Fulfilling the Basic Psychological Needs of Esports Fans: A Self-Determination Theory Approach

Abstract

This study examines esports fans’ psychological processes and pertinent behaviors through the lens of the self-determination theory (SDT). The extent to which the esports fans’ basic psychological needs—that is, competence, autonomy, and relatedness—are satisfied were assessed by using a composite latent variable model. Findings derived from the data analyses confirmed the relevance of the SDT in explaining pertinent information on need satisfaction, motivation, and related consumption behaviors. In particular, relatedness was identified as the most salient basic psychological need dimension, suggesting that satisfying this need is critically important for esports consumption. Both the inquiry protocol and the findings of this investigation contribute to the existing literature on motivation by developing an SDT model in esports media studies. Further discussions were made on deciphering the opportunities and challenges associated with the burgeoning esports industry.

Keywords

esports motivation SDT innate needs formative measurement model

The size of the esports industry has mushroomed substantially in the past few years, with global revenues reaching US$1.1 billion and the audience approaching 453.8 million (Pannekeet, 2019). One major contributor to the soaring popularity is online viewership, demonstrating a profound change in the consumption of media products in the digital era (Qian, Wang, et al., 2019; Qian, Zhang, et al., 2019). The growing importance of esports as a part of participatory media culture has given rise to a subset of digital media research (Jenkins, 2006). There have been multidisciplinary endeavors to delve into the psychological mechanisms that are instrumental to explaining esports fans’ behaviors, with many of the investigations devoted to scale development and modeling in an attempt to understand the motives that drive esports media consumption (e.g., Cianfrone & Zhang, 2013; Hamari et al., 2017; Hamari & Sjöblom, 2017; J. Y. Lee et al., 2014; Pizzo et al., 2018; Qian, Wang, et al., 2019; Qian, Zhang, et al., 2019; Sherry et al., 2006; Yee, 2006; Yee et al., 2012). The majority of the efforts have resorted to media and communication psychology theories such as Sloan’s sport motivation theories (Qian, Wang, et al., 2019), uses and gratifications (U&G) theory (Brown et al., 2005; Hamari & Sjöblom, 2017; Qian, Wang, et al., 2019), or a hybrid framework of the Motivation Scale for Sport Consumption (Hamari & Sjöblom, 2017) and the Sport Interest Inventory (Pizzo et al., 2018). Researchers have identified several motivational factors that are associated with esports fans’ desire to achieve intended outcomes or receive desirable benefits in various settings, including game participation (Jang & Byon, 2019, 2020), live event attendance (Pizzo et al., 2018), and online viewership (Hamari & Sjöblom, 2017; Qian, Wang, et al., 2019; Wulf et al., 2020). This empirical work has provided a descriptive foundation that highlights how distinct motives elicit relevant behaviors and reveals the unique ways by which consumers view and interact with esports media products and services.

Despite the various motives for esports media consumption identified and examined as well as the empirical insights generated by the distinct theories, the adoption of a multi-attribute survey instrument as the measurement foundation seems to be the norm among the vast majority of prior esports research. Ryan et al. (2006) postulated that rather than focusing on content-specific classifications or typologies, motivation should be conceptualized to reflect the basic psychological needs that stimulate and sustain consumption behaviors across different types of users in distinctive settings. It is therefore argued that research examining human motivation should not simply tackle issues associated with behavioral classifications or be constrained by the content and structure of a particular consumption activity (e.g., U&G theory, Sloan’s sport motivation theories). Instead, scholars should delve into how different basic psychological needs are fulfilled, thereby leading to or enhancing behaviors among all potential consumers and across all types of activities (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan et al., 2006). This proposal is echoed by Funk et al. (2012) who examined sports consumer motivation based on individuals’ basic need orientations and suggested that domain-specific knowledge could be strengthened and better interpreted by adopting a nonspecific motivational approach. In other words, one major limitation common in prior studies stems from the focus on the differences in what content-based gratifications people consciously seek. Researchers point out that such gratifications are acquired in distinct circumstances and are thus limited by the affordances that those settings provide, and those gratifications may be achieved as a result of substitute or derivative fulfillments, confounding the real impact of specific motivational forces (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Przybylski et al., 2010; Ryan et al., 2006). This lack of clarity and consistency might hamper explanatory power and limit theoretical significance.

Studies conducted in other academic disciplines have shown that empirical models measuring how the basic psychological needs are satisfied are more predictive of outcome variables and better clarify the dynamics of the behaviors of interest as opposed to assessing various gratifications in specific contexts (e.g., Engström & Elg, 2015; Gagné & Deci, 2005; Lin et al., 2009; Przybylski et al., 2010; Ryan et al., 2006). Following this idea, the present study investigated esports fan motivation from the perspective of the self-determination theory (SDT), which considers fulfillment of innate psychological needs as the theoretical grounds for human motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000a). This investigation attempted to explain the fulfillment of esports fans’ basic psychological needs and pertinent behaviors through the lens of the SDT as a macro-theory of human motivation. The current study viewed esports media consumption as a result of the fulfillment of innate and universal human psychological needs, namely competence, autonomy, and relatedness. This consistency would substantially add utility and generality for understanding esports fans’ motivation and associated behaviors.

Review of Literature

The Basic Psychological Needs

The SDT assumes that humans have a natural tendency to develop organized and coherent senses of self as they voluntarily engage in exploratory, curiosity-driven, and developmental behaviors (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Intrinsic motivation thus reflects humans’ playfulness, inquisitiveness, and propensity toward active assimilation, creative application of skills, and visceral exploration. When intrinsically motivated, people engage in an activity without operationally separable rewards, reinforcement, or instrumental consequences because the activity itself is interesting, challenging, or enjoyable (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000a).

To explain variability in intrinsic motivation, two subtheories within the SDT, the cognitive evaluation theory (CET) and the basic psychological needs theory (BPNT), were developed (Ferrer-Caja & Weiss, 2000; Przybylski et al., 2010; Ryan et al., 2006; Vallerand & Reid, 1984; Van den Broeck et al., 2008, 2010). CET proposes that intrinsic motivation can be fostered and maintained by satisfying the basic psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Conditions sanctioning the experience of competence, autonomy, and relatedness are posited to facilitate intrinsic motivation and behavioral engagement. In contrast to other well-known need perspectives (e.g., Maslow, 1943) where human needs are proposed to be either hierarchically ordered or acquired through learning, BPNT posits that, similar to physiological needs (e.g., Freud, 1914; Hull, 1943), the basic psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness are innate, fundamental propensities as opposed to acquired or learned (Deci & Ryan, 2000) and that all three needs are essential for people’s flourishing. Moreover, instead of focusing on need strength or the importance people attach to particular needs, both CET and BPNT postulate that humans are naturally attracted to situations in which the fulfillment of humans’ basic psychological needs may occur. The degree to which those innate needs are fulfilled is the most important premise and predictor for optimal functioning and performance.

