Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Economics and Finance 26 (2015) 505 – 514

4th World Conference on Business, Economics and Management, WCBEM

The effect of consumer motivation to play games on video game-

playing engagement
Jurate Banytea, Agne Gadeikienea*
a
Kaunas University of Technology, K. Donelaicio st. 20-421, Kaunas LT-44239, Lithuania

Abstract

The level of consumer engagement in video game-playing is influenced by different factors, which can be analyzed from
different perspectives. The main purpose of the paper is to investigate the effect of consumer motivation to play games on video
game-playing engagement. Consumer motivation to play games is analyzed as a two dimensional construct consisting of intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation in the paper. It is reasoned that consumer motivation can be considered as an antecedent of consumer
engagement in video game-playing. Consumer engagement is defined as a social, interactive behavior which is formed by
continuous involving processes. Consumer game-playing engagement is recognized as a construct which reflects task-oriented
consumer behavior in the game environment. It is characterized by three dimensions – cognitive, emotional and behavioral.
Results of the research reveal relations between consumer intrinsic, extrinsic and experiential motivation and different
dimensions of game-playing engagement in the case of a particular game type. Results of the study could be valuable for
different stakeholders from game designers to those who are interested in gamification decisions for purposes of learning or
consumer and company value co-creation, etc.
2015 The
© 2015 TheAuthors.
Authors.Published
PublishedbybyElsevier
ElsevierB.V.
B.V.This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Research and Education Center.
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Research and Education Center
Keywords: Consumer motivation; Engagement; Game-playing

1. Introduction

Computer games are considered to be an engaging leisure activity that invokes player’s interest and even leads to
a certain level of addiction (Hainey, Connolly, Stansfield & Boyle, 2011). They may be associated with certain
‘expert’ behavior such as better developed long-term and short-term memory, fast perception of a pattern,
qualitative thinking, principled decision-making and self-observation (Heiney et al., 2011). Research undertaken in

* Agne Gadeikiene. Tel.: +37037300143; fax: +37037300558.

E-mail address: agne.gadeikiene@ktu.lt

2212-5671 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of Academic World Research and Education Center
doi:10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00880-1
506 Jurate Banyte and Agne Gadeikiene / Procedia Economics and Finance 26 (2015) 505 – 514

the field of social sciences, the object of which is related to the aspects of game-playing, tends to be associated with
studies of players’ psychological attributes and/or those of cognitive and perception factors affecting the player’s
attitude (Koo, Lee & Chang, 2007). Each of these trends of research has a different scope of coverage and interests
and is based on different theories and methodological approaches. In recent explorations of human-computer
interaction, researchers tend to employ cognitive theories more often. Wiebe, Lamb, Hardy & Sharek (2014) state
that affective and cognitive dimensions serve to explain an increasing consumer interest in video games and the
effect of the game on their behavior.
In this context consumer engagement is recognized as the essential concept that can explain game-playing
attributes and can help reflect task-oriented consumer behavior in the game environment (Brockmyer, Fox, Curtiss,
McBroom, Burkhart & Pidruzny, 2009; Filsecker & Hickey, 2014; Wiebe et al., 2014). According to Javornik &
Mandelli (2013), consumer engagement has deep traditions in various academic disciplines, which proves its
relevance to social sciences and, consequently, to the context being analyzed in this article. On the other hand, the
studies of engagement in the context of game-playing did not start until recently; there are only a few studies based
on empirical research. With reference to this, we may claim that the studies of consumer engagement with game-
playing are relevant from scientific perspective at both theoretical and empirical level. Besides, it should be noted
that the analysis of antecedents of consumer engagement with game-playing has not received proper attention. The
article proposes that consumer motivation to play games should be treated as the essential antecedent of consumer
involvement in game-playing. Not only does it reveal what motivates a consumer to play a video game, but it also
reflects on personal attributes and gaming habits of a player.
On the basis of the mentioned arguments, the aim of the article is formulated as follows: to find out how
consumer motivation to play video games affects their engagement with video game-playing. When performing
theoretical studies, the methods of comparative analysis and systematization of scientific literature were applied.
The quantitative method of data gathering (questionnaire survey) was applied in the empirical research.

