# Les composantes de la valeur dans l'auto-organisation équestre

Camille Eslan, Sandrine Costa, Céline Vial

► To cite this version:

Camille Eslan, Sandrine Costa, Céline Vial. Les composantes de la valeur dans l'auto-organisation équestre. Management & Organisations du Sport, 2025, 7, pp.1-33. 10.46298/mos-2025-12515. hal-04913788v4

HAL Id: hal-04913788

https://hal.science/hal-04913788v4

Submitted on 12 Apr 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# LES COMPOSANTES DE LA VALEUR DANS L'AUTO-ORGANISATION EQUESTRE

## Camille Eslan*

UniLaSalle, IDEALISS

MoISA, Univ Montpellier, CIRAD, CIHEAM-IAMM, INRAE, Institut Agro, IRD

IFCE, department development innovation and research

## Sandrine Costa

MoISA, Univ Montpellier, CIRAD, CIHEAM-IAMM, INRAE, Institut Agro, IRD

## Céline Vial

IFCE, department development innovation and research

MoISA, Univ Montpellier, CIRAD, CIHEAM-IAMM, INRAE, Institut Agro, IRD

## Résumé

L'auto-organisation dans les activités sportives et de loisirs a récemment augmenté mais reste peu connue. Cette tendance est la même dans les activités équestres, générant des enjeux économiques et sociétaux pour les institutions et les professionnels du secteur. L'auto-organisation consiste en l'organisation quotidienne, en autonomie, d'une ou plusieurs tâches qui pourraient être sous-traitées. Elle est la conséquence, pour certains pratiquants, d'une inadéquation entre leur demande et l'offre de services disponible. Afin de mieux comprendre les déterminants de l'auto-organisation équestre, cet article étudie la valeur de consommation associée à ce choix organisationnel.

<footnote>*Auteur correspondant :</footnote>

<footnote>ESLAN Camille, UniLaSalle, IDEALISS, 3 rue du Tronquet, 76130 Mont Saint Aignan, France</footnote>

<footnote>Courriel : eslancamille@gmail.com</footnote>

<footnote>© 2024 by the author(s) Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</footnote>
Le service sportif, dissocié du bien matériel, est un contrat d'échange immatériel qui requiert
la participation du consommateur. Dans ce contexte, cet article analyse les composantes de
la valeur de l'auto-organisation sportive. En outre, cette recherche exploratoire vise à
comprendre quelles composantes de la valeur influencent la valeur globale de l'auto-
organisation, dans le cas des activités équestres, et si cette valeur globale est aussi influencée
par l'attachement à l'animal et l'auto-efficacité.

La méthodologie repose sur une enquête quantitative réalisée en ligne via les réseaux sociaux (Facebook, X - Twitter et Instagram) pendant six mois en 2021, en France auprès de 615 répondants. L'analyse effectuée mobilise des modèles d'équations structurelles.

Les résultats montrent que l'attachement à l'animal, l'auto-efficacité, la valeur économique, la valeur hédonique, et la valeur éthique liée au bien-être sont des composantes clés de la valeur de l'auto-organisation équestre. De plus, une nouvelle composante est mise en évidence par la valeur de transmission. Cette étude explore aussi l'effet des risques d'erreur perçus dans l'auto-organisation équestre.

Ces résultats ouvrent des perspectives pour de nouvelles stratégies managériales à
destination des usagers auto-organisés, dans les activités équestres et plus généralement
dans le domaine du sport, impliquant notamment une prise en compte des souhaits pour une
pratique permettant une transmission à ses proches et un alignement avec ses
préoccupations éthiques.

Mots-clés

Auto-organisation ; activités équestres ; valeur de transmission ; valeur éthique ;
attachement ; risques perçus ; modèle d'équation structurelle

VALUE COMPONENTS IN EQUESTRIAN SELF-ORGANIZATION

Abstract

Self-organization in sport and leisure activities has increased in recent years but remains
relatively unknown. This trend is also evident in equestrian activities, generating economic and
societal challenges for institutions and professionals of the sector. Self-organization refers to
the independent management of one or more tasks that could otherwise be subcontracted.
For some practitioners, it is the result of a mismatch between their demand and the supply of available services. To better understand the determinants of equestrian self-organization, this article examines the consumer value associated with this choice.

The sports service, unlike material goods, involves an immaterial exchange contract requiring consumer participation. In this context, this article analyses the value components of sports self-organization, in the case of equestrian activities. Additionally, this exploratory research aims to understand which value components influence the overall value of self-organization and whether this overall value is also influenced by attachment to the animal and self-efficacy. The methodology is based on a quantitative survey conducted online via social networks (Facebook, X - Twitter and Instagram) over six months in 2021, in France with 615 respondents. Structural equation models are used in the analysis.

The results reveal that attachment to the animal, self-efficacy, economic value, hedonic value, and ethical value associated with well-being are pivotal elements in the value of equestrian self-organization. Additionally, a novel component, transmission value, has been identified. This study also explores the influence of the perceived risk of error in equestrian self-organization. These findings offer insights for developing new managerial strategies for self-organized users, both in equestrian activities and the broader sports sector. This involves considering the consumers' expectations of a practice that can be shared with loved ones and that is consistent with each parties' ethical concerns.

## Keywords

Self-organization; equestrian activities; transmission value; ethical value; attachment; perceived risks; PLS-SEM

## Remerciements

Ce travail a été soutenu par le Conseil scientifique de la filière équine française, la Fédération Française d'Équitation (FFE) et l'Agence nationale de la recherche et de la technologie (ANRT) [contrat n°2018/1491]. Les auteurs tiennent également à remercier Vu Huong Ha Pham et Narimane Chibane pour leur aide concernant la diffusion de l'enquête et les premières analyses.
# VALUE COMPONENTS IN EQUESTRIAN SELF-ORGANIZATION

What determines the value of an activity? The value of consumption refers to the perceived worth of an object or service from the consumer's perspective. Detailed value components help define the consumer's relationship with the object or service, using established typologies (Aurier et al., 2004; Holbrook, 1994). The value co-creation framework of Leclercq et al. (2016) analyzes the process of consumption value formation. Is the value different when the consumer participates in the service's production, and if so, what are the value components in a self-organized setting?

Self-organization refers to the independent management of one or more tasks that could otherwise be outsourced. It applies to various activities and remains an understudied phenomenon in sport and leisure. For some practitioners, self-organization emerges due to a mismatch between their demand and the available service supply, with clubs that do not fulfil practitioners' needs for autonomy, or freedom. This autonomization process concerns all sport and leisure activities, such as running, cycling, or horse riding, and it generates economic and societal issues for institutions and professionals. We focus specifically on equestrianism, which has the specificity to involve an animal (a horse) in the activity, therefore, prompting questions about the role of attachment in shaping the self-organization experience.

Distinct from material goods, a sports service is an intangible exchange contract requiring consumer participation. Therefore, we believe that understanding the value of performing the activity can lead to a better understanding of the desired service and, consequently, to better adapting the offer to the demand. In this context, this study analyzes the value components of self-organization in equestrian sports. Moreover, this research explores how attachment and self-efficacy influence the overall value of self-organization, as well as potential mediating effects of specific value components

This article begins with a review of the scientific literature on self-organization and the elements that can influence value creation in equestrian activities. Then, based on an exploratory qualitative survey, we propose a hypothetical theoretical model and test it through a quantitative study. The results are then presented and discussed.

## Conceptual Framework
# 1. Value Creation through Self-Organization

In this study, the principle of self-organization is defined as the management of activities that could be otherwise delegated to a professional, but that can also be self-organized, with or without the use of professional services. In this perspective, consumer behavior literature emphasizes consumer participation in service activities. The particularity of services is the added value to the offer, created through customer participation (Gabriel et al., 2014). Thus, the experience of service use or purchase creates value. The level of consumer involvement in value creation is diverse. Several publications show the different roles and behaviors consumers adopt and that were previously realized by the provider, such as designing, coproducing, or providing information, according to their resources (Dong & Sivakumar, 2017).

In the case of sports services, active consumer participation is necessary to benefit from the service. However, self-organization and, more generally, the participation of consumers in a production process depends on their experience and the value they perceive to be created and gained.

The value generated by the consumer experience differs according to the situation and includes several components (Aurier et al., 2004). Table 1 proposes an integrative approach of value components in equestrian self-organization adapted from scientific literature. We hypothesize that these value components are essential in this specific consumption experience, based on scientific review and field experience.