Following this tenet, an array of empirical studies has utilized or adapted the SDT and its subtheories to address human motivation and behaviors across a variety of academic disciplines (e.g., Deci et al., 2001; Engström & Elg, 2015; Przybylski et al., 2010; Sweeney et al., 2014). It has also been extensively examined in the field of exercise psychology and sport pedagogy (e.g., Chang et al., 2016; Chen et al., 2012, 2018). In the realm of media psychology and entertainment research, there have been few research efforts attempting to understand media enjoyment and game experience through the lens of the SDT (e.g., Peng et al., 2012; Tamborini et al., 2010, 2011). Findings have shown that media users’ need satisfaction might furthermore help understand the consumption of media products and services, select the most applicable need orientations, initiate appropriate marketing campaigns, and develop tailored promotional messages that better accommodate user needs, wants, and preferences.

In this light, the overarching proposition that guides the current study is that behavioral engagement is associated with the fulfillment of the basic psychological needs. Subsequently, esports consumption outcomes (i.e., commitment, word of mouth [WOM] intentions, and actual viewing/spending behaviors) would be mainly a result of one’s realized basic psychological needs. The following discussion explicates the conditions and situations in which the needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness are supported or satisfied among esports fans.

The Fulfillment of the Competence Need

The need for competence represents one’s inclination to feel capable of mastering a task, test and extend skills, receive positive feedback, and manage various challenges (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000b; Ryan et al., 2006). A sense of competence is manifested in social situations where an individual can express capacities, enhance skills, and feel confident. Consistent with this definition, esports fans’ need for competence may be fulfilled through acquiring new skills, reinforcing pertinent knowledge, and experiencing intense immersion through their engagement in esports that engenders or enhances the feeling of effectiveness and accomplishment (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Qian, Wang, et al., 2019).

Esports fans watched professional or veteran players, professional or amateur events, and game tutorials or highlights in an effort to elevate skills, improve strategy, and ultimately obtain a better understanding and improvement of their game performance, according to Qian, Wang, et al.’s (2019) review of qualitative descriptions of the skill improvement motive. Terms and phrases such as “learn new things,” “get new ideas,” “copy strategies,” and “pick up tactics” are reflections of the need for competence as esports fans actively seek and learn from what would help them become better players themselves. In a similar vein, the extent to which esports fans understand the esports game may also impact the fulfillment of their need for competence. Oftentimes, esports fans test their esports know-how or improve upon what they already know by following the streams of some best players or elite competitions. In turn, these streams provide constructive feedback to the fans, offer an important means to reinforce and display their knowledge of the game, and ultimately translate into an enhanced feeling of competence (Deci & Ryan, 2000). As esports fans usually spectate game actions directly from a professional player/streamer’s view, what is presented for them is what a player/streamer sees in-game (Qian, Zhang, et al., 2019). This vicarious sensation elicits a sense of competence that allows fans to immerse themselves in a game indirectly but effectively, especially when the game requires a comprehensive set of skills and a serious commitment to excel.

The Fulfillment of the Autonomy Need

The need for autonomy reflects the desire to act willingly and voluntarily. Activities underpinning autonomy are accordant with one’s interest or importance (Deci & Ryan, 2000). An individual is autonomously stimulated when the person is provided with a meaningful rationale for doing a task, and the person’s feelings are recognized and acknowledged. When activities are performed for interest or personal value, perceived autonomy is high (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). As such, it is reasonable to assume that the need for autonomy is supported when people are allowed to indulge in their interests and endorse their actions or behaviors. For esports fans, appreciating skills and strategies demonstrated in esports and enjoying competition and entertainment improve the fulfillment of the autonomy need for two reasons. First, esports is deemed a voluntary activity as people feel they are the initiators of their actions; and second, these experiences represent the attraction and desirability of esports, which are in concordance with esports fans’ interests and integrated values.

People’s desire to appreciate skills, plays, and strategies in esports reinforces its status as a legitimate form of spectator entertainment (Qian, Wang, et al., 2019). Similar to fantasy sports consumption (Dwyer & Kim, 2011; Larkin, 2015; S. Lee et al., 2013), the appeal of competition is also a key to people’s engagement in esports. The competitive structure of esports resembles professional sports and differentiates itself from regular gaming activities as professional esports usually features serious, competitive, and performative events and tournaments that gratify fans’ desire for the thrill of competition (Pizzo et al., 2018; Seo, 2015; Seo & Jung, 2016). Esports can be seen as a combination of active serious leisure and casual passive entertainment (Seo, 2013; Seo et al., 2015; Seo & Jung, 2016) and can also be considered an entertaining pastime in the same way that other recreational pursuits are, such as watching movies, going to the theater, or taking trips to an amusement park (Wann, 1995; Wann et al., 2008).

The Fulfillment of the Relatedness Need

Research has suggested that the fulfillment of the relatedness need is critical to intrinsic motivation and essential for well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2000; La Guardia et al., 2000). The need for relatedness is satisfied when one experiences a sense of community and develops a close relationship with others (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Identical to traditional sports, esports is characterized by salient group dynamics. It has been imbued with social elements, as characterized by the early arcade scenes where fighting games flourished with cheering crowds to today’s massive local area network events, where face-to-face interactions take place (Sjöblom & Hamari, 2017). Qian, Wang, et al. (2019) indicate that a considerable number of esports fans reported that the primary reason they started playing and watching esports was their close “real-life” friends. While esports might exert a positive impact on existing social relationships or established friendships in an actual physical location, it also helps foster and maintain interpersonal relationships in online communities. People watch esports because of the camaraderie built between viewers and streamers/players and a sense of belongingness built among esports fans. Enhanced by communication tools and digital distribution platforms, such as Twitch chat, Reddit, and Discord, people from around the world can talk to each other and stay connected regardless of time zone or place (Hilvert-Bruce et al., 2018; Sjöblom & Hamari, 2017). Given people’s natural tendency to seek companionship in the social matrix (Deci & Ryan, 2000), it is logical to contend that the opportunity to bond with friends and socialize online through esports supports the relatedness need.

The Fulfillment of the Basic Psychological Needs and Esports Media Consumption

Researchers have documented how the fulfillment of the basic psychological needs would affect and predict video game enjoyment and engagement (Przybylski et al., 2010; Ryan et al., 2006), WOM intentions and behaviors within online communities (Sweeney et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2016), workplace motivation and organizational commitment (Deci et al., 2001; Gagné et al., 2008; Gagné & Deci, 2005), and customer loyalty and citizenship behaviors (Engström & Elg, 2015; Wang et al., 2016). Findings have indicated that the fulfillment of the basic psychological needs is the precursor to deciphering complex human behaviors and interactions and that the varying extents to which people’s basic psychological needs are fulfilled differently influence their cognitive, conative, and behavioral outcomes. In the current study, commitment, WOM intentions, and media consumption behaviors can be considered an indication of one’s perception that the basic psychological needs are being met.