2. Consumer motivation to play games

Various motivation theories are used in scientific literature to explain consumer behavior in various contexts
(Koo et al., 2007). Scientists dealing with motivation theories indicate motivation as a strong factor that prompts
people to pursue their goals (Lin, Wang & Chou, 2012). Ryan & Deci (2000) define motivation as a ‘stimulus to do
something’. According to Roberts, Hughes & Kertbo (2014), it may be treated as an antecedent of certain behavior
that a person is involved in. Ryan & Deci (2000) maintain that the person who does not feel an impulse or
enthusiasm to do something is not motivated, whereas the person who is engaged and is active in pursuing a
particular objective is considered to be motivated. In the context under analysis, it is relevant to explore the
construct of motivation from the perspective of consumer motivation to play video games. Although vital attributes
of motivation construct do not depend on the context in which it is analyzed, operationalization solutions differ
considerably.
As Lafreniere, Verner-Filion, & Vallerand (2012) propose, the theory of self-determination leads to the statement
that personal motivation is a multidimensional construct, i.e. it may have different levels of motivation (how
motivated a person is) and different focus of motivation (type of motivation) (Ryan & Deci, 2000). With reference
to the theory of self-determination, Ryan & Deci (2000), Kong, Kwok & Fang (2012), and Lin et al. (2012)
distinguish the following two types of motivation according to reasons behind action performance and goals of
action: intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. This division of motivation is possibly most prevalent in the
literature as Hainey et al. (2011) suggest. Lafreniere et al. (2012), Bittner & Shipper (2014) add amotivation to
these types of motivation, whereas Koo et al. (2007) argue for the relevance of social motivation analysis. On the
basis of the latter and intrinsic motivation analysis, the authors define a separate type of motivation that
encompasses them both, i.e. experiential motivation. They support their decision with the fact that video games,
especially online ones, have a social dimension due to player communities. Thus it is believed that intrinsic and
social motivations play a crucial role in stimulating players to play games.
In the scientific literature, intrinsic motivation is considered to be a strong motivating factor that stimulates a
consumer to behave in one way or another (Lin et al., 2012). People have intrinsic motivation to play games because
they seek for personal satisfaction (Bittner & Shipper, 2014), because of pleasure, curiosity or interest (Ryan &
Deci, 2000; Gunnell & Gaudreau, 2015), but not because of external pressure, urging or some particular rewards
(Lin et al., 2012). In this case, an individual perceives the activity as a reward (Ryan & Deci, 2000), and they get
 Jurate Banyte and Agne Gadeikiene / Procedia Economics and Finance 26 (2015) 505 – 514 507

involved into it to receive personal hedonistic value (Roberts et al., 2014). Prompted by intrinsic motivation, people
play video games since they experience pleasure when they lose themselves in the game world and develop their
skills to play games or they like the feeling of excitement and strong emotions experienced when playing (Hainey,
2011; Lafreniere et al., 2012).
Extrinsic motivation to play games is associated with tangible results of game-playing or another activity
(Lafreniere et al., 2012; Lin et al., 2012; Bittner & Shipper, 2014) such as rewards (money, incentive, compliment,
prizes), pressure (threat, punishment) or recognition from other people and/or players (Hainey et al., 2011). Extrinsic
motivation does not originate inside a person but rather in external factors that stimulate to behave in one way or
another (Lin et al., 2012). It is a contrast to intrinsic motivation and, in addition, it very much depends on the level
of autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2000) and induces a person to strive for utilitarian value (Roberts et al., 2014) as
opposed to joy and pleasure (Lin et al., 2012).
Ryan & Daci (2000), Lafreniere et al. (2012), Gunnell & Gaudreau (2015) distinguish the following four
subtypes of extrinsic motivation:
x External regulation related to behavior controlled by certain external means such as rewards (Ryan & Daci, 2000;
Lafreniere et al., 2012; Gunnell & Gaudreau, 2015).
x Introjective regulation related to behavior control through internal personal processes such as excitement, feeling
of guilt or pride (Ryan & Daci, 2000; Lafreniere et al., 2012; Gunnell & Gaudreau, 2015), thus it reflects partial
internalization. Lafreniere et al. (2012) provide an example of introjective regulation as a situation when a player
is involved in game-playing because otherwise he/she would feel irritated and not relaxed.
x Identified regulation means that a person behaves in one way or another due to significance of such behavior or
its relation to personal goals even if the behavior as such is not pleasant (Ryan & Daci, 2000; Lafreniere et al.,
2012; Gunnell & Gaudreau, 2015). For instance, Lafreniere et al. (2012) suggest that one of the reasons why
players are motivated in such a way is their wish to maintain/develop relationships with their friends.
x Integrated regulation is also related to behavior without personal wish. In this case regulation becomes a part of
person’s habitual functioning and self-perception or self-assessment (Ryan & Daci, 2000; Gunnell & Gaudreau,
2015). Because they feel motivation of this type, players get involved in game-playing due to other life reasons
such as their objective to become a game designer (Lafreniere et al., 2012).
Experiential motivation to play games, as it has already been mentioned, is based on the approach that extrinsic
motivation is not so important in the context of video and especially online games. According to Koo et al. (2007), it
should receive less attention. Intrinsic and social motivation, however, are crucial in trying to involve consumers in
game-playing. Koo et al. (2007) indicate the following subtypes of experiential motivation:
x Concentration refers to a level of involvement in the game when the player loses track of time, consciousness,
feels isolated from external signals.
x Perceived enjoyment is a level of pleasure, excitement, joy and happiness caused by involvement in game-
playing.
x Escape defines a level of perception that a game-playing activity helps to reduce boredom and escape the routine.
x Epistemic curiosity is a level of understanding that the game is a way to learn and experience something new in a
particular field.
x Social affiliation refers to a level of understanding that the game is attractive because of possibility to
communicate and socialize with other players.
Although in general game creators focus on game elements that stimulate players’ motivation to play, engage and
finish every game stage (Prensky, 2002), Bittner & Shipper (2014) argue that when creating game design, the focus
most often is on tangible game outcomes that stimulate intrinsic player’s motivation to play the game, yet game
elements that invoke intrinsic motivation do not receive sufficient emphasis.
When conceptualizing the construct of motivation, the approach of Chemolli & Gagne (2014) and Gunnell &
Gaudreau (2015) that motivation should be considered as a multidimensional rather than one-dimensional construct
from the perspective of self-determination theory is used. With reference to Koo et al. (2007) arguments that
experiential motivation consolidates attributes of both social and intrinsic motivation and is extremely relevant in
the case of online games, the decision to include it into the construct of motivation to play games was made. Despite
the statement of Koo et al. (2007) that experiential motivation also includes internal motivation, the authors of the
article claim that a crucial difference between the two types of motivation may be identified. The essence of intrinsic
motivation is personal (internal) motives of a consumer, whereas experiential motivation is more related to social
508 Jurate Banyte and Agne Gadeikiene / Procedia Economics and Finance 26 (2015) 505 – 514

