The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1464-6668.htm

A systematic review on spectator Spectator

behavior in
behavior in esports: why do esports

people watch?
Julia Rietz and Kirstin Hallmann
Institute of Sport Economics and Sport Management,
German Sport University Cologne, Cologne, Germany Received 22 December 2021
Revised 5 April 2022
16 May 2022
Accepted 16 May 2022
Abstract
Purpose – Esports is rapidly growing in popularity and viewership. The study’s purpose was threefold: (1) to
provide a systematic review and synthesis of esports spectatorship research. (2) to provide a reference for the
psychology of consumer behavior in esports live streaming and esports event attendance. (3) to deliver a clear
picture of the factors that impact consumer behavior in esports online and on-site consumption.
Design/methodology/approach – The study systematically reviews motivational aspects of online and on-
site spectatorship using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols
(PRISMA). SCOPUS and Google Scholar were selected as social science databases. Twenty-five papers met the
inclusion criteria: (1) published between 2000 and 2022, (2) empirical investigation, (3) focus on online and/or on-
site esports spectatorship/events. Five papers implemented randomization to assess common method bias.
Findings – Twenty-five papers qualified for subsequent analysis. The papers were mostly quantitative. They
included a theoretical framework and investigated online esports spectatorship. Significant antecedents for
motivation to watch esports online and/or on-site were fanship, tension release, entertainment, escaping everyday
life and unique features like chat and direct communication. No consensus was found concerning similarities or
differences between online and on-site esports spectatorship and traditional sports spectatorship.
Originality/value – This research contributed to a new theoretical, methodological and practical agenda. A
more comparative approach analyzing contextual, structural and demographic cues could lead to a holistic
picture of esports spectator motivation.
Keywords Competitive gaming, Viewer, Event, Online, Streaming, Motivation
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Esports as a spectator phenomenon
The forecasted growth in esports audience for 2021 was 728.8 million people, with a year-on-
year growth of 10% (Newzoo, 2020). Nearly 50% of the esports audience watch professional
esports content more than once a week (Newzoo, 2020). The number of tournaments,
including prize money and active players, is increasing. Already in 2013, Popper named
esports as the new “industry darling”. Newzoo, a service for esports market insights,
forecasted a þ14.5% year-on-year growth in global esports revenues from $947.1 million in
2020 to $1,084 million in 2021. The audience forecast for 2024 is 920.3 million, which means a
compound annual growth rate of þ9.2% from 2020 to 2024.
The rapid growth and constant change call for a better understanding of the entire market.
Especially, the consumers in terms of spectators should be investigated. Evidence-based
information is crucial to providing valuable content and generating revenues from a
managerial perspective. Tournament promoters got the ability to cheaply and easily push
live streams to millions of viewers with the streaming platform Twitch (Popper, 2013). In
terms of accessibility and consumption, esports provides relatively new and diverse
possibilities to watch, such as live streaming on dedicated streaming platforms.

Esports live streaming International Journal of Sports

Marketing and Sponsorship
Esports (live) streaming is a new form of media integrating traditional broadcasting and online © Emerald Publishing Limited
1464-6668
gaming such as Twitch and YouTube (Sj€oblom and Hamari, 2017; Pellicone and Ahn, 2017). DOI 10.1108/IJSMS-12-2021-0241
IJSMS Live streaming retains the form of one-way transmission but is more interactive and engaging.
Li et al. (2020) described video game or esports live streaming as “a form of media integrating
the public, communities, interaction and passivity while bridging the gap between online
games and traditional video media” (p. 5). Looking at esports live streaming consumers,
researchers differentiate between two groups: streamers (production) and audience (reception).
Streamers are information producers. They record videos, live streams and provide information
related to skills. Audiences consume the content created by streamers, chat with the
community, acquire information and subscribe to the streaming channel. The esports
streaming environment allows for multi-directional interaction (Sj€oblom and Hamari, 2017).
Audiences and streamers can interact and chat in real-time, forming a community (Taylor,
2016). The underlying consumer concept in this study is the spectator as an online or on-site live
audience. Thus, it includes passive sport consumers.
In their systematic literature review, Li et al. (2020) summarized relevant literature on
streamer and audience behavior. They constructed a framework of effect factors of user
engagement focusing on user demands and platform influence. They outlined that live
streaming can foster social integration, tension release, affection and cognition, satisfying
user demands (Li et al., 2020). Platform influence, crucial to attracting consumers, includes
design features or gamification mechanisms (Li et al., 2020). How esports platforms and live
streaming can meet the users’ demand and what the differences in demand are, need further
investigation. Contributing to the esports literature, passive esports consumers are
considered an important target group. Platforms, partners, streamers and publishers need
further insights to serve this continually changing and huge target group. Consequently, an
overview of consumer behavior literature is sought to give relevant insight and respective
research agendas on general consumer behavior and motivation.

