Analysis for Cause and Effect Relationship among Components of

Analysis for Cause and Effect Relationship among Components of

21
1 (
65 ) pp.221 240
2012.2
Analysis for Cause and Effect Relationship among Components of Flow
Experience, Based on Visit in Experiential Local Festival: A Case of Visitors in
Boryeong Mud Festival
Oh, Sun-Young Yoon, Seol-Min
This research was conducted to measure the flow experience of the experiential festival. The purpose is to examine
structural relationships among the constructional concepts (involvement, focused attention, arousal, playfulness, time
distortion, and explanatory behavior) in order to investigate the flow experience. To this end an onsite survey was
conducted on tourists who had participated in experience events, an active program of Boryeong Mud Festival. Some
suggestions deduced from quantitative evaluations are as follows. After testing and verifying seven hypotheses, the
derived conclusion was that most of effect relationships among the constructional concepts of the flow experience
were statistically significant and positively related except the relationship(hypothesis 3) between focused attention and
playfulness. Specifically, the tourists’ involvement had statistically significant effect on both the focused attention and
the arousal. The results of the effect relationship on playfulness proved that the focused attention did not have an
effect on the playfulness, while the arousal had an impact on the playfulness. Also, both the focused attention and the
playfulness had an effect on the time distortion. Furthermore, the impact of two constructs on the time distortion was
greater for the playfulness than the focused attention. Lastly, the playfulness appeared to be related to the exploratory
behavior. Based on these findings, the theoretical and practical implications were further discussed.
: Flow Experience, Causality Model, Local Festival
1998
13
. 2010
“
”,
“
!
!”
!
.
,
,
,
(
,
, 2007).
.
,
(
.
, 2006),
,
(
(
, 2011).
.
,
,
.
.
(
(Flow)
, 2006a)
, 2011;
.
, 2009;
, 2010;
, 2007)
,
.
,
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1997).
,
,
,
(Mathwick & Rigdon, 2004).
,
Hoffman
Novak(1996)
.
(
,
2010).
(
2008;
, 2010),
,
,
,
(
,
, 2009)
,
(Holsapple & Wu, 2006)
.
.
.
.
(escape)
,
(
:
La Tomatina)
(Wang, Baker, Wagner, & Wakefield,
(
, 2006b).
2007).
(
,
.
2009)
,
,
(
, 2003).
.
,
.
( :
,
.
)
2010
,
. 2009
(Hoch, 2002)
)
.
2010
(226
,
,
,
)
10%
3,000
,
(268
(‘09: 18
‘10: 20 2,000 )
,
(
(Stamboulis & Skayannis,2003).
,
.
, 2011).
IBN
:
?(Boryeong
Mud Festival: More fun than Tomatina?)’
,
,
,
(
, 2008).
‘
‘
(Let's play in mud)’
200~300
,
(stuff)
(
, 2011).
,
(Finneran
& Zhang, 2005).
.
,
,
(
, 2008),
(
(
, 2009).
, 2005).
,
,
commitment
immersion
. commitment
.
,
,
( :
, 2011,
, 2008,
-
-
, 2011)
(Flow)
. immersion
,
,
.
(
, 2010).
,
,
,
,
( : commitment, immersion)
,
(Hsu & Lu,
2004).
, Csikszentmihalyi(1975)
.
,
(2009)
(
.
, 2010).
,
.
,
,
.
‘
,
’
.
,
(
.
, 2010),
.
3
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1975)
(challenge),
(arousal),
(control),
(skill),
8
(Massimini & Carli, 1988)
(focused attention),
(interactivity),
.
(involvement),
(optimal stimulus level),
:
(playfulness),
,
,
(
:
:
-
(
),
,
:
(exploratory behavior),
(positive affect),
4
(
:
,
:
),
)
3
4
3
(telepresence),
(time distortion)
.
(apathy)
.
8
-
,
,
(Zhou, Li, & Liu, 2010).
,
),
(worry,
(relaxation,
,
.
