| Literature DB >> 34980931 |
Dongyan Nan1,2, Haein Lee1,3, Yerin Kim3, Jang Hyun Kim1,2,3.
Abstract
With the outbreak of COVID-19, the video game console market is thriving again. In this study, we attempted to explore users' intention to use video game consoles by developing a causal model mainly based on coolness theory and the technology acceptance model. To better illustrate user experience for video game consoles, we added several concepts to the causal model, including hedonic motivation, system and service quality, perceived cost, and game variety. Through examining survey-based data from 360 Koreans, we discovered that the model had a high explanatory power for users' intention to use video game consoles. The key findings were as follows: First, among the components of coolness theory, individuals' attitude toward consoles was significantly related to subcultural appeal and originality, but not to attractiveness. Second, originality positively influenced subcultural appeal significantly. Overall, this study implied that the novel coolness theory is effective for exploring user experience regarding of specific devices and services.Entities:
Keywords: Attractiveness; Coolness; Originality; Subcultural appeal; Video game console
Year: 2021 PMID: 34980931 PMCID: PMC8716313 DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121451
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Technol Forecast Soc Change ISSN: 0040-1625
The items in the self-developed questionnaire.
| Elements | Items |
|---|---|
| PU ( | 1. Overall, the Nintendo Switch is useful for me. |
| 2. The Nintendo Switch improves the quality of my daily life. | |
| 3. The Nintendo Switch is a useful device in my life. | |
| PEU ( | 1. Interacting with the Nintendo Switch does not require much mental effort. |
| 2. I find becoming skilled in the use of the Nintendo Switch an effortless task. | |
| 3. I think it is easy to use the Nintendo Switch. | |
| HM ( | 1. Using the Nintendo Switch gives me a lot of joy. |
| 2. I think using the Nintendo Switch is fun. | |
| 3. Using the Nintendo Switch makes me feel good. | |
| Attractiveness ( | 1. The Nintendo Switch is hip. |
| 2. The Nintendo Switch is a stylish device. | |
| 3. The Nintendo Switch is attractive. | |
| Originality ( | 1. The Nintendo Switch is original. |
| 2. The Nintendo Switch is novel. | |
| 3. The Nintendo Switch is unique. | |
| Subcultural appeal ( | 1. The Nintendo Switch differentiates me from other people. |
| 2. Using the Nintendo Switch will make me stand apart from other people. | |
| 3. People who use the Nintendo Switch look great. | |
| SSQ ( | 1. Overall, the Nintendo Switch is well designed. |
| 2. The Nintendo Switch fully meets my needs. | |
| 3. The Nintendo Switch has a consistent performance. | |
| PC ( | 1. There are financial barriers to using the Nintendo Switch. |
| 2. Overall, using the Nintendo Switch costs me much money. | |
| 3. Buying the Nintendo Switch and the related products is a burden for me. | |
| VG ( | 1. The Nintendo Switch provides a wide variety of games. |
| 2. The number of games offered by the Nintendo Switch meets my expectations. | |
| 3. I can play a variety of games through the Nintendo Switch. | |
| ATT ( | 1. Using the Nintendo Switch is a good idea. |
| 2. I have a generally favorable attitude toward using the Nintendo Switch. | |
| 3. I like the idea of using the Nintendo Switch. | |
| Intention to use ( | 1. I plan to continue using the Nintendo Switch in the future. |
| 2. I am willing to use the Nintendo Switch continuously. | |
| 3. I intend to reuse the Nintendo Switch. |
Participants’ demographic characteristics.
| Age | n | Gender | n | Education | n |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 20–29 | 124 | Male | 172 | High school or below | 32 |
| 30–39 | 136 | Female | 188 | College | 299 |
| 40–49 | 91 | Graduate or above | 29 | ||
| Over 50 | 9 |
Outcomes of the reliability and validity examinations for the self-developed questionnaire.