Esports consumer motivation

Although the number of research papers on esports is increasing, the literature is rather
qualitative and exploratory (Hallmann and Giel, 2018). There is a wider range of studies on
esports in general than in the specific field of esports spectatorship (Banyai et al., 2019;
Pedraza-Ramirez et al., 2020). Examining esports motivation literature, Banyai et al. (2019)
stated that despite the differences in theoretical basis and the esports genres, general and
common motivational patterns for playing exist.
There are commendable efforts in reviewing the esports literature. These include (1) Banyai
et al. (2019), (2) Garcia-Naveira et al. (2018), (3) Li et al. (2020), (4) Mora-Cantallops and Sicilia (2018)
and (5) Pedraza-Ramirez et al. (2020). Garcia-Naveira et al. (2018) reviewed articles on the
cognitive and psychological benefits of video games and esports. Li et al. (2020) summarized the
literature on user behavior in video game live streaming by reviewing four aspects: streamer
demand, audience demand, interaction behavior and platform impact. Mora-Cantallops and
Sicilia (2018) explored player behavior in MOBA (Multiplayer Online Battle Arena) games to
understand the behavior and motivation of players. Pedraza-Ramirez et al. (2020) systematically
reviewed the psychology of esports. The identified 52 empirical investigations focused on
esports games associated with either cognitive performance or game performance.
However, the most important topic to understand the esports spectator phenomenon,
motivational patterns, has been neglected. This area is important as the market is growing
and changing rapidly. No review on spectator behavior provides an agenda for spectator
motivation research in esports.

Research purpose
Since the esports market does not seem to saturate in growth, the literature on this topic
should become more quantitative and explanatory. Research on consumer behavior and
motivation is mostly restricted to player consumption instead of spectatorship (Lee and Spectator
Schoenstedt, 2011). The lack of systematically reviewed literature on esports spectatorship behavior in
requests a new agenda. Therefore, the purpose of the study is to provide a systematic review
and synthesis of esports spectatorship research. Factors that impact consumer behavior in
esports
esports live streaming and esports event attendance are investigated. The study aims to
provide a reference for the psychology of consumer behavior in esports live streaming and
esports event attendance. Besides setting a new agenda for future research in esports
consumer behavior, the study aims to answer the overarching question: Why do people watch
esports?
The following research questions are sought to be answered:
RQ1. What empirical peer-reviewed literature has been published on esports spectator
motivation between 2000 and 2022 in English language journals?
RQ2. What were the key findings in that literature sample?
RQ3. Are there thematic, theoretical, methodological and practical gaps?
RQ4. What approaches could be included in future research agendas to fill the
identified gaps?

Methodology
Review protocol
Literature retrieval referred to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and
Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines (Moher et al., 2009). Several steps were executed to
retrieve and collect existing literature in esports spectatorship.

Search terms
The keywords were determined through a literature review using varied search terms
(spectator* OR viewer* OR audience OR event) AND (esport* OR e-sport* OR electronic
sport* OR video gam* OR competitive gam*). Given that online video gaming started in 2000,
the search was limited to peer-reviewed articles in English published or in press between
January, 2000 and April, 2022.

Selection of databases
Thereafter, SCOPUS and Google Scholar were selected as social science databases. Google
Scholar evolved as a “Web search engine” covering all existing literature with free access
covering PubMed (Falagas et al., 2007; Halevi et al., 2017). SCOPUS is readily updated for
printed literature but does not include early versions, whereas Google Scholar does (Falagas
et al., 2007).