aspects such as communication and cooperation with other consumers and self-assessment in comparison to other
participants of the process. On the basis of the insights, it was decided to include intrinsic, experiential and extrinsic
motivation into the construct of motivation to play games.

3. Consumer engagement into video game-playing

Publications in the field of social sciences describe engagement based on various conceptual approaches and
hence various subforms of the phenomenon under analysis may be found. The nature of engagement is related to
different subject and object of engagement. The subject of engagement depends on the discipline that analyses the
phenomenon of engagement (Brodie, Hollebeek, Juric & Ilic, 2011; Hollebeek, 2011a; Zakir, 2013). It may be
represented at the level of both an individual and a certain social group or community. Considering the research
field of this article, the consumer is referred to as the subject of engagement. On the other hand, the object of
engagement may be a country, company, product, brand, or its community, advertisement or consumer activity in a
certain sphere. One of such activities is consumer engagement with the game. The latter and the above mentioned
objects are attributed to the context of research into marketing/consumer behavior.
Works of marketing researchers base engagement on an active role of consumers as they get engaged with brand
emotionally or cognitively, their behavior when they interact with the brand after purchase and their participation in
the process of value creation. The combination of different approaches presented by Van Doorn, Lemon, Mittal,
Nass, Pick, Pirner & Verhoef (2010), Verhoef, Reinartz & Krafft (2010), Gambetti & Graffigna (2010), Brodie et
al. (2011), Hollebeek (2011a, 2011b), and Vivek, Beatty & Morgan (2012) has laid the foundations for the approach
towards the concept of engagement which has received increasing attention recently. This is confirmed by the latest
works dealing with consumer engagement with virtual brand communities (Brodie, Ilic, Juric & Hollebeek, 2013),
social media (Hollebeek, Glynn & Brodie, 2014) and game-playing (Brockmyer et al., 2014).
In terms of consumer engagement concept development, the work of Javornik & Mandelli (2013) is worth special
attention. In order to form a general understanding of the phenomenon under consideration and its development, the
authors have analyzed the existing literature on consumer engagement (Brodie et al., 2011; Vivek et al., 2012;
Hollebeek, 2011a, 2011b; Gambetti & Graffigna, 2010). Javornik & Mandelli (2013) were particularly focused on
the research material of Brodie et al. (2011) since it is considered to be one of few works presenting classification of
research into consumer engagement and that of engagement dimensions it used. On the other hand, it should be
mentioned that research classification was mostly based on attitude to dimensionality of the consumer engagement
construct, i.e. whether it is one-dimensional or multidimensional, and did not propose any insights into the directions
of research into consumer engagement in the future. The study of Javornik & Mandelli (2013) may be considered
the first work that not only reveals the conceptual essence of consumer engagement, but also identifies recent
tendencies of further research into consumer engagement. They are based on different theoretical and
methodological approaches and comprise four perspectives: behavioral, psychological (cognitive and emotional),
multidimensional and social.
Multidimensional perspective prevails among other trends of research into consumer engagement undertaken by
Brodie et al. (2011), Hollebeek (2011a, 2011b), Hollebeek et al. (2014) until recently. Thus research perspective
proposes the multidimensional approach based on joining different dimensions which emphasizes relating cognitive
and emotional aspects to consumer engagement behavior (Mollen & Wilson, 2010; Sashi, 2012; Brodie et al., 2011;
Vivek et al., 2012). Consumer engagement tends to be associated with certain behavior, emotions and consumers’
cognitive efforts or commitment. The consumer first familiarizes with the object of engagement, which later evokes
certain emotions and associations that could be both positive and negative. Finally, the emotions prompt the
consumer to act, i.e. the consumer is not passive; on the contrary, he/she becomes an active participant in the
interaction with the object of engagement.
Research into consumer engagement published until recently is related to theoretical studies of consumer
engagement dimensions (Avnet & Higgins, 2006; Patterson, Yu & De Ruyter, 2006; Bowden, 2009; Pham &
Avnet, 2009; Van Doorn et al., 2010; Brodie et al.,2011; Hollebeek, 2011a, 2011b; Vivek et al., 2012) and
qualitative research (Algesheimer, Dholakia & Hermann, 2005; Phillips & McQuarrie, 2010; Calder, Malthouse &
Schaedel, 2009; Hollebeek, 2011b) that tries to substantiated the identified dimensions of engagement. There are
few quantitative studies introducing original and statistically reliable scales to measure consumer engagement
(Hollebeek et al., 2014; So, King, Sparks & Wang, 2014). Significant quantitative research into consumer
engagement has been carried out by Hollebeek et al. (2014); they defined three different dimensions of consumer
 Jurate Banyte and Agne Gadeikiene / Procedia Economics and Finance 26 (2015) 505 – 514 509