<table><caption>Table 1. Hypothetical integrative approach of value components in equestrian self-organization, adapted from Holbrook (2002, 2006), Aurier et al. (2004), Richins (1994) and Medberg & Heinonen (2014)</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Extrinsic (means-end relation in which consumption is appreciated for its functional/banal instrumentality to achieve a goal - e.g., a hammer)</th><th>Intrinsic (consumption experience is appreciated as an end in itself, for its own sake, as self-justified, playful, or self-sustaining - e.g., the pleasure of a day at the beach)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Self-Oriented (an aspect of selfish consumption for my own good or for the effect it has on me - e.g., a sweater is valuable because it keeps me warm)</td><td><strong>Instrumental value</strong><br>Utilitarian (product meets practical needs - the concept of efficiency)<br>Economic value<br>Knowledge (permanent info-seeking behavior, different from pre-purchase info-seeking)</td><td><strong>Hedonic value</strong><br>Playful (ability to have fun, the difference between work and play)<br>Experiential stimulation (the ability of the experience to stimulate the senses of the individual)</td></tr></tbody></table>
**Others orientated**
(Consumption experience is evaluated for the effect it has on others- e.g., buying a car to impress neighbors)

**Social value**
Self-expression/status (the ability of the product or service to project self-expression)
Social link (product as an aid to social interaction, to exchange in the form of conversations).
Two-way communication: other ↔ self)
Heritage (customer's and family's experience within the company and their consumption experience)

**Altruistic value**
Spirituality
(Experience as a means to a later end but rather as an end valued for its own sake)
Shared moral value (adequacy between the ethical standards of the clients and the standards of the other stakeholders)

In their netnography, Medberg and Heinonen (2014) introduced invisible values, as the non-visible result of benefits or sacrifices regarding a customer's experience and relationship with the environment. Following a customer-dominant logic, the invisible values appear from the customer's point of view rather than that of the business. Even though Medberg and Heinonen (2014) identified four invisible value factors in bank-customer relationships, one (in red in Table 1) seems relevant in this case study. First, "*Heritage value concerns the history [...] initiated by parents or relatives of the customer*" (Medberg & Heinonen, 2014, p. 599). In equestrian self-organization, the heritage value may gain importance as management often occurs within the family. The second invisible value relevant in our case is the shared moral value. This value "*refers to the compatibility between a customer's own moral standards and the perceived moral standards of the bank*" (Medberg & Heinonen, 2014, p. 599). Shared moral value is positioned in the altruistic component, as it refers to the adequacy between the client's ethical standards and the other stakeholders' standards. In this context, considering the ethical value component related to the animal's welfare seems crucial as equine welfare is directly influenced by housing and care practices. The altruistic value component (Holbrook, 2006), based on how the consumer experiences, is an ethical way of consuming, can be transposed to how people consume ethically for themselves and manage their equine for their welfare in equestrian activities.

Creativity can also lead to autonomous practices in sport as professional structures have too much of a constraining frame to offer sufficiently diversified experiences (Galewicz, 2017; Riffaud, 2018). Consequently, the hedonic value component includes experiential stimulation (Aurier et al., 2004) and the pleasure of practicing the desired activities (Hirschman & Holbrook, 1982). Self-organized equestrian users may also be motivated by the social value
component, including self-expression, status, and social link (Aurier et al., 2004). Self-organized equestrians are passionate about their activity and wish to exchange with others who share the same goals and values, or to have a more comprehensive social network, as observed for runners (H. Xie et al., 2020). The status dimension related to the prestige of self-organization enables members to achieve their goals, enhancing the need for identification and self-realization concerning the image projected to others (Bhattacharya et al., 1995). Boissel (2021) analyzes the perceived value of a sport game in relation to factors such as stadium or club attachment, and proximity. He shows that the perceived value of the sport game includes five dimensions: the “expertise dimension” as viewing the match stimulates analysis of the performance, the “emotional” one corresponding to the hedonic dimension of the experience, the “self-expression” dimension as attending the game can be a way of asserting ones identity, the “social communion” one which is the interaction with the entire game-going public and the “social practice” dimension that includes sharing with relatives (family and friends).

Despite the many similarities between the different recreational practices - such as representing a lifestyle - self-organization within equestrian activities has unique characteristics, notably its high cost, whether related to riding or horse care. Thus, the influence of economic value could be essential. This dimension is part of the instrumental value component. This component also includes a knowledge dimension related to a permanent search for information, stimulating the individual (Aurier et al., 2004). Moreover Eslan et al. (2023) emphasized the importance of animal welfare for self-organization. Consequently, the initially considered shared moral value (Medberg & Heinonen, 2014) appears more accurately categorized under ethical value, specifically regarding equine welfare. The more self-organization meets the self-organized users' horse needs or responds to a specific ethical value, the more they think self-organization has a high overall value. We pose that the different value components can positively influence the perceived overall value of self-organization. Thus, the more users think that a specific value dimension is important, the more important is the overall value (H1).

## 2. Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy, introduced by the psychologist Bandura (1997), refers to an individual's beliefs about his ability to complete a task, learn, challenge, or change. In a self-organization context, self-efficacy is the perceived ability to participate successfully and achieve desired
outcomes in the production process, because consumers believe they can produce independently create better and more tailored products, (C. Xie et al., 2008) especially when faced with challenging tasks. Self-efficacy underlies the motivation to engage in action and perseverance in achieving the goal. People with a keen sense of efficacy tend to be more proactive in attaining goals, anticipating, and preventing stressors. Self-efficacy measures perceive competence (Vaughan - Johnston & Jacobson, 2020) and includes awareness of the possible risk of error (Park & John, 2014). We pose that the more confident people are in their skills, the more they think self-organization has a high overall value (H2). We also suppose that self-efficacy positively influences different value components (H3).

### 3. Attachment to the Animal

Attachments and interactions between humans and animals can be of different natures. Equines may be used as "equipment" for many practical and recreational activities or provide aesthetic value and pleasure to consumers. Attachment to an animal can also represent a felt and expressed emotional bond between the animal and its owner (St. George et al., 1998). This concept has already been introduced in the literature by Bowlby (2002) under the principle of attachment theory, firstly applied to the relationship between the child and the mother. The fundamental principle of this theory, in addition to its applicability to all mammal species, is that a child, to develop both emotionally and socially, must create an attachment relationship with a reference person, the caregiver (Rockett & Carr, 2014). In equestrian activities, Le Clinche et al. (2017) observe the type of attachment in the sporting equestrian event and see the equine as an extension of the family. This link also reflects a real passion for the equine, as observed in Eslan et al. (2023). It can lead to behaviors that are sometimes addictive but mostly linked to the playful and experiential pleasure that the relationship with the animal provides. This attachment relationship can develop into a passion with harmonious or obsessive behavior (Rousseau et al., 2002). In a self-organization context, equine owners can live close to their horse and take care of it how they wish, being able to give free rein to their attachment to their equine. Consequently, we suppose that the more users are attached to their animal, the more self-organization has a high overall value (H4), and that the attachment with the animal will positively influence different value components (H5).

### 4. Development of a conceptual framework
We consider different value components in the initial framework according to the literature (figure 1).

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1. Hypothetical model of the influence of self-efficacy and attachment on different value components and the overall value of self-organization</figcaption></figure>

Eslan et al. (2023) highlight the fear of being unable to meet equines' needs or of making mistakes in horses' care, in the context of self-organization. Self-organization also implies many sacrifices since it costs time and money.

The notion of sacrifice shown by Aurier et al. (2004) appears, but the concept of risk is mainly related to strategic management (Mitchell, 1999), or environmental influence in decision-making (Paulraj & Chen, 2007). In tourism, risk assessments are categorized as uncontrollable or self-induced (Wang et al., 2010). Sjöberg and Engelberg (2005) consider risk perception in relation to lifestyles without conclusive results on consumer behavior. In sport literature, risks are primarily examined in terms of environmental difficulties rather than organizational ones (Siebert & Kolleck, 2013).

The exploratory qualitative survey (Eslan et al., 2023) emphasizes the need for autonomy and the search for improvement in the process. These findings corroborate Gillet and al.'s work which shows that autonomy and competency perceptions influence the motivation to participate in a sport. The need for autonomy and competence implies being at the origin of his own actions and interacting effectively with the environment (Gillet et al.,
2008). This situation creates hazards that can cause mistakes, which can be a source of concern for the users. Moreover, according to the environment and people, worries can greatly fluctuate. Therefore, this study proposes to measure the perceived risks of errors in the context of equestrian self-organization by introducing the risks of errors as a mediator. Thus, we pose that the risk of error can mediate the relationship between the overall value of self-organization (H6) and both its antecedents, self-efficacy (H7a) and animal attachment (H7b).

# Design of the Research

## 1. Methodology

This study adopts a mixed-method approach, combining a literature review with a qualitative survey based on exploratory interviews (Eslan et al., 2023), and a subsequent quantitative survey, both conducted among a French population. This approach follows the methodology used by Lorgnier et al. (2022), who employed both qualitative and quantitative methods to develop an index of perceived Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) among consumers. The aim of these surveys was to explore the influence of key variables on the perceived overall value of self-organization, and the relationships between all these determinants.

## 2. Data collection

A quantitative questionnaire was administered online via social media platforms (Facebook, X-Twitter, and Instagram) over a six-month period in 2021. This online dissemination method was necessary given the absence of a primary sampling database. It allowed for the collection of data from a convenient sample of 615 respondents. The method is consistent with modern data collection techniques on social media, like the approach used by Lorgnier et al. (2022), which facilitated efficient and broad respondent outreach.

## 3. Identifying the constructs

In the quantitative survey, 53 items were initially used to measure 12 constructs related to self-efficacy, attachment to animals, and various aspects of self-organization value. To achieve this, items were selected from the literature review and completed following the approach proposed by Rossiter (2002): relying on the results of the qualitative study, items were created to be integrated into the quantitative survey. Therefore, new items were
introduced to address specific topics such as animal welfare, risk of error, and transmission value. A full list of the items used, along with their sources are presented in appendix 1.