Screening process
Articles obtained through the databases were screened based on titles, keywords and
abstracts. Finally, the entire article was considered. Especially in esports, words in titles and
keywords can be misleading because authors use various synonyms or terms that equate to
esports’ definitions, without defining the keywords. Articles were included when title and
keywords indicated that the research pertained to live streaming or event spectating. At the
abstract screening stage, papers were included when the abstract stated that the research
pertained to live streaming or event spectating.
IJSMS Eligibility of studies
Finally, the full-text articles of the accepted abstracts were screened for eligibility. Figure 1
provides an overview of the systematic review process. The studies had to meet the following
inclusion criteria to ensure rigidity:
(1) Research content: consumer behavior in esports online and/or on-site consumption
(2) Published in a journal or in press
(3) 2000–2022
(4) English language
(5) Peer-reviewed
(6) Empirical
Papers were rejected due to the following reasons:
(1) When full-text papers were not accessible
(2) When esports was not mentioned at all
(3) When the consumption was related to active playing as the outcome variable
(4) When (online/on-site) spectatorship was not included as the outcome variable

Analysis
Following the PRISMA methodology, 25 studies were selected. The results were exported to
an Excel spreadsheet. Some studies considered for inclusion focused either on online
spectatorship or on-site spectatorship, whereas others focused on both without making
differences. However, all types of papers were included. Some studies mentioned specific
esports games, whereas others researched various esports genres. This study included all
papers mentioning esports regardless of any specification. Some studies focused on one

Figure 1.
Flowchart of the
systematic review
process
streaming platform only, whereas others did not mention specific streaming platforms. All Spectator
types were included regardless of mentioning a specific, various or no streaming platform. behavior in
The results reported in the Excel spreadsheet covered bibliographic information on year
of publication, journal and discipline. The theoretical base, if any and which, was reported.
esports
The research paradigms, methods, sampling and analysis were included in the study’s
analysis. The measures implemented were sorted by antecedents and outcomes (see Figure 2
and Table 1).

Results
Bibliographic information
All included publications (N 5 25) meeting the inclusion criteria were published between
2016 and 2022. Three studies were published in 2022, five in 2021, eight in 2020, two in 2019,
three in 2018 and four in 2017. The studies were published in sixteen different journals.
Communication and Sport (n 5 6) published the most, followed by Computers in Human
Behavior (n 5 4) and Sustainability (n 5 3). There were three spectatorship types: (1) online
spectatorship (n 5 22), (2) on-site spectatorship (n 5 2) and (3) online/on-site spectatorship
(n 5 1). Twenty-three papers were assigned to psychology, the other two to sociology.

Theoretical base
Twenty-five papers included in the further examination referenced and applied theoretical
frameworks. The most commonly referenced theory was Uses and Gratification Theory
(n 5 11), a common theory in analyzing new forms of mass media (Ruggiero, 2000).
Other theories were referenced in no more than three papers (Esports Consumption Model
(n 5 3); Model of Parasocial Relationship Development, Push and Pull Framework,
Psychological Continuum Model, Self-Determination Theory, SOR Framework (Organism,
Stimulus, Response), Theory of Reasoned Action (n 5 2); Basic Psychological Needs Theory,
Concept of Sport Market Demand, Push and Pull Framework, Sloan’s Sport Motivation

Figure 2.
Associations between
antecedents and
outcomes
 papers
IJSMS

Table 1.

included (N 5 25)
Summary table of
Theoretical Paradigm and Sample Statistical
Authors frameworks method size Spectatorship analysis Antecedents Outcomes

