Experiential Engagement: A Scale for Experiential Contexts

Summary

The paper develops and validates a short, unidimensional six-item scale of “experiential engagement” that is intended to be generalisable across experiential contexts (e.g., sport, music, arts). The authors conduct a systematic review of 25 context-specific engagement scales (466 items), reduce and adapt items to capture three recurring facets (behavioural involvement, intimacy, influence), propose a working definition, then test the six-item scale across four empirical studies (lab and field samples) covering sport, music and a track-and-field event.

The six items load strongly on a single latent factor, show good reliability (CR, AVE) and acceptable CFA/SEM fit across samples, predict theoretically relevant antecedents (motivation, identification, involvement, exposure) and consequences (context knowledge, fantasy play, betting, willingness to pay, brand equity and word-of-mouth). In Study 4 the experiential engagement scale explains more variance in sponsor brand outcomes than a sport involvement scale and a single-item fandom measure.

Key Points

The authors define experiential engagement as cumulative, ongoing behavioural and emotional exposure, involvement and interaction with a definite observable context.
From 466 items across 25 scales the authors distilled a concise six-item, reflective, unidimensional measure representing three facets: behavioural involvement, intimacy and influence.
The scale was validated in four studies (student lab in sport and music, a field track-and-field sample, and a large online sample) with good psychometrics (factor loadings, CR, AVE, CFA/SEM fit).
Antecedents tested and confirmed include motivation, identification, psychological involvement and exposure; consequences include knowledge, fantasy/betting behaviour, willingness to pay and sponsor brand outcomes.
In a direct comparison the six-item experiential engagement measure outperformed an eight-item sport involvement scale and a single-item fandom self-perception measure in explaining brand equity and word-of-mouth for sponsors.
The scale is deliberately short to reduce respondent burden while covering the construct’s three core facets, making it practical for both managers and researchers working across experiential properties.

Content summary

The authors begin with a systematic PRISMA-style review of engagement scales oriented to experiential contexts and find no existing generalisable measure that captures behavioural participation, emotional connectedness and influence. They develop a working definition and then adapt items: they remove duplicates, exclude antecedents/consequences and hyper-specific items, and iteratively reduce to six representative items (two per facet).

Four empirical studies establish face, convergent, discriminant and nomological validity. Study 1 (sport lab) and Study 2 (music lab) test antecedents (motivation, identification, psychological involvement, exposure) and consequences (fantasy, betting, knowledge, willingness to pay). Study 3 is a field test at a track-and-field event, and Study 4 uses a large online sample to examine sponsor brand outcomes and compare the new scale with alternative measures. Across studies the six-item scale performs reliably and predicts managerially relevant outcomes.

Context and relevance

Why this matters: experiential contexts (events, music, sports, arts) are key platforms for sponsorship, brand placement and influencer strategies. A short, validated, cross-context measure allows practitioners to compare engagement across properties, assess which contexts drive brand outcomes and evaluate the ROI of experiential investments. For researchers, the unidimensional scale provides a parsimonious, generalisable tool for including context engagement in nomological models without relying on behavioural proxies (attendance, likes) that miss psychological elements.

Why should I read this?

Quick and useful: if you work with sponsorships, experiential campaigns or measuring audience impact, this paper hands you a tidy six-item tool that actually captures what people feel and do about a context — not just whether they bought a ticket. Saves you time and gives better signals for which events or properties move the needle on brand memory, word-of-mouth and willingness to pay.

Author style

Punchy: the paper is applied but rigorous — it makes a clear managerial case (compare contexts, evaluate sponsors) while backing claims with multiple empirical tests. If you need a short, defensible engagement metric, this is worth a look.