## 4. Data Analysis

Data analysis was performed using SMART-PLS®4.0 0 (Ringle et al., 2022), a software tool for variance-based structural equation modeling. The analysis process included:

1. Exploratory analysis to verify the scales' structure

2. Construct validation

3. Refinement of items to improve reliability

4. Selection of the most robust scales for final analysis

Some constructs were not validated and were discarded, while others were redesigned. The quantitative step aimed to demonstrate the influence of self-efficacy and attachment to animals on overall self-organization value, as well as the effect of the different value components listed in Table 1 on this overall value.

## Results

### 1. Sample description

Overall, 671 respondents answered the quantitative survey, all of whom owned at least one equine at home. 56 respondents with more than 11 missing answers were excluded. Finally, the 615 respondents are between 15 and 78 years old and have various socioeconomic statuses. The average duration of self-organization is 10.7 years (Table 2).

<table><caption>Table 2. Sample general description</caption><thead><tr><td>Type of characteristic</td><td>Description</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Age (number in the sample)</td><td>15-20 yrs. [17], <b>21-35 yrs. [294]</b>, 36-49 yrs. [173], 50 yrs and over [100]</td></tr><tr><td>Gender</td><td>Men 7%, <b>Women 93%</b></td></tr><tr><td>Job category</td><td>Farmers 6%, Intermediary profession 6%, Unemployed 6%, Students 7%, Craftsman and Business owners 13%, Executives and Senior intellectuals 27%, <b>Employees/Workers 35%</b></td></tr><tr><td>Geographical area</td><td>Urban area = 18%, <b>Suburban area = 46%</b>, Rural area = 36%</td></tr><tr><td>Number of equines owned</td><td>Average of three equines [1;45]</td></tr></tbody></table>
Average time spent per week with equine(s)
Average previous duration in a professional structure
Average duration in self-organization

Practicing activities (riding, grooming) = 6.66 hours
**Husbandry (feeding, pasture care) = 8.79 hours**
9.9 yrs.
10.7 yrs.

## 2. Assessment of the measurement

The measurement model was assessed using SMART-PLS®4.0 (Ringle et al., 2022). Construct reliability was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha and composite reliability (CR). As shown in Appendix 3, not all constructs demonstrated satisfactory reliability with Cronbach's alpha and CR values above the recommended threshold of 0.7 (Hair et al., 2020). Convergent validity was assessed using average variance extracted (AVE). Almost all constructs exhibited AVE values above 0.5, indicating adequate convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Discriminant validity was evaluated using the Fornell-Larcker criterion and the heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) ratio. The final scale includes 26 items for 8 constructs with a discriminant validity Heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) < 0.9, no items have a higher cross-loading with another construct and VIF < 0.2 for all items. The model constructs, being exploratory based, were assessed for multicollinearity using variance inflation factor (VIF) values. All VIF values were below the threshold of 5, indicating no significant multicollinearity issues (Hair et al., 2020). The detailed results are presented in Appendix 3.

The risk of error construct is formed from four items, two from the qualitative survey, one from the autonomy measuring scale, and the remaining one from the knowledge devaluation scale. They are associated with each other during the EFA (Appendix 3) with satisfactory nomological validity, as their meanings are in line with each other and the construct theme (Rossiter, 2002). The same phenomenon appears in the attachment, as this construct combines one item from the attachment scale and three items from the passion scale. The coefficients α and ω of the attachment, ethical value, economic value, and overall value constructs are above the 0.6 thresholds admitted in an exploratory analysis (Hair et al., 2020), and their AVE is close to (for attachment) or above 0.5 (Appendix 3). Although the AVE values are below 0.5 and approach 0.4, they do not significantly compromise the validity of the study results, as highlighted by Kadic-Maglajlic et al. (2017). Therefore, the constructs were retained for the next phases.
We assumed the inheritance of heritage value; however, during the EFA, the items correlated with heritage value are all oriented toward a nomological validity of transmission to heirs such as children or friends. Therefore, we retained the construct of transmission value, even if the indices are a little under the threshold, as it seems interesting to investigate this value component in the case of leisure. It posits that the more self-organized users are attached to their equine, the more they think that being autonomous allows them to transmit and share their passion with their loved ones. In addition, the more self-organized users think that being autonomous enables them to transmit and share their passion with their relatives, the more important overall self-organization value is for them (H1b). Similar to transmission value, hedonic value also has a low alpha coefficient that is close to 0.6, which is the threshold value acceptable during exploration studies.

However, the concept of status value does not meet the necessary thresholds, so we did not retain this construct for the modeling phase. Table 3 presents the measuring scales of the 8 final constructs with the retained items used for the SEM model presented hereafter.

<table><caption>Table 3. Measuring scales of the retained items for the quantitative survey</caption><thead><tr><th>Source</th><th>Original item in the literature</th><th>Original item in English</th><th>Code</th><th>Concept</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2">Aurier et al. (2004)</td><td>Globalement, je considère qu'aller au cinéma, ça vaut bien l'énergie que j'y consacre</td><td>Overall, being autonomous in the management and maintenance of my equine(s) is well worth the energy and time I put into it</td><td>Val1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Globalement, le cinéma ça vaut bien les sacrifices que je consens</td><td>Overall, being autonomous in the management of my equine(s) is well worth the sacrifices I make</td><td>Val2</td><td>Overall Value</td></tr><tr><td>Qualitative survey</td><td></td><td>Having my horse(s) at home is irreplaceable</td><td>Val3</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Scholz et al., (2002)</td><td rowspan="4">I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected events<br>I can remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely on my coping abilities<br>I can handle whatever comes my way<br>When faced with a problem, I can find several solutions</td><td>I am confident that I could deal efficiently with unexpected events</td><td>Selfeff1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>I can remain calm when facing difficulties because I can rely on my coping abilities</td><td>Selfeff2</td><td>Self-efficacy</td></tr><tr><td>I can handle whatever comes my way</td><td>Selfeff3</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>When faced with a problem, I can find several solutions</td><td>Selfeff4</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Mathwick et al. (2001)</td><td>XYZ are good economic value</td><td>This mode of organization is a good economic value</td><td>Eco1</td><td>Economic value</td></tr><tr><td>Overall, I'm happy with XYZ's prices</td><td>Overall, I'm happy with the costs associated with this type of organization</td><td>Eco2</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Qualitative survey</td><td></td><td>Being autonomous in the husbandry of my equine(s) allows me to meet the needs of my equine(s)</td><td>Ethic1</td><td>Ethical Value</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Innocent and François-</td><td rowspan="2">1- Faire des économies d'électricité, je le fais pour la planète</td><td>Being autonomous in the husbandry of my equine(s) respects their wellbeing</td><td>Ethic2</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>I find it ethical to be autonomous in the husbandry of my horse(s).</td><td>Ethic3</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>Lecompte [2020]</td><td>2- Pour moi, faire attention à mes consommations d'électricité, c'est aussi pour le bien de la collectivité</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mathwick et al. [2001]</td><td>I think XYZ's internet site is very entertaining</td><td>Being autonomous in the husbandry of my equine(s) is entertaining</td><td>Hedo1</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Innocent and François-Lecompte [2020]</td><td>I shop from the XYZ's internet site for the pure enjoyment of it</td><td>Being autonomous in the husbandry of my equine(s) gives me a sense of happiness</td><td>Hedo2</td></tr><tr><td>Maîtriser sa consommation électrique, pour moi, c'est contraignant</td><td>Being autonomous in the husbandry of my equine(s) is restrictive</td><td>Hedonic value</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Qualitative survey</td><td rowspan="3">J'aime partager mon expérience au sujet de la consommation d'électricité avec ma famille et mes relations</td><td>I like to share my experience about the husbandry of my equine(s) with my family and my relatives</td><td>Trans1</td></tr><tr><td>Being autonomous in the husbandry of my equine(s) allows me to transmit my knowledge to my friends and family</td><td>Trans2</td></tr><tr><td>Being autonomous in the management and care of my horse(s) allows me to continue my family's habits</td><td>Trans3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Qualitative survey<br>Innocent and François-Lecompte [2020]</td><td rowspan="2">Dans le domaine de la consommation d'électricité je suis gêné par le fait de ne pas toujours savoir comment faire</td><td>I am afraid of making mistakes or errors in the husbandry of my equine(s)</td><td>Risqerr1</td></tr><tr><td>In the field of husbandry of my equine(s), I am bothered by the fact that I do not always know how to do things</td><td>Risqerr2</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Gillet et al. [2008]</td><td rowspan="2">Dans mon sport, souvent je ne me sens pas très compétent</td><td>In my organization outside the structure, I often don't feel very competent</td><td>Risqerr3</td></tr><tr><td>I'm worried or stressed about what might happen to my horse(s)</td><td>Risqerr3</td></tr><tr><td>Bures et al. [2019]</td><td>When you feel bad, do you seek your pet for comfort?</td><td>When I feel bad, I seek comfort from my equine(s)</td><td>Attach2</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Rousseau et al. [2002]</td><td>I cannot live without this gambling game</td><td>I can't live without my equine(s)</td><td>Passion1</td></tr><tr><td>The new things that I discover with this gambling game allow me to appreciate it even more</td><td>The new things I discover with my equine(s) game allow me to appreciate it even more</td><td>Passion3</td></tr><tr><td>This gambling game allows me to live a variety of experiences</td><td>Being with my equine(s) allows me to live a variety of experiences</td><td>Passion4</td></tr></table>

### 3. Structural equation models

Following this exploratory analysis, we tested different models to observe the distinct influence of value components. In the remainder of this paper, we present the structural equation model based on the hypotheses proposed in Figure 2, which is considered the best model. The model's goodness of fit was evaluated using the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). The SRMR value of 0.062 was below the recommended threshold of 0.08, indicating good model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Thus, the fit indices are acceptable: SRMR = 0.074, and d-ULS = 2.167; d-G =0.469 and Chi-square= 1661.971. The discriminant validity
between all constructs is good (<0.9). This model explains 44.3% of the variance of the overall value of self-organization.

