Research Article

Empirical Studies of the Arts

An Empirical 2017, Vol. 35(1) 27–46

! The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
Investigation of the sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0276237415625259
Arts Audience art.sagepub.com

Experience Index

Wing Tung Au1, Glos Ho2, and

Kenson Wing Chuen Chan3

Abstract
Radbourne et al. proposed an Arts Audience Experience Index (AAEI) which stipu-
lated that performing arts experiences consist of four components: authenticity, col-
lective engagement, knowledge, and risk. Authenticity is associated with truth and
believability of a performance. Collective engagement is an audience’s experience of
engagement with performers and other audience members. Knowledge is concerned
with understanding of and intellectual stimulation created by a performance. Risk is
the extent to which a performance meets one’s expectation, is value for money, and
fits with one’s self-image. We administered the AAEI to 465 spectators who attended
a drama performance and 126 spectators who attended a musical performance.
Supporting Radbourne et al.’s framework, confirmatory factor analysis found that
audience members could differentiate among the four components of authenticity,
collective engagement, knowledge, and risk along the two facets of importance and
satisfaction. Regression analyses also showed that satisfaction with these four com-
ponents contributes meaningfully to the overall evaluation of the performances,
although collective engagement was found to be a relatively weaker predictor.

Keywords
Arts Audience Experience Index, performing arts experiences, theatrical
experiences

1
Department of Psychology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
2
Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong SAR, China
3
PopTheatre and ArtPeak, Hong Kong SAR, China
Corresponding Author:
Wing Tung Au, Department of Psychology, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, China, Shatin, NT,
Hong Kong SAR, China.
Email: wwtau@psy.cuhk.edu.hk
28 Empirical Studies of the Arts 35(1)

A performance, or any work of art, can only be completed through the engage-
ment, and within the experience, of an audience (Reason, 2004). While the gen-
eral audience is composed mostly of nonprofessionals who may not be
competent to provide artistic evaluations that are best left to critics, audiences’
comments are valuable in helping a theater company to understand how their
performance is being received. There have been increasing demands for theater
companies to measure and demonstrate the quality of their work (Tobias, 2004).
Beyond box office receipts, critics’ reviews, and numbers of mailing list sub-
scribers, audience experiences are another important indicator. Audience feed-
back provides data which could be as informative as expert evaluations made by
critics and peers on the assessment of the quality of a performance (Radbourne,
Johanson, Glow, & White, 2009). Reinforcing audience experience may help
theaters to better fulfill their artistic mission in the long run through a resulting
rise in attendance and fulfillment of economic goals (Boerner, Moser, & Jobst,
2011).Reason (2004) distinguished between reception process and reception
results in exploring audience experiences. The reception process focuses on
exploring what goes on in the minds of an audience while they are watching a
performance, whereas reception results concern what the audience makes of a
performance.
Audience experience is a bridge between performers and spectators in per-
forming arts (Radbourne et al., 2009). A systematic approach to summarizing
audience experiences could inform performing artists about how audiences
receive their performances. Understanding the underlying structure of theatrical
experiences in order to understand what audiences like and dislike is not aiming
at formulating a recipe to produce the most likeable theatrical performance
(Eversmann, 2004). Stylistically different performances could evoke equally fas-
cinating (or disappointing) experiences among the audience. The same theatrical
performance could be incomprehensible to one person while resonating with
another. While the perceptions and evaluations of a performance, as its content,
could differ among audience members, however, we believe that how these per-
ceptions and evaluations are associated with each other, as its structure, are the
same among the general audience. This is a theoretical hypothesis yet to be
empirically validated; this study serves as a modest attempt to shed light on
this conjecture. Theoretically, it is important to understand how audience
experiences are structured. Being able to pinpoint the components that the audi-
ence structure their experiences is fundamental to further exploration of (a)
antecedents to audience experiences, for example, what the factors are that
influence different aspects of audience experience like emotional resonance
or cognitive stimulation and (b) consequence of audience experiences, for exam-
ple, which aspects of audience experience contribute to personal growth or
reconsumption behaviors. Practically, a theatrical experience framework
should also help performers to understand audience reactions in a more system-
atic manner.
Au et al. 29

