| Literature DB >> 33212782 |
Abstract
The popularization of digital infrastructure has enabled the rise of the online game industry. Instead of targeting entertainment-oriented technology and services, which are the focus of most relevant studies, in the present study, we review the literature from the perspective of considering players of online games as both consumers of entertainment and co-creators of value. The three major antecedents of the theory of planned behavior, namely personal attitude toward co-creation, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control, were modified to explore the relevant constructs. Specifically, the diversity of co-creation experience was used to predict co-creation intention. The proposed model was empirically evaluated through the structural equation modeling of survey data collected from 321 World of Warcraft (WoW) players. As hypothesized, the diversified co-creation experience positively affected the antecedents. The findings provide implications on how to increase players' participation in co-creation to achieve sustainable mutual benefits.Entities:
Keywords: co-creation experience; online game; theory of planned behavior; value co-creation
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33212782 PMCID: PMC7696490 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17228497
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Research framework.
Profile of respondents.
| Measure | Frequency | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 244 | 76 |
| Female | 77 | 24 |
| Age (years) | ||
| ≤20 | 52 | 16.2 |
| 21–25 | 134 | 41.7 |
| 26–30 | 77 | 24 |
| 31–35 | 38 | 11.8 |
| 36–40 | 15 | 4.7 |
| 41–50 | 4 | 1.2 |
| ≥51 | 1 | 0.3 |
| Education | ||
| Junior high school (or below) | 8 | 2.5 |
| General/Vocational high school | 56 | 17.4 |
| College/University | 216 | 67.3 |
| Bachelor’s degree (or above) | 41 | 12.8 |
| Years of playing on-line game experiences | ||
| <1 | 92 | 28.7 |
| 1–2 | 64 | 19.9 |
| 3–4 | 75 | 23.4 |
| 5–6 | 50 | 15.6 |
| ≥7 | 40 | 12.5 |
| Years of engaging co-creation activities experiences | ||
| <1 | 200 | 62.63 |
| 1–2 | 61 | 19 |
| 3–4 | 34 | 10.6 |
| 5–6 | 15 | 4.7 |
| ≥7 | 11 | 3.4 |
Questionnaire items.
| Constructs | Numbers | Items | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| A. Diversified experience of co-creation | DE | Please check the following co-creation activity that you have been participated when playing an on-line game. | Interview |
| 0 = never; 1 = participating in discussion; 2 = solving and debugging problems; 3 = creating a macro code; 4 = coding a developing plug-ins | |||
| B. Personal attitude | PA1 | I feel good about participating in co-creation activity when playing an online game. | Ajzen [ |
| PA2 | I like participating in co-creation activity when playing an online game. | ||
| PA3 | I think that participating in co-creation activity when playing an online game is a good leisure activity. | ||
| C. External subjective norm | EN1 | Experts whose comments I rely on in an online game community have provided supporting evidence for participating in co-creation activity. | Song & Kim [ |
| EN2 | My friends whose opinions I think important in an online game community have provided supporting evidence for participating in co-creation activity. | ||
| D. Creative self-efficacy | CS1 | I have confidence in my ability to solve problems creatively when participating in co-creation activity in an online game. | Tierney & Farmer [ |
| CS2 | I feel that I am good at generating novel ideas when participating in co-creation activity in an online game. | ||
| CS3 | I have a knack for further developing the ideas of others when participating in co-creation activity in an online game. | ||
| E. Co-creation intention | CI1 | Average of CI1_1 to CI1_4 | Lee [ |
| CI1_1 | It’s worth participating in discussion when playing online games. | ||
| CI1_2 | It’s worth solving and debugging problems when playing online games. | ||
| CI1_3 | It’s worth creating a macro code when playing online games. | ||
| CI1_4 | It’s worth developing plug-ins when playing online games. | ||
| CI2 | Average of CI2_1 to CI2_4 | ||
| CI2_1 | I will frequently participate in discussion when playing an online game. | ||
| CI2_2 | I will frequently solve and debug problems when playing an online game. | ||
| CI2_3 | I will frequently create a Macro code when playing an online game. | ||
| CI2_4 | I will frequently develop plug-ins when playing an online game. | ||
| CI3 | Average of CI3_1 to CI3_4 | ||
| CI3_1 | I would be willing to recommend participainge in discussion when playing an online game to other people. | ||
| CI3_2 | I would be willing to recommend solving and debugging problems when playing an online game other people. | ||
| CI3_3 | I would be willing to recommend creating a macro code when playing an online game to other people. | ||
| CI3_4 | I would be willing to recommend developing plug-ins when playing an online game to other people. |
Means, standard deviations and correlations of the constructs.
| Constructs | Mean | Standard Deviation | A | B | C | D | E |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. Diversified experience of co-creation | 1.514 | 0.802 | |||||
| B. Personal attitude | 5.039 | 1.095 | 0.170 ** | ||||
| C. External subjective norm | 4.841 | 1.155 | 0.103 | 0.641 ** | |||
| D. Creative self-efficacy | 4.868 | 1.252 | 0.267 ** | 0.578 ** | 0.576 ** | ||
| E. Co-creation intention | 4.800 | 0.906 | 0.342 ** | 0.508 ** | 0.465 ** | 0.600 ** |
Note: ** p < 0.01.
Analysis of reliability and convergent and discriminant validity of the measurement model. AVE: average variance extracted.
| Constructs | Items | λ | Cronbach’s α | AVE | The Square Root of AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. Diversified experience of co-creation | DE | The observed variable | |||
| B. Personal attitude | PA1 | 0.844 | 0.887 | 0.727 | 0.852 |
| C. External subjective norm | EN1 | 0.879 | 0.905 | 0.823 | 0.907 |
| D. Creative self-efficacy | CS1 | 0.900 | 0.933 | 0.830 | 0.911 |
| E. Co-creation intention | CI1 | 0.832 | 0.880 | 0.719 | 0.847 |
Note: ** p < 0.01.
Figure 2The result of the full model. Note: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Path coefficient analysis.
| Hypothesis | Results | Path Coefficient |
|---|---|---|
| H1 | H1 is supported | 0.09 * |
| H2 | H2 is supported | 0.122 * |
| H3 | H3 is supported | 0.186 *** |
| H4 | H4 is supported | 0.178 *** |
| H5 | H5 is supported | 0.305 *** |
| H6 | H6 is not supported | 0.112 |
| H7 | H7 is supported | 0.373 *** |
| H8 | H8 is supported | 0.719 *** |
| H9 | H9 is supported | 0.609 *** |
Note:* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.