Why Do Viewers Engage in Video Game Streaming? The Perspective of Cognitive Emotion Theory and the Moderation Effect of Personal Characteristics
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background
2.1. Research Background of Video Game Streaming (VGS)
2.2. Cognitive Emotion Theory (CET)
3. Hypothesis Development
3.1. Broadcaster Attractiveness
3.2. Bullet-Screen Interaction
3.3. Para-Social Relationship
3.4. Positive Emotion and Engagement Behavior
3.5. Personal Characteristics
4. Methodology and Findings
4.1. Research Method
4.1.1. Procedure
4.1.2. Survey Participants
4.1.3. Measurements
4.2. Data Analysis
4.2.1. Measurement Model Analysis
4.2.2. Measurement Invariance
4.2.3. Common Method Bias
4.2.4. Structure Model Analysis
5. Discussion and Implications
5.1. Discussion
- (1)
- Broadcaster attractiveness positively impacts viewers’ positive emotions in VGS. The outcome is consistent with previous research that indicated that the attractiveness of an endorser could significantly increase the audiences’ positive emotions [123]. Adding to an already established finding by Lu et al. (2018) [124], the research suggests that live stream viewers engage in live streaming for the mere fact of being drawn to streamers’ attractiveness. Similarly, the research result is in accordance with the work of Liu et al. (2021) [124] and Hu et al. (2017), which affirmed the significance of broadcaster attractiveness in stirring viewers’ engagement. Worth noting is that prior research mainly explored broadcaster attractiveness with respect to viewers’ engagement behavior and not their emotions; therefore, our finding extends the literature in this regard, filling the existent gap. In addition, the result is also in line with the observation of the VGS phenomenon. The VGS viewers may be delighted to witness the broadcaster’s outstanding gaming performance, to enjoy the pleasure of conversing with the engaging broadcasters, and to be surprised to learn new gaming techniques. Therefore, the research result also adds empirical support to explaining the phenomenon.
- (2)
- The empirical results suggest that the para-social relationship significantly impacts the viewers’ positive emotion in VGS. Prior studies highlighted the effect of para-social relationships and suggested that they reflected the nature of the relationship between a broadcaster and his or her followers [15]. The feelings of closeness and intimacy naturally lead to viewers’ positive emotions produced by the warm interpersonal relationships with the broadcasters. This result provides an extension to the prior literature by Lim et al. (2020) [125] and Hu et al. (2017) [15] who ascertained the role played by para-social relations between the broadcaster and viewers on consumption behavior and loyalty behavior. Thereby, the empirical evidence was provided to support the conclusion that viewers are more emotionally attached to and identify with broadcasters who provide a more enriched para-social experience.
- (3)
- Bullet-screen interaction does not exert a significant impact on viewers’ positive emotions in VGS. This research result is not in line with existing studies. For example, recent studies mostly confirmed the important role of interactions, such as bullet comments sending [124], danmaku [126], and group chatting via Wechat/QQ [90] in user engagement in the context of game live streaming. Thus, this implied that the bullet-screen feature was bound to have some significant influence on viewers’ emotions; however, our finding was not out of our expectations, as it may result from several reasons. On the one hand, other viewers’ bullet-screen comments may convey some negative emotions, and co-viewers may have conflicting arguments, which may not contribute to positive emotions. On the other hand, viewers often focus on the performance and the interaction of the broadcasters, rather than other co-viewers. Hence the interactions among other co-viewers may not attract the viewers’ attention. Thus, bullet-screen interactions may exert limited impacts on viewers’ emotions. Therefore, this finding expands the scope of bullet-screen interaction within the VGS context. Especially, the results add to those findings as it focuses on the influence of the bullet-screen on the viewers’ emotion.
- (4)
- Positive emotions are positively associated with viewers’ engagement. In addition, positive emotions show a strong predictive power in interpreting viewers’ engagement (coefficient = 0.52 ***). The results suggest that the stronger a positive emotion experienced by a viewer, the more likely he/she would engage in the VGS.