Research on audience experiences has taken both an exploratory, qualitative

approach and a confirmatory, quantitative approach. Through interviews with
audience members or performing arts professionals or review of postperfor-
mance feedbacks, researchers develop respective audience experience frame-
works. Some are general frameworks that are applicable to all forms of
performing arts (e.g., Brown & Novak, 2007; Eversmann, 2004; Foreman-
Wernet & Dervin, 2011; Independent Theatre Council [ITC], Society of
London Theatre [SOLT] & Theatrical Management Association [TMA], 2005;
Leder, Belke, Oeberst, & Augustin, 2004; Pine & Gilmore, 1998; Radbourne
et al., 2009). Some are specific to one form of performing arts. For example,
Boerner et al. have conducted extensive work to assess opera experiences (e.g.,
Boerner & Jobst, 2008; Boerner, Neuhoff, Renz, & Moser, 2008; Boerner &
Renz, 2008; Jobst & Boerner, 2011). There are also work focusing on drama
experiences (e.g., Boerner & Jobst, 2013; Boerner, Jobst, & Wiemann, 2010;
Boerner et al., 2011; Reason, 2010). In some of these work, researchers have
also developed instruments to measure respective constructs, for example, the
work by Boerner and her colleagues, Brown and Novak, Radbourne et al., and
Independent Theatre Council et al. However, among these various instruments,
only the art-form-specific instruments (e.g., opera and drama) have been eval-
uated on their psychometric properties. Research to-date on audience experi-
ences has not yet provided an instrument (a) applicable to different performing
art forms and different performances and (b) that its psychometric properties
have been validated. Such an instrument is essential to further develop research
on audience perception, for example, in exploring antecedents and consequences
of audience experiences. The present study aims at validating the psychometric
properties of one of the general purpose audience experience
instrument—Radbourne et al.’s (2009) Arts Audience Experience Index
(AAEI). We examined AAEI because it is generally applicable and reasonably
organized to measure performing arts experiences of different kinds. Not only
does it provide a rather comprehensive conceptualization of audience experience
but also its categories are consistent with respect to the requirements of per-
forming arts practitioners.
Radbourne and colleagues (Radbourne, Glow, & Johanson, 2010a, 2010b;
Radbourne, Johanson, & Glow, 2010; Radbourne et al., 2009) conducted focus
groups with audience members attending live music and theater performances
and also deep interviews with arts organizations in order to develop their audi-
ence experience framework. They proposed an AAEI that consisted of four
components of audience experiences. The first component is authenticity,
which is the extent to which audience finds the performance truthful and believ-
able. One aspect of authenticity is the presentation of the performance, for
example, how far the performance is faithful to the script. Another aspect of
authenticity is perception by the audience that the performance is emotionally
resonating. The second component is collective engagement. It is the extent to
30 Empirical Studies of the Arts 35(1)

which the audience experiences engagement with performers, other audience

members, or even the community. The third component is knowledge, which is
the extent to which the audience is satisfied with the intellectual stimulation and
cognitive growth derived from the performance. The fourth component is risk
management. It is the extent to which the audience evaluates the performance as
meeting their expectation (functional risk), value for money (economic risk),
threatening to their self-image (psychological risk), and presenting the audience
favorably in the eyes of other people (social risk).
The four components of AAEI cover similar aspects to other audience experi-
ence models. Comparisons among different audience experience models are pre-
sented in Table 1. Eversmann (2004) asked experts, including critics, theater
managers and programmers, and educators working professionally in the theat-
rical field to describe memorable performances that made a lasting impression.
Four components were identified: (a) perceptual, (b) emotional, (c) cognitive, and
(d) communicative. AAEI’s authenticity component is similar to Eversmann’s
emotional component, which concerns feelings connected with the performance.
These could be empathetic feelings as experienced in relation to the fictional
character, for example, feeling pride as the protagonist succeeds. These could
also be feelings toward fictional characters if we were to encounter them in real
life, for example, feeling angry against a villain. Audiences who find the perform-
ance authentic as in AAEI are likely to be emotionally connected with the per-
formance. AAEI’s knowledge component is similar to Eversmann’s cognitive
component, which deals with comprehension and interpretation of the perform-
ance and how the play relates to oneself or familiar circumstances. Knowledge as
in AAEI is like the cognitive stimulation that a person gains from the perform-
ance. AAEI’s collective engagement component is comparable to Eversmann’s
communicative component, which concerns the interaction between the audience
and the amalgam of the cognitive, emotional, and perceptual elements in the
performance. A performance may also help audience members communicate
with each other, as in engaging in dialogues or debates with other audience mem-
bers. Collective engagement as in AAEI is similar to the experience that the per-
formance encourages audience members to communicate and engage with other
audience members. AAEI, however, does not have any immediate correlates with
Eversmann’s perceptual component which concerns experiences of physical sti-
muli like visual and auditory sensations that include lights, sounds, movement
patterns, and so forth of the performance. However, these perceptual elements
could be considered as a foundation or facilitation of the emotional aspect that
makes the audience perceive authenticity in a performance as in AAEI.
Independent Theatre Council et al. (2005) jointly developed an audience
experience framework. Through online surveys of 2,500 theater goers and inter-
views with theater professionals, they identified five components of audience
experience: (a) engagement and concentration is the extent to which the perform-
ance captures and maintains the audience’s attention, (b) learning and challenge
 Table 1. Relations of the Four Components of Radbourne et al.’s Audience Experience Framework With Other Audience Experience
Models.

Radbourne et al. (2010b) Eversmann (2004) ITC et al. (2005) Brown and Novak (2007)

 Authenticity  Emotional  Personal resonance and emotional connection  Captivation

 Perceptual  Engagement and concentration  Emotional resonance
 Energy and tension
 Knowledge  Cognitive  Learning and challenge  Intellectual stimulation
 Spiritual value
 Aesthetic growth
 Collective engagement  Communicative  Shared experience and atmosphere  Social bonding
 Risk management  Readiness

31
32 Empirical Studies of the Arts 35(1)

