Full Paper Synthesis | Ladder Art Space (Australia)

Investigating Factors Impacting Customer Interest in Art and Entertainment Events

This page has been expanded to reflect the full research narrative: theoretical framing, hypothesis development, methodology, reliability and structural results, mediation mechanisms, and implications for hybrid participatory art venues.

Dataset N = 216 valid responses

Context Ladder Art Space, Kew (Melbourne, Australia)

Methods SEM + PROCESS Model 4 (5,000 bootstrap samples)

Authors: Thuan Thi Nhu Nguyen^a, Hy Chung Dai^a*, Thuan Thi Nhu Nguyen^b, Phuoc Tan Le^c

^a Swinburne Vietnam, FPT University, Department of Business, Ho Chi Minh City 700000, Vietnam

^c Swinburne Vietnam, Department of Media, Ho Chi Minh City 700000, Vietnam

* Corresponding author: hydcsws00482@fpt.edu.vn

Overview Framework Methodology Results Discussion Limitations References

Section 1

Study Positioning

This study examines Ladder Art Space participation using Consumption Values and Service-Dominant Logic. SEM results from 216 responses show full mediation: values shape participation intention through attitude, not through direct effects.

Epistemic value is the strongest attitude driver, and the model explains 57.1% of attitude variance and 35.2% of intention variance. Practical priority: position workshops around learning confidence and supportive social settings.

Participatory arts Consumption values Epistemic value Customer attitude Edutainment Co-creation

Section 2

Research Background and Hypothesis Development

The framework combines experiential consumption, Service-Dominant Logic, servicescape, and reasoned-action perspectives to explain co-created workshop participation.

Conceptual Foundation

Experience economy: value comes from participation, not ownership.
Service-Dominant Logic: provider offers resources; value is realized by participant use.
Consumption values: functional, hedonic, social, and epistemic dimensions jointly shape evaluation.
Cognitive hierarchy: values influence intention through attitude as an evaluative bridge.

Core Constructs

Hedonic value: pleasure, fun, aesthetic and emotional restoration.
Social value: belonging, relational support, and social self-concept benefits.
Epistemic value: novelty, curiosity, and knowledge/skill acquisition.
Functional value: quality of materials, instruction, and physical suitability.

H1a

Perceived hedonic value positively influences attitude toward the workshop.

H1b

Perceived social value positively influences attitude toward the workshop.

H1c

Perceived epistemic value positively influences attitude toward the workshop.

H1d

Perceived functional value positively influences attitude toward the workshop.

H2

Attitude toward the workshop positively influences participation intention.

H3

Attitude mediates the relationship between consumption values and participation intention (H3a-H3d).

Section 3

Methodology and Measurement Design

Research Design

Quantitative cross-sectional survey administered through Google Forms to respondents in Australian art/creative communities. Screening rules excluded inattentive responses (attention-check failure) and speeders (< 4 minutes).

Sample and Adequacy

Final valid sample: 216. This satisfies common CFA and SEM guidance (minimum n = 200 and parameter-to-sample ratio around 10:1) for stable estimation and hypothesis testing.

Instruments

Consumption values and intention were measured on 7-point Likert scales. Attitude used semantic-differential items. All attitude and intention items were aligned to a T-A-C-T criterion: participating in LAS workshops within the next 3 months.

Demographic Variable	Result (N = 216)	Interpretation
Gender	Female 73%, Male 26%, Non-binary/Prefer not to say 1%	Sample skewed toward female participants, matching active LAS audience profile.
Age	Mean 32.5 (SD 11.7), Median 30, Range 18-67	Predominantly young-to-middle-aged adults.
Education	Bachelor 47%, Postgraduate 31%, Diploma/Certificate 19%, High School 2%	Highly educated cohort, with strong tertiary representation.

Common method bias check (Harman single-factor test): first factor explained 26.79% variance, below the 50% threshold, indicating no dominant common-method threat.

Section 4

Empirical Results

Findings support all direct value-to-attitude hypotheses (H1a-H1d), attitude-to-intention (H2), and full mediation paths (H3a-H3d).

