other possible interpretations and visions are given. Continuing you will find the last two chapters; references (chapter 6) and appendix (Chapter 7).

2. Theoretical framework In this chapter a theoretical framework, with a description of the central topics of this research, is provided. To start, the definition of event and festival experience is discussed. It will continue with the multi-phase nature of leisure experiences provided by Clawson (1966).

2.1 Event and festival experience in leisure

Leisure

Leisure can be defined in different ways: ‘leisure as freedom from work, enabling contemplation and the arts without ulterior purpose; leisure as philosophy, the pursuit of understanding’ (de Grazia, 1962), ‘free time/non-work’ (Neulinger 1962), ‘freely chosen activity/intrinsically motivated pursuits’ (Kelly 1987) and ‘leisure as voluntary behavior’ (Rojek 2005). In general leisure can be seen as a mixture of pleasurable (sometimes unpleasurable) experiences that are generally characterized by feelings of fun, enjoyment and relaxation. According to Getz (2012), leisure is based on free time and free choice. Attending events for their ‘intrinsic’ reasons is leisure and attending events for ‘extrinsic’ reasons (such as social obligation or requirements of work) is not necessarily leisure. Most events fall within a broad definition of leisure experiences. Although some events are in a business realm, organizers still want visitors to have enjoyable experiences.

(Extraordinary) experience

Experience is a fundamental concept in leisure. Morgan (2006, p305) argues that ‘experience’ is used in leisure and other industries ‘to describe the essence of what customers are seeking and paying for’. According to Getz (2012), it is possible that events satisfy visitors at one level, but at the same time fail to achieve the organizers’ intended experiences. It is also possible that events are determined to be successful in terms of desired outcomes such as money earned and brand recognition, but the experience of guests are unsatisfactory or even negative. These differences between positive and negative outcomes can be explained by people creating their own experience within event settings. Due to the wide range of possible experiences, it is not possible to develop a fixed typology of events based primarily on experience. For example, both festivals and sports events can facilitate joy, celebration and excitement. They have both a different form and function, but at the experiential level they can be quite similar. However, it is possible to explain experience by 4 different dimensions as mentioned above; cognitive, affective, conative and novelty (Geus, Richards and Toepoel 2013). The cognitive dimension of experience refers to awareness, perception, memory, learning, judgment and

8

understanding or making sense of the experience. The affective dimension of experience concerns feelings and emotions, preferences and values. The conative dimension of experience describes actual behavior, so the things people do including physical activity (Getz 2012). The novelty dimension of experience describes the distinctiveness and/or uniqueness of the event (Geus, Richards and Toepoel 2013). Providing consumers with experiences is the essence of the leisure sector (Morgan et al. 2010). Most important are the ‘extraordinary experiences’ (Abrahams, 1986); ‘something that will stand out from everyday life and from all the competition for people’s spare time and disposable income (Morgan and Watson, 2007). Events fall in the category of extraordinary experiences, and so for festivalgoers, an event is “a space set apart to which they come seeking an extraordinary experience” (Morgan, 2007, p. 1). According to Morgan, Lugosi, & Ritchie (2010) the leisure and tourism industry only exists to provide consumers with extraordinary experiences. It is thus important for those engaged in the leisure business to understand those experiences’ (Geus, Richards and Toepoel 2013, p4).

Event and festival experiences

This article will focus on event and festival experiences which are distinct from day-to-day experiences, happening outside the context of everyday routines. In order to define the concept of an event and festival the following definitions are provided: Events have been defined as: “a onetime or infrequently occurring event of limited duration that provides the consumer with a leisure and social opportunity beyond everyday experience” (Jago & Shaw, 1998, p. 29). Festivals have been defined as: “a gathering of a relatively large crowd in a specific public place for a delineated period, during which visitors are offered an unique experience (planned and organized with a specific purpose), including transformation and play elements, making it possible for visitors to behave and feel differently than in their daily lives” (Van Vliet 2012, p.20). Both definitions are bound in space and time, and are applicable for events in music, sports, culture, and art. Festivals are growing in popularity and numbers (Getz, 2005). Since the emergence of the first festivals, the festival offer in the Netherlands increased significantly: there are now 708 arts and cultural festivals with more than 3,000 visitors; five times more than thirty years ago. In particular, the number of music festivals grew enormously. On average there were 59 festivals per month in the Netherlands in 2012, with the busiest month in June (119 festivals). That year there were 19.8 million people who visited a festival, which takes an average of 28,261 visitors each festival. The three most common types of festivals in the Netherlands are (1) pop music (2), dance and (3) street theater. The most crowded festival province is North Holland, with Amsterdam as the busiest city. Most of the events (201) have a visitor category of 5,000 to 9,999 people, followed by 188 events with 10,000 to 24,999 visitors. Only two events have had more than 500,000 visitors, namely the International Documentary Film Festival Amsterdam (IDFA) and the Dutch Film Festival. The biggest music event in the Netherlands is Pinkpop with approximately 60.000 visitors, followed by Lowlands with circa 55.000 visitors (Respons, 2013). The growing number of event and festivals can be explained by the fact that the spending of leisure time has changed: people spend more time outdoors, are more often together with other people and are willing to travel more. Furthermore, festivals serve more and more as (city)marketing tools to achieve goals for cities, regions and companies, which makes it difficult for festival organizations to remain distinctive (Van Vliet, 2012).