engagement (cognitive, emotional and behavioral) and ten statements that describe them.
To generalize the research into consumer engagement in terms of dimensions, a conclusion may be drawn that
consumer engagement is a multidimensional construct, and that cognitive, emotional and behavioral dimensions are
the ones that tend to be identified most often. The dimensions may also be found in scientific works that analyze
specific objects of engagement. Consumer engagement in game-playing considered in this article has not been
analyzed enough either at theoretical or at empirical level. On the basis of current research represented by
Brockmyer et al. (2014), Filsecker & Hickey (2014), the case of consumer engagement into game-playing involves
expression of specific engagement dimensions. The most significant work in terms of measuring consumer
engagement into video game-playing is that of Brockmyer et al. (2014), where game engagement scale with four
dimensions – immersion, presence, flow and absorption – is validated. Although they have different labels, but
according to the meaning they can be associated with the above mentioned classical dimensions of engagement. So,
in this paper immersion and presence are considered as revealing the lowest level of engagement of consumers (i.e.
as cognitive engagement). Flow describes the moderate engagement, thus, is similar to emotional engagement. And
absorption, showing the highest level of consumer engagement, is associated with behavioral engagement.

4. Research design

The assumption that consumer motivation to play games affects consumer game-playing engagement is intended
to be tested during the empirical research. Since younger generation is considered as more active in video game-
playing and spends more time for that, it has been decided to choose young people (age from 19 to 29) as the
general population of the research.
The emerging framework for understanding complex in nature engagement phenomenon leads to the
employment of multiple measurement approach (Wiebe et al., 2014). The same arguments can be given to the
measurement of motivation construct. As Wiebe et al. (2014) state, self-report measures continue to be the most
popular measure for characterizing the psychological state of a respondent, because it allows collecting valid,
reliable data and analyzing them objectively. According to this, the quantitative research method – a questionnaire
survey – has been chosen to investigate the effect of consumer motivation to play games on game-playing
engagement.
As discussed earlier motivation construct is measured according to three motivation types, i.e. intrinsic, extrinsic
and experiential motivation. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is measured according to GAMS scale, composed and
validated by Lafreniere et al. (2012). Intrinsic motivation is measured by three items scale. Extrinsic motivation is
measured by twelve items, three items for each subtype of extrinsic motivation. Scale for experiential motivation
measurement is applied from Koo et al. (2007) research. Curiosity and escape is measured by three-item scales,
enjoyment, social affiliation and epistemic curiosity – by five-item scale, engagement – by six-item scale. Game
engagement scale (Brockmyer et al., 2009) is applied for measurement of consumer game-playing engagement.
Immersion is measured by one item, presence – by four items, flow – by nine items, and absorption – by four items.
Each item was asked to rate on a 7-point Likert type scale ranging from 1 (“Totally disagree”) to 7 (“Totally
agree”).
The research was conducted in March 2015. Respondents were selected using the convenience sampling method;
hence this research should be considered as pilot research. Statistical data analysis was performed using the methods
of exploratory factor analysis and multiple regression analysis. 158 respondents were questioned, yet only 124
questionnaires were chosen as relevant for the data analysis.