concerns whether the theater experience is intrinsically rewarding without being

too easy or too hard, (c) energy and tension refers to physiological reactions to the
performance, (d) shared experience and atmosphere are the sense of collective
experience afforded by a good theater performance, and (e) personal resonance
and emotional connection refer to experience of a personal connection with the
narrative unfolding on stage and the extent to which theater can function as a
way of broadening people’s understanding. AAEI’s authenticity component
could be mapped directly to the personal resonance and emotional connection
component that concerns identification with the play. It could also be said that
the engagement and concentration component and the energy and tension com-
ponent are subsumed under the authenticity component, in that concentration
and tension are necessary elements for a play to be experienced as authentic.
AAEI’s knowledge component could be linked directly to the learning and chal-
lenge component that concerns self-reflection and self-learning. AAEI’s collect-
ive engagement is like the shared experience and atmosphere component that
concerns how audience members perceive connection with other audience mem-
bers or the community as being part of a larger collective.
Brown and Novak (2007) surveyed nearly 2,000 theatergoers in 19 perform-
ances. They identified six intrinsic impact constructs that audiences experience,
namely: (a) captivation that characterizes the degree to which an individual is
engrossed and absorbed in the performance; (b) intellectual stimulation that
encompasses several aspects of mental engagement, including both personal
and social components, which together might be characterized as cognitive trac-
tion; (c) emotional resonance that refers to the intensity of emotional response,
degree of empathy with the performers, and therapeutic value in an emotional
sense; (d) spiritual value that addresses an aspect of experience that goes beyond
emotional or intellectual engagement and assesses the extent to which the audi-
ence has a transcendent, inspiring, or empowering experience; (e) aesthetic
growth that characterizes the extent to which an individual is exposed to a
new type or style of art, or otherwise stretched aesthetically by the performance;
and (f) social bonding that refers to the extent to which the performance connects
the individual with others in the audience, allows her to celebrate her own cul-
tural heritage or learn about cultures outside of her life experience, and left her
with new insight into human relations. Captivation and emotional resonance
could be considered correlates of AAEI’s authenticity component, in that an
authentic performance would be likely to stimulate emotional resonance and a
captivating experience. Intellectual stimulation, spiritual value, and aesthetic
growth are like AAEI’s knowledge component that concerns how a person
gains new understanding about themselves and different aspects of life. Social
bonding has a direct relevance with AAEI’s collective engagement that addresses
how the performance promotes oneness with other audience members and the
community. While not specifically an audience reaction as derived from seeing a
performance, Brown and Novak also suggested a readiness construct that deals
Au et al. 33

with an audience’s anticipation of a performance, which is similar to AAEI’s risk

management component.
We see direct equivalence of all four audience experience components pro-
posed by Radbourne in other models. A distinctive feature of AAEI is that it
concerns both satisfaction and importance toward these four components.
Importance is the extent to which the audience regards each of these components
as essential to their enjoyment or experience of a performance. The importance
aspect is similar to goals that cultural consumers may adopt in consuming cul-
tural events (Garbarino & Johnson, 2001). Different weightings attached to
intellectual or cultural enrichment goals versus relaxation, entertainment, or
diversion from routine goals were found to affect satisfaction toward theater
experiences. How the audience accords different importance weightings to the
four components in AAEI could similarly affect the impact of their satisfaction
on the overall evaluation of a performance.
In this study, we examine the psychometric and psychological properties of
Radbourne et al.’s (Radbourne et al., 2010a, 2010b; Radbourne et al., 2010;
Radbourne et al., 2009) AAEI. The first objective is to test whether the four
components of authenticity, knowledge, collective engagement, and risk man-
agement for the importance and satisfaction facets could be uncovered empir-
ically. The second objective is to examine how the four components may
contribute to an audience’s overall evaluation of a performance. Specifically,
we hypothesize that audience members who are more satisfied in the four com-
ponents will have a more positive overall evaluation of a performance. However,
we also expect that importance and satisfaction in each of the four components
will interact to affect overall experience. In general, satisfaction in a component
will have a larger impact on overall evaluation if the audience considers that
component as more important. For example, among audience members who
consider that knowledge is important, satisfaction on knowledge will have a
large impact on overall evaluation; however, among audience members who
consider that knowledge is not important, satisfaction on knowledge will have
little impact on overall evaluation.
Data were collected through postshow surveys of a drama and a musical in
Hong Kong. In the drama, with a larger audience base, we used the data to
examine the factor structure of AAEI. Data from both the drama and the
musical were analyzed separately to examine how the four components contrib-
ute to overall evaluation of the performances.

Method
Instrument
The survey consists of (a) AAEI items, (b) a self-constructed scale measuring
overall evaluation, and (c) demographics measures. AAEI, which was originally
34 Empirical Studies of the Arts 35(1)

developed in English, was translated into Chinese through backward translation

by three native Chinese psychologists who are fluent in English. These Chinese
translation items were aimed to be equivalent to the AAEI items presented in
Radbourne et al. (2010b). The first section of the survey is eight items in the
AAEI measuring the extent to which each of the four components: authenticity,
collective engagement, knowledge, and risk management, is important to audi-
ence’s experience of performing arts events. Each component is measured by two
items. For example, the items measuring knowledge importance are “notes
about the performance and the work are included in the program” and “when
I attend a performance I want to be challenged to think differently about ideas
and issues presented in the production.” The items were measured on a 5-point
scale from 1 ¼ very unimportant to 5 ¼ very important. These items are presented
in Table 4.
The second section of the survey measures familiarity, satisfaction, and over-
all evaluation. All items were measured on a 5-point scale from 1 ¼ strongly
disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree. Familiarity is a scale of eight items accompanying
the AAEI measuring familiarity with the performance. Sample items include “I
attend as many performances at this venue as possible” and “I really like the
work of this particular playwright/composer/choreographer. The Cronbach’s
alpha for these two productions were .87 and .88, respectively.
Satisfaction toward the four components in the AAEI was measured by eight
items. Each component is measured by two items. For example, the items mea-
suring knowledge satisfaction are “I learned something new from this perform-
ance” and “my enjoyment or appreciation increased because I understood the
meaning of the production.” These items are presented in Table 4.
Overall evaluation of the performance was measured by eight items in the first
drama and six items in the second musical. These items were developed from
interviewing the playwright who was also the director of these two productions.
The playwright/director described what he wanted the audience to experience
and to get from seeing these two productions. Sample items include “the per-
formance made me realize the importance of ‘living the moment’,” “the per-
formance made me realize the importance of forgiveness,” “I like the beauty in
the rhythm and image of the performance,” and “this performance has a Zen
ambiance.” Cronbach’s alphas for the two productions were .86 and .84, respect-
ively. The last section asks respondents’ demographic information including
gender, age, education, and frequency of attending arts performances.