5.2. Theoretical Contribution
5.3. Practical Implications
6. Limitations & Future Research
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Constructs | Item | Questions | Loadings | Source |
---|---|---|---|---|
Broadcaster attractiveness | BA1 | I think that the personality of broadcaster is very attractive. | 0.792 | [116] |
BA2 | I think that the broadcaster has an attractive skill of playing games. | 0.771 | ||
BA3 | I think that the game streaming style of the broadcaster is attractive. | 0.705 | ||
Bullet-screen interaction | BSI1 | When watching VGS, I can exchange and share opinions with the broadcaster or other viewers through the bullet-screen easily. | 0.865 | [26] |
BSI2 | When I am watching VGS, I can ask the broadcaster or other viewers question about games through the bullet-screen. | 0.779 | ||
Para-social relationship | PSR1 | In the VGS, I feel as though the broadcaster and I are friends. | 0.811 | [80,81] |
PSR2 | When I am watching the VGS, I feel a sense of we-ness (togetherness) with the broadcaster. | 0.798 | ||
PSR3 | I feel as though the broadcaster cares about my responses during the VGS. | 0.707 | ||
Positive emotion | While watching VGS, I feel … | [117] | ||
PE1 | Happy | 0.878 | ||
PE2 | Excited | 0.760 | ||
PE3 | Joyful | 0.800 | ||
PE4 | Arousal | 0.803 | ||
Engagement | E1 | I engage in VGS activities. (e.g., bullet screen interaction and gift-giving). | 0748 | [118] |
E2 | I present my opinions during watching VGS. | 0.803 | ||
E3 | I spend time and effort engaging in watching VGS. | 0.823 |
References
- Li, Y.; Wang, C.; Liu, J. A Systematic Review of Literature on User Behavior in Video Game Live Streaming. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CNNIC. The 47th Statistical Report on China’s Internet Development; China Internet Network Information Center: Beijing, China, 2021; p. 44. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, S.; Xu, X.; Zhao, K.; Xiao, L.; Li, Q. Understanding the Complexity of Regional Innovation Capacity Dynamics in China: From the Perspective of Hidden Markov Model. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lehtonen, M. The environmental-social interface of sustainable development: Capabilities, social capital, institutions. Ecol. Econ. 2004, 49, 199–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, D.; Weng, Y.; Yang, X.; Zhao, K. Self-deprecation or self-sufficient? Discrimination and income aspirations in urban labour market sustainable development. Sustainbility 2019, 11, 6278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ham, M.; Lee, S.W. Factors Affecting the Popularity of Video Content on Live-Streaming Services: Focusing on V Live, the South Korean Live-Streaming Service. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ten Key Digital Trends for 2020: What Marketers Need to Know in the Year Ahead. Available online: https://www.emarketer.com/content/ten-key-digital-trends-for-2020 (accessed on 25 June 2020).
- Sjöblom, M.; Hamari, J. Why do people watch others play video games? An empirical study on the motivations of Twitch users. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 75, 985–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cabeza-Ramírez, L.J.; Sánchez-Cañizares, S.M.; Fuentes-García, F.J. Motivations for the Use of Video Game Streaming Platforms: The Moderating E ff ect of Sex, Age and Self-Perception of Level as a Player. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Heal. 2020, 17, 7019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hou, F.; Guan, Z.; Li, B.; Chong, A.Y.L. Factors influencing people’s continuous watching intention and consumption intention in live streaming: Evidence from China. Internet Res. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pappas, I.O.; Papavlasopoulou, S.; Mikalef, P.; Giannakos, M.N. Identifying the combinations of motivations and emotions for creating satisfied users in SNSs: An fsQCA approach. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2020, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsu, C.L.; Lin, J.C.C.; Miao, Y.F. Why Are People Loyal to Live Stream Channels? the Perspectives of Uses and Gratifications and Media Richness Theories. Cyberpsychology Behav. Soc. Netw. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, F.; Chen, L.; Su, Q. Understanding the impact of social distance on users’ broadcasting intention on live streaming platforms: A lens of the challenge-hindrance stress perspective. Telemat. Inform. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, X.Y.; Luo, X.R.; Wu, K.; Zhao, W. Exploring viewer participation in online video game streaming: A mixed-methods approach. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2021, 58, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, M.; Zhang, M.; Wang, Y. Why do audiences choose to keep watching on live video streaming platforms? An explanation of dual identification framework. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hilvert-Bruce, Z.; Neill, J.T.; Sjöblom, M.; Hamari, J. Social motivations of live-streaming viewer engagement on Twitch. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 84, 58–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xu, X.; Wang, L.; Zhao, K. Exploring determinants of consumers’ platform usage in “double eleven” shopping carnival in china: Cognition and emotion from an integrated perspective. Sustainbility 2020, 12, 2790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Qiu, L.; Chen, X.; Lee, T.J. How Can the Celebrity Endorsement Effect Help Consumer Engagement ? A Case of Promoting Tourism Products through Live Streaming. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hibbeln, M.; Jenkins, J.L.; Schneider, C.; Valacich, J.S.; Weinmann, M. How is your user feeling? Inferring emotion through human-computer interaction devices. MIS. Q. 2017, 41, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jang, W.W.; Byon, K.K. Effect of Prior Gameplay Experience on the Relationships between Esports Gameplay Intention and Live Esports Streaming Content. Sustainability 2021, 13, 8019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hin Lim, A.C. China’S “Belt and Road” and Southeast Asia: Challenges and Prospects. J. Southeast. Asian Stud. 2015, 20, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Pellicone, A.J.; Ahn, J. The game of performing play: Understanding streaming as cultural production. Conf. Hum. Factors Comput. Syst.Proc. 2017, 4863–4874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scheibe, K.; Fietkiewicz, K.J.; Stock, W.G. Information Behavior on Social Live Streaming Services. J. Inf. Sci. Theory Pr. 2016, 4, 6–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Scully-Blaker, R.; Begy, J.; Consalvo, M.; Ganzon, S.C. Playing along and playing for on Twitch: Livestreaming from tandem play to performance. Proc. Ann. Hawaii Int. Conf. Syst. Sci. 2017, 2026–2035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zhao, Q.; Chen, C.D.; Cheng, H.W.; Wang, J.L. Determinants of live streamers’ continuance broadcasting intentions on Twitch: A self-determination theory perspective. Telemat. Inform. 2018, 35, 406–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.C.; Lin, Y.C. What drives live-stream usage intention? The perspectives of flow, entertainment, social interaction, and endorsement. Telemat. Inform. 2018, 35, 293–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verhagen, T.; Van Dolen, W. The influence of online store beliefs on consumer online impulse buying: A model and empirical application. Inf. Manag. 2011, 48, 320–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holmstrom, A.J.; Burleson, B.R. An initial test of a cognitive-emotional theory of esteem support messages. Communic. Res. 2011, 38, 326–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reisenzein, R. Emotional experience in the computational belief-desire theory of emotion. Emot. Rev. 2009, 1, 214–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reis, D.L.; Gray, J.R. A_ect and action control. In Oxford Handbook of Human Action; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Frijda, N.H. Impulsive action and motivation. Biol. Psychol. 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Habib, M.D.; Qayyum, A. Cognitive Emotion Theory and Emotion-Action Tendency in Online Impulsive Buying Behavior. J. Manag. Sci. 2018, 5, 86–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ha, N.M.; Lam, N.H. The Effects of Celebrity Endorsement on Customer’s Attitude toward Brand and Purchase Intention The Effects of Celebrity Endorsement on Customer ’ s Attitude toward Brand and Purchase Intention. Int. J. Econ. Financ. 2017, 9, 64–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, M.T.; Huang, Y.Y.; Minghua, J. Relations among attractiveness of endorsers, match-up, and purchase intention in sport marketing in China. J. Consum. Mark. 2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang, K.; Lu, J.; Guo, L.; Li, W. The dynamic effect of interactivity on customer engagement behavior through tie strength: Evidence from live streaming commerce platforms. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2021, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osei-Frimpong, K.; Donkor, G.; Owusu-Frimpong, N. The Impact of Celebrity Endorsement on Consumer Purchase Intention: An Emerging Market Perspective. J. Mark. Theory Pract. 2019, 27, 103–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brady, M.K.; Cronin, J.J. Some new thoughts on conceptualizing perceived service quality: A hierarchical approach. J. Mark. 2001, 65, 34–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- DeGroot, T.; Aime, F.; Johnson, S.G.; Kluemper, D. Does talking the talk help walking the walkβ An examination of the effect of vocal attractiveness in leader effectiveness. Lead. Q. 2011, 22, 680–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jin, N.P.; Merkebu, J. The role of employee attractiveness and positive emotion in upscale restaurants. Anatolia 2015, 26, 284–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chi, H.; Yeh, H.R.; Tsai, Y. The Influences of Perceived Value on Consumer Purchase Intention: The Moderating Effect of Advertising Endorser. J. Int. Mark. 2011, 6, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, E.; Jung, C.; Kim, H.; Jung, J. Impact of viewer engagement on gift-giving in live video streaming. Telemat. Inform. 2018, 35, 1450–1460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ku, Y.; Kao, Y.; Qin, M. The Effect of Internet Celebrity’s Endorsement on Consumer Purchase Intention. Springer Nat. Switz. 