5. Research results

The first part of the research analysis is devoted to the exploration of structure of different research constructs.
Exploratory factor analysis (method of principal component with Varimax rotation) is applied with the aim to create
smaller set of correlated items into factors, which explain the largest variance among items.
Table 1 shows items for intrinsic motivation measurement forms one factors, which explains 56,76 percent of
total variance. Factorial weights of items are quite high (0,633-0,846), thus, none of the item should be eliminated.
510 Jurate Banyte and Agne Gadeikiene / Procedia Economics and Finance 26 (2015) 505 – 514

Table 1. Motivation construct structure: results of first order factor analysis

Factor Variance,
Motivation Factorial
Measured items Cronbach’s explained by
type weights
alpha factor, %
Because it is stimulating to play; For the feeling of efficacy I 0,633-0,846 0,613
Intrinsic
experience when I play; For the pleasure of trying/experiencing new
motivation
game options (e.g., classes, characters, teams, races, equipment)
Total variance explained, % 56,761
KMO 0,573
Introjective regulation (F1)
Because I feel that I must play regularly; Because I must play to feel 0,703-0,793 0,736 23,598
good about myself; Because otherwise I would feel bad about myself;
Because it is an integral part of my life
Identified and integrated regulation (F2)
Because it is a good way to develop social and intellectual abilities that 0,532-0,880 0,805 22,324
Extrinsic are useful to me; Because it is a good way to develop important
motivation aspects of myself; Because it has personal significance to me; Because
it is an extension of me; Because it is aligned with my personal values
External regulation (F3)
For the prestige of being a good player; To acquire powerful and rare 0,799-0,844 0,804 20,213
items and virtual currency or to unlock hidden/restricted elements of
the game; To gain in-game awards and trophies or character/avatar’s
levels and experiences points
Total variance explained, % 66,134
KMO 0,733
Epistemic curiosity (F1)
Playing an video game is a good method to learn what is new; I 0,688-0,837 0,905 21,293
consider that playing an video game is a learning experience; I learn a
lot by playing video games; Playing an video game makes me think a
lot; Playing an video game stimulates my curiosity
Social affiliation (F2)
I usually talk to other people when playing an video game; Playing an 0,704-0,824 0,879 16,416
video game makes me talk to other people; Playing an video game
makes me feel friendly and talkative to others; I enjoy being part of a
community
Experiential
motivation Perceived enjoyment (F3)
It is interesting to play an video game; It is fun to play an video game; 0,719-0,815 0,864 13,527
Playing an video game makes me happy
Concentration (F4)
I do not realize the times that has elapsed; I am not aware of any 0,677-0,865 0,760 11,289
surrounding noise; I forget the work I must do
Escape (F5)
I don’t need a good reason to play an video game; When alone, video 0,700-0,808 0,737 10,904
game is a good medium to spend time; I don’t need to be looking for a
reason to play an video game
Total variance explained, % 73,428
KMO 0,844
 Jurate Banyte and Agne Gadeikiene / Procedia Economics and Finance 26 (2015) 505 – 514 511

Kayser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test value is 0,573 allows stating that factor analysis is adequate. While evaluating
internal consistency validity, the Cronbach’s-alpha coefficient for each scale is calculated. As it can be seen for the
intrinsic motivation Cronbach’s alpha (0,613) shows an acceptable level of internal consistency. During factor
analysis three factors describing extrinsic motivation have been derived. They describe 66,13 percent of variance.
KMO value is 0,733 and demonstrates good adequacy of factor analysis. First factor (F1) includes all items which
were used for introjective regulation measurement and one item for integrated regulation measurement (factorial
weights are quite high (0,703-0,793). According to the majority of items, label of this factor remains the same –
“Introjective regulation”. As can be seen from the Table 1, all items measuring identified regulation and two items
of integrated regulation form one factor (F2). It is labeled as “Identified and integrated regulation”. Factorial weights
of items range from 0,532 to 0,880, thus, none of them is eliminated. The third factor (F3) is formed by all items
used for measuring external regulation (factorial weights: 0,799-0,844). Cronbach’s alphas for all three factors
(accordingly 0,736; 0,805; 0,804) demonstrate good level of internal consistency. In Table 1 results of factor
analysis for items measuring experiential motivation is presented as well. Five factors extracted ideally describe
subtypes of experiential motivation which were distinguished during theoretical analysis. Only one item (“It is
exciting to play video game”) is eliminated because of the low factorial weight. Five factors explain 73,43 percent of
variance, KMO (0,844) demonstrates good adequacy of factor analysis. Factorial weights of items in cases of all
factors are quite high (accordingly 0,688-0,837; 0,704-0,824; 0,719-0,815; 0,677-0,865; 0,700-0,808). Values of
Cronbach’s alphas (accordingly 0,905; 0,879; 0,864; 0,760; 0,737) show the good level of internal consistency.
Table 2 presents results of second order factor analysis for factors which are intended to cover extrinsic and
experiential motivation types. This is needed in order to statistically reason that factors describing different subtypes
of motivation can be analysed as broader constructs reflecting motivation types. As can be seen from the Table 2,
factor analysis of introjective regulation (F1), identified and integrated regulation (F2) and external regulation (F3)
extract one factor which describes 59,28 percent of variance (factorial weights range from 0,601 to 0,844; KMO =
0,590; Cronbach‘s alpha is 0,613). Accordingly, epistemic curiosity (F1), social affiliation (F2), perceived
enjoyment (F3), concentration (F4) and escape (F5) form one factor as well (factorial weights range from 0,671 to
0,793; KMO = 0,804; Cronbach’s alpha is 0,795). This factor explains 55,49 percent of total variance.