Commitment

This concept has been extensively investigated as a key relational construct in numerous studies, and recently, researchers have begun to examine the relationship between motivation and commitment (Gagné et al., 2008; Garcia-Mas et al., 2010). In this vein, the SDT emerged as an important theory explaining the impact of the basic psychological need fulfillment on commitment. Research findings have shown that the fulfillment of the basic psychological needs is the basis through which commitment develops (e.g., Bono & Judge, 2003; Millette & Gagné, 2008). Even so, most of the studies using the SDT to understand the motivation–commitment relationship are still within organizational behavior settings. Few attempts have been made from a media psychology perspective to assimilate the SDT variables and commitment into an integrated model, to demonstrate how the concepts are related, or to test how the fulfillment of the basic needs and commitment combine to influence actual consumption behavior.

In this study, commitment is defined as an enduring psychological attachment to maintain a valued relationship with an esports game and a resistance to change (Moorman et al., 1993). Commitment is considered a pivotal construct in esports media consumption, given the relatively high turnover rate of esports games played and even higher turnover rate in title-specific viewership over a year (Trowbridge, 2018). As such, it is hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 1: The fulfillment of (a) the competence need, (b) the autonomy need, and (c) the relatedness need would be positively associated with esports fans’ commitment.

WOM intentions

Scholars have increasingly recognized positive WOM as an effective means of promotional communication. WOM has higher credibility, given the notion that WOM behaviors take place between consumers who are not associated with a vested interest in a product and are more likely to present the information of the product in a trustworthy manner (Anderson, 1998; Herr et al., 1991; Zeithaml, 2000). In the current context, positive WOM intentions can be an outcome of the fulfilled basic psychological needs. Researchers have suggested that the need for self-effectiveness motivates an individual to forge a good image through which the person could be positively or favorably recognized (Angelis et al., 2012). As such, esports fans who obtain a strong sense of competence via esports may be more likely to share positive information about the game. Similarly, people with a higher level of autonomy, that is, confident in their ability and volitional in their decision, may be more likely to express individuality and share opinions (Gagné, 2009). The need for relatedness is also associated with WOM intentions. If an individual is highly identified with a certain social group, the person may have a strong sense of belonging and be more likely to act on behalf of the group, especially through positive WOM (Cheung & Lee, 2012). Hence, when esports fans are satisfied in terms of competence, autonomy, and relatedness, they are incentivized to engage in honest and noncontrolling WOM communication activities. Therefore, we hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 2: The fulfillment of (a) the competence need, (b) the autonomy need, and (c) the relatedness need would be positively associated with esports fans’ WOM intentions.

Behavioral responses

Behavioral variables have been tested and reported in recent esports-related studies. These consumption variables include watching hours, playing hours, spending on watching, and spending on playing as they pertain to the core interests and concerns of esports publishers, event organizers, professional teams, players, and streamers (Hamari & Sjöblom, 2017; Przybylski et al., 2010; Ryan et al., 2006; Sjöblom & Hamari, 2017; Sjöblom et al., 2017). Przybylski et al. (2010) found that the basic psychological need fulfillment would account for game enjoyment and preference for future play. Likewise, it is expected that the basic psychological need fulfillment would also explain esports consumers’ behavioral responses. Thus, the following hypotheses are developed:

Hypothesis 3: The fulfillment of (a) the competence need, (b) the autonomy need, and (c) the relatedness need would be positively associated with esports viewing hours.

Hypothesis 4: The fulfillment of (a) the competence need, (b) the autonomy need, and (c) the relatedness need would be positively associated with esports-related spending.

The mediating role of commitment

Research has revealed that commitment is a critical precursor to customer retention (Alexandris et al., 2002). It has been demonstrated to increase patronage intentions and self-report purchase behaviors (Inoue et al., 2017; Verhoef et al., 2002). In a similar vein, a few studies have provided empirical evidence for the positive relationship between commitment and WOM communications (Harrison-Walker, 2001; Parsa & Cobanoglu, 2011; Wulf et al., 2006). Hence, it is proposed that:

Hypothesis 5: Commitment would mediate the positive relationships between the fulfillment of (a) the competence need, (b) the autonomy need, and (c) the relatedness need, and WOM intentions.

Hypothesis 6: Commitment would mediate the positive relationships between the fulfillment of (a) the competence need, (b) the autonomy need, and (c) the relatedness need, and viewing hours.

Hypothesis 7: Commitment would mediate the positive relationships between the fulfillment of (a) the competence need, (b) the autonomy need, and (c) the relatedness need, and esports-related spending.

Methodology

Instrumentation

Given that the purpose of this study was to formatively measure the basic psychological needs among esports fans and examine the relationships between the fulfillment of the basic psychological needs and esports consumption outcomes, the operationalization of the basic psychological needs was the most important task for the current research team. Eight items were adapted from Qian, Wang, et al.’s (2019) study to operationalize the three innate psychological needs by using a formative model. The decision to conceptualize and measure the fulfillment of these basic psychological needs formatively was consistent with the esports context and the characteristics of the basic psychological needs (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Previous empirical investigations (e.g., Pizzo et al., 2018; Qian, Wang, et al., 2019; Qian, Zhang, et al., 2019) have demonstrated that esports consumption is dynamic and multifaceted. From an esports fan’s perspective, each basic psychological need is nurtured and sustained by distinct psychological elements that are not conceptually interchangeable. Although all esports fans are likely to benefit from having the basic psychological needs fulfilled, there are various means and ways to express and satisfy their innate needs. From a measurement perspective, various conditions supporting the fulfillment of the basic psychological needs could potentially affect (or cause) their respective underlying constructs. Following Jarvis et al.’s (2003) guidelines, these conditions should be operationalized as formative indicators since (a) they do not covariate, (b) they are not interchangeable, and (c) they jointly determine the conceptual and empirical meaning of the construct (i.e., the direction of causality flows from the indicator to the latent construct). Consistent with these principles, the adapted formative items are a succinct representation of the motivational dimensions identified in the Motivation Scale of Esports Spectatorship. More importantly, they represent the distinct psychological elements and conditions that are critical for enhancing the fulfillment of the basic psychological needs.

To ascertain the content validity of the 8-item, three-dimension formative model, the items were thoroughly scrutinized by an expert panel consisting of professors in sport media, sport management, and quantitative research methodology (Hulland et al., 2018). Based on the criteria of relevance, representativeness, and clarity, the expert panel members were asked to evaluate the items based on the definitions of the basic psychological needs. Following an 80% consensus among panelists, content validity was confirmed with 3 items measuring the competence need, 3 items measuring the autonomy need, and 2 items measuring the relatedness need. With respect to esports consumption outcome variables, items measuring esports game commitment (reflective) and WOM intentions (reflective) were directly adopted from Qian, Wang, et al.’s (2019) study (Table 1), while self-reported viewing hours (hours watched per week) and esports-related spending (annually in U.S. dollars) were assessed by 2 single items.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics, Outer Weights, and t Values for the Basic Psychological Need Dimensions, Commitment, and WOM Intentions.