Brown et al. UGT Quantitative 1,319 Online MANOVA, Motivation, structural factors Online spectatorship
(2017) Survey Regression
Cabeza- Motivation in the Quantitative 1,050 Online PLS-SEM, PLS- Motivation, structural factors, Online spectatorship
Ramırez research field of Survey MGA, MICOM self-perception as a player,
et al. (2020) streaming platforms, professional esports team/
UGT streamer identification
Hamari and UGT Quantitative 888 Online CFA, SEM Motivation, structural factors Online spectatorship
Sj€oblom Survey
(2017)
Hilvert- UGT Quantitative 2,227 Online Regression, Motivation Online spectatorship
Bruce et al. Survey EFA
(2018)
Jang et al. ESC Quantitative 348 Online CFA, SEM Game play behavior Online spectatorship
(2020) Survey
Jang et al. SOR Quantitative 372 On-site CFA, SEM Game play intention, streaming Behavioral
(2020) Survey intention intention, on-site
spectatorship
Jang et al. ESC Quantitative 613 Online CFA, SEM Game play intention Online spectatorship
(2021a) Survey
Jang et al. ESC Quantitative 598 Online CFA, SEM Structural factors, self-perception Behavioral
(2021b) Survey as a player, professional esports intention, online
team/streamer identification spectatorship
Kim and PCM, Subjective Quantitative 399 Online CFA, SEM Flow experience, motivation, Behavioral
Kim (2020) Well-Being, Theory Survey structural factors, subjective well- intention, game
of Flow, TPB being loyalty, online
spectatorship
Lim et al. PSR, SCT Quantitative 485 Online CFA, SEM Emotional engagement, Behavioral
(2020) Survey parasocial relationship, self- intention, online
perception as a player, spectatorship
professional esports team/
streamer identification

(continued )
 Theoretical Paradigm and Sample Statistical
Authors frameworks method size Spectatorship analysis Antecedents Outcomes

Ma et al. UGT Quantitative 312 Online CFA, Haye’s Motivation, structural factors Online spectatorship
(2021) Survey Process macro
Pizzo et al. Quantitative 517 On-site Regression, Motivation On-site
(2018) Survey MANOVA spectatorship
Qian et al. SDT, Sloan’s Sport Mixed methods 1,533 Online Thematic Motivation Behavioral
(2019a) Motivation Theories, Survey, Interview, Coding, EFA, intention,
UGT Focus Group CFA, SEM commitment, online
spectatorship
Qian et al. Concept of Sport Mixed methods 1,524 Online Thematic Structural factors, self-perception Behavioral
(2019b) Market Demand Survey, Interview Coding, EFA, as a player, professional esports intention, online
CFA, SEM team/streamer identification spectatorship
Qian et al. Push and Pull Quantitative 1,309 Online CFA, SEM Motivation, push and pull factors Behavioral
(2020) Framework Survey intention,
commitment, online
spectatorship
Qian et al. BPNT, SDT Quantitative 1,100 Online CFA, SEM Demand, Need Behavioral
(2022) Survey intention,
commitment, online
spectatorship
Rogers et al. Taxonomy of Quantitative Quasi 385 Online ANOVA, Motivation Online spectatorship
(2022) Motivations Experiment Correlation
Sj€oblom UGT Quantitative 1,091 Online CFA, SEM Motivation Online spectatorship
and Hamari Survey
(2017)
Sj€oblom UGT Quantitative 1,091 Online Regression, Motivation, structural factors Online spectatorship
et al. (2017) Survey CFA, SEM
Sj€oblom UGT Quantitative 1,109 Both MANOVA, Motivation Behavioral
et al. (2020) Survey CFA, SEM intention, online and
on-site spectatorship

(continued )
Spectator
esports
behavior in

Table 1.
 IJSMS

Table 1.
Theoretical Paradigm and Sample Statistical
Authors frameworks method size Spectatorship analysis Antecedents Outcomes