Table 2. Motivation construct structure: results of second order factor analysis

Motivation
Factor Factorial weights
type
Introjective regulation (F1) 0,844
Extrinsic
Identified and integrated regulation (F2) 0,840
motivation
External regulation (F3) 0,601
Total variance explained, % 59,279
KMO 0,590
Cronbach’s alpha 0,613
Epistemic curiosity (F1) 0,793
Experiential Perceived enjoyment (F3) 0,787
motivation Social affiliation (F2) 0,781
Escape (F5) 0,682
Concentration (F4) 0,671
Total variance explained, % 55,488
KMO 0,804
Cronbach’s alpha 0,795

In Table 3 results of factor analysis for items measuring engagement dimensions are presented. Since immersion
was measured by one item, it was not included into this analysis. In all three cases items form one factor, none of
items is excluded as not significant because factorial weights are higher than 0,5. Factor Presence explains 62,20
percent of total variance, Flow – 51,57 percent and Absorption – 71,50 percent. KMO values show that factor
512 Jurate Banyte and Agne Gadeikiene / Procedia Economics and Finance 26 (2015) 505 – 514

analysis is adequate (accordingly values of it are 0,702; 0,657; 0,810). Internal consistency analysis show good
results as well (accordingly, Cronbach’s alphas are 0,794; 0,786; 0,810).

Table 3. Engagement dimensions: results of first order factor analysis

Engagement
Measured items Factorial weights
dimension
I play longer than I meant to; My thoughts go fast; I lose track of time; Things seem to happen 0,704-0,861
Presence
automatically
Total variance explained, % 62,202
KMO 0,702
Cronbach’s alpha 0,794
If someone talks to me, I don’t hear them; I feel like I just can’t stop playing; I get wound up; 0,512-0,723
I can’t tell that I’m getting tired; I don’t answer when someone talks to me; The game feels
Flow
real; Playing makes me feel calm; I play without thinking about how to play; Playing seems
automatic
Total variance explained, % 51,570
KMO 0,657
Cronbach’s alpha 0,786
I feel different; I lose track of where I am; I feel spaced out; Time seems to kind of stand still 0,712-0,936
Absorption
or stop; I feel scared
Total variance explained, % 71,496
KMO 0,810
Cronbach’s alpha 0,892

Summarizing results of factor analysis it can be concluded that motivation construct is described by three
significant factors, i.e. intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and experiential motivation. Engagement construct
is described by four dimensions, i.e. immersion, presence, flow and absorption.

Table 4. Results of regression models’ testing

Dependent
Immersion Presence Flow Absorption
variable
Independent
Coefficient Sig. Coefficient Sig. Coefficient Sig. Coefficient Sig.
variable
Constant (β0) -0,750 0,313 -0,246 0,641 0,907 0,042 0,699 0,187
Intrinsic
0,418 0,022 0,051 0,690 0,026 0,808 -0,041 0,746
motivation (β1)
Extrinsic
0,274 0,299 0,217 0,251 0,076 0,627 0,361 0,057
motivation (β2)
Experiential
0,658 0,006 0,854 <0,001 0,461 0,001 0,117 0,481
motivation (β3)
R2 0,461 0,544 0,315 0,128
ANOVA p-
<0,001 <0,001 <0,001 0,046
value

While seeking to investigate the impact of motivation types on different dimensions of engagement a multiple
regression analysis has been applied. Table 4 presents results of regression models’ testing. As can be seen, four
regression models are tested in order to identify how types of motivation (independent variables) affect different
dimensions of engagement (four dependent variables). First of all, hypothesis about normal distribution of
dependent variables has been tested (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test). In all four cases the null hypothesis stating that the
 Jurate Banyte and Agne Gadeikiene / Procedia Economics and Finance 26 (2015) 505 – 514 513

distribution of variables is normal is retained. All model requirements for multicollinearity and heteroscedasticity of
data are fulfilled. According to the data, provided the Table 4, it is stated that:
x Immersion, the lowest level of consumer engagement into the game-playing, is affected by intrinsic motivation
(β1 = 0,418; p-value = 0,022) and experiential motivation (β3 = 0,658; p-value = 0,006). The determination
coefficient R2 shows that model fits linear relationships analysis and that on average explains 46,1 percent of
immersion variance (p-value < 0,001).
x Presence is quite strongly influenced by experiential motivation (β3 = 0,854; p-value < 0,001), but other
dimensions of engagement have no influence on it. The model explains approximately 54,4 percent of presence
variance (R2 = 0,544; p-value < 0,001).
x Flow is influenced by only experiential motivation as well (β3 = 0,315; p-value < 0,001). Though, this impact is
weaker than in immersion and presence cases. The explained variance of flow is only 31,5 percent (p-value <
0,001).
x Absorption, the highest level of consumer engagement into game-playing, is not influenced by motivation,
because all coefficients are not significant.