Procedure
The survey was enclosed in a program book distributed to the audience in two
different productions. The first production was a rerun of a drama entitled 800
Years of Hatred, which was adapted from a well-known Japanese comic Hi no
Tori (Phoenix) written by the famous cartoonist Osamu Tezuka who is also very
Au et al. 35

well known in Hong Kong. The first run was given an award as one of the “Ten
Best Dramas of the Year” in Hong Kong. The drama was performed four times
over a weekend in a proscenium theater with a seating capacity of 900 people.
Having only four performances is perhaps a very short running period by
Western standards; it is actually about average in Hong Kong.1 The plot is
about a princess being trapped in eternal recurrence for killing a nun who
attempts to cure her merciless father; over the years, the princess is transformed
gradually into the nun who is to be killed by her other self. The main themes are
about forgiving others and forgiving oneself.
The second production was a premiere of a musical entitled A Bright Dark
Night. It was performed five times over a weekend in a black box theater with a
seating capacity of 140 people. The musical intertwines the stories of three
families by a central plot line of a young man leaving home to wander in
Tibet. The main themes are about living the moment and caring for family
members. In both the drama and the musical, the leading roles were performed
by professional actors while the chorus consisted of actors in training and ama-
teurs. Both shows were considered as professional productions.
While it is customary in Hong Kong to include postshow surveys in the
program book, return rates have typically been below 5% as estimated by dif-
ferent theater professionals. The audience are used to postshow surveys that are
only one-page long with a few close-ended and open-ended questions. In order
to encourage the audience to complete our two-page double-sided surveys,
respondents were promised a gift coupon valued at about US$3 (HK$20). A
total of 465 and 126 fully completed surveys were received in the two produc-
tions, respectively.
The majority of the survey respondents attending the drama (65%) were
women. About 58% were below 25 years, 34% were between 25 and 55 years,
and 9% were over 55 years. About 55% were students and 38% were working.
The percentage of respondents attending theater performances several times per
month was 17%, several times per quarter was 23%, and several times per year
was 60%.
The majority of the survey respondents attending the musical (57%) were
women. About 58% were below 25 years, 42% were between 25 and 55 years,
and 1% was over 55 years. About 48% were students and 44% were working.
The percentage of respondents attending theater performances several times per
month was 40%, several times per quarter was 46%, and several times per year
was 13%.

Correlation Analyses
Correlations among familiarity, four components of importance and four com-
ponents of satisfaction of AAEI, and overall evaluation are presented in Table 2
for the drama and the musical separately. All correlations are positive and
36 Empirical Studies of the Arts 35(1)

Table 2. Correlations Among Audience Experience Components for the Drama and the
Musical, Respectively.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Familiarity 0.41 0.43 0.41 0.44 0.59 0.59 0.65 0.66 0.70
2. Authenticity (importance) 0.43 0.44 0.54 0.48 0.50 0.32 0.33 0.44 0.44
3. Collective engagement 0.43 0.36 0.49 0.35 0.43 0.36 0.34 0.34 0.48
(importance)
4. Knowledge (importance) 0.44 0.56 0.54 0.43 0.42 0.26 0.35 0.34 0.43
5. Risk management 0.51 0.47 0.35 0.43 0.41 0.33 0.36 0.36 0.41
(importance)
6. Authenticity (satisfaction) 0.67 0.39 0.35 0.44 0.35 0.53 0.58 0.63 0.64
7. Collective engagement 0.68 0.37 0.32 0.32 0.40 0.57 0.61 0.56 0.57
(satisfaction)
8. Knowledge (satisfaction) 0.71 0.30 0.29 0.29 0.44 0.55 0.78 0.57 0.64
9. Risk management 0.70 0.37 0.32 0.34 0.35 0.59 0.68 0.59 0.63
(satisfaction)
10. Overall evaluation 0.69 0.31 0.39 0.44 0.37 0.54 0.60 0.65 0.57
Note. Correlations for the drama 800 Years of Hatred are in the top-right triangle, N ¼ 475. Correlations
for the musical A Bright Dark Night are in the bottom-left triangle, N ¼ 129. All correlations are significant at
p < .01.

statistically significant at p < .01. In general, correlations among the four com-
ponents of importance and four components of satisfaction are higher than
those across importance and satisfaction, which demonstrates meaningful con-
vergent and divergent validity. For example, in the drama 800 Years of Hatred,
correlation of authenticity importance and knowledge importance, r ¼ .56, and
correlation of authenticity satisfaction and knowledge satisfaction, r ¼ .55, are
larger than correlation of authenticity importance and knowledge satisfaction,
r ¼ .30, and correlation of authenticity satisfaction and knowledge importance,
r ¼ .44. We also note that respondents gave higher overall evaluation ratings of
either production when they were more familiar with the production and eval-
uated the four components as more important and more satisfactory. The three
aspects of familiarity, importance, and satisfaction in the AAEI contributed
positively to the overall evaluation of a performance.