R² Attitude = 0.571 R² Intention = 0.352 VIF range = 1.06 to 1.21 No multicollinearity concern

Structural Paths

Epistemic value → Attitude: β = 0.35, p < .001
Hedonic value → Attitude: β = 0.28, p < .001
Social value → Attitude: β = 0.27, p < .001
Functional value → Attitude: β = 0.25, p < .001
Attitude → Intention: β = 0.59, p < .001

Correlations (Key Links)

ATT with EV: r = 0.575, p < .001
ATT with HV: r = 0.512, p < .001
ATT with SV: r = 0.484, p < .001
ATT with FV: r = 0.394, p < .001
ATT with INT: r = 0.593, p < .001

Construct	Cronbach's alpha	Composite reliability	AVE
Functional Value (FV)	0.745	0.801	0.503
Hedonic Value (HV)	0.717	0.719	0.392
Social Value (SV)	0.788	0.788	0.482
Epistemic Value (EV)	0.720	0.724	0.401
Attitude (ATT)	0.770	0.771	0.457
Intention (INT)	0.733	0.733	0.407

Reliability is acceptable across constructs; convergent validity is mixed because several AVE values are below 0.50, so interpretation should be paired with additional validity evidence.

Mediation Path (via Attitude)	Indirect Effect	Mediated Share	95% CI	Decision
Hedonic value → ATT → INT	0.120	57.1%	[0.061, 0.190]	Supported (full mediation)
Social value → ATT → INT	0.091	54.6%	[0.050, 0.144]	Supported (full mediation)
Epistemic value → ATT → INT	0.167	64.0%	[0.087, 0.257]	Supported (full mediation)
Functional value → ATT → INT	0.086	67.4%	[0.042, 0.138]	Supported (full mediation)

Section 5

Discussion, Theoretical and Managerial Implications

Theoretical Implications

Extends Service-Dominant Logic into hybrid workshop venues where value is co-created through active learning.
Supports the cognitive hierarchy sequence: value beliefs require attitude formation before behavioral enactment.
Shows epistemic value can dominate in high-involvement creative leisure, challenging entertainment-only assumptions.
Reinforces the role of social servicescape and emotional safety in lowering participation anxiety.

Managerial Implications for LAS

Reposition workshop marketing around beginner learning outcomes and skill gain, not drink-led messaging.
Train instructors for autonomy-supportive facilitation to reduce creative anxiety and increase confidence.
Design layouts for social interaction and belonging to strengthen social value and reduce urban isolation.
Show process-oriented visuals (beginners in progress) rather than only polished final artwork.

Industry signal: the paper notes Australia's cultural and creative sector contributed $67.4 billion in 2023-24 while many live performance venues have closed post-pandemic. For LAS-like venues, conversion from interest to participation is now a central competitive task.

Section 6 and 7

Limitations, Future Research, and Conclusion

Limitations

Cross-sectional design captures initial intention, not long-term retention or loyalty trajectories.
Sample composition (largely educated women) limits generalization to broader/non-participant segments.
Model centers on current participants, so entry barriers for non-participants are less visible.
Instructor-level effects were not explicitly modeled despite likely influence on creative self-efficacy.

Future Research Directions

Apply longitudinal designs to test shifts from novelty-driven motives to belonging/identity motives over time.
Model instructor behavior, autonomy support, and creative self-efficacy as boundary conditions.
Include non-participants to map creative anxiety and perceived exclusivity barriers at entry.
Test replicability across other hybrid edutainment and micro-venue contexts beyond LAS.

Conclusion: hybrid art consumers are not primarily seeking passive fun. They seek productive leisure with learning, confidence, and social connection. Participation occurs when value perceptions are translated into a positive attitude toward the workshop experience.

References Snapshot

Key Sources Used in the Study Framework

Selected foundational sources below reflect the manuscript's theoretical spine and measurement logic.

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.
Bitner, M. J. (1992). Servicescapes: the impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees. Journal of Marketing.
Holbrook, M. B., & Hirschman, E. C. (1982). The experiential aspects of consumption. Journal of Consumer Research.
Homer, P. M., & Kahle, L. R. (1988). Value-attitude-behavior hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Hwang, J., & Griffiths, M. A. (2017). Values, attitude, and intent in collaborative consumption. Journal of Consumer Marketing.
Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The Experience Economy.
Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I., & Gross, B. L. (1991). Why we buy what we buy. Journal of Business Research.
Sweeney, J. C., & Soutar, G. N. (2001). Consumer perceived value scale. Journal of Retailing.
Vargo, S. L., & Lusch, R. F. (2004, 2008). Service-dominant logic. Journal of Marketing; Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.
Wang, H.-Y., Liao, C., & Yang, L.-H. (2013). Consumption values in mobile application use. International Journal of Marketing Studies.

Back to All Research