Construct Names, Variable Names, and Formative Items			M	SD	λ/β Weight	t Value
Competence need fulfillment	CN 1	Following my favorite esports helps me become a better player	5.84	1.301	.299**	3.129
	CN 2	I like esports because I understand the intricacies and strategies	6.17	1.136	.689**	9.591
	CN 3	I can get a feeling of playing an esports game at a high level without actually being good at it	4.12	1.990	.453**	6.107
Autonomy need fulfillment	AN 1	I like how others can do things in esports that I could never imagine	5.84	1.301	.369**	4.651
	AN 2	I enjoy the competitive gameplay of esports	6.29	1.129	.432**	4.833
	AN 3	I like esports because it is fun	6.20	1.113	.507**	5.599
Relatedness need fulfillment	RN 1	Esports gives me a chance to bond with my friends	4.08	1.921	.436**	8.131
Relatedness need fulfillment	RN 2	Esports allows me to meet other people online with similar interests to mine	4.02	2.066	.722**	16.007
Commitment (reflective)	AC 1	I feel emotionally attached to my favorite esports game	4.75	1.897	.830**	68.816
	AC 2	My favorite esports game has a great deal of personal meaning for me	4.29	2.123	.909**	131.088
	AC 3	I feel a strong sense of identification with my favorite esports game	4.68	1.920	.900**	124.732
WOM intentions (reflective)	WOM 1	I would say positive things about my esports game to other people	5.91	1.327	.875**	70.989
	WOM 2	I would recommend my favorite esports game to someone who might be interested in esports	5.98	1.314	.908**	96.456
	WOM 3	I would encourage friends to play/watch my favorite esports game	5.74	1.538	.871**	77.405

Note. WOM = word of mouth.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Data Collection and Analyses

The current study’s target population was esports fans who were over the age of 18 and watched esports at least once a month (Newzoo, 2017). A cross-sectional, nonexperimental design was employed. A convenience sample was collected via an online survey distributed on Reddit for 10 days (March 1 to March 11, 2018). Reddit is a popular online discussion forum characterized by high levels of interaction among members. Screening questions related specifically to esports were adopted to ensure that the participants understood the context and were qualified for the study. Of the 1,644 participants who entered the survey, 1,100 provided complete data.

We employed procedures in SPSS Version 25.0 to generate descriptive statistics. Procedures in SmartPLS Version 3.0 were executed to examine the partial least square (PLS) structural model and verify the proposed hypotheses. Our use of partial least squares-structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was considered appropriate as we attempted to (a) test a structural model with nonnormal data and formative measurement; (b) identify key driver constructs, that is, the basic psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness; and (c) predict key target constructs, that is, commitment, WOM intentions, and behavioral responses (Diamantopoulos et al., 2008; Diamantopoulos & Winklhofer, 2001; Hair et al., 2016; Jarvis et al., 2003; MacKenzie et al., 2005, 2011).

Because measures of internal consistency and reliability are not appropriate for assessing the psychometric properties of formative constructs (Jarvis et al., 2003), we evaluated the measurement properties of the formative constructs by following the three-step procedure suggested by Hair et al. (2016). First, we assessed the formative measurement model’s convergent validity via a redundancy analysis (Chin, 1998). A global item measuring the essence of each basic psychological need fulfillment was included in the survey. We calculated the path coefficients linking the formative constructs and the pertinent single item (global item) reflective constructs and determined whether the coefficients were beyond the threshold value of .70 (Hair et al., 2016). For example, “esports provides me a social outlet” measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale, from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), was developed to assess the convergent validity of the relatedness need fulfillment. Second, we evaluated the formative measurement model for collinearity issues. Variance inflation factor (VIF), whose value should be less than 5.0, was examined for all of the formative indicators (Hair et al., 2016). To assess discriminant validity of the formative constructs, we followed Lam et al.’s (2010, p. 138) approach and concluded that our basic psychological need constructs had satisfactory discriminant validity because (a) none of the indicators cross-loaded more heavily on their unintended constructs than on their own and (b) all the unattenuated construct intercorrelations were significantly less than 1.00. Third, we analyzed the significance and contributions of all formative indicators through nonparametric bootstrapping of 5,000 resamples (Hair et al., 2016). The significance (5%) of the formative indicators’ outer weights and loadings were investigated. Finally, we adopted the same 5% level of significance to examine critical t values of path coefficients (t values > 1.96) with the confidence intervals for bootstrapping needing to be significantly different from zero. PLS regression analyses were carried out to test the effects of the basic psychological needs on esports consumption variables.

Results

The general demographics of the sample were in line with the data provided by third-party analytics services (Deloitte, 2017; Newzoo, 2017). Of the participants, 89% (n = 979) were between 18 and 30 years, and 85.2% (n = 937) reported being single. About one half of the sample (n = 528, 48%) had an annual household income of more than US$40,000, and 73% (n = 803) of the participants were pursuing or held a college degree or an advanced degree. Additionally, a large majority of participants (n = 1,052, 95.6%) were male, which was consistent with esports fans described in previous empirical studies (Cruea & Park, 2012; Hamari & Sjöblom, 2017; Qian, Wang, et al., 2019; Qian, Zhang, et al., 2019).

Mean scores of the 8 items measuring basic psychological needs were all higher than 4.0, the midpoint of the 7-point rating scale, suggesting that the conceptualized conditions and situations were considered important by esports fans. The latent formative constructs showed good convergent validity. Path coefficients connecting the basic need fulfillment constructs and the global items were .78, .73, and .88 for the competence need, the autonomy need, and the relatedness need, respectively. An assessment of the formative model indicated that multicollinearity was not a concern as the VIF scores were between 1.01 and 2.84. Then, we executed a nonparametric bootstrapping of 5,000 resamples and investigated the significance and relevance of the formative indicators. Findings revealed that all of the outer weights and loadings of the formative indicators were statistically significant (p < .001), suggesting there were adequate relative and absolute contributions made by the indicators to their respective underlying constructs (Table 1). In addition, we assessed reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of the reflective constructs (commitment and WOM intentions) by examining construct reliability (CR > .70), calculating average variance extracted values (AVE >.50), and comparing square root of AVE with the pairwise correlations. As a result, all the indices were beyond the threshold values, demonstrating good psychometric properties for the reflective constructs (Hair et al., 2010).

The findings of the SDT structural model analyses are presented in Figure 1. The model explained 30.8% variance in esports game commitment, 28.2% in consumers’ WOM intentions, 2.8% in viewing hours, and 3.8% in viewership-related spending. There was a significant, positive relationship between satisfying the three basic needs and commitment (competence: β = .083, p = .013; autonomy: β = .158, p < .001; and relatedness: β = .454, p < .001), supporting Hypotheses 1a, 1b, and 1c. The model also showed a significant, positive relationship between the fulfillment of the competence need and WOM intentions (β = .098, p = .021), and between the fulfillment of the autonomy need and WOM intentions (β = .189, p < .001), providing support for Hypotheses 2a and 2b. However, Hypothesis 2c was rejected since the fulfillment of the relatedness need did not exert a significant, positive effect on WOM intentions (β = −.042, p = .253). In terms of self-reported behavioral responses, only the relatedness need was found to be positively associated with esports-related spending (β = .109, p < .001). Interestingly, however, we found that the fulfillment of the competence need had a negative impact on esports-related spending (β = −.081, p = .036). Consequently, Hypotheses 3a, 3b, 3c, 4a, and 4b were rejected, while Hypothesis 4c was supported.

