The role of passion in the quality-value-satisfaction-intentions chain: linear models and the QCA approach for athletes

Figures & data

Table 1. Hierarchical regressions of the effect of management conditions (SQ, PV, AS) and Passion conditions (OP, HP) on future intentions, perceived value, and athletes’ satisfaction.

Variable	Future Intentions		Perceived value		Athletes’ satisfaction
Predictors	ΔR^2	Β	ΔR^2	Β	ΔR^2	β
Step 1	.64^***		.42^***		.59^***
Service quality		.05		.65^***		.38^***
Perceived value		.18^***		-		.46^***
Athletes’ satisfaction		.63^***		-		-
Step 2	.002		.10^***		.02^***
Service quality		.03		.46^***		.36^***
Perceived value		.15^***		-		.42^***
Athletes’ satisfaction		.63^***		-		-
Obsessive passion		.02		.36^***		-.14^**
Harmonic passion		.05		.008		.18^***
Total R^2adjusted	.64^***		.51^***		.60^***

Note. – not calculated according to the theoretical model.

* p ≤.05;

** p ≤ .01;

*** p ≤.001

SQ: Service quality; PV: Perceived value; AS: athletes’ satisfaction; FI: Future intentions; OP: obsessive passion (OP); HP: harmonic passion.

Table 2. Moderating effect of OP and HP.

Direct effect
			Effect		SE		t		p						R^2	F (p)
SQ > IF			.41		.05		8.57			.00					.46	46.35 (.00)
PV > IF			.50		.05		9.90			.00					.48	50.88 (.00)
AS > IF			.73		.05		15.18			.00					.64	97.33 (.00)
SQ > PV			.44		.05		9.19			.00					.52	59.92 (.00)
SQ > AS			.49		.04		11.51			.00					.56	70.45 (.00)
PV > AS			.55		.05		12.12			.00					.58	75.99 (.00)
Moderator effect
		Effect		Boot SE		t		p			95%CI				ΔR^2	F(p)
SQ > IF	PO	.02		.05		.34		.73			−.08		.11		.00	.12 (.73)
	PH	−.35		.08		−4.55		.00			−.50		−.20		.04	20.71 (.00)
PV > IF	PO	.04		.05		.77		.44			−.06		.14		.00	.59 (.44)
	PH	−.26		.07		−3.54		.00			−.41		−.12		.02	12.51 (.00)
AS > IF	PO	−.09		.05		−1.73		.08			−.19		.01		.00	3 (.08)
	PH	−.01		.07		−.15		.12			−.14		.12		.00	.02 (.88)
SQ > PV	PO	.09		.05		1.80		.07			−.08		.11		.01	3.25 (.07)
	PH	−.09		.08		−1.20		.23			−.01		.19		.00	1.48 (.23)
SQ > AS	PO	.10		.04		2.35		.02			.02		.19		.01	5.53 (.02)
	PH	−.33		.07		−4.80		.00			−.46		−.19		.04	23.05 (.00)
PV > AS	PO	.14		.05		2.90		.00			.04		.23		.01	8.39 (.00)
	PH	−.35		.07		−5.27		.00			−.48		−.22		.04	27.76 (.00)

Notes: SQ: Service quality; PV: Perceived value; AS: athletes’ satisfaction; FI: Future intentions; OP: obsessive passion (OP); HP: harmonic passion.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics and calibration values.

	SQ	PV	AS	HP	OP	IF
Mean	1238.44	7160.04	97.61	7675.63	2186.93	476.84
SD	861.87	5425.04	33.23	5338.51	3674.18	190.66
Minimum	26.40	24	8	72	1	24
Maximum	3125	15625	125	15625	15625	625
Calibration values
10th percentile	243.06	972	48	1593.60	12	192
Median	1040.18	5120	100	6400	648	430
90th percentile	2675.83	15625	125	15625	5120	625

Notes: SQ: Service quality; PV: Perceived value; AS: athletes’ satisfaction; FI: Future intentions; OP: obsessive passion (OP); HP: harmonic passion.

Table 4. Necessary conditions.

	Future intentions		∼Future intentions		Athletes’ satisfaction		∼Athletes’ satisfaction		Perceived value		∼Perceived value
	Consistency	Coverage	Consistency	Coverage	Consistency	Coverage	Consistency	Coverage	Consistency	Coverage	Consistency	Coverage
SQ	0.67	0.88	0.36	0.27	0.71	0.86	0.37	0.32	0.77	0.79	0.44	0.46
∼SQ	0.45	0.55	0.84	0.60	0.44	0.50	0.84	0.67	0.48	0.46	0.80	0.78
PV	0.70	0.89	0.34	0.25	0.73	0.86	0.36	0.30	–	–	–	–
∼PV	0.41	0.52	0.86	0.63	0.40	0.47	0.83	0.69	–	–	–	–
AS	0.84	0.90	0.35	0.22	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
∼AS	0.28	0.42	0.84	0.75	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
HP	0.64	0.84	0.41	0.31	0.68	0.82	0.40	0.34	0.76	0.79	0.80	0.77
∼HP	0.47	0.58	0.79	0.56	0.46	0.52	0.79	0.64	0.45	0.43	0.46	0.51
OP	0.52	0.75	0.46	0.38	0.54	0.72	0.48	0.45	0.62	0.69	0.73	0.66
∼OP	0.57	0.65	0.69	0.46	0.58	0.61	0.70	0.52	0.57	0.51	0.80	0.77

Note: Necessary conditions in bold (consistency ≥ 0.90); SQ: Service quality; PV: Perceived value; AS: athletes’ satisfaction; FI: Future intentions; OP: obsessive passion (OP); HP: harmonic passion.

Table 5. Three main sufficient conditions (intermediate solution).

Frequency cut-off: 1; all conditions are present for the presence of the outcome conditions and absent for the absence of the outcome condition (∼)	Future Intentions			∼Future Intentions			Athletes’ Satisfaction			∼Athletes’ Satisfaction			Perceived Value			∼Perceived Value
	Consistency cut-off: .86			Consistency cut-off: .77			Consistency cut-off: .83			Consistency cut-off: .77			Consistency cut-off: .84			Consistency cut-off: .77
	1	2	3	1	2	3	1	2	3	1	2	3	1	2	3	1	2	3
SQ		●		○		○		●	●	○	○	–	●	●	–		–	–
PV		●	●		○		●			○	○	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
AS	●			○	○		–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	–
HP			●						●	○		–		●	–	○	–	–
OP			○			○		●			○	–	●		–		–	–
Consistency	.90	.94	.92	.79	.80	.77	.86	.89	.92	.81	.80	–	.87	.89	–	.77	–	–
Raw coverage	.84	.57	.30	.75	.76	.61	.73	.45	.56	.65	.37	–	.52	.63	–	.80	–	–
Unique coverage	.27	.02	.01	.02	.04	.01	.19	.02	.03	.35	.06	–	.05	.17	–	.80	–	–
Overall solution consistency			.88			.76			.84			.79			.85			.77
Overall solution coverage			.87			.82			.80			.72			.69			.80

Notes: ● = presence of condition; ○ = absence of condition; all sufficient conditions had adequate raw coverage between .25 and .65; SQ: Service quality; PV: Perceived value; AS: athletes’ satisfaction; FI: Future intentions; OP: obsessive passion (OP); HP: harmonic passion.