Tang et al. Structuration Quantitative 526 Online Regression Motivation, sports fandom, Online spectatorship
(2022) Theory, TRA, UGT Survey structural factors
Wulf et al. PSR Quantitative 548 Online Regression, Motivation, parasocial Online spectatorship
(2018) Survey CFA, SEM relationship, structural factors
Xiao (2020) TRA, UGT Quantitative 295 Online CFA, SEM Motivation, structural factors Behavioral
Survey intention, online
spectatorship
Xu et al. SOR Mixed methods 310 Online CFA, SEM Appeal, involvement, arousal, Online spectatorship
(2021a) Interview, Survey cognitive involvement
Xu et al. CET Quantitative 308 Online CFA, SEM Attractiveness, interaction, Online
(2021b) Survey parasocial relationship, emotion Spectatorship
Note(s): BPNT5Basic Psychological Needs Theory; CET 5 cognitive emotional theory; ESC 5 Esports consumption model; PCM5Psychological Continuum Model;
PLS-MGAs 5 Partial least squares multigroup analysis; PLS-SEM5Partial least squares structural equation modeling; PSR5 Model of parasocial relationship
development; SCT5Social Cognitive Theory; SDT5 Self-Determination Theory; SOR5Organism, Stimulus, Response; TPB 5 Theory of Planned Behavior;
TRA 5 Theory of Reasoned Action; UGT5Uses and Gratification Theory; SEM5Structural equation model; MICOMs 5 Measurement invariance of composite models;
MANOVA 5 Multivariate analysis of variance; EFAs 5 Exploratory factor analysis; CFAs5Confirmatory factor analysis; ANOVA 5 Analysis of variance
Theories, Social Cognitive Theory, Structuration Theory, Subjective Well-Being, Taxonomy Spectator
of Motivations, Theory of Flow, Theory of Planned Behavior (n 5 1). behavior in
esports
Research paradigms, methods and sampling
The majority of papers implemented a quantitative approach (n 5 22) and only three papers
implemented a mixed-methods approach. All studies were cross-sectional rather than
longitudinal and three studies were comparative. None of the studies was experimental,
whereas one of the comparative studies was quasi-experimental (Rogers et al., 2022). The
sample size varied from 295 (Xiao, 2020) to 2,227 (Hilvert-Bruce et al., 2018). A survey (online
or on-site) was implemented in 24 studies. The mixed-methods approach studies implemented
surveys, semi-structured interviews and focus groups using thematic coding for their data
analysis (Qian et al., 2019a, b; Xu et al., 2021a, b). Nine studies implemented a pilot test.
Nineteen papers analyzed data with Structural Equation Modeling along with Confirmatory
Factor Analysis. Other papers implemented regression analysis (n 5 8), analysis of variance
(n 5 1), correlation analysis (n 5 1), exploratory factor analysis (n 5 3), multivariate analysis
of variance (n 5 3), coding (n 5 2), Haye’s Process macro (n 5 1) and measurement invariance
of composite models (n 5 1). To avoid common method bias, five papers implemented
randomization as suggested by Podsakoff (2003), one paper incorporated temporal
separation and another applied the Harmon’s test.

Sample
Eleven papers mentioned an explicit kind of esports genre, two of which mentioned only one
esports genre. First Person and Third Person Shooter was the esports genre mentioned in
eight papers, followed by Real-Time Strategy (n 5 7), Multiplayer Online Battle Arena (n 5 7)
and Sport Simulation (n 5 7).
Participants’ age was measured in 22 papers. The age ranged from under 15–50 years.
Gender was measured in 22 papers, with 86.17% male, 13.74% female, 0.08% other and
0.01% gender not disclosed. Thirteen papers measured education. The educational level
ranged from no degree (1.06%) to Master’s degree/Professional degree/Upper level (18.05%).
The most indicated degree was College degree/secondary degree/Bachelor’s degree with
36.39%. The occupation was measured in eight papers. Most participants indicated to be
students (60.96%) followed by employed or self-employed (32.04%) and currently looking for
work (6.64%). The income ranged from under $10,000 annually to over $90,000 and was
measured in eleven papers. Samples were collected in US (n 5 6), (South) Korea (n 5 2),
Europe/North America (n 5 1), Finland (n 5 1), Spain (n 5 1) and China (n 5 1).