2019, 274–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haidt, J. The Positive emotion of elevation. Prev. Treat. 2000, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guo, M.; Chan-Olmsted, S.M. Predictors of Social Television Viewing: How Perceived Program, Media, and Audience Characteristics Affect Social Engagement With Television Programming. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 2015, 59, 240–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, J.; Chen, L.; Wen, C.; Prybutok, V.R. Co-viewing Experience in Video Websites: The Effect of Social Presence on E-Loyalty. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2018, 22, 446–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wan, A.; Moscowitz, L.; Wu, L. Online social viewing: Cross-cultural adoption and uses of bullet-screen videos. J. Int. Intercult. Commun. 2020, 13, 197–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, I.L.B.; Cheung, C.M.K.; Lee, M.K.O. User Satisfaction With Microblogging: Information Dissemination Versus Social Networking. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2016, 67, 56–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Keenan, A.; Shiri, A. Sociability and social interaction on social networking websites. Libr. Rev. 2009, 58, 438–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gooch, D.; Watts, L. The impact of social presence on feelings of closeness in personal relationships. Interact. Comput. 2015, 27, 661–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sun, S.; Wang, F.; He, L. Movie summarization using bullet screen comments. Multimed. Tools Appl. 2018, 77, 9093–9110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, J. Social comparison, social presence, and enjoyment in the acceptance of social shopping websites. J. Electron. Commer. Res. 2012, 13, 198–212. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, L.; Suh, A.; Wagner, C. Investigating communal interactive video viewing experiences online. In Proceedings of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Including Subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), Toronto, ON, Canada, 17−22 July 2016; pp. 538–548. [Google Scholar]
- Carroll, D.; Guzman, I. The New Omni-Channel Approach to Serving Customers. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hussin_Hejase/post/Can_anyone_refer_the_authors_who_first_introduced_the_term_omnichannel_And_the_term_omniconsumer/attachme (accessed on 20 November 2018).
- Horton, D.; Richard Wohl, R. Mass Communication and Para-Social Interaction. Psychiatry 1956, 19, 215–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dibble, J.L.; Hartmann, T.; Rosaen, S.F. Parasocial Interaction and Parasocial Relationship: Conceptual Clarification and a Critical Assessment of Measures. Hum. Commun. Res. 2016, 42, 21–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsai, W.-H.S.; Men, L.R. Motivations and Antecedents of Consumer Engagement With Brand Pages on Social Networking Sites. J. Interact. Advert. 2013, 13, 76–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, H. College-Aged Young Consumers’ Perceptions of Social Media Marketing: The College-Aged Young Consumers’ Perceptions of Social Media Marketing: The Story of Instagram. J. Curr. Issues Research Advert. 2021, 39, 22–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Folkvord, F.; Bevelander, K.E.; Rozendaal, E.; Hermans, R. Children ’ s bonding with popular YouTube vloggers and their attitudes toward brand and product endorsements in vlogs: An explorative study. Young. Consum. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Munnukka, J.; Maity, D.; Reinikainen, H.; Luoma-aho, V. “Thanks for watching”. The effectiveness of YouTube vlogendorsements. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2019, 93, 226–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colliander, J.; Dahlén, M. Following the fashionable friend: The power of social media weighing the publicity effectiveness of blogsversus online magazines. J. Advert. Res. 2011, 51, 313–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sokolova, K.; Kefi, H. Instagram and YouTube bloggers promote it, why should I buy? How credibility and parasocial interaction influence purchase intentions. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 53, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, W.J. Examining Four Processes of Audience Involvement With Media Personae: Transportation, Parasocial Interaction, Identification, and Worship. Commun. Theory 2015, 25, 259–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, M.; Qin, F.; Wang, G.A.; Luo, C. The impact of live video streaming on online purchase intention. Serv. Ind. J. 2020, 40, 656–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehrabian, A.; Russell, J.A. The basic emotional impact of environments. Percept. Mot. Ski. 1974, 38, 283–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tifferet, S. Gender Differences in Social Support on Social Network Sites: A Meta-Analysis. Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw. 2020, 23, 199–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The 45th China Statistical Report on Internet Development. Available online: http://www.cnnic.cn/gywm/xwzx/rdxw/20172017_7057/202004/t20200427_70973.htm (accessed on 25 June 2020).