| Factors | Items | Cronbach's alpha (> 0.7) | Factor loading (> 0.7) | Average variance extracted (> 0.5) | Composite reliability (> 0.7) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PU | PU1 | 0.871 | 0.873 | 0.693 | 0.871 |
| PU2 | 0.790 | ||||
| PU3 | 0.833 | ||||
| PEU | PEU1 | 0.898 | 0.855 | 0.746 | 0.898 |
| PEU2 | 0.865 | ||||
| PEU3 | 0.871 | ||||
| HM | HM1 | 0.930 | 0.872 | 0.818 | 0.931 |
| HM2 | 0.914 | ||||
| HM3 | 0.926 | ||||
| AT | AT1 | 0.903 | 0.849 | 0.755 | 0.903 |
| AT2 | 0.867 | ||||
| AT3 | 0.891 | ||||
| OR | OR1 | 0.941 | 0.883 | 0.844 | 0.942 |
| OR2 | 0.938 | ||||
| OR3 | 0.934 | ||||
| SA | SA1 | 0.961 | 0.937 | 0.892 | 0.961 |
| SA2 | 0.960 | ||||
| SA3 | 0.936 | ||||
| SSQ | SSQ1 | 0.828 | 0.778 | 0.622 | 0.832 |
| SSQ2 | 0.829 | ||||
| SSQ3 | 0.758 | ||||
| PC | PC1 | 0.843 | 0.771 | 0.647 | 0.846 |
| PC2 | 0.866 | ||||
| PC3 | 0.772 | ||||
| VG | VG1 | 0.894 | 0.913 | 0.754 | 0.901 |
| VG2 | 0.762 | ||||
| VG3 | 0.920 | ||||
| ATT | ATT1 | 0.911 | 0.845 | 0.775 | 0.912 |
| ATT2 | 0.880 | ||||
| ATT3 | 0.915 | ||||
| IU | IU1 | 0.937 | 0.910 | 0.834 | 0.938 |
| IU2 | 0.944 | ||||
| IU3 | 0.884 |
Notes. AT: Attractiveness; OR: Originality; SA: Subcultural appeal; IU: Intention to use.
Discriminant validity results.
| PU | PEU | HM | AT | OR | SA | SSQ | PC | VG | ATT | IU | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PU | .833 | ||||||||||
| PEU | .567 | .864 | |||||||||
| HM | .816 | .700 | .904 | ||||||||
| AT | .625 | .382 | .574 | .869 | |||||||
| OR | .619 | .451 | .577 | .774 | .919 | ||||||
| SA | .421 | .085 | .286 | .593 | .503 | .944 | |||||
| SSQ | .651 | .472 | .639 | .754 | .686 | .631 | .789 | ||||
| PC | .013 | .054 | .007 | −0.035 | .011 | .001 | .024 | .804 | |||
| VG | .477 | .435 | .505 | .492 | .486 | .351 | .647 | .077 | .868 | ||
| ATT | .763 | .561 | .754 | .615 | .659 | .465 | .757 | .003 | .627 | .880 | |
| IU | .720 | .529 | .737 | .602 | .643 | .339 | .651 | −0.071 | .575 | .802 | .913 |
Notes. AT: Attractiveness; OR: Originality; SA: Subcultural appeal; IU: Intention to use.
Fit indexes.
| Indexes | Measurement model | Structural model | Suggested values |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chi-square /df | 1.432 | 2.123 | <3 |
| Comparative fit index | 0.982 | 0.951 | >0.9 |
| Normed fit index | 0.944 | 0.912 | >0.9 |
| Root mean square error of approximation | 0.035 | 0.056 | <0.08 |
| Tucker Lewis index | 0.979 | 0.945 | >0.9 |
| Goodness of fit index | 0.905 | 0.850 | >0.9 or >0.8 |
Fig. 1SEM results.
Fig. 2Total effects of the variables predicting intention to use video game consoles.