Figure 1.

The resulted partial least squares-structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) model depicting the relationships among the self-determination theory factors, commitment, and behavioral indicators.

It is necessary to note that commitment was found to be a crucial construct that mediated the relationship between the fulfillment of the basic psychological needs and outcome variables. Through the path of commitment, the fulfillment of the competence, autonomy, and relatedness needs was found to exert significant, positive indirect effects on WOM intentions, viewing hours, and esports-related spending, providing support for Hypotheses 5–7. Results of specific indirect effects of the basic need fulfillment on behavioral responses through the path of commitment are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Specific Indirect Effects of the Basic Psychological Need Dimensions on the Outcome Variables.

Path	Standardized Coefficient	t Value	Lower Level Confidence Interval (2.5%)	Upper Level Confidence Interval (97.5%)
Competence → commit → WOM	.044**	2.729	.013	.074
Competence → commit → hours	.017**	2.713	.005	.029
Competence → commit → spending	.013*	2.467	.004	.024
Autonomy → commit → WOM	.079**	5.056	.047	.110
Autonomy → commit → hours	.032**	3.892	.017	.048
Autonomy → commit → spending	.024**	3.406	.013	.038
Relatedness → commit → WOM	.219**	13.188	.188	.254
Relatedness → commit → hours	.088**	5.962	.060	.114
Relatedness → commit → spending	.067**	4.581	.040	.095

Note. WOM = word of mouth intentions; hours = viewing hours; spending = esports-related spending.

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Discussion

The current study represented an empirical application of the SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2000a, 2000b), a macro-theory of human motivation, to decipher esports fan motivation and related media consumption. Specifically, the SDT posits that the fulfillment of basic psychological needs is the underlying motivational mechanism that energizes and directs people’s behavior (Deci & Ryan, 2000). A few scholars have argued that content-specific motivational models could be enhanced by integrating the fundamental psychological dynamics (e.g., Funk et al., 2012; Van den Broeck et al., 2010). We echoed this proposition and utilized a large online esports fan panel to empirically test whether the SDT could offer a viable theoretical framework. Based on the assumption that people seek to satisfy the universal psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness, we conceptualized and operationalized the basic psychological need fulfillment in an esports context. In doing so, we expanded the research on the usefulness of the SDT in social media and video gaming to esports, an emerging form of participatory media (Jenkins, 2006; Peng et al., 2012; Tamborini et al., 2010, 2011), and explored the distinct effects of satisfying basic psychological needs on consuming esports media products and services. Our empirical findings supported the applicability of the SDT model and highlighted the importance of attending to differences in needs (competence vs. autonomy vs. relatedness) that exerted distinct influences on esports media consumption. It was further suggested that as a creative, quickly evolving, and widely variable practice, the broad appeal of esports is closely related to its ability to satisfy humans’ basic psychological needs and that the basic psychological needs are good predictors for esports consumption behaviors.

Overall, the fulfillment of the needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness contributed to commitment, which was, in turn, translated into a higher level of WOM intentions and consumption outcomes. This finding added to the accumulating evidence on the positive mediating role of commitment in promoting people’s WOM intentions and behavioral outcomes (Biscaia et al., 2013; Brown et al., 2005; Inoue et al., 2017; Iwasaki & Havitz, 2004) and extends previous work by identifying the SDT antecedents to commitment in an esports context (Gagné & Deci, 2005; Sweeney et al., 2014).

We found that esports fans received a sense of effectiveness by developing esports-related skills, accumulating esports knowledge, and indulging themselves in immersive experiences through their engagement in esports. The enhanced feeling of competence then led to subsequent consumption activities (Csikszentmihlyi, 1975; Deci & Ryan, 2002). Our results were consistent with the SDT and suggested that due to this competence element, esports should be considered a highly participatory entertainment activity where fans are actively learning, developing, and improving their esports literacy. Interestingly, a negative direct effect of the fulfillment of the competence need on esports-related spending was found in this study. Although this finding was counterintuitive and seemed to contradict previous research, we posit that this finding is reasonable in an esports context as most of the current esports-related spending is irrelevant to the improvement of competence. For example, donations are made towards streamers/influencers for esports fans to show their appreciation and strengthen the fan-influencer connection; in contrast, microtransactions represent the sales of virtual items such as in-game cosmetics, skins, or decorations that primarily provide aesthetic value and do not affect players’ performances. Our findings thus documented a gap in esports product/service offering and opportunities in marketing strategy (Qian et al., in press; Qian, Wang, et al., 2019; Qian, Zhang, et al., 2019).

We also found that the fulfillment of the autonomy need was positively associated with commitment and WOM intentions. When people participate in activities that satisfy the autonomy need, they have an experience that they do not normally get in everyday life (Csikszentmihlyi, 1975). In our study, individuals engaged in esports consumption for the atmospheric conditions, emotional release, and pleasure of appreciating esports skills and movements. These benefits reflect the nature of esports consumption as an end in itself that is intrinsically rewarding.

The fulfillment of the relatedness need was found to have the most substantial influence (β = .454, p < .001) on commitment, highlighting that the social facets of esports are the most salient drivers of positive emotional attachment. More importantly, our findings showed that the relatedness need, supported by conditions or situations that boost the feeling of a sense of community and companionship, was positively associated with esports-related spending (β = .109, p < .001). Previous studies have highlighted the important role of chat and streamers in enhancing the relatedness need (Qian, Wang, et al., 2019; Qian, Zhang, et al., 2019). Martončik (2015) found that esports satisfy the need for belongingness by fostering relationships through membership in an esports online community. These findings were consistent with Qian, Zhang, et al.’s (2019) work that argued esports consumption originated from the love for the game but maintained through the social values and benefits associated with the experience, highlighting the importance of socialization in esports consumption. Esports fans’ interactions with content, streamers, and other viewers help build a live, shared, and interactive experience that could be considered a multiplayer entertainment that is created by the shared interactions of millions (Ford et al., 2017; Hamilton et al., 2014; Musabirov et al., 2018). While the need for competence and autonomy might attract people to consume esports in the first place, the social elements may have transcended the gaming practice itself. Most esports fans start following esports as they are also active players who simply enjoy the game; yet once the gaming component attenuates, the social identification and group membership associated with the game become their primary stimulant (Seo & Jung, 2016). Consequently, in line with CET, when conditions or situations that support perceived relatedness are present, subsequent need fulfilling activities (e.g., subscribing and tipping favorite streamers, buying products sponsoring esports events and players, purchasing virtual items and emotes that can be used in chat) are most likely to occur (Hilvert-Bruce et al., 2018).

