Relationship between Peer Influence and Gamer’s Satisfaction in Purchasing Virtual Items for Online Mobile Games: Mediating Role of Hedonic Value
Asian Journal of Economics, Business and Accounting,
Gaming has long been an interest of studies in the behaviour of youngsters. In particular, game players are spending increasing amount of expenses in purchasing gaming related items. Why mobile game players would purchase virtual items for their games? The aim of this study is to examine the mediating effect of hedonic value to the relationship between peer influence and gamer’s satisfaction. Anonymous questionnaire was used to collect data through a survey website. A total of 126 valid responses were collected in the survey. Data collected were first analysed using confirmatory factor analysis, and the conceptual framework was then examined by using the structural equation modelling. Results revealed that there exists a mediating effect of hedonic value on the relationship between peer influence and gamer’s satisfaction. They provide valuable insights to game developers and marketers on how to enhance gamer’s satisfaction by peer influence through enhancement of hedonic value.
- Mobile game
- hedonic value
- peer influence
- virtual items
- mediating role
- gamer’s satisfaction.
How to Cite
All correct Group. Hong Kong Mobile Game Market; 2017.
Sensor Tower. The state of mobile gaming 2021 – Analysis of mobile gaming market trends and top titles in the US, Europe and Asia. Sensor Tower Inc; 2021.
Statista. Mobile Games. China. Statista; 2021.
Ho CH, Wu TY. Factors affecting intent to purchase virtual goods in online games. International Journal of Electronic Business Management. 2012;(10):3,204-212.
Sheth JN, Newman BI, Gross BL. Why we buy what we buy: A theory of consumption values. Journal of Business Research. 1991;22:159-170.
Cleghorn J, Griffiths MD. Why do gamers buy ‘virtual assets’? An insight in to the psychology behind purchase behavior. Digital Education Review. 2015;27:85-104.
Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly. 1989;13(3):319-340.
Bernardo M, Marimon F, Alonso-Almeida MD. Functional quality and hedonic quality: A study of the dimensions of e-service quality in online travel agencies. Information & Management. 2012;49(7): 342-347.
Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science. 2016;46(2):186-204.
Park BW, Lee KC. Exploring the value of purchasing online game items. Computers in Human Behavior. 2011;27:2178-2185.
Liang YH. Exploring the relationship between perceived electronic service quality, satisfaction, and personality: A study of Taiwan’s online game industry. Total Quality Management. 2012;23(8): 949-963.
Kim HW, Gupta S, Koh J. Investigating the intention to purchase digital items in social networking communities: A customer value perspective. Information & Management. 2011;48(6):228-234.
Wu J, Liu D. The effect of trust and enjoyment on intention to play online games. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research. 2007;8(2):128-140.
Dang NH, Nguyen PV. The intention to play online mobile games in Ho Chi Ming City, Vietnam. IJABER. 2015;13(1):363-382.
Chan T, Cheung C, Lee Z. Investigating the continuance intention to play massively multi-player online games. International Journal of Business & Information. 2014;9(2):160-186.
Revels J, Tojib D, Tsarenko Y. Understanding consumer intention to use mobile services. Australasian Marketing Journal. 2010;18:74-80.
Yoon G, Duff BRL, Ryu S. Gamers just want to have fun? Toward an understanding of the online game acceptance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2013;43(9):1814-1826.
Babin BJ, Darden WR, Griffin M. Work and/or Fun: Measuring hedonic and utilitarian shopping value. Journal of Consumer Research. 1994;20(4):644-656.
Hsieh JK, Tseng CY. Exploring social influence on hedonic buying of digital goods – Online game’ virtual items. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research. 2018; 19(2):164-185.
Yoo JM. Perceived value of game items and purchase intention. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. 2015;8(19):1-7.
Au N, Ngai EW, Cheng TE. Extending the understanding of end user information systems satisfaction formation: An equitable needs fulfillment model approach. MIS Quarterly. 2008;32(1):43-66.
Choi D, Kim J. Why people continue to play online games: In search of critical design factors to increase customer loyalty to online contents. Cyber Psychology & Behavior. 2004;7(1):11-24.
Kim HW, Koh J, Lee HL. Investigating the intention of purchasing digital items in virtual communities. Pacific Asia Conference on Information System. Association for Information Systems. 2009;1-13.
Frank L, Salo M, Toivakka A. Why buy virtual helmets and weapons? Introducing a typology of gamers. BLED 2015 Proceedings. 2015;25:503-519.
Brady MK, Knight GA, Cronin JJ, Tomas G, Hult M, Keillor BD. Removing the contextual lens: A multinational, multi-setting comparison of service evaluation models. Journal of Retailing. 2005;81(3): 215-231.
Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin. 1959:56-81.
Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL. Multivariate data analysis. Upper saddle River: Person Education Inc; 2006.
Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research. 1981;18:39- 50.
Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill; 1978.
Bagozzi RP, Yi Y. On the evaluation of structural equation model. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 1988;16:74-94.
Gefen D, Straub D, Boudreau MC. Structural equation modeling and regression: Guidelines for research practice. Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 2000;4(1):1-77.
Wu ML. Structural equation model: Methods and practical application. Kaohsiung City: Liwen Publishing Group; 2009.
Abstract View: 26 times
PDF Download: 11 times