9

2.2 Multi-phase nature of leisure experiences

The dynamic role of leisure experience

According to Lee and Shafer (2002), leisure experiences are believed to be dynamic and emerge through an interaction process; people interact with social and physical aspects of the environment. Thereby having an enjoyable experience during leisure is often the ultimate goal of leisure participants, and providing an enjoyable leisure experience is the ultimate goal of leisure resource managers. The most important characteristic of leisure experience is that it is dynamic. This perspective has been based on the approach of Clawson and Knetch (1966). This approach is a multi-phase model of recreational experience. Clawson and Knetch (1966) viewed the total experience as typically consisting of five phases: (1) anticipation, (2) travel to site, (3) the actual on-site experience, (4) the travel-back phase, and (5) the recollection phase. They argued that outdoor recreationists gain satisfaction or dissatisfaction from each phase of the experience and that the total recreation experience is much broader than the activity on the site alone. They suggested that there might be a common pattern of increasing joy, satisfaction, or benefit from anticipation through travel to and including travel-back phase, but then considerable recovery in benefits during the recollection phase (Borrie and Roggenbuck 2001).

The multi-phase model approach of experience

Clawson and Knetch (1966) describe the experience of outdoor recreation using the 5 phases mentioned above. The outdoor recreation experience begins with anticipation, including planning which may be very brief or extend over weeks or months. The outdoor recreation experience goes farther, if the anticipation and planning lead to a positive decision to participate (Clawson and Knetch, 1966). This not only applies for outdoor recreation, but for the leisure branch as well. Travel to the actual site is the second major phase. Almost every time, some travel is required. The cost and time required for travel – absolutely and relative – may vary. Variations between time and cost will have an effect on satisfactions and dissatisfactions between individuals, routes and visited areas. The third major phase of the total recreation experience is the on-site experience and activities. These are the activities people usually think of when considering outdoor recreation (such as swimming and hiking), and the satisfaction gained from them. Based on festival experiences, on-site experiences are the festival or event itself. Based on measured time involved, incurred expense and satisfaction gained, this phase may be less than half of the total outdoor recreation experienced. The on-site phase is the basic reason for the whole outdoor recreation experience. The remaining parts of the total experience are built around it. The total experience is often described in terms of what happens during this third phase. In a typical one-day outing, a single site is involved. The fourth phase of the total outdoor recreation experience is travel back. The travel back can’t be seen as a duplicate of the travel to the site. Although the route may be the same, the recreationist/visitors are different. People become tired, although they were fresh traveling to the area. Also memories from the anticipation can make a difference on the way back. Recollection is the last major phase of the total recreation experience Clawson and Knetch (1966) discuss in their research. If the experience is over, an individual memory can recall one or more aspects of the overall experience (Clawson and Knetch, 1966). When the memory of the total recreation experience makes a major impression, the recollection will be strong and lasting.

10

Complexity of experience

‘The whole outdoor recreation experience is a package deal; all parts are necessary, and the sum of satisfaction and dissatisfaction from the whole must be balanced against the total costs (Clawson and Knetch, 1966, p35). Each phase has a different capability to produce unique experiences. Hammot (1980) reported that mood states of field trip participants varied among the experience phases hypothesized by Clawson and Knetch (1966). Hull et al (1992) investigated individuals’ experience patterns, defined as the dynamic nature of recreation experience, which also suggested that mood changes over the course of recreation engagement. Other studies showed similar results. Botteril and Crompton (1996) stated that most analyses of tourists’ experiences appearing in the literature are based upon Clawson and Knetch’s (1966) model of the recreation experience. They argue that the model has also served as a conceptual framework for studies concerned with the role of perception in recreation (Mercer 1971), and environmental psychology in tourism (Fridgen 1984). Although leisure experience is characterized as being multi-dimensional, transitory and multi-phased, Lee, Dattilo, Howard (1994) state that few empirical studies have explored the complexity and dynamics of leisure experiences. 2.3 Hypotheses On the basis of the literature review, the relationships between experience and the multi-phase nature of event and festival experiences can be hypothesized. As mentioned before, not all five phases will be examined in this study. The three phases of anticipation, the actual on-site experience, and recollection will be researched and therefore hypotheses are formulated. The different time phases can be spread over a long period of time. It is possible that visitors purchase a ticket a year in advance. Eventually time phases do not connect well to each other and therefor is it likely that:

H1. The experience dimensions will change during the different time phases. The affective dimension of experience represents excitement, emotional energy, intimacy, adventure, values and/or recollection from an event. These experiences may be needed among visitors to trigger them to the event and buy tickets. Therefore it is plausible that:

H2. The anticipation phase will be distinguished by the affective dimension of experience.