:
:
:
,4
(arousal,
,
,
:
)
:
,
:
(control,
:
3
(3
:
),
),
.
,8
)
4
,
.
(Ellis, Voelkl & Morris, 1994;
Jones, Hollenhorst, Perna, & Selin, 2000; Shernoff,
Csikszentmihalyi, Schneider, & Shernoff, 2003)
.
(Mathwick & Rigdon, 2004).
( :
,
, SIT)
(ESM: Experience Sampling Method)
(
, 2009).
( :
)
,
,
.
(Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1988).
Likert
(channel segmentation
model)
(
2003)
/
(activity/survey method)
,
.
2
(causality model)
, Csikszentmihalyi(1975)
.
-
,
,
.
Novak, Hoffman
(
, 2008).
,
Yung(1998, 2000)
,
1)
,
,
,
,
/
.
,
(1999),
(2000),
(
Davis
Wong(2007),
Hoffman
Novak(1996), Novak et al.(1998, 2000)
, 2000)
.
.
(
, 2010),
,
, 2008;
(
, 2009),
(
, 2010; Lee & Yoo, 2011)
(Csikszentmihalyi, 1990).
.
,
,
,
.
,
.
Hoffman
,
(
Novak(1996), Novak et al.(1998,
2000)
13
, 2010).
.
.
,
Csikszentmihalyi
Csikszentmihalyi
(1988)
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
Hoffman
Novak(1996)
,
.
.
,
Hoffman
Novak
(1996)
(CMEs:
computer-mediated environments)
,
<
1>
.
.
( :
,
(2009)
-
(
,
,
,
,
,
)
,
(Novak et al., 2000)
)-
,
-
-
,
.
Novak et al.(1998)
(working paper)
(1999)
·
,
,
.
,
,
,
.
(2009)
,
-
Davis
-
,
,
-
(2010)
-
,
.
(2010)
,
(+)
.
-
,
-
,
,
.
Lee
,
,
Yoo(2011)
(
,
),
(
(
(2010)
Wong(2007)
,
,
)
.
,
-
,
-
),
,
Pham(1992)
1(H1):
(+ )
, Koufaris(2002)
.
2(H2):
(+ )
,
3(H3):
.
Sánchez-Franco
.
(+ )
Rey(2004)
.
4(H4):
(+ )
.
5(H5):
,
(+ )
, Fortin
Dholakia(2005)
.
6(H6):
,
(+ )
.
7(H7):
.
Huang,
Chiu,
Sung
(+ )
.
Farn(2011)
,
.
<
Novak et al.(1998)
1>
(
.
,
),
,
)
(
, 2010;
Lee & Yoo(2011), Novak et al.(1998, 2000)
(
),
),
.
, 2009;
(
(
, 2009; Chou & Ting, 2003; Davis & Wong, 2007;
Novak et al., 1998, 2000)
,
,
4
(
,
(
,
,
,
,
7
)
.
350
,
:
310
,
:
.
,
,
:
,
:
.
,
,
:
,
.
,
:
)
,
Likert 5
5=
(1=
)
.
.
,
,
1
.
,
.
,
.
,
2
,
.
,
,
,
,
5
,
.
‘
’
.
(182 )
,
(128 )
20 (130 )
30 (105 )
.
(221 )
,
,
2010
/
( :
,
,
,
(20
(118 )
.
(
: 71 ,
)
)
.
(68 )
.
(
,
)
,
.
,
: 50 )
(118 )
7
,
.
/
,
.
2010
24 25
(129 )
(128 )
,
,
α
.
(Zmean=-1.312)
±1.96(p<.05)
(Zmean=-1.118)
(Hair, Black, Babin,
Anderson, & Tatham, 2006)
.
.
,
(3 )
,
(Cronbach’s α
.893 .949
),
,
)
,
.
Q
.
1.627(
:
,
Q
3)
,
GFI=.915(
.9), CFI=.981(
:
:
.9), NFI=.952(
.9), RMR=.028(
:
.05)
.
.
(AVE)
.