- Li, Y.; Oh, L.B.; Wang, K. Why users share marketer-generated contents on social broadcasting Web sites: A cognitive–affective involvement perspective. J. Organ. Comput. Electron. Commer. 2017, 27, 342–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatesh, V.; Thong, J.Y.L.; Xu, X. Consumer Acceptance and Use of Information Technology: Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology. Mis Q. 2015, 36, 157–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Shen, K.N.; Khalifa, M. Design for social presence in online communities: A multi-dimensional approach. Ais Trans. Hum. Comput. Interact. 2009, 1, 33–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Igbaria, M.; Parasuraman, S.; Baroudi, J.J. A Motivational Model of Microcomputer Usage. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 1996, 13, 127–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gan, C. Understanding WeChat users’ liking behavior: An empirical study in China. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 68, 30–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, T.T.; Karatepe, O.M.; Lee, G.; Demiral, H. Do Gender and Prior Experience Moderate the Factors Influencing Attitude toward Using Social Media for Festival Attendance ? Sustainability 2018, 10, 3509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Long, Q.; Tefertiller, A.C. China’s New Mania for Live Streaming: Gender Differences in Motives and Uses of Social Live Streaming Services. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Todd, P.R.; Melancon, J. Gender and live-streaming: Source credibility and motivation. J. Res. Interact. Mark. 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weiser, E.B. Gender differences in Internet use patterns and internet application preferences: A two-sample comparison. Cyberpsychology Behav. 2000, 3, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, H. Do SNSs really make us happy? The effects of writing and reading via SNSs on subjective well-being. Telemat. Inform. 2020, 50, 101384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chatterjee, S. Dark side of online social games (OSG) using Facebook platform: Effect of age, gender, and identity as moderators. Inf. Technol. People 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Benson, V.; Ezingeard, J.N.; Hand, C. An empirical study of purchase behaviour on social platforms: The role of risk, beliefs and characteristics. Inf. Technol. People 2018, 32, 876–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- He, T.; Huang, C.; Li, M.; Zhou, Y.; Li, S. Social participation of the elderly in China: The roles of conventional media, digital access and social media engagement. Telemat. Inform. 2020, 48, 101347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, H.; Jackson, T. Gender and Age Group Differences in Mass Media and Interpersonal Influences on Body Dissatisfaction Among Chinese Adolescents. Sex. Roles 2012, 66, 3–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holt, K.; Shehata, A.; Strömbäck, J.; Ljungberg, E. Age and the effects of news media attention and social media use on political interest and participation: Do social media function as leveller? Eur. J. Commun. 2013, 28, 19–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Liu, Y.; Bakici, T. Enterprise social media usage: The motives and the moderating role of public social media experience. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2019, 101, 163–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, M.L. Social media engagement: What motivates user participation and consumption on YouTube? Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 66, 236–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, X.; Wu, J.H.; Li, Q. What drives consumer shopping behavior in live streaming commerce? J. Electron. Commer. Res. 2020, 21, 144–167. [Google Scholar]