The conative dimension of experience represents physical engagement; so the behavior, participation and creativity of people during an event or festival. These experiences take place during the event, so it is assumable that:

H3. The on-site phase will be distinguished by the conative dimension of experience. Recollection is the last phase of the total recreation experience. If the experience is over, an individual memory can recall one or more aspects of the overall experience (Clawson and Knetch, 1966). Looking back, visitors may have learned a lot from an event or festival. As a result, it is plausible that:

H4. The recollection phase will be distinguished by the cognitive dimension of experience. These hypotheses are tested by data gained from a questionnaire which is conducted from festival visitors.

11

3. Methodology This study investigates the multi-phasic nature of event and festival experiences. In this chapter an overview is given of the methodological approach which will be used to answer the research question. First, the research design is explained including the tools supporting this design. Furthermore the process of operationalization and the used data analysis are discussed.

3.1 Research design

This research has a descriptive nature and the design applied is quantitative. This research has a cross-sectional design, due to the fact that it will be held at a single point in time and involves more than one case (Bryman, 2008, p58). The advantage of a quantitative approach is that the data can measure individual changes in experience and can provide information on relations between the different phases of events and festivals. Furthermore, it can test the hypotheses derived from the theoretical framework. This research will use a within-subjects design, in which the same group of subjects serves in more than one treatment. All participants are exposed to every phase, so in this case, all participants will perform the Event Experience Scale for each phase. The advantage of the within-subject design is that it is a more sensitive test to examine the difference between conditions, because the design will be checked for differences between individuals. Because the test is more sensitive and the same participants take part in all conditions, the design does not require a large pool of participants (Howitt & Cramer 2007).

3.2 Instrument

The quantitative research instrument that will be used for this research is a structured questionnaire, based on the Event Experience Scale. The Event Experience Scale is a measurement tool for event experiences in order to make it possible to operationalize and quantify experiences (Geus, Richards and Toepoel 2013). This event experience model consists of 18 items, comprised of 4 dimensions: affective engagement, cognitive engagement, physical engagement and experiencing novelty. Using the Event Experience scale, only the three phase’s anticipation, the actual on-site experience, and the recollection phase will be examined in this study. The other phases travel to and from site were purposefully omitted. These phases are omitted, because the festival researched in this study is a local one and attract mostly local visitors. The participants visit a festival a short distance away; hence the phases regarding traveling are seen as an act rather than experience. Because these phases are now seen as an act rather than experience, it is not possible to test the 18 items regarding the Event Experience Scale. Sending an online survey, including the completion of these, is on average two-thirds faster than traditional research methods (Hogg 2002). The Internet is in fact 24/7 accessible without geographic limitations. The Internet provides the visitors of Eden Rave – The Reunion to access the survey at home, which contributes to the size of the range. In addition, an online survey is more user-friendly for the respondent. Visitors can enjoy the festival, and afterwards they can decide at what time they complete the survey. This survey will be developed in Dutch to get the best responses as visitors could be limited in their knowledge of English. Conducting the questionnaires will take 15 minutes. In this section of the paper, information about when and where the research was conducted, information about the sample and sample characteristics, and information about response rates will also be given. Due to the fact that this information is unknown so far, this will be added later.

12

3.3 Sample and data collection

For this research, data was collected via an online questionnaire constructed via ThesisTools, an

online tool to create and conduct online questionnaires. Of course, it is not possible to take all the

visitors of event and festivals into account in this study. Therefore, a sample of visitors is needed,

which will be provided by event organization Dance2Eden: an organization that in 1992 began

organizing dance events with a hardcore setting, but later on evolved to the early rave movement.

The rave movement is a part of the dance scene. As mentioned before, dance is one of the most

common types of festivals in the Netherlands. Therefore, this festival and its visitors represent the

festival industry of the Netherlands very well. The sample consisted mostly of women (55,2%) and

the average age was 31.2 years. If we look at the education level of the participants, we see that the

majority (44.8%) graduated with a MBO degree, followed by a HBO degree (27.6%), and VMBO

degree (10.3%). Furthermore, most visitors are employed (65.5%) or a student (17.2%).