Factor Structure
In order to conduct a precise confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), typically the
ratio of the number of cases to the number of free parameters has to be 20:1
(Kline, 2005). Our sample of 400+ respondents should be sufficient to fit a
model of eight latent factors with 16 variables. We conducted CFA using the
Au et al. 37

free OpenMx package developed within the R language (Boker et al., 2011) to
examine whether the four components of authenticity, knowledge, risk manage-
ment, and collective engagement along the two facets of importance and satis-
faction could be represented by the 16 items based on data collected from the
475 respondents attending the drama. We used the full information maximum
likelihood (FIML) approach in order to handle missing data properly (Enders &
Bandalos, 2001). In the eight-factor model, the four components (i.e., authenti-
city etc.) along the two facets of importance and satisfaction were latent factors
with two items each serving as manifest variables. We also fit other baseline
models including (a) a one-factor model that has one single latent factor with
16 items as manifest variables, (b) a two-factor model with importance
and satisfaction as two latent factors with eight corresponding items each as
manifest variables, and (c) a four-factor model with authenticity, collective
engagement, knowledge, and risk as four latent factors with two corresponding
importance items and two corresponding satisfaction items under each as mani-
fest variables.
Fit for models was mainly evaluated according to Hu and Bentler’s (1999)
two-index presentation strategy (Hooper, Coughlan, & Mullen, 2008). They
recommended joint consideration of the root mean square error of approxima-
tion (RMSEA) and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) as the best
approach to control for both Type I and Type II errors. Their simulation studies
reported that the combination of an RMSEA of .06 or less and an SRMR of .10
or less resulted in the least sum of Type I and II errors. According to Browne
and Cudeck (1993), RMSEA values of about 0.08 or less indicate a reasonable
error of approximation. MacCallum, Browne, and Sugawara (1996) also sug-
gested that models with RMSEA values of about 0.08 indicate a mediocre fit and
that only models with RMSEA greater than 0.10 should be rejected. We also
reported comparative fit index (CFI) as another measure of model fit that
requires CFI to be greater than .90 (Quintana & Maxwell, 1999) and reported
FIML 2 statistics as references. Goodness-of-fit indices are presented in
Table 3. All models returned a significant 2 statistic. Although 2 statistics
were significant for all models suggesting poor model fit, Kenny (2014) stated
that the 2 statistic is almost always statistically significant for models with over
400 cases. With reference to SRMR, values for all models were below .10 which
indicates an acceptable model fit. With reference to RMSEA, we found that the
eight-factor model achieved an acceptable model fit; RMSEA was 0.075 with a
95% confidence interval (CI) between 0.063 and 0.086. Comparatively, both the
four-factor model, RMSEA ¼ 0.096, and the one-factor model,
RMSEA ¼ 0.095, did not fit the data well. However, the two-factor model
also provided an acceptable fit, RMSEA ¼ 0.070, 95% CI [0.060, 0.080].
RMSEA and SRMR statistics show that both the eight-factor model and the
two-factor model fit the data nearly well. We compared these two models using
Akaike Information Criteria (AIC; Akaike, 1973). A smaller AIC value indicates
38 Empirical Studies of the Arts 35(1)

Table 3. Goodness-of-Fit Statistics of Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

95% CI
Model k 2 df CFI RMSEA of RMSEA SRMR AIC

One-factor 48 546.2 104 0.802 0.095 [.085, .104] 0.070 16566.2

Two-factor 49 341.6 103 0.893 0.070 [.060, .080] 0.055 16363.6
Four-factor 54 531.1 98 0.806 0.096 [.087, .106] 0.070 16563.1
Eight-factor 76 276.7 76 0.910 0.075 [.065, .084] 0.049 16352.8
Note. k ¼ number of parameters in the model to be estimated; 2 ¼ chi-square; df ¼ degree of freedom of
2; CFI ¼ comparative fit index; RMSEA ¼ root mean square error of approximation; 95% CI ¼ 95% con-
fidence interval of RMSEA; SRMR ¼ standardized root mean square residual; AIC ¼ Akaike information
criterion.

a better model fit. The relative likelihood that the two-factor (the lesser fit)
model is as good as the eight-factor (the better fit) model is exp(16363.6-
16352.8)/2) ¼ 3.91E-10 (Burnham & Anderson, 2004), which indicates that the
eight-factor model fit the data better than the two-factor model did. Table 4
presents factor loadings under each of the eight latent factors. All factor load-
ings are greater than 0.30 so that, for a sample size over 350, all these items are
adequate for practical significance (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham,
2006). In summary, CFA shows that the four components of importance and the
four components of satisfaction as stipulated by AAEI could be reproduced
adequately and provided an acceptable fit to the data.

Regression Analyses
In order to examine how importance and satisfaction of the four components
and their respective interactions contribute to overall evaluation of a perform-
ance, we conducted multiple linear regression analyses for the drama and the
musical separately. Familiarity was included as a covariate. The four importance
and four satisfaction variables were centered and their interaction terms were
computed by multiplying their respective centered variables (Aiken & West,
1991). Table 5 presents results of the regression analyses. Across both the
drama and the musical, respondents who were more familiar with the produc-
tion evaluated the performance significantly more positively. Among the four
importance predictors, respondents in the drama who considered collective
engagement as more important evaluated the performance significantly more
positively, whereas respondents in the musical who considered knowledge as
more important evaluated the performance significantly more positively.
Among the four satisfaction predictors, respondents in the drama who were
more satisfied with any of the four components evaluated the performance more
positively. All four satisfaction components were statistically significant at
 Table 4. Standardized Factor Loadings on the Four Audience Experience Components by Importance and Satisfaction.