Figure 2. Model presenting the overall value of the self-organized equestrians under the effect of two antecedents: attachment and self-efficacy and different value components (significancy *** = 0 to 1%; ** = 1 to 5%; * = 5 to 10%)

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Considering the first hypothetical model proposed (Figure 1), we derived each hypothesis from both antecedents on the different value components: influence of attachment on value components: H5[a to d]; influence of self-efficacy on value components: H3[a to d]. Similarly, the influence of each value component on overall value constitutes hypothesis H1[a to d] (Figure 2).

The findings show a significant positive link between self-efficacy and attachment to the overall value of self-organization (Table 4). The direct influence of both antecedents demonstrates their importance as the more self-organized users are attached to their horse or feel confident about their skills, the greater the value of self-organization, confirming H2 and H4. Moreover, the ethical value (H1a), transmission value (H1b) and hedonic value (H1c) components have a strong positive significance on overall value. This confirms not only the importance given to equine welfare by self-organized users, but also the pleasure while caring for their animals. The negative influence of transmission value on overall value of self-
organization (H1b) suggests that the more self-organized users appreciate being able to share with their loved ones, the less they value self-organization. Our initial hypothesis concerning the link between these two constructs is confirmed, but the influence is not the one expected. This might be explained by the fact that when you are self-organized you have time constraints linked with everyday tasks (e.g. cleaning pastures and stock management). These constraints reduce the available time that people can have with their loved ones to share their passion for horses. Economic value has a low significant coefficient proving that even if it is an important motivation to choose self-organization (Eslan et al., 2023), economical elements do not give high value to self-organization (H1d). The Risk of error does not influence overall value, invalidating H6.

Self-efficacy negatively influences the risk of error, confirming H7a. This result shows that the more confident you feel in your skills, the less you fear making mistakes in equestrian self-organization. This result confirms that self-efficacy related to self-organization influences the need to consider the risks inherent in autonomous practice, as shown by the qualitative interviews, and is often underestimated. Attachment to the equine positively influences all value components (H5a, b, c, d), and risk of errors (H7b). These findings show that the more people are attached to their equine, the more willing they are to transmit their passion to their entourage, the more they want to offer good welfare conditions to their equines, and the more they enjoy being self-organized. In addition, they give more importance to the risk of making mistakes.

The structural model results, including path coefficients and their significance levels, are presented in Table 4.

<table><caption>Table 4. Regressions of the first model as presented in Figure 1 with the direct effect of self-efficacy and attachment on the overall value of self-organization (H2 and H4) (significant p-value in bold: ***≤ 0.01; 0.1<**≤ 0.05; 0.05<*<0.1)</caption><thead><tr><th>Regressions</th><th>Estimate</th><th>Std err</th><th>p-value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Ethical value ~ Attachment</td><td>0.315</td><td>0.038</td><td>0.000 ***</td></tr><tr><td>~ Self-efficacy</td><td>0.277</td><td>0.040</td><td>0.000 ***</td></tr><tr><td>Transmission value ~ Attachment</td><td>0.409</td><td>0.043</td><td>0.000 ***</td></tr><tr><td>~ Self-efficacy</td><td>0.152</td><td>0.049</td><td>0.002 ***</td></tr><tr><td>Risk of error ~ Attachment</td><td>0.163</td><td>0.034</td><td>0.000 ***</td></tr><tr><td>~ Self-efficacy</td><td>-0.582</td><td>0.028</td><td>0.000 ***</td></tr><tr><td>Hedonic value ~ Attachment</td><td>0.532</td><td>0.037</td><td>0.000 ***</td></tr><tr><td>~ Self-efficacy</td><td>0.167</td><td>0.043</td><td>0.000 ***</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>Economic value ~ Attachment</td><td>0.080</td><td>0.043</td><td>0.061 *</td></tr><tr><td>~ Self-efficacy</td><td>0.199</td><td>0.046</td><td>0.000 ***</td></tr><tr><td>Overall value ~ Attachment</td><td>0.260</td><td>0.058</td><td>0.000 ***</td></tr><tr><td>~ Self-efficacy</td><td>0.143</td><td>0.040</td><td>0.000 ***</td></tr><tr><td>~ Ethical value</td><td>0.200</td><td>0.043</td><td>0.000 ***</td></tr><tr><td>~ Transmission value</td><td>-0.093</td><td>0.036</td><td>0.002 ***</td></tr><tr><td>~ Risk of error</td><td>-0.031</td><td>0.038</td><td>0.414 [ns]</td></tr><tr><td>~ Hedonic value</td><td>0.316</td><td>0.045</td><td>0.000 ***</td></tr><tr><td>~ Economic value</td><td>0.062</td><td>0.035</td><td>0.074 *</td></tr></table>

## 4. Mediation effects

To test the mediating effects of the different value components between the antecedents and overall value of self-organization, we conducted a bootstrapping analysis with 5000 resamples. This model also demonstrates the partial mediating effects of i) ethical value, transmission value, and hedonic value between attachment and overall value and ii) ethical value, transmission value, and hedonic value between self-efficacy and overall value. Table 5 presents the type of mediation effect of the different value components between self-efficacy and overall value, and Table 6 presents the mediation effect concerning attachment, according to the interpretation of Zhao et al. (2011).

The indirect effect of self-efficacy on the overall value is mediated by ethical value, transmission value, and hedonic value. The complementary mediation of ethical value and hedonic value is considered as a medium size effect (est <0.3). This indirect effect of self-efficacy on overall value is significatively stronger than the direct effect of self-efficacy on ethical value. We observe a similar mediation concerning the effect of ethical value and hedonic value between attachment and overall value. A non-mediation effect occurs for risk of error and economic values. These findings tend to prove that ethical value and hedonic value mediate the attachment to the equine, self-efficacy, and overall value of self-organization. This implies that overall value will be lower if ethical value and hedonic value are not respected and present during self-organization.

<table><caption>Table 5. Mediation effects of the different value components between self-efficacy and overall value in the model (Figure 2) (significant p-value in bold: ***≤ 0.01; 0.1<**≤ 0.05; 0.05<*<0.1)</caption><thead><tr><td>Self-efficacy</td><td>Standardized estimate [std_all]</td><td>Std err</td><td>p-value</td><td>Type of mediation</td></tr></thead></table>
<table><tr><td>Direct effect self-efficacy =><br>Overall value</td><td>0.125</td><td>0.029</td><td>0.000 ***</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Indirect effect ethical value</td><td>0.055</td><td>0.015</td><td>0.000 ***</td><td rowspan="3">Complementary<br>mediation of ethical<br>and hedonic value<br>Competitive<br>mediation of<br>transmission value</td></tr><tr><td>Indirect effect hedonic value</td><td>0.053</td><td>0.016</td><td>0.001 ***</td></tr><tr><td>Indirect effect transmission<br>value</td><td>-0.038</td><td>0.015</td><td>0.010 **</td></tr><tr><td>Indirect effect risk of error</td><td>0.018</td><td>0.023</td><td>0.419 (ns)</td><td rowspan="2">Non-mediation of risk of<br>error and economic value<br>of the construct of self-<br>efficacy on overall value</td></tr><tr><td>Indirect effect economic value</td><td>0.012</td><td>0.008</td><td>0.106 (ns)</td></tr></table>

Concerning the mediation effect of transmission value, the results show a competitive mediation of transmission value between self-efficacy and attachment with overall value. The indirect effect of the mediation is indeed negative (Table 6). This effect can be interpreted as a sign of an omitted indirect path in the model (Zhao et al., 2011).

<table><caption>Table 6. Mediation effects of the different value components between attachment and overall value in the model (Figure 2) (significant p-value in bold: ***≤ 0.01; 0.1<**≤ 0.05; 0.05<**<0.1)</caption><thead><tr><th>Attachment</th><th>Standardized<br>estimate (std_all)</th><th>Std err</th><th>p-value</th><th>Type of mediation</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Direct effect attachment =><br>Overall value</td><td>0.193</td><td>0.035</td><td>0.000 ***</td><td rowspan="3">Complementary<br>mediation of ethical<br>and hedonic value</td></tr><tr><td>Indirect effect ethical value</td><td>0.063</td><td>0.015</td><td>0.000 ***</td></tr><tr><td>Indirect effect hedonic value</td><td>0.168</td><td>0.028</td><td>0.000 ***</td></tr><tr><td>Indirect effect transmission<br>value</td><td>-0.038</td><td>0.015</td><td>0.010 **</td><td>Competitive<br>mediation of<br>transmission value</td></tr><tr><td>Indirect effect risk of error</td><td>-0.005</td><td>0.006</td><td>0.422 (ns)</td><td rowspan="2">Non-mediation of risk of<br>error and economic value<br>of the construct of<br>attachment on overall<br>value</td></tr><tr><td>Indirect effect economic value</td><td>-0.000</td><td>0.006</td><td>0.237 (ns)</td></tr></tbody></table>
# Discussion

## 1. Triggers for self-organization

In the equestrian context, this research highlights the importance of specific antecedents and value components in the overall value attributed to self-organization. Our study shows that, contrary to received ideas about elitism and popular beliefs associated with horse riding (Bourdieu, 1979; Le Mancq, 2007), the status value does not seem to influence equestrian self-organization. On the contrary, other dimensions, such as transmission value, ethical value, and hedonic value, play a more significant role.