Table 1: Descriptives of the participants Descriptives of the participants Min Max Mean/median SD

Gender 1 2 1.55 0.51

Age 19 41 31.21 6.731

Education 1=primary school, 2= vmbo, 3=havo/vwo, 4=mbo, 5= hbo, 6=wo, 7=different, 8=no education completed

1 7 4.21 1.346

Work situation 1=student, 2=working, 3=not employed, looking for work, 4=not employed, not looking for work, 5=retired, 6=with a handicap, not able to work.

1 6 2.17 1.037

The questionnaire is developed in Dutch to get the best responses as Dance2Eden is a Dutch festival organization, and therefore most visitors are Dutch as well. The questionnaire is sent only to visitors of the festival Eden Rave – The Reunion via the database with e-mail addresses, so a non-probability sample of the research population is used. This online questionnaire can be completed through a link that they will receive circa 2 weeks after the festival ended and will take approximately 15 minutes. The survey was send 2 weeks after the festival ended, so there was time for testing the recollection phase. The questionnaire can be found in the appendix (1)

3.4 Data analysis

The data, collected through the questionnaire, is processed in SPPS where it was prepared for analyses. All items of the scales were translated in Dutch to make them applicable for the current research. The first step for analyzing the data was to conduct 3 Principal Component Analysis (PCA), all on the 18 items of the Event Experience Scale with orthogonal rotation (Varimax). In this analysis four factors were secured which represent the experience dimensions of Geus, Richards and Toepoel (2013) to make sure it fits the hypothesized measurement model. Factor analysis and cluster analysis provide powerful tools for the exploration of similarity relationships among subjects (Field 2009). The factor analysis is used to examine the underlying structures of a group of items and to reduce it to (single) factors. By means of clustering, a set of objects is more similar to each other than to those in other groups. All items that are used in the further analysis are tested on their reliability. To measure the reliability of the data, a common measure of internal consistency is used, Cronbach's alpha. Furthermore a repeated measures ANOVA is performed to test the equality of related means and to detect any overall differences between those means. The analyses are done for all the three phases: anticipation, on-site, and recollection.

13

4. Results

Descriptives

Visitors could score their experiences in satisfaction and quality based on a scale from 1 to 5, in which the score 5 stands for excellent and the score 1 for very poor. In general, the visitors of this specific festival were satisfied about their experiences (M=3.81, SD=1.00). The quality of what they perceived as well as the music artists they have seen were rated as good (M=3.75, SD=.96). The rating of the visual arts that visitors have seen was balancing between fair and good (M=3.54, SD=.82).

Table 2: Satisfaction of the festival Descriptives of the festival Min Max Mean SD

The music artists that you've seen were? 1 5 3.75 .91

The visual arts that you've seen were? 1 5 3.54 .82

How did you perceive the overall quality of the festival?

1 5 3.75 .96

How satisfied were you with the festival in general?

1 5 3.81 1.00

Principal Component Analysis

The PCA of the 18 ‘anticipation’ items revealed four factors, which explained 60.3% of the variance. To verify the sampling adequacy, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin was measured with KMO = .567, which is above the limit of .5 (Field, 2009). The Bartlett’s test of sphericity amounted x² (136) = 307.914, p<.001, indicating that there are sufficiently large correlations between the items. Clustering in factor one is mainly based on the items referring to excitement, emotional energy, adventure and values, and can therefore be referred to the experience dimension ‘affective engagement’. In factor 2, items are clustered based on knowledge and reflecting and are therefore linked to the dimension ‘cognitive engagement’. Factor 3 is referred to ‘experiencing novelty’, due to the clustering of the items based on distinctiveness and uniqueness. In the fourth cluster, items based on engagement, behavior and participation cluster together and this factor is therefore linked to the dimension ‘conative engagement’. The clusters affective engagement (α=.81), cognitive engagement (α=.78) and experiencing novelty (α=.69), all had high reliabilities. However, the cluster conative engagement had an average reliability (α=.51).

14

Table 3: Principal Component Analysis - Anticipation

The PCA of the 18 ‘on-site’ items revealed four factors, which explained 71.5% of the variance. To verify the sampling adequacy, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin was measured with KMO = .565, which is above the limit of .5 (Field, 2009). The Bartlett’s test of sphericity amounted x² (153) = 413.629, p<.001, indicating that there are sufficiently large correlations between the items. Clustering in factor 1 is mainly based on the items referring to knowledge and reflecting and is therefore addressed to the dimension ‘cognitive engagement’. In the second cluster, items based on engagement, behavior and participation cluster together and this factor is therefore linked to the dimension ‘conative engagement’. Items in factor 3 mainly refer to excitement, emotional energy, adventure and values, and can therefore be linked to the experience dimension ‘affective engagement’. Factor 4 is referred to ‘experiencing novelty’, due to the clustering of the items based on distinctiveness and uniqueness. All the clusters, cognitive engagement (α=.90), conative engagement (α=.87), affective (α=.84) and experiencing novelty (α=.64), had high reliabilities.