6. Conclusions

According to the current level of exploration of consumer motivation as an antecedent of a certain behavior,
motivation to play games is reasoned by the theory of self-determination stating that personal motivation is a
multidimensional construct. It is reasoned that three types of motivation, i.e. intrinsic motivation, extrinsic
motivation and experiential motivation, describe general consumer motivation to play video games both on personal
and not personal (game) level.
Since consumer engagement is a conception which is analyzed in different scientific fields, approach to it can
differ according to the engagement object. This paper generalizes recent studies on the consumer engagement and
argues that consumer engagement is a multidimensional construct, and that cognitive, emotional and behavioral
dimensions are the ones that tend to be identified most often. As game-playing is the object of engagement in this
research, specific dimensions of engagement into game-playing (immersion, presence, flow and absorption) are
analyzed as well. However, it is argued that these dimensions are directly related with the earlier mentioned classical
approach.
Summarizing results of empirical research, it is concluded that experiential motivation has impact on three levels
of engagement, i.e. immersion, presence and flow. The highest impact of it is presence, which basically refers to
consumer feelings of time loss, automatism in playing. Intrinsic motivation has an impact only on the lowest level of
engagement, i.e. immersion dimension. Extrinsic motivation which basically is related with game elements does not
have impact on consumer engagement into game-playing. Absorption is not influenced by consumer motivation to
play games.
Results of the study could be valuable for different stakeholders from game designers to those who are interested
in gamification decisions for purposes of learning or consumer and company value co-creation, etc.

Acknowledgement

This research was funded by the European Social Fund under the Global Grant measure.

References

Avnet, T., & Higgins, E. T. (2006). How regulatory fit affects value in consumer choices and opinions. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), 1-
10. doi: 10.1509/jmkr.43.1.1
Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U. M., & Herrmann, A. (2005). The social influence of brand community: evidence from European car clubs. Journal
of Marketing, 69(3), 19-34. doi: 10.1509/jmkg.69.3.19.66363
Bittner, J. V., & Shipper, J. (2014). Motivational effects and age differences of gamification in product advertising. Journal of Consumer
Marketing, 31/5, 391-400. doi: 10.1108/JCM-04-2014-0945
Bowden, J. L. H. (2009). The process of customer engagement: a conceptual framework. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 17(1), 63–
74. doi: 10.2753/MTP1069-6679170105
514 Jurate Banyte and Agne Gadeikiene / Procedia Economics and Finance 26 (2015) 505 – 514