Ethical value, in our case, is strongly associated with equine welfare, and not with the ethical preservation of resources or the impression of participating in something bigger, as observed in electricity consumption (Innocent & François-Lecompte, 2020). This highlights the importance of the ethical component of value but also shows the necessity to adapt it to each study case, as different kinds of ethical arguments can be considered according to the context. In our case, equine welfare appears essential for self-organized equestrian people. These results confirm the finding regarding the importance of equine housing for horse-owners, shown by Hemsworth (2017) and Ruet et al. (2019).

This research brings an original point of view on transmission value. The literature showed the influence of a heritage value inherited from the entourage. This notion, shown by Medberg and Heinonen (2014) in the context of banking, influences providers' choice according to their family's previous experiences. However, in equestrian self-organization, the results reflect the idea of transmission to relatives. The transmission value consists in social sharing with its entourage as in the case of the perceived value of a match (Boissel, 2021) but includes also the transmission of knowledge to friends and family and the continuation of family's habits. This transmission value deserves to be developed and investigated in new research in other sports.

Concerning autonomy, this research is promising. Specific factors like the different value components influence the importance of overall self-organization value, hence the choice to be self-organized. Unfortunately, the construct of autonomy was not confirmed during the EFA, so it was not included in the model, but the strong influence of self-efficacy on the overall value of self-organization, hedonic value, economic value, ethical value, and risk of error proves the importance of trusting one's own ability to really value self-organization.
The non-significant effect of status value underlines an ambivalence about horse riding, which is often considered as elitist and as the self-expression of high social status. In equestrian self-organization, the status does not seem important in the overall value. The practice of equestrian activities is often perceived as being reserved for the higher socioeconomic classes (Bourdieu, 1979) with a prestigious status. The image of horses in magnificent stud farms with white fences is often representative of the privileged status of the owner. However, self-organized practitioners are more likely to come from diverse backgrounds (Chantelat et al., 1998; Galewicz, 2017). People become self-organized either because of the passion for the animal or the passion for the activity, rather than for the status they acquire (Eslan et al., 2023). The status value of having a self-organizing equine is thus inconclusive.

The economic value is seen by Aurier et al. (2004) as part of the utilitarian value. The results are in line with these conclusions, as the economic value influences the overall value of self-organization. However, even if economic arguments are considered in the choice to self-organize (Eslan et al., 2023), this value is not as important as we expected.

The non-mediation effect result of risk of error suggests further investigation. Mitchell (1999) specifically calls for perceived risk research in leisure activities as empirical studies tend to focus on a medical approach of injuries risks, which are not the exact scope of this paper. Nevertheless, in these studies, the notion of risk corresponds to the risks incurred in terms of health. The risk of error is thus composed of the perception of the risks incurred and the ability to manage these risks (Meyer & Verlhiac, 2004). In our case study, we can assume that people are worried about major risks for their horses, or worried about endangering their horses. This creates possible mental load and stress for self-organized users. Furthermore, this variable could be linked to people's skills, beliefs, and constraints. Adding constructs related to mental load and sacrifices could enrich the theoretical model to better understand the effect of the risk of error. These elements are in line with the results on the transmission value, which underline an omitted element that could be time constraints. Self-organized users sacrifice their available time to transmit their passion and organization. Finally, a question arises about the effect of sacrifices, constraints, and risks on the overall value of self-organization, which opens the way to research avenues. Moreover, according to Zhao et al. (2011)'s interpretation, considering the risk of error as a moderator rather than a mediator should also be investigated in future research to enrich and improve the theoretical model.
The object of attachment, here the horse, is the self-organization keystone. The direct influence on overall value as well as its indirect effects via ethical value and hedonic value are of high importance in self-organization's overall value. These results are in line with the work of Le Clinche et al. (2017) who show that attachment to the horse is also the motivation to participate in equestrian shows. However, the link between attachment and transmission is new. Indeed, Medberg and Heinonen (2014) only showed that a form of relational inheritance was involved in the decision to choose a bank. This study, in the self-organization context, shows that the attachment to the horse makes one want to transmit to relatives.

## 2. Measurement Scales Evaluation

The measurement of overall value in our study follows the work of Aurier et al. (2004). This measuring scale compares benefits and sacrifices of self-organization. This scale raises the question of how to measure the overall value in general. It would also be interesting to explore how constraints influence the model and the overall value, in line with Bornemann (2020) findings. She demonstrates that the way time is spent fluctuates depending on an individual's level of engagement with their horse, as constraints vary across individuals and environments (Dashper & Brymer, 2019).

Even if this model seems promising, some limitations persist in this study, such as the low reliability of some constructs (i.e. attachment, transmission value), although sufficient for this type of modelling. Overall, the measurement scales need reworking to confirm the theoretical model, especially for the risk of error, transmission value, hedonic value, attachment, and overall value. This would enable us to extend the use of this model to other self-organized activities. The number and variability of individuals in the sample could be increased. Thus, reworking the scales and the sample are prospective avenues.

## 3. Managerial Implications

With a focus on the consumer and the value components, this study allows a better understanding of the needs and expectations of self-organized users. Therefore, businesses' tasks are to adapt and innovate to meet individual consumers' expectations better. These results show the importance of adapting the services offer to the self-organized equestrian user's needs. This work raises the question of organization in terms of learning and the role of companies in training self-organized users. A learning program through apprenticeship should focus on fostering autonomy rather than dependence for self-organized users. The self-
organization phenomenon implies a strong contribution from the consumer-producer and a minor contribution from the providers. The provider role is seen more as a support than a creator of the final service (Rayna et al., 2015). Breaking away from a federal sport model, self-organized users are nevertheless sometimes forced to use commercial or private service providers for support (Gaubert, 2016). Thus, as observed in innovation on online platforms, equestrian companies can co-create new services according to the identified needs of their clients, to support them in their project.

This first approach of analyzing value components in equestrian self-organization shows the importance of specific values. Considering these results, a user typology approach would highlight the importance of specific values according to the different profiles of self-organized users and the various types of organization. Professional structures need to address this issue, to at least keep their customers or develop co-creation activities with these users. The notion of unperceived sacrifices, constraints, and risks remains to be considered. According to the self-organized users' expectations, several types of services are relevant. The attachment to their equine, their desire to respect its welfare, and the wish to transmit their way of living with their horse must be considered by professionals. A comparative analysis between self-organized users and users of professional structures would be interesting as their values may differ and therefore influence the overall value of organization differently.

## Conclusion

To conclude, this paper analyzes the effects of self-efficacy, attachment, and value components on overall value of self-organization. Economic value is not the main and only value to consider. Hedonic, ethic, and transmission values appear as major components and mediators of the influence of attachment and self-efficacy on the overall value. Nevertheless, the effects of these mediators' value components can vary greatly according to the environment and the skills of the individuals, which limits the globalization of the results. Among all the effects on the overall value of self-organization, we can notice the high importance of ethical value and the attachment to the animal. This research adds the concept of transmission value to the literature on autonomy in sport. At the same time, our results raise questions about the effects of risks, constraints, and sacrifices that are not completely encompassed in this study and open the way to further research on self-organization.
This study provides valuable results for the equine industry, suggesting the importance of adapting professionals' offer to self-organized equestrians to value components that are essential for the organization of these users. Equestrian services offered in the professional structures would then serve as support by offering a network and adapted advice for self-organized people. Moreover, the case of self-organized equestrian users could be transferable, on the one hand, to other activities with animals, such as Canicross or dog mushing, but also to activities without animals, as the roles of attachment and ethical value could be found in natural settings with hikers or the mountain with climbers, as suggested by Crockett et al. (2022).

This research warns of the need to keep an open mind about new self-organized practices and consumers' expectations that they reflect. Moreover, in animal-related research, it is crucial to conduct a deeper investigation into animal welfare and the perceptions surrounding it.

## References

Aurier, P., Evrard, Y., & N'Goala, G. (2004). Comprendre et mesurer la valeur du point de vue du consommateur [Understand and measure value from the consumer's perspective]. *Recherche et Applications En Marketing*, 19(3), 1-20.

Bandura, A. (1997). *Self-efficacy: The exercise of control*. Freeman.

Bhattacharya, C. B., Rao, H., & Glynn, M. A. (1995). Understanding the bond of identification: An investigation of its correlates among Art Museum members. *Journal of Marketing*, 59, 46-57.

Boissel, J. (2021). *Évolution de la perception de la proximité, de la valeur perçue et de l'attachement dans un contexte de changement majeur* [Doctoral dissertation en Sciences de Gestion], Université de Tours. https://theses.fr/2021TOUR1002

Bornemann, D. (2020). *Why do people own horses? The experiences of highly involved dressage horse owners in the United Kingdom* [PhD thesis in the School of Business and Technology], University of Gloucestershire. https://doi.org/10.46289/GH93KF12

Bourdieu, P. (1979). *La distinction: Critique sociale du jugement. Le Sens commun*. Les Editions de minuit.