Rotated Component matrix Rotated factor loadings

Anticipation Affective engagement

Cognitive engagement

Experiencing novelty

Conative engagement

I felt a sense of adventure ,888

I was aware of my own values ,818

I got emotional energy / felt emotionally recharged ,741

I experienced intimacy ,678

I could use my creativity ,552

I felt excited ,517

I acquired new knowledge ,863

I was learning new things ,837

I was reflecting on new ideas that came to mind ,721

I was thinking ,550

I thought this event was very distinctive (provided new experiences) ,739

I was experiencing something unique ,690

I was explaining and interpreting things for myself ,562

I experienced unfamiliar things / I was outside of my 'normal' life ,546

I wanted to re-live this event (tell others about it and show pictures) ,529

I did not participate actively* -,773

I was active ,739

I used my intellect / common sense ,533

Eigenvalues 3.56 2.78 2.27 1.64

% of variance 28.57 15.32 8.7 7.7

Α .81 .78 .69 .51

*Item deleted to increase reliability

15

Table 4: Principal Component Analysis – On-site

The PCA of the 18 ‘recollection’ items revealed four factors, which explained 81.0% of the variance. To verify the sampling adequacy, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin was measured with KMO = .624, which is above the limit of .5 (Field, 2009). The Bartlett’s test of sphericity amounted to x² (153) = 510.800, p<.001, indicating that there are sufficiently large correlations between the items. Clustering in factor 1 mainly refer to excitement, emotional energy, adventure and values, and can therefore be addressed to the experience dimension ‘affective engagement’. In factor 2, items are mainly based on the items referring to knowledge and reflecting and are therefore linked to the dimension ‘cognitive engagement’. Factor 3 is referred to ‘experiencing novelty’, due to the clustering of the items based on distinctiveness and uniqueness. In the last cluster, items based on engagement, behavior and participation cluster together and this factor is therefore linked to the dimension ‘conative engagement’. All the clusters, affective engagement (α=.93), cognitive engagement (α=.93), experiencing novelty (α=.87) and conative engagement (α=.62), had high reliabilities.


On-site Cognitive engagement

Conative engagement

Affective engagement





I was thinking ,662




I was active ,700




I felt excited ,875






I did not participate actively ,558


Eigenvalues 4.08 3.70 3.02 2.07

% of variance 45.72 13.10 6.65 6.05

Α .90 .87 .84 .64

16

Table 5: Principal Component Analysis - Recollection

The mean scores of the anticipation, on-site and recollection clusters are shown in table 6. The cluster conative engagement (M=3.66, SD=.94) is the most positively rated of anticipation, followed by cluster affective engagement (M=3.45, SD=.74) and cluster experiencing novelty (M=3.01, SD=.78). The cluster cognitive engagement (M=2.66, SD=.92) is rated more negatively. The mean scores of on-site lies on average further apart, so score the clusters conative engagement (M=3.21, SD=1.18) and affective engagement (M=3.53, SD=1.19) reasonably well, but are the clusters cognitive engagement (M=2.23, SD=1.05) and mainly experiencing novelty (M=1.98, SD=.97) rated much lower. If we have a closer look at the recollection phase, the table shows that the cluster conative engagement is most positively rated, with a mean score of 3.53 followed by the cluster affective engagement (M=3.29, SD=1.23). Clusters experiencing novelty (M=2.57, SD=1.19) and cognitive engagement (M=2.31, SD=1.05) scored more negatively.


Recollection Affective engagement

Cognitive engagement


Conative engagement




I felt excited ,774







I was thinking ,782


I did not participate actively ,603





I was active ,613

Eigenvalues 5.03 5.00 2.55 2.00

% of variance 50.06 16.01 9.09 5.85

Α .93 .93 .87 .62

17

Table 6: Descriptives of mean scores of the anticipation, on-site and recollection clusters

Factors Min Max Mean SD

Anticipation Cluster affective engagement

1 5 3.45 .74

Anticipation Cluster cognitive engagement

1 5 2.66 .92

Anticipation Cluster experiencing novelty

1 5 3.01 .78

Anticipation Cluster conative engagement

1 5 3.66 .94

On-site Cluster cognitive engagement

1 5 2.23 1.05

On-site Cluster conative engagement

1 5 3.21 1.18

On-site Cluster affective engagement

1 5 3.53 1.06

On-site Cluster experiencing novelty

1 5 1.98 .97

Recollection Cluster affective engagement

1 5 3.29 1.23

Recollection Cluster cognitive engagement

1 5 2.31 1.05

Recollection Cluster experiencing novelty

1 5 2.57 1.19

Recollection Cluster conative engagement

1 5 3.53 1.19

Repeated Measures ANOVA

Repeated-measures ANOVA was performed on the time phase’s anticipation, on-site and recollection to tests the equality of means. All the members of the sample are tested under these three conditions. Table 7: Repeated measures ANOVA