Research Implications

Even though prior empirical work has delineated a number of discrete facets of motivation or motives among esports fans (e.g., Hamari & Sjöblom, 2017; Qian, Wang, et al., 2019), those studies have generally adopted an empirics-driven approach and failed to utilize a broader theoretical framework to understand motivation and subsequent behavior, resulting in limited efficiency (at least 20 items), complex model testing (7–12 constructs), and most critically, inconsistency in the conceptualization of motivational constructs as they vary from context to context. From a theoretical perspective, the current study helped fill a gap in esports literature by conceptually and empirically investigating esports fan motivation and consumption from the perspective of the basic psychological needs. By developing and testing an empirical model based on the SDT and its subtheories, CET and BPNT, we adopted a macro-theory approach to examine esports fans’ basic psychological needs and the resulted behavioral outcomes (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Przybylski et al., 2010; Ryan et al., 2006).

In this study, we applied the SDT to the esports context and conceptualized the universal psychological needs by using formative measurement to develop a more compendious understanding of esports fan motivation. The SDT model reduces the number of factors to explain esports fan motivation, enabling a more parsimonious examination of the constructs’ relationship to outcomes. The use of the SDT model also provides an opportunity for more consistent cross-study comparisons and contributes to a more unified development of consumer motivation scholarship as it represents the essential motivational facets that drive individuals to seek out esports experiences to satisfy their needs and receive benefits.

As noted, esports is a multifaceted and dynamic phenomenon with significant potentials associated with its exponential growth. Relevant stakeholders must understand the reasons behind people’s decision to consume esports. For example, a major gap in esports consumption is that much esports-related spending does not address people’s need for competence. To better accommodate esports fans’ need to improve their sense of competence, online stream platforms could team up with game publishers to provide deeper integration between fan experience and an esports competition, such as displaying real-time game statistics, enabling options to watch specific player cameras, or combining multiple views to create customized viewing experience (e.g., the launch of the Overwatch League All-Access Pass; Byrne, 2019). Likewise, given the strong influence exerted by the fulfillment of the relatedness need, it seems conducive to game publishers, streaming platforms, and streamers to increase the degree to which the fans experience communality and a sense of belonging. The growing popularity of individual streams is a signal showing how important it is for the content being personality-driven. The more content creators continue to build around communities of viewers, the more likely esports will keep seeing its growth. While the most popular games can come and go, the need for relatedness is persistent. With an increased number of high-profile influencers to facilitate high levels of interaction, maintain consistency to their content, and build brands around their personalities even if they might be changing up the games that they play occasionally, esports will likely continue to thrive and grow on these nurturing conditions. Essentially, this is what today’s fans crave: The ability to interact and even influence what they consume.

Limitations and Future Studies

Several methodological limitations are recognized in the current study. Given that we utilized a cross-sectional design, it is recommended that the use of longitudinal study could provide a more accurate evaluation of the SDT dimensions and effectively address issues such as common method bias and causality inference (Hair et al., 2010; Podsakoff, 2003). Future research may also consider adopting an experimental design to manipulate various conditions/situations to determine the strength of perceived competence, autonomy, and relatedness, particularly given that esports is a relatively new application of the SDT with a complex area of behavioral engagement in virtual contexts (Przybylski et al., 2010; Qian, Wang, et al., 2019; Ryan et al., 2006).

Limitations existed in the current study due to the nature of the data collected. Instead of obtaining actual behavior data, we relied on self-reported behavioral responses. Future research should examine the precision of self-reported behavioral outcomes and whether these results could actually be considered a cognitive misrepresentation. Relatedly, the explained variance of viewing hours and esports-related spending might not be as high as those of commitment and WOM intentions (i.e., attitudinal and cognate constructs). This was likely due to the fact that the data were self-reported and only measured by a single item. Even so, it should be noted that our study assessed participants’ behavioral engagement in esports fandom (although self-reported) as opposed to behavioral intention (cognate construct). Past research findings have shown that behavioral intention usually explains only 22%–29% of actual behavior variance (e.g., Armitage & Conner, 2001; Sheeran, 2002; Sheppard et al., 1988). As such, the variance could be considered acceptable in the current research setting. Optimally, future empirical studies should further refine the SDT instrument and employ a broader range of data collection methods, such as more differentiated samples and third-party data sources.

Finally, the current study did not examine the potential moderation effects of esports background factors such as fandom (e.g., differences between casual fans, moderate fans, and avid fans). Future research could look into such variables and provide more granular insights. Only intrinsic motivation and the fulfillment of the basic psychological needs were investigated in the current study as we did not examine a whole gamut of motivation, particularly four types of extrinsic motivation that are outlined in the organismic integration theory and amotivation within the SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). We encourage future studies to deepen the line of investigation into how extrinsic motivation and associated regulatory styles may enhance or hinder esports consumption. Future research is advised to represent the full range of the self-determination spectrum and non-self-determined regulatory processes, so that the maximum variance can be explained.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Tyreal Yizhou Qian

Jerred Junqi Wang

References

Alexandris

Zahariadis

Tsorbatzoudis

Grouios

(2002). Testing the sport commitment model in the context of exercise and fitness participation. Journal of Sport Behavior, 25(3), 217–230.

Anderson

E. W.

(1998). Customer satisfaction and word of mouth. Journal of Service Research, 1(1), 5–17.

Angelis

M. D.

Bonezzi

Peluso

A. M.

Rucker

D. D.

Costabile

(2012). On braggarts and gossips: A self-enhancement account of word-of-mouth generation and transmission. Journal of Marketing Research, 49(4), 551–563.

Armitage

C. J.

Conner

(2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471–499.

Biscaia

Correia

Rosado

A. F.

Ross

S. D.

Maroco

(2013). Sport sponsorship: The relationship between team loyalty, sponsorship awareness, attitude toward the sponsor, and purchase intentions. Journal of Sport Management, 27(4), 288–302.

Bono

J. E.

Judge

T. A.

(2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46(5), 554–571.

Brown

T. J.

Barry

T. E.

Dacin

P. A.

Gunst

R. F.

(2005). Spreading the word: Investigating antecedents of consumers’ positive word-of-mouth intentions and behaviors in a retailing context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(2), 123–138.

Byrne

(2019). Twitch’s head of esports on the trends driving viewer engagement. The Esports Observer. https://esportsobserver.com/twitch-hive-berlin-interview/?mc_cid=f1b80613e4&mc_eid=05989a0870

Chang

Y. K.

Chen

K. W.

Chi

L. K.

(2016). Effect of autonomy support on self-determined motivation in elementary physical education. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 15(3), 460–466.

10.

Chen

Zhu

(2012). Are K–12 learners motivated in physical education? A meta-analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 83(1), 36–48.

11.

Chen

Dzewaltowski

D. A.

Rosenkranz

R. R.

Lanningham-Foster

Vazou

Gentile

D. A.

Lee

J. A.

Braun

K. J.

Wolff

M. M.

Welk

G. J.

(2018). Feasibility study of the SWITCH implementation process for enhancing school wellness. BMC Public Health, 18(1), 1–11.

12.

Cheung

C. M.

Lee

M. K.

(2012). What drives consumers to spread electronic word of mouth in online consumer-opinion platforms. Decision Support Systems, 53(1), 218–225.

13.

