Grounded in the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning and the cognitive–affective–conative model, this study examines how the presence versus absence of sports commentary shapes viewers’ cognitive and affective responses and, ultimately, viewing intention, as well as whether these pathways vary by prior knowledge. An experiment using a one-factor, two-level (commentary present vs. absent) between-subjects design was conducted with 124 undergraduate and graduate students in South Korea. Data were analyzed using structural equation modeling with bootstrapped confidence intervals. Results showed that viewers exposed to commentary reported higher subjective attention and processing fluency than those in the no-commentary condition. Serial indirect effects were supported, indicating that commentary strengthened viewing intention via cognitive responses (attention and fluency) and affective responses (enjoyment and excitement). Regarding conditional serial indirect effects, the results suggested an expertise-reversal pattern in which the benefits of commentary were attenuated as prior knowledge increased, primarily through fluency-based pathways rather than attention-based pathways. These findings clarify the psychological mechanisms through which commentary shapes sports viewing experiences and suggest that personalized audio and information formats aligned with viewers’ knowledge levels may enhance engagement.
AysolmazB.CayhaniF. N.ReijersH. A. (2022). Narration as a technique to improve process model comprehension: Tell me what I cannot see. In International conference on advanced information systems engineering (pp. 407–422). Springer.
2.
BarnfieldA. (2013). Soccer, broadcasting, and narrative: On televising a live soccer match. Communication & Sport, 1(4), 326–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479513479107
3.
BehrensA.UhrichS. (2022). You’ll never want to watch alone: The effect of displaying in-stadium social atmospherics on media consumers’ responses to new sport leagues across different types of media. European Sport Management Quarterly, 22(1), 120–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2021.1992469
4.
BollenK. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. John Wiley & Sons.
5.
ChungK. S.GoebertC.JohnsonJ. D. (2025). Sport spectatorship in a virtual environment: How sensory experiences impact consumption intentions. International Journal of Sports Marketing & Sponsorship, 26(2), 305–324. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijsms-03-2023-0041
6.
CumminsR. G. (2014). Visual complexity in sports and new media interfaces. In BillingsA. C.HardinM. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of sport and new media (pp. 271–284). Routledge.
7.
Dal PalùD.BuiattiE.PuglisiG. E.HouixO.SusiniP.De GiorgiC.AstolfiA. (2017). The use of semantic differential scales in listening tests: A comparison between context and laboratory test conditions for the rolling sounds of office chairs. Applied Acoustics, 127, 270–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2017.06.016
8.
DamT. C. (2020). Influence of brand trust, perceived value on brand preference and purchase intention. The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business, 7(10), 939–947. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no10.939
9.
da SilvaJ. A. T.ScellesN. (2025). A vision for the formal documentation and digitalization of sports commentators’ commentaries. International Journal of Sport Communication, 18(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.2024-0196
10.
DenhamB. E. (2004). Toward an explication of media enjoyment: The synergy of social norms, viewing situations, and program content. Communication Theory, 14(4), 370–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2004.tb00320.x
11.
DragojevicM.GilesH. (2016). I don’t like you because you’re hard to understand: The role of processing fluency in the language attitudes process. Human Communication Research, 42(3), 396–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12079
12.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.41.4.1149
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
15.
GrafL. K.MayerS.LandwehrJ. R. (2018). Measuring processing fluency: One versus five items. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28(3), 393–411. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1021
16.
GuoJ.YangH.ZhangX. (2024). How watching sports events empowers people’s sense of well-being? The role of chain mediation in social interaction and emotional experience. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, Article 1471658. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1471658
17.
GutermanE. (2003). Integrating written metacognitive awareness guidance as a ‘psychological tool’ to improve student performance. Learning and Instruction, 13(6), 633–651. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0959-4752(02)00070-1
18.
HairJ. F.BlackW. C.BabinB. J.AndersonR. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Prentice-Hall.
19.
HenselerJ.RingleC. M.SarstedtM. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
20.
HinkinM. P.HarrisR. J.MirandaA. T. (2014). Verbal redundancy aids memory for filmed entertainment dialogue. Journal of Psychology, 148(2), 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2013.767774
21.
HirschmanE. C.HolbrookM. B. (1982). Hedonic consumption: Emerging concepts, methods and propositions. Journal of Marketing, 46(3), 92–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298204600314
22.
HsiaoC. C. (2020). Understanding content sharing on the internet: Test of a cognitive-affective-conative model. Online Information Review, 44(7), 1289–1306. https://doi.org/10.1108/oir-11-2019-0350
23.
HuJ.YeX.GuS. (2024). The impact of subjective consumer knowledge on consumer behavioral loyalty through psychological involvement and perceived service quality: Sports clubs. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 36(8), 1988–2007. https://doi.org/10.1108/apjml-10-2023-0993
24.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.424
25.
HuM.ZhangM.WangY. (2017). Why do audiences choose to keep watching on live video streaming platforms? An explanation of dual identification framework. Computers in Human Behavior, 75, 594–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.06.006
26.
JonesM. V.LaneA. M.BrayS. R.UphillM.CatlinJ. (2005). Development and validation of the sport emotion questionnaire. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 27(4), 407–431. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.27.4.407
27.