SS df MS F

Anticipation 21.91 2.78 7.30 14.74

On-site 50.28 2.71 16.76 33.98

Recollection 29.39 2.90 9.80 15.59

The results show that the anticipation phase is significantly affected by the four experience dimensions, F(2.78, 102.93) = 14.74, P<0.01. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of Sphericity has been met, x2 (5) = 5.05, p=.410. The results also show that the on-site phase is also significantly affected by the four experience dimensions, F(2.71, 78.69) = 33.98, P<0.01. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of Sphericity has been met, x2 (5) = 4.55, p=.473. Furthermore, the results show that the recollection phase is significantly affected by the four experience dimensions as well, F(2.90, 81.29) = 15.59, P<0.01. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of Sphericity has been met, x2 (5) = 1.42, p=.922.

18

5. Conclusion This chapter concludes whether there is a relation between the theory and hypothesis as proposed in chapter two and the results of the study as described in chapter four. Based on work of Geus, Richards and Toepoel (2013) four clusters would be expected which match the four dimensions of experience: cognitive, affective, conative and novelty. These four dimensions should be reflected in the three time phases of Clawson (1966): anticipation, on-site and recollection. By performing multiple Principal Component Analyses for the time phase anticipation, 4 clusters were secured. With the Principal Component Analysis, also four factors were conducted for the time phases on-site and recollection. The four clusters secured correspond with the four dimensions of experience, so it does fit the hypothesized measurement model. The conclusions will be given per sub-question/time phase.

How are event and festivals experienced before the festival (in the anticipation phase)?

In the anticipation phase, the cluster affective engagement is the most present and thus corresponds to the hypothesis: ‘The anticipation phase will be distinguished by the affective dimension of experience’. Therefore the hypothesis can be accepted. Affective engagement is also the most positively scored in this phase. Visitors do feel excitement, emotional energy, intimacy, adventure, values and/or recollection from the event during the anticipation phase. Experiencing novelty and conative engagement do not score very positively as well as very negatively, which mean that during the anticipation phase visitors do participate, but they don’t participate very actively. Cognitive engagement scored less positively during this phase, which means that people don’t interpret, learn and/or acquire knowledge much from the event or festival beforehand.

How are events and festivals experienced during the festival (on-site)?

In the on-site phase, the factor cognitive engagement is the most present cluster and thus the hypothesis ‘The on-site phase will be distinguished by the conative dimension of experience’ is rejected. Although cognitive engagement is the most present cluster in this phase, it is not positively scored, which means that visitors don’t interpret, learn or acquire knowledge from the event. Experiencing novelty is rated poorly, in contrast with the rating in the anticipation phase, which means that people expected the event to be distinctive and unique beforehand, but didn’t experience this during the event. Conative and affective engagement do score positively in the on-site phase, which indicate that visitors felt excitement, emotional energy, intimacy, adventure and participated actively and creatively. This underlines the importance of physical co-presence in the on-site experiences.

How are events and festivals experienced after the festival (in the recollection phase)?

In the recollection phase, the most present factor is affective engagement. The hypothesis: ‘The recollection phase will be distinguished by the cognitive dimension of experience’ is therefore rejected. The deviation of clusters is similar to the anticipation phase; affective engagement scored positively in this phase and experiencing novelty and conative engagement do not score very positively or negatively. A difference is found in conative engagement. This cluster scored more positively in the recollection phase, which means that visitors participated more actively and creatively than expected beforehand.

19

(How) do event and festival experiences differ in time (in the anticipation, on-site and recollection

phase)?

Based on the analyses and sub questions, we can see that the four dimensions of experience (cognitive, affective, conative and novelty) occur during the different time phases. Due to the fact that not all time phases are distinguished by the same dimension of experience we can accept the hypothesis: ‘The experience dimensions will change during the different time phases’. Therefore we can conclude that event and festival experiences do differ over time.