- Mäntymäki, M.; Islam, A.K.M.N.; Benbasat, I. What drives subscribing to premium in freemium services? A consumer value-based view of differences between upgrading to and staying with premium. Inf. Syst. J. 2020, 30, 295–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Chen, Y.; Lu, Y.; Wang, B.; Pan, Z. How do product recommendations affect impulse buying? An empirical study on WeChat social commerce. Inf. Manag. 2019, 56, 236–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, Y.C. What do people perceive in watching video game streaming? Eliciting spectators’ value structures. Telemat. Inform. 2021, 59, 101557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Y.-H.; Chen, M.-C.; Keng, C.-J. Measuring online live streaming of perceived servicescape. Internet Res. 2020, 30, 737–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, J.; Wang, J. Health advertising on short-video social media: A study on user attitudes based on the extended technology acceptance model. Int. J. Env. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1501–1522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Luqman, A.; Cao, X.; Ali, A.; Masood, A.; Yu, L. Empirical investigation of Facebook discontinues usage intentions based on SOR paradigm. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2017, 70, 544–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rubin, A.M.; Perse, E.M. Audience Activity and Soap Opera Involvement A Uses and Effects Investigation. Hum. Commun. Res. 1987, 14, 246–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Metiu, A.; Rothbard, N.P. Task bubbles, artifacts, shared emotion, and mutual focus of attention: A comparative study of the microprocesses of group engagement. Organ. Sci. 2013, 24, 455–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hartmann, T.; Goldhoorn, C. Horton and Wohl revisited: Exploring viewers’ experience of parasocial interaction. J. Commun. 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ostrom, T.M. The relationship between the affective, behavioral, and cognitive components of attitude. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1969, 5, 12–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, H.H.; Chuang, S.S. Social capital and individual motivations on knowledge sharing: Participant involvement as a moderator. Inf. Manag. 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kung, F.Y.H.; Kwok, N.; Brown, D.J. Are Attention Check Questions a Threat to Scale Validity? Appl. Psychol. 2018, 67, 264–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hauser, D.J.; Schwarz, N. It’s a Trap! Instructional Manipulation Checks Prompt Systematic Thinking on “Tricky” Tasks. Sage Open 2015, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Huang, J.L.; Bowling, N.A.; Liu, M.; Li, Y. Detecting Insufficient Effort Responding with an Infrequency Scale: Evaluating Validity and Participant Reactions. J. Bus. Psychol. 2015, 30, 299–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shamon, H.; Berning, C. Attention check items and instructions in online surveys with incentivized and non-incentivizedquality?Samples: Boon or bane for data. Surv. Res. Methods 2020, 14, 55–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Awang, Z.H. A Handbook on SEM: Structural Equation Modeling, 4th ed.; University Technology MARA Press, Centre For Graduate Studies, University Teknologi: Kuala Lumpur, Kelantan, Malaysia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Hair, J.F.; Black, W.C.; Babin, B.J.; Anderson, R.E. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed.; Pearson Prentice Hall: Hoboken NJ, USA, 2010; ISBN 9781292021904. [Google Scholar]
- Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Model. 1999, 1, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Norton, A.; Brown, C.C.; Falbo, R.; Hogan, B. Video Game Use, Acceptance, and Relationship Experiences: A Moderated Actor-Partner Interdependence Model. CyberpsychologyBehav. Soc. Netw. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Cangur, S.; Ercan, I. Comparison of model fit indices used in structural equation modeling under multivariate normality. J. Mod. Appl. Stat. Methods 2015, 14, 152–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kline, R. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Byrne, B.M. Structural Equation Modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chin, W.W. Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. Mis Q. Manag. Inf. Syst. 1998, 22, 7–16. [Google Scholar]