χ2
(
), Q (χ2/df),
GFI, NFI, CFI, RMR
,
, χ2
(H0:
χ
:
,
.901 .949(
(CR)
:
.7), .694 .824(
.5)
,
.7
.
:
(Anderson & Gerbing, 1988).
<
AVE
5>
2
χ
.
AVE
,
:
,
(
2
df=1,
χ =21.789,
-
:
df=1,
2
χ =25.626)
(Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
AVE
-
(Steenkamp & van Trijp, 1991).
,
-
.845
AVE
,
.85
.
(Klein, 1998).
,
(Φ±(2×S.E))
.967(.845+(2×.061))
.723(.845-(2×.061))
1
,
M(S.D)
3.32(.830)
(.694)
3.20(.912)
.753**
3.43(.845)
.726**
3.71(.851)
.682**
3.34(.940)
3.70(.850)
.567a
.527
.465
.479
.309
(.824)
.704
.560
.616
.261
.839**
(.754)
.714
.661
.336
.748**
.845**
(.775)
.638
.419
.692**
.785**
.813**
.799**
(.813)
.343
.556**
.511**
.580**
.647**
.586**
(.762)
R2
H1
1.177
H2
H3
C.R.
.917
.084
.841
13.953***
1.084
.954
.083
.911
13.112***
-.079
-.085
.110
H4
1.023
.975
.141
H5
.370
.365
.063
H6
.607
.555
.074
.653
.675
.056
H7
2
.813
.752
.456
-.713
7.261***
5.841***
8.237***
11.565***
Q(χ /df: 367.387/224)=1.640, p=.000, GFI=.914, NFI=.952, CFI=.980, RMR=.031
χ2
367.387(p<.01)
(
,
.
Q
1.640, GFI
RMR
.914, NFI
.952, CFI
)
2(H1, H2)
1
,
.980,
.031
,
84.1%, 91.1%
.
.
(
,
, 2010;
3(H3)
, 2009; Davis & Wong,
2007; Huang et al., 2011; Lee & Yoo, 2011; Novak et
al., 2000)
.
,
(Fortin & Dholakia, 2005; Pham, 1992; Novak et
al., 2000)
(+)
,
84.1%, 91.1%
(+)
.
, 81.3%
.
,
.
,
(+)
1
,1
,
75.2%
(
.
,
=.555)
(
(situational involvement)
=.365)
(enduring involvement)
.
(
.
,
=45.6%)
.
,
.
.
.
( :
Csikszentmihalyi(1990)
,
-
Novak(1996), Novak et al.(1998, 2000)
(
(
,
),
,
(
),
.
,
),
)
.
,
.
,
)
.
Hoffman
(
,
,
,
.
,
,
(
2010;
4(H3, H4)
3
,
(
, 2009;
,
, 2009;
Novak et al., 1998)
.
=81.3%)
.
(
, 2010;
(-)
, 2009; Davis & Wong, 2007; Novak et al.,
1998)
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
(Mehrabian & Russell, 1974).
( :
)
,
.
.
.
.
( :
)
.
,
.
5
(TQM: Total Quality
,
(
Management)
,
(
.
,
6(H5, H6)
)
=75.2%)
.
(Davis & Wong, 2007; Novak
.
et al., 1998, 2000)
-
(
, 2010;
, 2009;
.
, 2009)
.
, 2010;
.
,
,
,
.
.
,
.
1
.
2
.
.
,
.
. 1998
.
,
,
.
,
.
.
7(H7)
,
,
,
.
45.6%
.
(2010),
(2007),
(2009), Davis
Wong
Novak et al.(1998)
.
,
.
.
,
.
,
.
,
.
.
.
(intrinsic)
(extrinsic)
.
,
.
.
,
(
, 2004)
.
.
Analysis for Cause and Effect Relationship among Components of Flow
Experience, Based on Visit in Experiential Local Festival: A Case of Visitors in
Boryeong Mud Festival
Oh, Sun-Young Yoon, Seol-Min
.
(
,
,
,
,
,
,
)
.
.
.7
(
,
3)
,
(+)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:
,
,