6. Discussion The multi-phase model approach of experience provided by Clawson and Knetch (1966) is used in this study as a theoretical model to test the multi-phase nature of event and festival experiences. In General the visitors evaluated Eden Rave - The Reunion positively. Results indicate that event and festival experiences differ in time, even if it is not in the way previously thought. The anticipation phase is distinguished by the affective dimension of experience. Visitors do feel excitement, energy and emotional values for the event during the anticipation phase. I believe these experiences are needed among visitors to trigger them to the event or festival. If an event or festival can’t trigger its visitors, they can’t sell their tickets. It is strange to see that the on-site phase is not distinguished by affective experiences. Especially since this experience apply to physical engagement. One reason for this may be that the visitors do not realize or do not find it important to actively participate in an event. It may be that visitors find it more important to feel good and get a lot of emotional energy. The recollection phase is distinguished by the affective dimension of experience and not by the cognitive dimension that was predicted in advance. This may mean that visitors don’t find it important to learn something during the festival, but rather got entertained. The chosen research method is suitable to measure the extent in which something occurs in the target groups, where significant differences can be identified, and where in-depth statistical analysis can be performed. However, it cannot discuss questions outside of the questionnaire. Therefore it is advisable to supplement further research with a qualitative research. Qualitative research is often said to be flawed, because the results are indicative and not representative. However, it is possible to explore motives of visitors; it is ideal for finding out spontaneous reactions on how they experience an event or festival. The current findings show that there is a multi-phase nature in event and festival experiences, based on the four experience dimensions: cognitive, affective, conative and novelty. This research has made use of one (dance) festival. However, more research with bigger samples and different events and festivals, such as sporting events, is needed to validate these findings and to draw conclusions on the nature of trends on a general level. In addition, experiences from visitors are measured afterwards. Visitors have completed the survey two weeks after the festival ended. It is possible that visitors had different experiences during the festival than they remembered afterwards. Further research should take into account the differences between these measurements in time. The results show that the dimension novelty scored lower in the recollection phase than in the anticipation phase. So, people thought the festival was more unique and distinctive beforehand than they experienced afterwards. However, this may not be a problem, as satisfaction scored positively. It may be possible that the scores swerve from each other, because no research has been done on the edition of the festival. People who have been to this festival once before may assess novelty and satisfaction differently than first-time visitors. For example, first-time visitors have high expectations

20

of the festival due to stories they have heard from others. Despite the festival don’t meet up these expectations, visitors may still have had a good experience and score high on satisfaction. In follow-up studies, it is advisable to take the editions of events and festivals into account, so that researchers can respond to this swerve between scores.

21

References Bigne´, J.E., Andreu, L. and Gnoth, J. (2005). The theme park experience: an analysis of pleasure, arousal and satisfaction. Tourism Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 833-844.

Boeije, H. (2006). Analyseren in kwalitatief onderzoek. Denken en doen. Amsterdam, Boom onderwijs.

Bongkoo, L., Shafer, C.S. and Inho, K. (2005). Examining relationships among perceptions of self, episode-specific evaluations, and overall satisfaction with a leisure activity. Leisure Sciences, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 93-109. Borrie, W.T. and Roggenbuck, J. W. (2001). The dynamic, emergent, and multi-phasic nature of on-site wilderness experience. Journal of Leisure Research. Vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 202 – 228. Botteril, T.D. and Crompton J.L. (1996). Two case studies exploring the nature of the tourist’s experience. Journal of Leisure Research. Vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 57 – 82. Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods. New York, Oxford University Press. Clawson, M. and Knetsch, J. L. (1966). Economics of Outdoor Recreation. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Press. Crompton, J.L. & McKay, S.L. (1997). Motives of visitors attending festival events. Annals of Tourism Research, 24, 2, pp. 425-439.

Farber, M.E. and Hall, T.E. (2007). Emotion and environment: visitors’ extraordinary experiences along the Dalton Highway in Alaska. Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 248-270. Getz, D. (2010). The nature and scope of festival studies. International Journal of Event Management Research. Volume 5, Number 1. Getz, D. (2012). Event Studies. Theory, Research and Policy for Planned Events. (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Geus, S. Richards, G. Toepoel, V. (2013). The Dutch Queen’s Day Event. Conceptualisation and Operationalisation of Event and Festival Experiences: creation of an Event Experience Scale. Department of Leisure Studies, Tilburg University, the Netherlands.

Hills, P. and Argyle, M. (1998). Positive moods derived from leisure and their relationship to happiness and personality. Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 523-535. Hogg, A. (2002). Conducting Online Research. Vol. 2003: White Paper Series, Burke Interactive. Holbrook, M. B. and Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The Experiential Aspects of Consumption. Consumer Fantasies, Feelings, and Fun. The Journal of Consumer Research, 9(2), 132-140. Howitt, D. and Cramer, D. (2007). Introduction to statistics in psychology. Harlow,Prentice Hall. Jago, L. and Shaw, R. N. (1998). Special Events: A Conceptual and Definitional Framework. Festival Management and Event Tourism, 5, 21-32. doi: 10.3727/106527098792186775

22

Kelly, J. (1987). Freedom to Be: A New Sociology of Leisure. New York: Macmillan. Lee, B. and Shafer, C.S. (2002). The dynamic nature of leisure experience: an application of affect control theory. Journal of Leisure Research. Vol 34, no. 3, pp. 290-310 Lee, Y. Dattilo, J. and Howard, D. (1994). The complex and dynamic nature of leisure experience. Journal of Leisure Research.