Factor
Latent factor Item (manifest variable) loading

Authenticity (importance) 1. The performance matches expectations from the promotional description. 0.58
2. The actors, dancers, singers or musicians show technical skill and understanding of the work. 0.50
Collective engagement 3. Audience members have the opportunity to discuss the performance with others some time 0.30
(importance) after the show.
4. Audiences know there are established rules for audience behavior (e.g., when to clap, no 0.30
speaking during the performance).
Knowledge (importance) 5. Notes about the performance and the work are included in the program. 0.41
6. When I attend a performance I want to be challenged to think differently about ideas and issues 0.50
presented in the production.
Risk management 7. The company/arts center presents my preferred type of shows. 0.54
(importance)
8. I have previously seen or heard this work (production), or accessed a preview on the Web. 0.33
Authenticity (satisfaction) 9. The reputation of the performers was matched by the quality of the performance. 0.57
10. The best performers were those who communicated directly with the audience. 0.50
Collective engagement 11. Other members of the audience seemed to have a similar response to the performance 0.44
(satisfaction) as I did.
12. Attending this live performance with other people increased my understanding of how 0.57
audiences and performers interact.
Knowledge (satisfaction) 13. I learned something new from this performance. 0.48
14. My enjoyment or appreciation increased because I understood the meaning of the production. 0.48
Risk management 15. The quality of the performance was worth the cost of attendance (ticket, transport, parking, 0.55
(satisfaction) personal).
16. I felt tense and excited at moments during the performance. 0.53

39
40 Empirical Studies of the Arts 35(1)

Table 5. Regression Coefficients Predicting Overall Evaluation of the Drama and the
Musical, Respectively.

Drama (df ¼ 451, R2 ¼ .63) Musical (df ¼ 112, R2 ¼ .57)

Partial Partial
B SE t Z2 B SE t Z2

Familiarity .262 .046 5.68* .001 .311 .114 2.73* .009

Importance
Authenticity .022 .035 .64 .030 .080 .081 .99 .009
Collective engagement .124 .033 3.73* .002 .073 .075 .98 .035
Knowledge .035 .034 1.04 .001 .169 .084 2.01* .003
Risk management .014 .030 .48 .031 .036 .067 .54 .001
Satisfaction
Authenticity .143 .037 3.81* .006 .026 .081 .32 .002
Collective engagement .059 .034 1.71y .044 .045 .103 .44 .064
Knowledge .169 .037 4.55* .019 .264 .096 2.76* .006
Risk management .105 .036 2.94* .067 .068 .081 .83 .062
Importance  Satisfaction
Authenticity .004 .038 .09 .000 .023 .124 .18 .000
Collective engagement .054 .040 1.34 .004 .051 .115 .45 .002
Knowledge .039 .044 .89 .002 .083 .114 .73 .005
Risk management .004 .035 .12 .000 .001 .085 .02 .000
Note. df ¼ degree of freedom; B ¼ unstandardized beta; SE ¼ standard error.
*p < .05. yp < .10.

p < .05, except for collective engagement which was marginally significant at
p < .10. Respondents in the musical, however, evaluated the performance sig-
nificantly more positively only when they were satisfied with the knowledge
component. Results from both the drama and the musical provide some
general support to the hypothesis that satisfaction in authenticity, collective
engagement, knowledge, and risk contribute to overall evaluation of a
performance.
The hypothesis that the effect of satisfaction on overall evaluation being
moderated by importance was tested by their interaction terms in the regression
analyses. None of the Importance  Satisfaction interaction terms for the four
components across both the drama and the musical were statistically significant.
The hypothesis that importance interacts with satisfaction is not supported. We
also repeated the regression analyses without the interaction terms. The patterns
of significance of the main effects were the same for both productions. We are
not reporting these similar results here.
Au et al. 41

Discussion
Radbourne et al.’s’ (Radbourne et al., 2010a, 2010b; Radbourne et al., 2010;
Radbourne et al., 2009) AAEI proposes that audience experience of performing
arts events consists of four components. This study provided some empirical
evidence that importance of and satisfaction with these four components,
namely, authenticity, collective engagement, knowledge, and risk management,
are empirically distinct. Our work is among the early attempts to validate the
factor structure of performing arts experiences. Boerner et al. (2010) developed
items based on Eversmann’s framework to examine whether the four compo-
nents of perceptual, emotional, cognitive, and communicative experiences could
be confirmed empirically. Their limited sample size did not allow them to con-
duct a CFA to evaluate the four-factor structure fully; instead, they tested each
component separately and reported that each component was unidimensional.
The present study, with a larger sample size, shows that performing arts experi-
ences are multifaceted. Along the authenticity dimension, the audience evaluates
if a performance is authentic by whether it is faithful to the script and genuine
emotions are perceived and aroused. It is mainly an emotional component.
Along the knowledge dimension, the audience cares if the performance could
provide them with intellectual stimulation in that they are learning some new
knowledge about themselves or aspects of life. This is a cognitive component.
Along the collective engagement dimension, the audience evaluates how the
performance connects them with performers, other audience members, or the
community at large. This is a social component. Along the risk management
dimension, the audience is concerned about whether the performance meets their
expectation and is value for money, whether seeing the performance threatens
their self-image and how they may be perceived by others. According to
Radbourne et al., these risk evaluations affect likelihood of reconsumption for
theatergoers. This is a behavioral component. This study demonstrates that audi-
ence experiences could be differentiated meaningfully into four conceptually and
empirically distinct components.
We examined how satisfaction with the four components contributes to the
overall evaluation of a drama and a musical. In the drama, authenticity, know-
ledge, and risk management were found to be significant predictors, whereas
collective engagement was a marginally significant predictor; in the musical, only
knowledge was a significant predictor. Our measures of overall evaluation could
have contributed to the finding that knowledge is the only consistent predictor.
About half of the items in our overall evaluation measures were about morals
learnt in the play, for example, realizing the importance of forgiveness, living the
moment, and caring for the family. These knowledge aspects were considered by
the playwright/director of these two productions to be the most essential impacts
that he wanted the audience to experience. It is thus not surprising that satis-
faction on knowledge became the consistent predictor of overall evaluation of
42 Empirical Studies of the Arts 35(1)