Bowlby, J. (2002). *Attachement et perte. Attachment and Loss* (2 ed). Le Fil rouge. Section 2, *Psychanalyse et psychiatrie de l'enfant*. Vol. 1. Presses Universitaires de France.
Bures, R. M., Mueller, M. K., & Gee, N. R. (2019). Measuring human-animal attachment in a large U.S. survey: Two brief measures for children and their primary caregivers. *Frontiers in Public Health, 7*, 107. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00107

Chantelat, P., Fodimbi, M., & Camy, J. (1998). Les groupes de jeunes sportifs dans la ville [Youth sports groups in the city]. *Les Annales de la Recherche Urbaine*, 79[1], 41-49.
https://doi.org/10.3406/aru.1998.2176

Crockett, L. J., Murray, N. P., & Kime, D. B. (2022). Self-Determination Strategy in Mountaineering: Collecting Colorado's Highest Peaks. *Leisure Sciences, 44*(7), 939-958.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2020.1738968

Dashper, K., & Brymer, E. (2019). An ecological-phenomenological perspective on multispecies leisure and the horse-human relationship in events. *Leisure Studies, 38*(3), 394-407. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2019.1586981

Dong, B., & Sivakumar, K. (2017). Customer participation in services: domain, scope, and boundaries. *Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 45*(6), 944-965.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-017-0524-y

Eslan, C., Costa, S., & Vial, C. (2023). Self-organisation in equestrian activities : Passion for the practice or passion for the animal. *Décision Marketing* [111], 149-176.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. *Journal of Marketing Research, 18*(1), 39-50.

Gabriel, P., Divard, R., Le Gall-Ely, M., & Prim-Allaz, I. (2014). *Marketing des services [Services marketing]* Management sup. Dunod.

Galewicz, O. (2017). *Do It Yourself or Do It Together? Emergence of participatory culture through co-creating interactive DIY skateboarding spaces* [Master thesis]. University of Oslo.

Gaubert, V. (2016). *Du football aux foot-ball : étude comparative de la géographie des cultures sportives "balle au pied" [From football association to football codes: a comparative study of sporting cultures from a geographical perspective]* [PhD thesis in Geography, University Paris-Sorbonne - Paris IV]. theses.hal.science.
https://theses.hal.science/tel-01437503/

Gillet, N., Rosnet, E., & Vallerand, R. J. (2008). Développement d'une échelle de satisfaction des besoins fondamentaux en contexte sportif [satisfying basic needs scale development in a sporting context]. *Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science / Revue
*Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement*, **40**(4), 230-237.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013201

Hair, J. F., Howard, M. C., & Nitzl, C. (2020). Assessing measurement model quality in PLS-SEM using confirmatory composite analysis. *Journal of Business Research. Advance online publication*. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.11.069

Hemsworth, L. M. (2017). *The welfare of recreational horses in Victoria: the occurrence of and factors associated with horse welfare*. Monash University.
https://doi.org/10.4225/03/58980e6bb8c2e

Henseler, J., Hubona, G., & Ray, P. A. (2016). Using PLS path modeling in new technology research: updated guidelines. *Industrial Management & Data Systems*, **116**(1), 2-20.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-09-2015-0382

Hirschman, E. C., & Holbrook, M. B. (1982). Hedonic Consumption: Emerging Concepts, Methods and Propositions. *Journal of Marketing*, **46**(3), 92.
https://doi.org/10.2307/1251707

Holbrook, M. B. (1994). The Nature of Customer Value: An Axiology of Services in the Consumption Experience. In R. T. Rust & R. L. Oliver (Eds.), *Service quality: New directions in theory and practice* (pp. 21-71). SAGE Publications.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452229102.n2

Holbrook, M. B. (2006). Consumption experience, customer value, and subjective personal introspection: An illustrative photographic essay. *Journal of Business Research*, **59**(6), 714-725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.01.008

Hu, L., & 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Innocent, M., & François-Lecompte, A. (2020). La valeur retirée d'une pratique : une application au cas des économies d'électricité [Value derived from a practice: Electricity savings case study]. *Recherche et Applications en Marketing*, **35**(2), 78-99.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0767370119899603

Kadic-Maglajlic, S., Micevski, M., Arslanagic-Kalajdzic, M., & Lee, N. (2017). Customer and selling orientations of retail salespeople and the sales manager's ability-to-perceive-emotions: A multi-level approach. *Journal of Business Research*, **80**, 53-62.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.06.023
Le Clinche, S., Martinent, G., & Chanavat, N. (2017). Consumers' attachment in the sporting equestrian context: A cluster analytic approach. *Managing Sport and Leisure, 22*(3), 234-254. https://doi.org/10.1080/23750472.2018.1424025

Le Mancq, F. (2007). Des carrières semées d'obstacles : l'exemple des cavalier-e-s de haut niveau [Careers full of obstacles: the example of high-level riders]. *Sociétés contemporaines, 66*(2), 127-150.

Leclercq, T., Hammedi, W., & Poncin, I. (2016). Ten years of value cocreation: an integrative review. *Recherche et Applications en Marketing* (French Edition), 31(3), 29-66.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0767370116638270 (Dix ans de co-creation de valeur : une revue integrative).

Lorgnier, N. G. A., Su, C.-J., & O'Rourke, S. M. (2022). Brands' perceived sustainable development goals: index development and applications with professional sport teams and fast-food brands. *Service Business, 16*(1), 125-157.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11628-021-00474-5

Mathwick, C., Malhotra, N., & Rigdon, E. (2001). Experiential value: conceptualization, measurment and application in the catalog and Interent shopping environmental. *Journal of Retailing* (77), 39-56.

Medberg, G., & Heinonen, K. (2014). Invisible value formation: A netnography in retail banking.
*International Journal of Bank Marketing, 32*(6), 590-607.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-03-2014-0041

Meyer, T., & Verlhiac, J.-F. (2004). Auto-efficacité : quelle contribution aux modèles de prédiction de l'exposition aux risques et de la préservation de la santé ? *Savoirs*, Hors série [5], 117-134. https://doi.org/10.3917/savo.hs01.0117

Mitchell, V.-W. (1999). Consumer perceived risk: Conceptualisations and models. *European Journal of Marketing, 33*(1/2), 163-195.
https://doi.org/10.1108/03090569910249229

Park, J. K., & John, D. R. (2014). I think I can, I think I can: Brand use, self-efficacy, and performance. *Journal of Marketing Research, 51*(2), 233-247.
https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.11.0532

Paulraj, A., & Chen, I. J. (2007). Environmental uncertainty and strategic supply management: A resource dependence perspective and performance implications. *The Journal of Supply Chain Management, 43*(3), 29-42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-493X.2007.00033.x
Rayna, T., Striukova, L., & Darlington, J. (2015). Co-creation and user innovation: The role of online 3D printing platforms. *Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 37*, 90-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2015.07.002

Riffaud, T. (2018). Construire son propre spot? la philosophie Do it yourself dans les sports de rue [Build your own spot: the Do it yourself philosophy in street sports]. *Espaces Et Sociétés, 175*(4), 163. https://doi.org/10.3917/esp.175.0163

Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J.-M. (2022). *SmartPLS 4. Oststeinbek*. SmartPLS GmbH. http://www.smartpls.com

Rockett, B., & Carr, S. (2014). Animals and Attachment Theory. *Society & Animals, 22*(4), 415-433. https://doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341322

Rossiter, J. R. (2002). The C-OAR-SE procedure for scale development in marketing. *International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19*(4), 305-335.

Rousseau, F. L., Vallerand, R. J., Ratelle, C. F., Mageau, G. A., & Provencher, P. J. (2002). *Passion and gambling: On the validation of the Gambling Passion Scale (GPS). Journal of Gambling Studies, 18*(1), 45-66. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1014532229487

Ruet, A., Lemarchand, J., Parias, C., Mach, N., Moisan, M.-P., Foury, A., Briant, C., & Lansade, L. (2019). Housing horses in individual boxes is a challenge with regard to welfare. *Animals, 9*(9), 621. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani9090621

Scholz, U., Gutiérrez Doña, B., Sud, S., & Schwarzer, R. (2002). Is general self-efficacy a universal construct? *European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 18*(3), 242-251. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.18.3.242

Siebert, S., & Kolleck, M. (2013). Difficulty rating in mountain biking. *Journal of Outdoor Activities, 1*(1), 88-93.

Sjöberg, L., & Engelberg, E. (2005). Lifestyles, and risk perception consumer behavior. *International Review of Sociology, 15*(2), 327-362. https://doi.org/10.1080/03906700500159755

St. George, R., Jones, B., Spicer, J., & Budge, R. C. (1998). Health correlates of compatibility and attachment in human-companion animal relationships. *Society & Animals, 6*(3), 219-234. https://doi.org/10.1163/156853098x00168

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). *Using multivariate statistics*. Ally and Bacon.