Mannell, R.C., Zuzanek, J. and Larson, R. (1988). Leisure states and ‘flow’ experiences: testing perceived freedom and intrinsic motivation hypotheses. Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 289-304. Morgan, M. (2007). Festival spaces and the visitor experience. In Casado-Diaz, M., Everett, S. And Wilson, J. (Eds), Social and Cultural Change: Making Space(s) for Leisure and Tourism, Leisure Studies Association, Eastbourne.

Morgen, M. (2008). What makes a good festival? Understanding the event experiences. Event Management. Morgan, M. and Watson, P. (2007). Experience in Hospitality, Leisure, Events, Sport and Tourism. Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism Network, UK higher education academy, January 2007. Morgan, M., Lugosi, P. and Ritchie, B.J.R. (2010). The Tourism and Leisure Experience: Consumer and Managerial Perspectives. Channel View Publications, Bristol, pp. 113-130. Oh, H., Fiore, A.M. and Jeoung, M. (2007). Measuring experience economy concepts: tourism Applications. Journal of Travel Research, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 119-132. Prahalad, C. K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation Experiences. The next pratice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 6-14.

Ragheb, M.G. and Tate, R.L. (1993). A behavioral model of leisure participation, based on leisure attitude, motivation and satisfaction. Leisure Studies, Vol. 12, pp. 61-70. Respons. (2013). Event information in the Netherlands. Consulted on December 15th 2013, http://www.respons.nl/monitoren-online-databases/festival-monitor-online Schmitt, B.H. (1999). Customer Experience Management: A Revolutionary Approach to Connecting With Your Customers. John Wiley and Sons Inc, Hoboken, NJ. Van Vliet, H. (2012). Festivalbeleving. De waarde van publieksevenementen. Hogeschool Utrecht – Kenniscentrum Communicatie & Journalistiek/Lectoraat Crossmedia Business.

http://www.respons.nl/monitoren-online-databases/festival-monitor-online

23

Appendix

Appendix 1: Questionnaire

Satisfaction How would you rate the quality of the following aspects of the festival?

Very poor

poor fair good excellent No answer

The music artists that you've seen were:

The visual arts that you've seen were:

How did you perceive the overall quality of the festival?

Very dis-satisfied

dissatisfied

fair satisfied Very satisfied

No answer

How satisfied were you with the festival in general?

Experience The next questions are about how you experienced the festival. With these questions we want to make sure next years’ experience will be even better! Anticipation The following questions are about the time before the festival took place. So, from the moment you bought the tickets, including planning which may be very brief or extend over weeks or months.

Totally disagree

2 3 4 5 Totally agree

No answer

I felt excited

I got emotional energy / felt emotionally recharged

I experienced intimacy

I felt a sense of adventure

I was aware of my own values

I wanted to re-live this event (tell others about it and show pictures)

I was explaining and interpreting things for myself

I was thinking

I used my intellect / common sense

I was learning new things

I acquired new knowledge

I was reflecting on new ideas that came to mind

I was active

24

I did not participate actively

I could use my creativity

I thought this event was very distinctive (provided new experiences)

I experienced unfamiliar things / I was outside of my 'normal' life

I was experiencing something unique

On-site experiences The following questions are about the actual festival itself.

Totally disagree


No answer

I felt excited







I was thinking





I was active






Recollection The following questions are about the time after the festival. How do you look back at the festival?

Totally disagree


No answer

I felt excited






25


I was thinking





I was active






Demographic Questions Gender

1. Male 2. Female

Age:

Highest education:

1. Primary school 2. Low professional degree 3. High school 4. High professional degree 5. Bachelor’s degree or equivalent 6. Master’s degree or equivalent

Which of the following categories best describes your employment status?

1. Student 2. Employed 3. Not employed, looking for work 4. Not employed, NOT looking for work 5. Retired 6. Disabled, not able to work

26

Appendix 2: Analyses

Principal Component Analyses – Anticipation

28

Principal Component Analyses – On-site

30

Principal Component Analyses – Recollection

32

Reliability Statistics – Anticipation

Cluster 1: Affective engagement

Cluster 2: Cognitive engagement

Cluster 3: Experiencing novelty

Cluster 4: Conative engagement

33

Reliability Statistics – On-Site





34

Reliability Statistics – Recollection





35

Repeated Measures ANOVA – Anticipation

Repeated Measures ANOVA – On-site

36

Repeated Measures ANOVA – Recollection

The multi-phase nature of event and festival experiences.

Documents

Transcript of The multi-phase nature of event and festival experiences.