- Roldán, J.L.; Sánchez-Franco, M.J. Variance-based structural equation modeling: Guidelines for using partial least squares in information systems research. In Research Methodologies, Innovations and Philosophies in Software Systems Engineering and Information Systems; Mora, M., Gelman, O., Steenkamp, A., Raisinghani, M., Eds.; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2012; pp. 193–221. ISBN 9781466601796. [Google Scholar]
- Steenkamp, J.B.E.M.; Baumgartner, H. Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. J. Consum. Res. 1998, 25, 78–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yoo, B. Cross-Group Comparisons: A Cautionary Note. Psychol. Mark. 2002, 19, 357–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jamie, C.; Rahman, S.M.; Rahman, M.M.; Wyllie, J.; Voola, R. Engaging Gen Y Customers in Online Brand Communities: A Cross-National Assessment. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2021, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, H.; Saraf, N.; Hu, Q.; Xue, Y. Assimilation of enterprise systems: The effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. Mis Q. Manag. Inf. Syst. 2007, 31, 59–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Williams, L.J.; Edwards, J.R.; Vadenberg, R.J. Recent advances in causal modeling methods for organizational management research. J. Manag. 2003, 29, 903–936. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gefen, D.; Straub, D.; Boudreau, M.-C. Structural Equation Modeling and Regression: Guidelines for Research Practice. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2000, 4, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattacherjee, A.; Clive, S. Influence Processes for Information Technology Acceptance: An Elaboration Likelihood Model. Mis Q. 2006, 30, 805–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kelley, T.L. The selection of upper and lower groups for the validation of test items. J. Educ. Psychol. 1939, 30, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, H.H.; Wong, K.H.; Li, S.Y. Applying push-pull-mooring to investigate channel switching behaviors: M-shopping self-efficacy and switching costs as moderators. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2017, 24, 50–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, C.Y.; Ku, Y.C. The power of a thumbs-up: Will e-commerce switch to social commerce? Inf. Manag. 2018, 55, 340–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, S.; Singh, N.; Kalinić, Z.; Liébana-Cabanillas, F.J. Assessing determinants influencing continued use of live streaming services: An extended perceived value theory of streaming addiction. Expert Syst. Appl. 2021, 168, 114241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singer, B.D. The case for using “real people” in advertising. Bus. Q. 1983, 48, 32–37. [Google Scholar]
- Lu, Z.; Xia, H.; Heo, S.; Wigdor, D. You Watch, You Give, and You Engage: A Study of Live Streaming Practices in China. CHI 2018, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Lim, J.S.; Choe, M.J.; Zhang, J.; Noh, G.Y. The role of wishful identification, emotional engagement, and parasocial relationships in repeated viewing of live-streaming games: A social cognitive theory perspective. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2020, 108, 106327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, Y.; Guo, Y. Virtual gifting and danmaku: What motivates people to interact in game live streaming? Telemat. Inform. 2021, 62, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pannekeet, J. Zooming in on the Biggest Franchises in Esports: 71% of Fans Watch Only One Game. Available online: https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/zooming-in-on-the-biggest-franchises-in-esports-71-of-fans-watch-only-one-game/ (accessed on 2 August 2021).
Demographic Variable | Frequency | Percentage | |
---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 128 | 41.56% |
Female | 180 | 58.44% | |
Age | 25 and below | 245 | 79.55% |
26–30 | 45 | 14.61% | |
Above 30 | 18 | 5.84% | |
Educational Background | Middle school or less | 14 | 4.55% |
High school/college | 54 | 17.53% | |
University | 185 | 65.30% | |
Master’s degree or above | 55 | 17.86% | |
How often do you watch the VGS? | Watch everyday | 95 | 30.84% |
3–6 times a week | 125 | 40.58% | |
1–2 times a week | 51 | 16.56% | |
Less than once a week | 37 | 12.01% |
Name of Index | Fitness Index | Level of Acceptance | Reference |
---|---|---|---|
CMIN/d.f | 2.710 | CMIN/d.f < 3 | [101] |