Vaughan-Johnston, T. I., & Jacobson, J. A. (2020). Self-efficacy Theory. In B. J. Carducci, C. S. Nave, J. S. Mio, & R. E. Riggio (Eds.), *The Wiley Encyclopedia of Personality and*
*Individual Differences* (pp. 375-379). Wiley.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119547143.ch62

Wang, K.-C., Jao, P.-C., Chan, H.-C., & Chung, C.-H. (2010). Group package tour leader's intrinsic risks. *Annals of Tourism Research*, *37*(1), 154-179.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2009.08.004

Xie, C., Bagozzi, R. P., & Troye, S. V. (2008). Trying to prosume: toward a theory of consumers as co-creators of value. *Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science*, *36*(1), 109-122.

Xie, H., Chen, Y., & Yin, R. (2020). Running together is better than running alone: a qualitative study of a self-organised distance running group in China. *Leisure Studies*, *39*(2), 195-208. https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2019.1698647

Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., JR., & Chen, Q. (2011). Reconsidérer Baron et Kenny: mythes et vérités à propos de l'analyse de médiation [Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and Truths about Mediation Analysis]. *Recherche et Applications en Marketing*, *26*(1), 81-96.
# Appendixes

## Appendix 1: Table of initial items for quantitative survey constructs (in French)

<table><thead><tr><th>Authors</th><th>Initial items</th><th>Variable name</th><th>Presence in final scale</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="6">Gillet et al. (2008)<br>6 items</td><td colspan="3"><strong>AUTONOMY</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Dans mon organisation Hors Structure, souvent je ne me sens pas très compétent</td><td>Risqerr3</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Dans mon organisation Hors Structure, j'ai le sentiment de bien réussir</td><td>Aut2</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Dans mon organisation Hors Structure, je peux prendre des décisions pour la gestion de mon/mes équidé[s]</td><td>Aut3</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Dans mon organisation Hors Structure, je me sens libre d'exprimer mes idées et mes opinions</td><td>Aut4</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mon mode d'organisation Hors Structure me permet d'être en contact avec des personnes pour lesquelles j'ai beaucoup de sympathie</td><td>Aut5</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Dans mon organisation Hors structure, je me sens à l'aise avec les autres</td><td>Aut6</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Bures et al. (2019)<br>3 items</td><td colspan="3"><strong>ANIMAL ATTACHMENT</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Je passe du temps chaque jour à jouer ou faire de l'exercice avec mon/mes équidé[s]</td><td>Attach1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Je considère mon/mes équidé[s] comme un/des membre[s] de ma famille</td><td>Attach2</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Quand je me sens mal, je cherche du réconfort auprès de mon/mes équidé[s]</td><td>Attach3</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Rousseau et al.<br>[2002]<br>4 items</td><td colspan="3"><strong>PASSION</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Je ne peux pas me passer de mon/mes équidé[s]</td><td>Passion1</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Les choses nouvelles que je découvre avec mon/mes équidé[s], me permettent de l'apprécier davantage</td><td>Passion2</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>J'ai un sentiment qui est presque obsessif pour mon/mes équidé[s]</td><td>Passion3</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Être avec mon équidé me permet de vivre des expériences variées.</td><td>Passion4</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Scholz et al.<br>[2002]<br>5 items</td><td colspan="3"><strong>SELF-EFFICACY</strong></td></tr><tr><td>J'ai confiance dans le fait que je pourrais faire face efficacement à des évènements inattendus</td><td>Selfeff1</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Je peux rester calme lorsque je suis confronté[e] à des difficultés car je peux me fier à mes habiletés pour faire face aux problèmes</td><td>Selfeff2</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Peu importe ce qui arrive, je suis généralement capable d'y faire face.</td><td>Selfeff3</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Je suis certain de pouvoir accomplir mes objectifs</td><td>Selfeff4</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Lorsque je suis confronté[e] à un problème, je suis capable de trouver plusieurs solutions</td><td>Selfeff5</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Medberg et<br>Heinonen (2014)<br>3 items</td><td colspan="3"><strong>HERITAGE VALUE -> TRANSMISSION VALUE</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Être autonome pour la gestion et l'entretien de mon/mes équidé[s] me permet de continuer des habitudes familiales</td><td>Her1</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Ma famille m'a transmis ses connaissances dans la gestion et l'entretien de mon/mes équidé[s]</td><td>Her2</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Être autonome dans la gestion et l'entretien de mon/mes équidé[s] me permet de transmettre mes connaissances à mes proches (amis ou famille)</td><td>Trans2</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Matthwick et al.<br>[2001]<br>2 items</td><td colspan="3"><strong>ECONOMIC VALUE</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Ce mode d'organisation est avantageux d'un point de vue économique</td><td>Eco1</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Dans l'ensemble, je suis content[e] des coûts liés à ce mode d'organisation</td><td>Eco2</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">From qualitative<br>verbatim<br>6 items</td><td colspan="3"><strong>RISK OF ERROR / SACRIFICES</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Être autonome pour la gestion et l'entretien de mon/mes équidé[s] est lourd à gérer au quotidien</td><td>Risqauto</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Il est plus risqué pour mes équidés d'être Hors structure que d'être dans une structure professionnelle</td><td>Risqequi</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Je suis inquiet[e] ou stressé[e] de ce qui pourrait arriver à mon/mes équidé[s]</td><td>Risqerr4</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Je ne trouve pas le temps de faire autre chose que de m'occuper de mes équidés</td><td>Risqtps</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mon/mes équidé[s] m'oblige[nt] à être présent et m'empêche[nt] de partir en vacances</td><td>Risqvac</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>J'ai peur de me tromper ou de faire des erreurs dans la gestion et l'entretien de mon/mes équidé[s]</td><td>Risqerr1</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Innocent et<br>François-Lecomte<br>[2020]<br>3 items</td><td colspan="3"><strong>HEDONIC VALUE</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Être autonome dans la gestion et l'entretien de mon/mes équidé[s], c'est contraignant</td><td>Hedo3</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Pour moi, être autonome dans la gestion et l'entretien de mon/mes équidé[s], c'est comme un jeu</td><td>Hedo4</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Quand je suis autonome dans la gestion et l'entretien de mon/mes équidé[s] et que mon/mes équidé[s] est/sont bien, c'est une récompense à mes efforts</td><td>Hedo5</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Matthwick et al.<br>[2001]<br>2 items</td><td>Être autonome dans la gestion et l'entretien de mon/mes équidé[s] est distravant</td><td>Hedo1</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Être autonome dans la gestion et l'entretien de mes équidés me procure un sentiment de bonheur</td><td>Hedo2</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>SOCIAL VALUE</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4">Innocent et<br>François-Lecomte<br>[2020]<br>4 items</td><td>J'aime partager mon expérience au sujet de la gestion et de l'entretien de mon/mes équidés avec ma famille et mes relations</td><td>Trans1</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Ce n'est pas toujours bien vu d'être autonome dans la gestion et l'entretien de ses équidés</td><td>Soc2</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Être attentif à la gestion et l'entretien de mon/mes équidés entraine parfois des tensions au sein de mon foyer</td><td>Soc3</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Je me sens un peu isolé(e) dans ma démarche d'être autonome dans la gestion et l'entretien de mon/mes équidés</td><td>Soc4</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Bhattacharya et al.<br>[1995]<br>2 items</td><td>Dans mon groupe social, c'est considéré comme prestigieux de gérer ses équidés en autonomie</td><td>Statut1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Les personnes qui gèrent de façon autonome leurs équidés n'ont pas une très bonne réputation dans mon groupe social.</td><td>Statut2</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4" style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">ALTRUISTIC VALUE / ETHICAL VALUE</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">From qualitative<br>verbatim<br>2 items</td><td>Être autonome dans la gestion et l'entretien de mon/mes équidés permet de répondre aux besoins de mon/mes équidés</td><td>Ethic1</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Être autonome dans la gestion et l'entretien de mon/mes équidés respecte leur bien-être</td><td>Ethic2</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Innocent et<br>François [2020]<br>2 items</td><td>Je trouve éthique d'être autonome dans la gestion et l'entretien de mon/mes équidés</td><td>Ethic3</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Être autonome dans la gestion et l'entretien de mon/mes équidés donne l'impression de participer, à son niveau, à quelque chose de plus grand</td><td>Ethic4</td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4" style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">INSTRUMENTAL VALUE: KNOWLEDGE</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Innocent et<br>François-Lecomte<br>[2020]<br>4 items</td><td>J'aime en savoir plus sur la gestion et entretien des équidés</td><td>Conn1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>J'aime observer mon/mes équidés</td><td>Conn2</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Cela m'est difficile d'obtenir les informations nécessaires pour être autonome dans la gestion et l'entretien de ses équidés</td><td>Conn3</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Dans le domaine de la gestion et l'entretien de mon/mes équidés, je suis gêné par le fait de ne pas toujours savoir comment faire</td><td>Risqerr2</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td colspan="4" style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;">OVERALL VALUE</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Aurier et al. [2004]<br>3 items</td><td>Globalement, être autonome dans la gestion et l'entretien de mon/mes équidés vaut bien l'énergie et le temps que j'y consacre</td><td>Val1</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Globalement, être autonome dans la gestion de mon/mes équidés vaut bien les sacrifices auxquels je consens</td><td>Val2</td><td>X</td></tr><tr><td>Globalement, être autonome dans la gestion de mon/mes équidés vaut bien les risques que je dois prendre pour le faire</td><td>Valglo3</td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">From qualitative<br>verbatim<br>2 items</td><td>Être autonome dans la gestion de mon/mes équidés, c'est au-dessus de tout, ce n'est pas mesurable</td><td>Novaleur1</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Le fait d'avoir mon/mes équidés chez moi, c'est irremplaçable</td><td>Val 3/ Novaleur2</td><td>X</td></tr></tbody></table>
Appendix 2 Cross loadings matrix