Chin

W. W.

(1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In Marcoulides

G. A.

(Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Lawrence Erlbaum.

14.

Cianfrone

B. A.

Zhang

(2013). The impact of gamer motives, consumption, and in-game advertising effectiveness: A case study of football sport video games. International Journal of Sport Communication, 6(3), 325–347.

15.

Cruea

Park

S.-Y.

(2012). Gender disparity in video game usage: A third-person perception-based explanation. Media Psychology, 15(1), 44–67.

16.

Csikszentmihlyi

(1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. Jossey-Bass.

17.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum.

18.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

19.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective. In Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of Self-Determination Research (pp. 3–33). University of Rochester Press.

20.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

Gagné

Leone

D. R.

Usunov

Kornazheva

B. P.

(2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former eastern bloc country: A cross-cultural study of self-determination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(8), 930–942.

21.

Deloitte. (2017). eSports: Bigger and smaller than you think. https://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/technology-media-and-telecommunications/articles/tmt-pred16-media-esports-bigger-smaller-than-you-think.html#full-report

22.

Diamantopoulos

Riefler

Roth

K. P.

(2008). Advancing formative measurement models. Journal of Business Research, 61(12), 1203–1218.

23.

Diamantopoulos

Winklhofer

H. M.

(2001). Index construction with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 269–277.

24.

Dwyer

Kim

(2011). For love or money: Developing and validating a motivational scale for fantasy football participation. Journal of Sport Management, 25(1), 70–83.

25.

Engström

Elg

(2015). A self-determination theory perspective on customer participation in service development. Journal of Services Marketing, 29(6/7), 511–521.

26.

Ferrer-Caja

Weiss

(2000). Predictors of intrinsic motivation among adolescent students in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 71(3), 267–279.

27.

Ford

Gardner

Horgan

L. E.

Liu

Nardi

Rickman

(2017, May 6–11). Chat speed OP PogChamp: Practices of coherence in massive Twitch chat. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 858–871). ACM. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3027063.3052765?casa_token=4JLzMTbXOyIAAAAA:19C9JKhPcWnZ6uTZjr4SVXntAOKDLK3uJjrqcvNsSTEobFnGdnplk7N5raO8Ct-1CJ_Vt0QY6Jg

28.

Freud

(1914). On narcissism. In Freud

(Ed.), The standard edition of the complete works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 14). Hogarth.

29.

Funk

D. C.

Beaton

Alexandris

(2012). Sport consumer motivation: Autonomy and control orientations that regulate fan behaviours. Sport Management Review, 15(3), 355–367.

30.

Gagné

(2009). A model of knowledge-sharing motivation. Human Resource Management, 48(4), 571–589.

31.

Gagné

Chemolli

Forest

Koestner

(2008). A temporal analysis of the relation between organisational commitment and work motivation. Psychologica Belgica, 48(2–3), 219–241.

32.

Gagné

Deci

(2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362.

33.

Garcia-Mas

Palou

Gili

Ponseti

Borras

P. A.

Vidal

Cruz

Torregrosa

Villamarín

Sousa

(2010). Commitment, enjoyment and motivation in young soccer competitive players. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13(2), 609–616.

34.

Hair

J. F.

Jr Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

Tatham

R. L.

(2010). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 6). Prentice Hall.

35.

Hair

J. F.

Jr Hult

G. T. M.

Ringle

Sarstedt

(2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage.

36.

Hamari

Alha

Järvelä

Kivikangas

J. M.

Koivisto

Paavilainen

(2017). Why do players buy in-game content? An empirical study on concrete purchase motivations. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 538–546.

37.

Hamari

Sjöblom

(2017). What is eSports and why do people watch it? Internet Research, 27(2), 211–232.

38.

Hamilton

W. A.

Garretson

Kerne

(2014). Streaming on twitch: Fostering participatory communities of play within live mixed media. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1315–1324). ACM. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2556288.2557048?casa_token=ZRKib2pTXgkAAAAA:soRz0lZ2IZ-Tcznrjojw4IuurMJNtdnWNiOLxnfWBc6D5v__UjwzCNZMmJNnEUtqv2lR0-gtHOE

39.

Harrison-Walker

L. J.

(2001). The measurement of word-of-mouth communication and an investigation of service quality and customer commitment as potential antecedents. Journal of Service Research, 4(1), 60–75.

40.

Herr

P. M.

Kardes

F. R.

Kim

(1991). Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute information on persuasion: An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(4), 454–462.

41.

Hilvert-Bruce

Neill

J. T.

Sjöblom

Hamari

(2018). Social motivations of live-streaming viewer engagement on Twitch. Computers in Human Behavior, 84, 58–67.

42.

Hull

(1943). Principles of behavior: An introduction to behavior theory. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

43.

Hulland

Baumgartner

Smith

K. M.

(2018). Marketing survey research best practices: Evidence and recommendations from a review of JAMS articles. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(1)92–108

44.

Inoue

Funk

D. C.

McDonald

(2017). Predicting behavioral loyalty through corporate social responsibility: The mediating role of involvement and commitment. Journal of Business Research, 75, 46–56.

45.

Iwasaki

Havitz

M. E.

(2004). Examining relationships between leisure involvement, psychological commitment and loyalty to a recreation agency. Journal of Leisure Research, 36(1), 45–72.

46.

Jang

Byon

K. K.

(2019). Antecedents and consequence associated with esports gameplay. International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, 21(1), 1–22.

47.

Jang

Byon

K. K.

(2020). Antecedents of esports gameplay intention: Genre as a moderator. Computers in Human Behavior, 109, 106336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106336

48.

Jarvis

C. B.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

P. M.

(2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 199–218.

49.

Jenkins

(2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York University Press.

50.

La Guardia

Ryan

Couchman

Deci

(2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(3), 367–384.

51.

Lam

S. K.

Ahearne

Schillewaert

(2010). Resistance to brand switching when a radically new brand is introduced: A social identity theory perspective. Journal of Marketing, 74(6), 128–146.

52.

Larkin

(2015). An examination of fantasy sport participation motives and substitution versus attendance intention. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 24(2), 120–133.

53.

Lee

J. Y.

J.-W.

Lee

S. W.

(2014). Factors affecting eSports audience satisfaction: The case of League of Legends. Journal of Korea Game Society, 14(3), 35–46.

54.

Lee

Seo

W. J.

Green

B. C.

(2013). Understanding why people play fantasy sport: Development of the Fantasy Sport Motivation Inventory (FanSMI). European Sport Management Quarterly, 13(2), 166–199.

55.

Lin

C.-P.

Tsai

Y. H.

Chiu

C.-K.

(2009). Modeling customer loyalty from an integrative perspective of self-determination theory and expectation–confirmation theory. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(3), 315–326.

56.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Jarvis

C. B.

(2005). The problem of measurement model misspecification in behavioral and organizational research and some recommended solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 710.

57.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

P. M.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2011). Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: Integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Quarterly, 35(2), 293–334.

58.

Martončik

(2015). e-Sports: Playing just for fun or playing to satisfy life goals? Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 208–211.