RMSEA | 0.067 | RMSEA < 0.08 | [104] |
CFI | 0.913 | CFI > 0.90 | [105] |
NNFI | 0.906 | NNFI > 0.90 | [100,106] |
AGFI | 0.826 | AGFI > 0.80 | [102] |
Broadcaster Attractiveness | Bullet-Screen Interaction | Para-Social Interaction | Positive Emotion | Engagement | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CR | 0.869 | 0.851 | 0.841 | 0.885 | 0.821 |
AVE | 0.629 | 0.688 | 0.692 | 0.658 | 0.606 |
Minimal Factor Loading | 0.897 | 0.863 | 0.829 | 0.902 | 0.823 |
Broadcaster Attractiveness | Bullet-Screen Interaction | Para-Social Interaction | Positive Emotion | Engagement | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Broadcaster Attractiveness | 0.728 | ||||
Bullet-Screen | 0.595 | 0.767 | |||
Para-Social Interaction | 0.492 | 0.506 | 0.769 | ||
Positive Emotion | 0.565 | 0.591 | 0.428 | 0.811 | |
Engagement | 0.532 | 0.579 | 0.439 | 0.590 | 0.779 |
Constructs | Items | Substantive Factor Loading (R1) | R12 | Method Factor Loading (R2) | R22 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Broadcaster attractiveness | BA1 | 0.763 | 0.582 | −0.027 | 0.001 |
BA2 | 0.795 *** | data | −0.163 | 0.027 | |
BA3 | 0.438 | data | −0.111 | 0.012 | |
Bullet-screen interaction | BSI1 | 0.483 | 0.233 | −0.083 | 0.007 |
BSI2 | 1.066 *** | 1.136 | −0.158 | 0.025 | |
Para-social relationship | PSR1 | 0.723 | 0.523 | −0.217 * | 0.047 |
PSR2 | 0.789 *** | 0.623 | −0.204 * | 0.042 | |
PSR3 | 0.719 *** | 0.517 | −0.191 * | 0.036 | |
PSR4 | 0.679 *** | 0.461 | −0.141 * | 0.020 | |
Positive emotion | PE1 | 0.448 | 0.201 | −0.123 | 0.015 |
PE2 | 0.687 *** | 0.472 | −0.139 | 0.019 | |
PE3 | 0.364 *** | 0.132 | −0.117 | 0.014 | |
PE4 | 0.719 *** | 0.517 | −0.113 | 0.013 | |
Engagement | E1 | 0.511 *** | 0.261 | −0.067 | 0.004 |
E2 | 0.579 *** | 0.335 | −0.10 | 0.010 | |
E3 | 0.791 *** | 0.626 | −0.092 | 0.008 | |
Average | 0.465 | 0.019 |
Hypothesis | Results | Coefficients | p-Value | T-Value | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
H1 | Broadcaster attractiveness → positive emotion | Supported | 0.340 | p < 0.001 | 3.665 |
H2 | Bullet-screen interaction → positive emotion | Not supported | 0.063 | p < 0.365 | 0.907 |
H3 | Para-social relationship → positive emotion | Supported | 0.434 | p < 0.001 | 4.675 |
H4 | Positive emotion → engagement | Supported | 0.707 | p < 0.001 | 9.033 |
Path Name | Broadcaster Attractiveness → Positive Emotion | Bullet-Screen Interaction → Positive Emotion | Para-Social Relationship → Positive Emotion |
---|---|---|---|
Male (128) | 0.091 | 0.276 | 0.538 *** |
Female (180) | 0.404 *** | −0.064 | 0.404 *** |
Difference in βs | −0.314 | 0.340 | 0.135 |
p-value | 0.130 | 0.024 * | 0.533 |
25 and below (245) (β) | 0.372 *** | −0.009 | 0.456 *** |
Above 25 (63) (β) | 0.355 | 0.099 | 0.457 |
Difference in βs | 0.017 | −0.108 | −0.001 |
p-value | 0.839 | 0.597 | 0.872 |
High (95) | 0.265 | 0.024 | 0.433 ** |
Low (37) | −0.292 | 0.020 | 0.813 |
Difference in βs | 0.557 | 0.004 | −0.380 |
p-value | 0.115 | 0.899 | 0.436 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Xu, X.-Y.; Niu, W.-B.; Jia, Q.-D.; Nthoiwa, L.; Li, L.-W. Why Do Viewers Engage in Video Game Streaming? The Perspective of Cognitive Emotion Theory and the Moderation Effect of Personal Characteristics. Sustainability 2021, 13, 11990. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111990
Xu X-Y, Niu W-B, Jia Q-D, Nthoiwa L, Li L-W. Why Do Viewers Engage in Video Game Streaming? The Perspective of Cognitive Emotion Theory and the Moderation Effect of Personal Characteristics. Sustainability. 2021; 13(21):11990. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111990
Chicago/Turabian StyleXu, Xiao-Yu, Wen-Bo Niu, Qing-Dan Jia, Lebogang Nthoiwa, and Li-Wei Li. 2021. "Why Do Viewers Engage in Video Game Streaming? The Perspective of Cognitive Emotion Theory and the Moderation Effect of Personal Characteristics" Sustainability 13, no. 21: 11990. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111990
APA StyleXu, X.-Y., Niu, W.-B., Jia, Q.-D., Nthoiwa, L., & Li, L.-W. (2021). Why Do Viewers Engage in Video Game Streaming? The Perspective of Cognitive Emotion Theory and the Moderation Effect of Personal Characteristics. Sustainability, 13(21), 11990. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132111990