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Animal attachment</th><th>Economic value</th><th>Risk of error</th><th>Ethical value</th><th>Hedonic value</th><th>Overall value</th><th>Self-efficacy</th><th>Transmission value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>attach2</td><td><strong>0,554</strong></td><td>0,026</td><td><strong>0,093</strong></td><td>0,209</td><td>0,279</td><td>0,265</td><td>0,011</td><td>0,148</td></tr><tr><td>passion1</td><td><strong>0,613</strong></td><td>-0,019</td><td>0,069</td><td>0,197</td><td>0,309</td><td>0,348</td><td>0,037</td><td>0,177</td></tr><tr><td>passion3</td><td><strong>0,777</strong></td><td>0,152</td><td>0,047</td><td>0,309</td><td>0,437</td><td>0,364</td><td>0,138</td><td>0,381</td></tr><tr><td>passion4</td><td><strong>0,760</strong></td><td>0,114</td><td>-0,023</td><td>0,270</td><td>0,472</td><td>0,392</td><td>0,254</td><td>0,407</td></tr><tr><td>eco1</td><td>0,043</td><td><strong>0,617</strong></td><td>-0,088</td><td>0,002</td><td>0,040</td><td>0,036</td><td>0,082</td><td>0,088</td></tr><tr><td>eco2</td><td>0,123</td><td><strong>0,978</strong></td><td>-0,171</td><td>0,164</td><td>0,231</td><td>0,231</td><td>0,223</td><td>0,152</td></tr><tr><td>risqerr1</td><td>0,106</td><td>-0,153</td><td><strong>0,831</strong></td><td>-0,117</td><td>0,029</td><td>-0,078</td><td>-0,447</td><td>0,016</td></tr><tr><td>risqerr2</td><td>-0,035</td><td>-0,138</td><td><strong>0,852</strong></td><td>-0,190</td><td>-0,082</td><td>-0,189</td><td>-0,519</td><td>-0,086</td></tr><tr><td>risqerr3</td><td>0,000</td><td>-0,069</td><td><strong>0,771</strong></td><td>-0,181</td><td>-0,041</td><td>-0,137</td><td>-0,419</td><td>-0,031</td></tr><tr><td>risqerr4</td><td>0,155</td><td>-0,190</td><td><strong>0,544</strong></td><td>-0,022</td><td>0,053</td><td>-0,004</td><td>-0,231</td><td>0,086</td></tr><tr><td>ethic1</td><td>0,301</td><td>0,112</td><td>-0,229</td><td><strong>0,830</strong></td><td>0,357</td><td>0,385</td><td>0,336</td><td>0,245</td></tr><tr><td>ethic2</td><td>0,282</td><td>0,072</td><td>-0,142</td><td><strong>0,817</strong></td><td>0,294</td><td>0,349</td><td>0,236</td><td>0,211</td></tr><tr><td>ethic3</td><td>0,246</td><td>0,151</td><td>-0,009</td><td><strong>0,603</strong></td><td>0,276</td><td>0,307</td><td>0,168</td><td>0,215</td></tr><tr><td>hedo1</td><td>0,368</td><td>0,186</td><td>-0,016</td><td>0,284</td><td><strong>0,711</strong></td><td>0,348</td><td>0,196</td><td>0,312</td></tr><tr><td>hedo2</td><td>0,446</td><td>0,139</td><td>-0,020</td><td>0,358</td><td><strong>0,807</strong></td><td>0,505</td><td>0,200</td><td>0,357</td></tr><tr><td>hedo3</td><td>0,436</td><td>0,154</td><td>-0,020</td><td>0,265</td><td><strong>0,703</strong></td><td>0,366</td><td>0,198</td><td>0,335</td></tr><tr><td>val1</td><td>0,373</td><td>0,169</td><td>-0,188</td><td>0,379</td><td>0,443</td><td><strong>0,808</strong></td><td>0,302</td><td>0,208</td></tr><tr><td>val2</td><td>0,373</td><td>0,156</td><td>-0,097</td><td>0,332</td><td>0,438</td><td><strong>0,774</strong></td><td>0,284</td><td>0,191</td></tr><tr><td>val3</td><td>0,404</td><td>0,154</td><td>-0,047</td><td>0,338</td><td>0,381</td><td><strong>0,689</strong></td><td>0,212</td><td>0,207</td></tr><tr><td>selfeff1</td><td>0,096</td><td>0,117</td><td>-0,401</td><td>0,231</td><td>0,112</td><td>0,204</td><td><strong>0,724</strong></td><td>0,133</td></tr><tr><td>selfeff2</td><td>0,101</td><td>0,168</td><td>-0,463</td><td>0,208</td><td>0,203</td><td>0,256</td><td><strong>0,756</strong></td><td>0,132</td></tr><tr><td>selfeff3</td><td>0,119</td><td>0,139</td><td>-0,402</td><td>0,267</td><td>0,181</td><td>0,242</td><td><strong>0,772</strong></td><td>0,139</td></tr><tr><td>selfeff4</td><td>0,225</td><td>0,206</td><td>-0,391</td><td>0,292</td><td>0,278</td><td>0,337</td><td><strong>0,750</strong></td><td>0,261</td></tr><tr><td>trans1</td><td>0,386</td><td>0,084</td><td>0,013</td><td>0,249</td><td>0,385</td><td>0,251</td><td>0,175</td><td><strong>0,836</strong></td></tr><tr><td>trans2</td><td>0,363</td><td>0,111</td><td>-0,034</td><td>0,239</td><td>0,355</td><td>0,179</td><td>0,168</td><td><strong>0,823</strong></td></tr><tr><td>trans3</td><td>0,130</td><td>0,195</td><td>-0,047</td><td>0,128</td><td>0,207</td><td>0,126</td><td>0,170</td><td><strong>0,421</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>
## Appendix 3 Exploratory Factorial Analysis (EFA) and complementary measurement model assessment

This EFA was carried out using R software Lavaan package (version 4.3.0) to initially test our hypothesis for the SEM model. Bartlett's sphericity test shows a significant difference, thus rejecting the correlation hypothesis and verifying the adequacy of the common variance of matrix. The validity of the sample measure quality KMO is good (MSA= 0.8). The EFA carried out on the data collected online shows a correlation between some of the measurement scales from the literature. The measurement scale is purified with cutoff at 0.32 and removing constructs with only one item. The exploratory context justifies the methodology used to create the constructs that evolved towards new interesting dimensions not expected at the beginning. In our model, all items have a minimum loading of 0.46. The selection was made according to recommendations of the literature, which suggest a case-by-case analysis when the loading is below the usual threshold in an exploratory context (Tabachnick et Fidell 2001), as suggested by Henseler, Hubona et Ray (2016) for loadings between 0.7 and 0.4. The threshold of 0.7 for the α Cronbach is quite discussed in the literature as explained by Hair, Howard et Nitzl (2020). This suggest that in the case of an exploratory research it is possible to keep constructs not meeting the requirement of a minimum α Cronbach of 0.7, which justifies our choice to explore a model with the constructs presented in the table below.

The final scale includes 26 items for 8 constructs with a discriminant validity Heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT) < 0.9, no items have a higher cross-loading with another construct and VIF < 0.2 for all items. The following table presents the eight constructs finally selected.
<table><caption>EFA results after cleaning the measuring scales (loading cutoff = 0.32) and construct reliability and convergent validity</caption><thead><tr><th>Construct<br>Code</th><th>Self-efficacy</th><th>Attachment</th><th>Risk of error</th><th>Ethical value</th><th>Transmission value</th><th>Economic value</th><th>Hedonic Value</th><th>Overall value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Selfeff1</td><td>0.757</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Selfeff2</td><td>0.753</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Selfeff3</td><td>0.795</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Selfeff4</td><td>0.701</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Attach2</td><td></td><td>0.634</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Passion1</td><td></td><td>0.684</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Passion3</td><td></td><td>0.732</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Passion4</td><td></td><td>0.689</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Riskerr1</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.832</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Riskerr2</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.831</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Riskerr3</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.764</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Riskerr4</td><td></td><td></td><td>0.588</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ethic1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.823</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ethic2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.844</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Ethic3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.685</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Trans1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.800</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Trans2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.839</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Trans3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.462</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Eco1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.848</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Eco2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.848</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Hedo1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.753</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Hedo2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.786</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Hedo3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.685</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Val1</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.814</td></tr><tr><td>Val2</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.783</td></tr><tr><td>Val3</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>0.672</td></tr><tr><td>Cronbach's Alpha</td><td>0.743</td><td>0.623</td><td>0.750</td><td>0.618</td><td>0.514</td><td>0.610</td><td>0.592</td><td>0.628</td></tr><tr><td>Rho C</td><td>0.838</td><td>0.780</td><td>0.841</td><td>0.798</td><td>0.750</td><td>0.793</td><td>0.785</td><td>0.802</td></tr><tr><td>AVE</td><td>0.563</td><td>0.470</td><td>0.577</td><td>0.573</td><td>0.518</td><td>0.669</td><td>0.550</td><td>0.576</td></tr></tbody></table>