Brockmyer, J. H., Fox, C. M., Curtiss, K. A., McBroom, E., Burkhart, K. M., & Pidruzny, J. N. (2009). The development of the game
engagement questionnaire: a measure of engagement in video game-playing. Journal of Experiential Social Psychology, 45, 624-634. doi:
10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.016
Brodie, R. J., Hollebeek, L. D., Jurić, B., & Ilić, A. (2011). Customer engagement conceptual domain, fundamental propositions, and implications
for research. Journal of Service Research, 14(3), 252-271. doi: 10.1177/1094670511411703
Brodie, R. J., Ilic, A., Juric, B., & Hollebeek, L. (2013). Consumer engagement in a virtual brand community: an exploratory analysis. Journal of
Business Research, 66(1), 105-114. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.07.029
Calder, B. J., Malthouse, E. C., & Schaedel, U. (2009). An experimental study of the relationship between online engagement and advertising
effectiveness. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 23(4), 321–331. doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2009.07.002
Chang, C. C., & Chin, Y. C. (2011). Predicting the usage intention of social network games: an intrinsic-extrinsic motivation theory perspective.
International Journal of Online Marketing, 1(3), 29-37. doi: 10.4018/ijom.2011070103
Chemolli, E., & Gagne, M., 2014. Evidence against the continuum structure underlying motivation measures derived from self-determination
theory. Psychological Assessment, 26(2), 575-585. doi: 10.1037/a0036212
Filsecker, M., & Hickey, D. T. (2014). A multilevel analysis of the effects of external rewards on elementary students’ motivation, engagement
and learning in an educational game. Computers & Education, 75, 136-148. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.02.008
Gambetti, R. C., & Graffigna, G. (2010). The concept of engagement: a systematic analysis of the ongoing marketing debate. International
Journal of Market Research, 52(6), 801-826. doi: 10.2501/S1470785310201661
Gunnell, K. E., & Gaudreau, P. (2015). Testing a bi-factor model to desentangle general and specific factors of motivation in self-determination
theory. Personality and Individual Differences. In press. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2014.12.059
Hainey, T., Connolly, T., Stansfield, M., & Boyle, E. (2011). The differences in motivations of online game players and offline game players: a
combined analysis of three studies at higher education level. Computers & Education, 57, 2197-2211. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.06.001
Hollebeek, L. (2011a). Demystifying customer brand engagement: exploring the loyalty nexus. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(7-8), 785–
807. doi: 10.1080/0267257X.2010.500132
Hollebeek, L. (2011b). Exploring customer brand engagement: definition and themes. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19(7), 555-573. doi:
10.1080/0965254X.2011.599493
Hollebeek, L. D., Glynn, M. S., & Brodie, R. J. (2014). Consumer brand engagement in social media: conceptualization, scale development and
validation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 28(2), 149-165. doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2013.12.002
Javornik, A., & Mandelli, A. (2013). Research categories in studying customer engagement. In AM2013 Academy of Marketing Conference.
Cardiff.
Kong, J. S. L., Kwok, R. C. W., & Fang, Y. (2012). The effects of peer intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on MMOG game-based collaborative
learning. Information & Management, 49, 1-9. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2011.10.004
Koo, D. M., Lee, S. H., & Chang, H. S. (2007). Experiential motives for playing online games. Journal of Convergence Information Technology,
2(2), 37-48.
Lafreniere, M-A., K., Verner-Filion, J., & Vallerand, R. J. (2012). Development and validation of gaming motivation scale (GAMS). Personality
and Individual Differences, 53, 827-831. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2012.06.013
Lin, H. H., Wang, Y. S., & Chou, C. H. (2012). Hedonic and utilitarian motivations for physical game systems use behavior. International
Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 28, 445-455. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2011.618097
Mollen, A., & Wilson, H. (2010). Engagement, telepresence and interactivity in online consumer experience: reconciling scholastic and
managerial perspectives. Journal of Business Research, 63(9-10), 919–925. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.05.014
Patterson, P., Yu, T., & De Ruyter, K. (2006). Understanding customer engagement in services. In Advancing Theory, Maintaining Relevance,
proceedings of ANZMAC 2006 conference, Brisbane, 4–6. Retrieved from http:// conferences.anzmac.org/ANZMAC2006/
documents/Pattinson_Paul.pdf
Pham, M. T., & Avnet, T. (2009). Rethinking regulatory engagement theory. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19(2), 115-123. doi:
10.1016/j.jcps.2009.02.003
Phillips, B. J., & McQuarrie, E. F. (2010). Narrative and persuasion in fashion advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(3), 368-392. doi:
10.1086/653087
Prensky, M. (2002). The motivation of gameplay: the REAL of twenty-first century learning revolution. On the Horizon, 10(1), 5-11. Retrieved
from http://www.marcprensky.com/writing/Prensky%20-%20The%20Motivation%20of%20Gameplay-OTH%2010-1.pdf
Roberts, D., Hughes, M., & Kertbo, K. (2014). Exploring consumers’ motivations to engage in innovation through co-creation activities.
European Journal of Marketing, 48(1/2), 147-169. doi: 10.1108/EJM-12-2010-0637
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 25, 54-67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
Sashi, C. M. (2012). Customer engagement, buyer-seller relationships, and social media. Management Decision, 50(2), 253-272. doi:
10.1108/00251741211203551
So, K. K. F., King, C., Sparks, B. A., & Wang, Y. (2013). The influence of customer brand identification on hotel brand evaluation and loyalty
development. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 34, 31-41. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.02.002
Van Doorn, J., Lemon, K. N., Mittal, V., Nass, S., Pick, D., Pirner, P., & Verhoef, P. C. (2010). Customer engagement behavior: theoretical
foundations and research directions. Journal of Service Research, 13(3), 253–266. doi: 10.1177/1094670510375599
Verhoef P. C., Reinartz W. J., & Krafft M. (2010). Customer engagement as a new perspective in customer management. Journal of Service
Research, 13(3), 247-252. doi: 10.1177/1094670510375461
Vivek, S. D., Beatty, S. E., & Morgan, R. M. (2012). Consumer engagement: exploring customer relationships beyond purchase. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 20(2), 127-145. doi: 10.2753/MTP1069-6679200201
Wiebe, E. N., Lamb, A., Hardy, M., & Sharek, D. (2014). Measuring engagement in video game-based environments: investigation of the user
engagement scale. Computers and Human Behavior, 32, 123-132. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.001
Zakir, M. M. (2013). Brand engagement: insights and learning from other discipline. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 4(11), 609-614.
doi: 10.5901/mjss.2013.v4n11p609