these two performances. Nevertheless, in the drama, we also found that authen-
ticity and risk management contributed significantly to overall enjoyment.
Collective engagement, however, was comparatively a weaker predictor of over-
all evaluation among the four components. Boerner et al. (2010) reported similar
findings that the communicative component of Eversmann’s framework was not
a significant driver of overall evaluation of a performance. Also similar to our
results, they found that the cognitive component and the emotional component,
which could be considered parallel constructs to AAEI’s knowledge and authen-
ticity components, were predictive of overall enjoyment. We should note that,
however, our overall evaluation items were derived from the perspective of the
playwright/director in terms of what he wanted the audience to receive and to
learn from the play and the musical. These particular evaluation items could
have rendered certain AAEI components to be more predictive or less predictive
of overall evaluation. Future studies could consider other overall evaluation
measures such as Net Promotor Score (Reichheld, 2003) and repurchase inten-
tion (e.g., Hume & Sullivan Mort, 2010).
We hypothesized that the importance of a certain component would moder-
ate the impact of satisfaction of that component on overall evaluation. However,
we did not find any significant Importance  Satisfaction interaction in predict-
ing overall evaluation across all four components. For the drama with a sample
size of 475, we had a power over 0.86 to detect an effect size as small as f 2 ¼ 0.02
at p ¼ .05. It is thus unlikely that we did not have enough power to uncover the
interaction effect. Failing to find the interaction effect could be due to operatio-
nalization of the importance and satisfaction constructs. There are two items
each measuring importance and satisfaction of each of the four components.
However, the two items measuring importance and the two items measuring
satisfaction for the same component are not parallel. For example, knowledge
importance is measured by “notes about the performance and the work are
included in the program” and “when I attend a performance I want to be
challenged to think differently about ideas and issues presented in the produc-
tion,” whereas satisfaction of knowledge is measured by “I learned something
new from this performance” and “my enjoyment or appreciation increased
because I understood the meaning of the production.” Although these four
items are all about the knowledge component, what the audience finds important
specifically, for example, “to be challenged to think differently,” is not being
assessed by either of the two satisfaction items. If the content or wordings of the
knowledge component are the same across importance and satisfaction,
for example, “how important is it to be challenged to think differently by a
performance?” for importance and “how satisfied are you that you were chal-
lenged to think differently by this performance?” for satisfaction, the
Importance  Satisfaction interaction effect could be tested more properly.
While we did not find the hypothesized Importance  Satisfaction interaction
effect on overall evaluation, we found unexpected effects of collective
Au et al. 43

engagement importance in the drama and knowledge importance in the musical.

Audience members who found collective engagement and knowledge important
to their enjoyment reported more positive evaluation of these two performances,
respectively. We reason that audience members who regard collective engage-
ment and knowledge as more important are typically more serious-minded
theatergoers. These audience members reported that it was important for audi-
ences to “know there are established rules for audience behavior (e.g., when
to speak and not to speak during the performance)” (collective engagement),
to “have opportunities to discuss the performance with others after the show”
(collective engagement), to “have notes about the performance and the
work included in the program” (knowledge) and to “think differently about
ideas and issues presented in the production” (knowledge). Considering that
both productions aimed at stimulating audience members to reflect upon their
philosophy about life, the more serious-minded audience members would enjoy
these two performances more than those who consider theater as mostly an
entertainment.
This study found demonstrated that AAEI’s four components of theater
experiences are empirically distinguishable. These components also contribute
meaningfully to the overall evaluation of a performance. AAEI was developed
to be applicable to all forms of performing arts and is not limited to dramas
or musicals only. Future work should also examine the generalizability of
AAEI to other art forms such as concerts, dance, and opera. Other research-
ers have also proposed audience experience frameworks suggesting a different
mix of components under different terminologies. Future research should val-
idate these different theoretical frameworks empirically as well. More import-
antly, how the different components espoused in these frameworks are
theoretically and empirically related to each other should also be examined.
A clear understanding of the structure of audience experience would facilitate
future work in exploring antecedents to and consequences of different com-
ponents of audience experience. For example, perhaps need for cognition
would impact cognitive experience only and not the emotional experience of
a performance; perhaps word of mouth would be driven by emotional experi-
ence but not perceptual experience. Specifying the components of audience
experience would help extend psychological research in performing arts to
other areas.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article.
44 Empirical Studies of the Arts 35(1)

Note
1. According to the Annual Arts Survey (Hong Kong Arts Development Council, 2014),
there were 2,752 performances of 570 theater productions in 2011/12. On average, each
production was performed 4.8 times.