59.

Maslow

A. H.

(1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.

60.

Millette

Gagné

(2008). Designing volunteers’ tasks to maximize motivation, satisfaction and performance: The impact of job characteristics on volunteer engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 32(1), 11–22.

61.

Moorman

Deshpande

Zaltman

(1993). Factors affecting trust in market research relationships. The Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 81–101.

62.

Musabirov

Bulygin

Okopny

Konstantinova

(2018). Between an arena and a sports bar: Online chats of eSports spectators. arXiv:1801.02862.

63.

Newzoo. (2017, February 14). 2017 Global Esports market report. https://newzoo.com/insights/trend-reports/global-esports-market-report-2017-light/

64.

Pannekeet

(2019). Newzoo: Global esports economy will top $1 billion for the first time in 2019. Newzoo. https://newzoo.com/insights/articles/newzoo-global-esports-economy-will-top-1-billion-for-the-first-time-in-2019/

65.

Parsa

Cobanoglu

(2011). Building a model of commitment for Generation Y: An empirical study on e-travel retailers. Tourism Management, 32(4), 833–843.

66.

Peng

Lin

J. H.

Pfeiffer

K. A.

Winn

(2012). Need satisfaction supportive game features as motivational determinants: An experimental study of a self-determination theory guided exergame. Media Psychology, 15(2), 175–196.

67.

Pizzo

A. D.

Sangwon

Baker

B. J.

Mi Ae

Doohan

Funk

D. C.

(2018). eSport vs. Sport: A comparison of spectator motives. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 27(2), 108–123.

68.

Podsakoff

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

69.

Przybylski

Rigby

C. S.

Ryan

(2010). A motivational model of video game engagement. Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 154–166.

70.

Qian

T. Y.

Wang

J. J.

Zhang

J. J.

(in press). Push and pull factors in esports live-streaming: A partial least square structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) approach. International Journal of Sport Communication.

71.

Qian

T. Y.

Wang

J. J.

Zhang

J. J.

L. Z.

(2019). It is in the game: Dimensions of esports online spectator motivation and development of a scale. European Sport Management Quarterly, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2019.1630464

72.

Qian

T. Y.

Zhang

J. J.

Wang

J. J.

Hulland

(2019). Beyond the game: Dimensions of esports online spectator demand. Communication & Sport. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479519839436

73.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.

74.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.

75.

Ryan

R. M.

Rigby

C. S.

Przybylski

(2006). The motivational pull of video games: A self-determination theory approach. Motivation and Emotion, 30(4), 344–360.

76.

Seo

(2013). Electronic sports: A new marketing landscape of the experience economy. Journal of Marketing Management, 29(13–14), 1542–1560. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2013.822906

77.

Seo

(2015). Professionalized consumption and identity transformations in the field of eSports. Journal of Business Research, 69(1), 264–272.

78.

Seo

Buchanan Oliver

Fam

K. S.

(2015). Advancing research on computer game consumption: A future research agenda. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 14(6), 353–356.

79.

Seo

Jung

S.-U.

(2016). Beyond solitary play in computer games: The social practices of eSports. Journal of Consumer Culture, 16(3), 635–655.

80.

Sheeran

(2002). Intention—Behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. European Review of Social Psychology, 12(1), 1–36.

81.

Sheppard

B. H.

Hartwick

Warshaw

P. R.

(1988). The theory of reasoned action: A meta-analysis of past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(3), 325–343.

82.

Sherry

J. L.

Lucas

Greenberg

B. S.

Lachlan

(2006). Video game uses and gratifications as predictors of use and game preference. In Vorderer

Bryant

(Eds.), Playing video games: Motives, responses, and consequences (pp. 213–224). Erlbaum.

83.

Sjöblom

Hamari

(2017). Why do people watch others play video games? An empirical study on the motivations of Twitch users. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 985–996.

84.

Sjöblom

Törhönen

Hamari

Macey

(2017). Content structure is king: An empirical study on gratifications, game genres and content type on Twitch. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 161–171.

85.

Sweeney

Webb

Mazzarol

Soutar

(2014). Self-determination theory and word of mouth about energy-saving behaviors: An online experiment. Psychology & Marketing, 31(9), 698–716.

86.

Tamborini

Bowman

N. D.

Eden

Grizzard

Organ

(2010). Defining media enjoyment as the satisfaction of intrinsic needs. Journal of Communication, 60(4), 758–777.

87.

Tamborini

Grizzard

Bowman

N. D.

Reinecke

Lewis

R. J.

Eden

(2011). Media enjoyment as need satisfaction: The contribution of hedonic and nonhedonic needs. Journal of Communication, 61(6), 1025–1042.

88.

Trowbridge

(2018). Twitch’s viewership now rivals CNN. The Esports Observer. https://esportsobserver.com/twitch-viewership-rivals-cnn/

89.

Vallerand

R. J.

Reid

(1984). On the causal effects of perceived competence on intrinsic motivation: A test of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6(1), 94–102.

90.

Van den Broeck

Vansteenkiste

De Witte

Lens

(2008). Explaining the relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of basic psychological need satisfaction. Work & Stress, 22(3), 277–294.

91.

Van den Broeck

Vansteenkiste

De Witte

Soenens

Lens

(2010). Capturing autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work: Construction and initial validation of the Work-related Basic Need Satisfaction Scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(4), 981–1002.

92.

Verhoef

P. C.

Franses

P. H.

Hoekstra

J. C.

(2002). The effect of relational constructs on customer referrals and number of services purchased from a multiservice provider: Does age of relationship matter? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(3), 202–216.

93.

Wang

Yeh

R. K.-J.

Chen

Tsydypov

(2016). What drives electronic word-of-mouth on social networking sites? Perspectives of social capital and self-determination. Telematics and Informatics, 33(4), 1034–1047.

94.

Wann

D. L.

(1995). Preliminary validation of the sport fan motivation scale. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 19(4), 377–396.

95.

Wann

D. L.

Grieve

F. G.

Zapalac

R. K.

Pease

D. G.

(2008). Motivational profiles of sport fans of different sports. Sport Marketing Quarterly, 17(1)6–19.

96.

Wulf

Schillewaert

Muylle

Rangarajan

(2006). The role of pleasure in web site success. Information & Management, 43(4), 434–446.

97.

Wulf

Schneider

F. M.

Beckert

(2020). Watching players: An exploration of media enjoyment on Twitch. Games and Culture, 15(3), 328–346.

98.

Yee

(2006). Motivations for play in online games. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(6), 772–775.

99.

Yee

Ducheneaut

Nelson

(2012, May 5–10). Online gaming motivations scale: Development and validation. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2803–2806). ACM. https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/2207676.2208681?casa_token=lU_faD3lAtAAAAAA:4fyrihcozdKVNqwBnseziATztUVg7NC5k8pVzCgJIIC5xqfbmJ0EqjZPFnPvW92caY337fJ7TP8

100.

Zeithaml

V. A.

(2000). Service quality, profitability, and the economic worth of customers: What we know and what we need to learn. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 67–85.