KalyugaS. (2021). The expertise reversal principle in multimedia learning. Cambridge University Press.
28.
KentR. J.AllenC. T. (1994). Competitive interference effects in consumer memory for advertising: The role of brand familiarity. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 97–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299405800307
29.
KhacharemA.SpanjersI. A.ZoudjiB.KalyugaS.RipollH. (2013). Using segmentation to support the learning from animated soccer scenes: An effect of prior knowledge. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14(2), 154–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.10.006
30.
KimB.ChenY. (2021). The effects of spirituality on visitor behavior: A cognitive‐affective‐conative model: The effects of spirituality on visitor behavior. International Journal of Tourism Research, 23(6), 1151–1162. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2474
31.
KlineR. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
32.
KostykA.LeonhardtJ. M.NiculescuM. (2021). Processing fluency scale development for consumer research. International Journal of Market Research, 63(3), 353–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785319877137
33.
KozhevnikovM. (2007). Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology: Toward an integrated framework of cognitive style. Psychological Bulletin, 133(3), 464–481. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.3.464
34.
KühlT. (2021). Prerequisite knowledge and time of testing in learning with animations and static pictures: Evidence for the expertise reversal effect. Learning and Instruction, 73, Article 101457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101457
35.
KwakD. H.KimY. K.HirtE. R. (2011). Exploring the role of emotions on sport consumers’ behavioral and cognitive responses to marketing stimuli. European Sport Management Quarterly, 11(3), 225–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2011.577792
36.
LavidgeR. J.SteinerG. A. (1961). A model for predictive measurements of advertising effectiveness. Journal of Marketing, 25(6), 59–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224296102500611
37.
LeeM.KimD.WilliamsA. S.PedersenP. M. (2016). Investigating the role of sports commentary: An analysis of media-consumption behavior and programmatic quality and satisfaction. Journal of Sports Media, 11(1), 145–167. https://doi.org/10.1353/jsm.2016.0001
38.
MacCallumR. C.AustinJ. T. (2000). Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 201–226. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.201
39.
MadrigalR. (1995). Cognitive and affective determinants of fan satisfaction with sporting event attendance. Journal of Leisure Research, 27(3), 205–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1995.11949745
40.
MarshH. W.HauK. T.WenZ. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11(3), 320–341. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
41.
MayerR. E. (2002). Multimedia learning. In RossB. H. (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 41, pp. 85–139). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.5926/arepj1962.41.0_27.0.
MayerR. E. (2024). The past, present, and future of the cognitive theory of multimedia learning. Educational Psychology Review, 36(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-023-09842-1
44.
MischelW.ShodaY. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102(2), 246–268. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.102.2.246
45.
NeyrinckB.VansteenkisteM.LensW.DuriezB.HutsebautD. (2006). Cognitive, affective, and behavioral correlates of internalization of regulations for religious activities. Motivation and Emotion, 30(4), 321–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9048-3
46.
NisbettR. E.PengK.ChoiI.NorenzayanA. (2001). Culture and systems of thought: Holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychological Review, 108(2), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.108.2.291
47.
OliverM. B.BartschA. (2010). Appreciation as audience response: Exploring entertainment gratifications beyond hedonism. Human Communication Research, 36(1), 53–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01368.x
RaneyA. A. (2013). Reflections on communication and sport: On enjoyment and disposition. Communication & Sport, 1(1–2), 164–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167479512467979
50.
ReberR.SchwarzN.WinkielmanP. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience?Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3
51.
RumpfC.BreuerC. (2015). Computing the impact of sponsor signage exposure within sports broadcasts. In ChadwickS.ChanavatN.DesbordesM. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of sports marketing (pp. 71–79). Routledge.
52.
ShiD.Maydeu-OlivaresA.RosseelY. (2020). Assessing fit in ordinal factor analysis models: SRMR vs. RMSEA. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 27(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2019.1611434
53.
SongH.WangY.WeiJ. (2025). How sports event scenarios shape urban image and influence audience conative tendency. Scientific Reports, 15(1), Article 45637. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-30559-4
54.
SwellerJ.AyresP.KalyugaS. (2011). The expertise reversal effect. In Cognitive load theory (pp. 155–170). Springer.
55.
WangH.LeeK. (2020). Getting in the flow together: The role of social presence, perceived enjoyment and concentration on sustainable use intention of mobile social network game. Sustainability, 12(17), 6853. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12176853
56.
WangM. (2016). Brief discussion on basketball movement and its developmental trend. Asian Social Science, 12(7), 197–201. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v12n7p197
57.
WelshM. (2020). May I have your attention? Testing a subjective attention scale. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society(Vol. 42, pp. 2535–2541). Cognitive Science Society.
YueC.KimJ.OgawaR.StarkE.KimS. (2013). Applying the cognitive theory of multimedia learning: An analysis of medical animations. Medical Education, 47(4), 375–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12090
60.
ZaichkowskyJ. L. (1994). The personal involvement inventory: Reduction, revision, and application to advertising. Journal of Advertising, 23(4), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1943.10673459
61.
ZhouS.XuJ.YeY. (2013). Effect of complimentary and conflicting commentary on sports enjoyment. International Journal of Sport Communication, 6(2), 173–184. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijsc.6.2.173
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