References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting inter-
actions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Akaike, H. (1973). Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood
principle. In B. Petrov & F. Csaki (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second International
Symposium on Information Theory (pp. 267–281). Budapest, Hungary: Akadémiai
Kiadó.
Boerner, S., & Jobst, J. (2008). The perception of artistic quality in opera – Results from a
field study. Journal of New Music Research, 37, 233–245.
Boerner, S., & Jobst, J. (2013). Enjoying theater: The role of visitor’s response to the
performance. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7, 391–408.
Boerner, S., Jobst, J., & Wiemann, M. (2010). Exploring the theatrical experience: Results
from an empirical investigation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4,
173–180.
Boerner, S., Moser, V., & Jobst, J. (2011). Evaluating cultural industries: Investigating
visitors’ satisfaction in theaters. The Service Industries Journal, 31, 877–895.
Boerner, S., Neuhoff, H., Renz, S., & Moser, V. (2008). Evaluation in music theater:
Empirical results on content and structure of the audience’s quality judgment.
Empirical Studies of the Arts, 26, 15–35.
Boerner, S., & Renz, S. (2008). Performance measurement in opera companies:
Comparing the subjective quality judgements of experts and non-experts.
International Journal of Arts Management, 10, 21–37.
Boker, S., Neale, M., Maes, H., Wilde, M., Spiegel, M., & Brick, T. (2011). OpenMx: An
open source extended structural equation modeling framework. Psychometrika, 76,
306–317.
Brown, A. S., & Novak, J. L. (2007). Assessing the intrinsic impacts of a live performance.
Retrieved from http://www.wolfbrown.com/mups_downloads/Impact_Study_Final_
Version_full.pdf
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K.
A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Burnham, K. P., & Anderson, D. R. (2004). Multimodel inference understanding AIC
and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods & Research, 33, 261–304.
Enders, C. K., & Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information
maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models.
Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 430–457.
Eversmann, P. (2004). The experience of the theatrical event. In V. A. Cremona,
P. Eversmann, H. van Maanen, W. Sauter & J. Tulloch (Eds.), Theatrical events:
Borders dynamics frames (pp. 139–174). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Rodopi.
Foreman-Wernet, L., & Dervin, B. (2011). Cultural experience in context: Sense-making
the arts. The Journal of Arts Management, Law, and Society, 41(1), 1–37.
Au et al. 45

Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (2001). Effects of consumer goals on attribute weight-
ing, overall satisfaction, and product usage. Psychology & Marketing, 18, 929–949.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006).
Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. R. (2008). Structural equation modelling:
Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research
Methods, 6, 53–60.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling:
A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
Hume, M., & Sullivan Mort, G. (2010). The consequence of appraisal emotion, service
quality, perceived value and customer satisfaction on repurchase intent in the per-
forming arts. Journal of Services Marketing, 24, 170–182.
Independent Theatre Council (ITC), the Society of London Theatre (SOLT) and the
Theatrical Management Association (TMA). (2005). Capturing the Audience
Experience: A Handbook for Theatre. London, England: The Center for Well-being
at nef. Retrieved from http://itc-arts-s3.studiocoucou.com/uploads/helpsheet_attach
ment/file/23/Theatre_handbook.pdf
Jobst, J., & Boerner, S. (2011). Understanding customer satisfaction in opera: First steps
toward a model. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing,
16, 50–69.
Kenny, D. A. (2014). Measuring model fit. Retrieved from http://davidakenny.net/cm/fit.
htm
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Leder, H., Belke, B., Oeberst, A., & Augustin, D. (2004). A model of aesthetic appreci-
ation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95, 489–508.
MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and
determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological
Methods, 1, 130–149.
Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1998). Welcome to the experience economy. Harvard
Business Review, 76, 97–105.
Quintana, S. M., & Maxwell, S. E. (1999). Implications of recent developments in struc-
tural equation modeling for counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist,
27(4), 485–527.
Radbourne, J., Glow, H., & Johanson, K. (2010a). Hidden stories: Listening to the
audience at the live performance. Double Dialogues, 13, 1–14.
Radbourne, J., Glow, H., & Johanson, K. (2010b). Measuring the intrinsic benefits of arts
attendance. Cultural Trends, 19, 307–324.
Radbourne, J., Johanson, K., & Glow, H. (2010). Empowering audiences to measure
quality. Participations: Journal of Audience and Reception Studies, 7, 360–379.
Radbourne, J., Johanson, K., Glow, H., & White, T. (2009). The audience experience:
Measuring quality in the performing arts. International Journal of Arts Management,
11, 16–29.
Reason, M. (2004). Theatre audiences and perceptions of “liveness” in performance.
Participations: Journal of Audience and Reception Studies, 1(2), 1–29.
46 Empirical Studies of the Arts 35(1)

Reason, M. (2010). Asking the audience: Audience research and the experience of theatre.
In G. McAuley, & L. Ginters (Eds.), Special Issue, Audiencing: The work of the
spectator in live performance. About Performance, 10, 15–34.
Reichheld, F. F. (2003). The one number you need to grow. Harvard Business Review, 81,
46–55.
Tobias, S. (2004). Quality in the performing arts: Aggregating and rationalizing expert
opinion. Journal of Cultural Economics, 28, 109–124.

Author Biographies
Wing Tung Au is an associate professor in Department of Psychology at The
Chinese University of Hong Kong. He received his doctoral degree in psychol-
ogy in University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA. He has been teaching
and research psychology of theatre in recent years.

Glos Ho is lecturer in the Department of Marketing at the Hong Kong Baptist

University. She received her PhD from the University of Hong Kong. Her
research interests focus on sports and leisure studies. She was previously an
Olympic grant holder at the Olympic Studies Centre and is currently serving
as reviews editor for the Asia Pacific Journal of Sport and Social Science.

Kenson Wing Chuen Chan is a drama director, playwright, actor, and teacher. He
was among the first batch of students graduated from the Hong Kong Academy
of Performing Arts. He established PopTheatre in 2003 and ArtPeak in 2012 as
the founding Artistic Director.