## 4 Results and Discussion
### Factors Influencing Sports Identification  
The analysis revealed that participants who were part of the experimental groups, namely, those attending the sports camps, exhibited higher levels of sports identification compared with their counterparts in the control groups. This supports the nomological validity of this study, as these participants were evidently more engaged. Table 4 illustrates this with higher mean scores for the experimental groups in both baseball (3.128, 3.474) and badminton (3.224, 2.966) compared with the control groups (2.656, 2.569 for baseball and 2.235, 2.544 for badminton) in both prior and after tests. When comparing the means via paired sample \(t\)-tests, it was evident that the baseball camp attendees who received spectatorship intervention experienced a significant increase in baseball identification, with mean scores rising from 2.981 to 3.506 (\(p=\) 0.033, which is less than the threshold of 0.05) (Table 5), particularly for male participants. Contrarily, the badminton participants displayed an inverse effect (refer to Tables 4 and 5 for detailed results). As their perceived knowledge and experiences of the sport increased from the camp, it seemed that their likelihood to play or identify with badminton decreased. In the experimental group that received the spectatorship intervention, the badminton identification score significantly decreased from 3.544 in the initial test to 3.007 in the post-treatment test after 16 weeks, with a \(p\)-value of 0.048 lower than 0.05 (Table 5). Similarly, the intention to play badminton also significantly decreased from 3.941 to 3.059, with a \(p\)-value of 0.001, which is below the significance threshold of 0.05 (Table 5). Several potential reasons could explain why students' identification with and willingness to participate in badminton decreased after attending the camp, despite weeks of introduction to the sport's spectatorship value. Firstly, the discrepancy between students' expectations and their actual experiences might have led to disillusionment with badminton. The method or content of introducing the spectatorship value might not have resonated with the students' interests, potentially diminishing their enthusiasm. Further, the regression effect [22] might influence the results. Some participants in this group who \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Dependent Variable**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Sport Type**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Experimental Groups**} & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Control Groups**} \\ \cline{3-10}  & & **Prior** & **After** & \(t\)**Value** & \(p\)**-Value** & **Prior** & **After** & \(t\)**Value** & \(p\)**-Value** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Sports identification} & baseball & 3.128 & 3.474 & 2.295 * & 0.028 & 2.656 & 2.569 & \(-1.606\) & 0.125 \\  & badminton & 3.224 & 2.966 & \(-1.478\) & 0.149 & 2.235 & 2.544 & 3.239 * & 0.005 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Watching intention} & baseball & 3.032 & 3.596 & 2.469 * & 0.018 & 2.263 & 2.213 & \(-0.418\) & 0.681 \\  & badminton & 2.434 & 2.632 & 0.954 & 0.347 & 1.809 & 1.765 & 0.457 & 0.653 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Playing intention} & baseball & 3.638 & 3.919 & 1.891 & 0.066 & 2.600 & 2.600 & 0.000 & 1.000 \\  & badminton & 3.610 & 3.250 & \(-1.742\) & 0.091 & 2.338 & 2.427 & 0.765 & 0.455 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* Indicates significant results with a \(p\)-value lower than 0.05. Highlighted yellow indicates significant results. Red \(t\) values show unexpected results.  
\end{table} 
Table 4: Identification, watching, and playing intention among the experimental and control Groups. selected \"strongly agree\" in the previous survey might tend to respond less strongly in the post-survey. Additionally, the technical difficulty of badminton could have posed challenges for beginners, lacking adequate support and encouragement, leading to feelings of frustration and isolation.