ABSTRACT: One of the main objectives of fitness center managers is to obtain high levels of loyalty from the customers of these fitness centers. Within the existing literature on fitness center management, previous research has analyzed the importance of the management variables themselves to determine the behavioral intentions of their customers, ignoring other psychological and sociodemographic aspects and focusing on linear relationship models. Therefore, this study, which aims to analyze the impact of different management variables along with psychological (emotions and subjective well-being) and demographic variables (age and sex) on the satisfaction, perceived value (PV) and future intentions (FI) of 398 users (216 men, aged 18-75, Mean = 35.89 ± 14.53) of a fitness center, intends to fill this gap. In this study, two different methodologies are used, i.e., hierarchical regressions models (HRM) and qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). The data were obtained by means of a self-administered questionnaire composed of 69 items that collected different previously validated scales. Considering HRM, the different models proposed explain 52% of the satisfaction variance, 57% of perceived value and 59% of future intentions. In general, it seems that the management variables are better predictors than subjective well-being, emotions and age or gender since their inclusion does not greatly improve the model's predictive capacity. As far as QCA analyses are concerned, it seems that none of the conditions are necessary for high or low levels of satisfaction, perceived value or future intentions. On the other hand, based on sufficiency analyses, there seem to be 8 pathways or combinations of conditions leading to high levels of satisfaction and 13 for low levels, 11 combinations leading to high levels of IF and 10 leading to low levels; however, there are 6 combinations of conditions leading to high levels of PV and 5 leading to low levels. In general, some of the pathways consider only the management variables, although many of them consider the importance not only of the management variables but also of the interactions that these may have with emotional aspects and, to a lesser extent, with age and well-being. When comparing both methodologies, it can be observed that the QCA models are more explanatory than the HRM models and that they take into account aspects that seem unimportant when observing linear models (such as emotions or age). However, both methodologies should be considered complementary and used simultaneously since, by focusing on different aspects, enriched results are obtained. The results obtained will enable managers to make more efficient use of available resources to increase user satisfaction.