Antecedents
Several antecedents were identified: demand (“consumers’ expectations towards the features
and attributes of the core product”; Qian et al., 2019b, p. 3), flow experience (Kim and Kim,
2020), emotional engagement (Lim et al., 2020), motivation (Brown et al., 2017; Cabeza-Ramırez
et al., 2020; Hamari and Sj€oblom, 2017; Hilvert-Bruce et al., 2018; Kim and Kim, 2020; Ma et al.,
2021; Pizzo et al., 2018; Qian et al., 2019a, 2020; Rogers et al., 2022; Sj€oblom and Hamari, 2017;
Sj€oblom et al., 2017, 2020; Tang et al., 2022; Wulf et al., 2018; Xiao, 2020), need (competence,
autonomy and relatedness; Qian et al., 2022), parasocial relationship (Lim et al., 2020; Wulf
et al., 2018; Xu et al., 2021b), push and pull factors (Qian et al., 2020), sports fandom (Tang et al.,
2022), SOR framework (Jang et al., 2020), structural factors (Brown et al., 2017; Cabeza-
Ramırez et al., 2020; Hamari and Sj€oblom, 2017; Jang et al., 2021b; Kim and Kim, 2020; Ma et al.,
2021; Qian et al., 2019b; Sj€oblom et al., 2017; Tang et al., 2022; Wulf et al., 2018; Xiao, 2020;
Xu et al., 2021a), self-perception as a player, professional esports team/streamer identification
IJSMS (Cabeza-Ramırez et al., 2020; Jang et al., 2021b; Lim et al., 2020; Qian et al., 2019b) and
subjective well-being (Kim and Kim, 2020). Other psychological constructs were identified as
antecedents: broadcaster appeal, medium appeal, perceived co-viewer involvement, arousal,
cognitive involvement (Xu et al., 2021a), broadcaster attractiveness, bullet-screen interaction,
positive emotion (Xu et al., 2021b).
Three papers investigated the influence of esports gameplay behavior/intention on media
consumption of esports events, live esports streaming content and intention of esports
broadcast consumption (Jang and Byon, 2020; Jang et al., 2020, 2021a). The identified
antecedents for esports gameplay intention were effort expectancy, social influence, hedonic
motivation, price value, habit and flow (Jang and Byon, 2020; Jang et al., 2021a).
Figure 2 gives a more detailed look at associations between antecedents and outcomes.
The two most frequently applied antecedents are described in more detail in the following
sections.
Motivation. Motivation was the antecedent operationalized by most papers (n 5 15). The
measures for the motivation antecedent were (vicarious) achievement, aesthetics (wholesome
environment), arousal (competition, excitement, suspense), autonomy, bonding (friends,
family, camaraderie), competitive nature, drama, enjoyment (entertaining nature,
entertainment value), enjoyment of aggression, escapism, fandom (interest in sport),
friendship, interest in player, knowledge (acquisition of knowledge, information seeking,
surveillance, competence, game knowledge), novelty, pastime, peer pressure, physical
attractiveness, player skill, relatedness, role model, self-esteem, skill improvement, social
interaction (group affiliation, interaction, socialization opportunity, social anxiety, social
integration, social support) and tension release/entertainment (Brown et al., 2017; Cabeza-
Ramırez et al., 2020; Hamari and Sj€oblom, 2017; Hilvert-Bruce et al., 2018; Kim and Kim, 2020;
Ma et al., 2021; Pizzo et al., 2018; Qian et al., 2019a, 2020; Rogers et al., 2022; Sj€oblom et al., 2017,
2020; Tang et al., 2022; Wulf et al., 2018; Xiao, 2020). Another paper measured cognitive,
affective and personal integrative motivation (Sj€oblom and Hamari, 2017).
Structural factors. The measures for structural factors were availability and access,
consumption (blog, podcast, print media, radio, social media, streaming video website), costs
(equipment, in-game, merchandise), devices (number, preference), esports related media,
genre, platform, streamers (watched, followed), stream type, subscription, time (attending
matches, spent playing/watching, frequency) and use of features (bit, chat, donate) (Brown
et al., 2017; Cabeza-Ramırez et al., 2020; Hamari and Sj€oblom, 2017; Jang et al., 2021b; Kim and
Kim, 2020; Ma et al., 2021; Qian et al., 2019b; Sj€oblom et al., 2017; Tang et al., 2022; Wulf et al.,
2018; Xiao, 2020).
Outcomes. The outcome measures besides on-site and online esports consumption were
behavioral intention (Jang et al., 2021b; Jang et al., 2020; Kim and Kim, 2020; Lim et al., 2020;
Qian et al., 2019a, b, 2020, 2022; Sj€oblom et al., 2020; Xiao, 2020), commitment (Qian et al.,
2019a, 2020, 2022), emotional connectedness and donations (Hilvert-Bruce et al., 2018) and
game loyalty (Kim and Kim, 2020).
The two frequently investigated outcomes are described in more detail in the following
sections.
Online and on-site esports consumption. The following section gives a more detailed look at
passive esports consumption. Significant direct and/or indirect predictors or associations in
esports spectatorship (consumption) were found (Brown et al., 2017; Cabeza-Ramırez et al.,
2020; Hamari and Sj€oblom, 2017; Hilvert-Bruce et al., 2018; Jang and Byon, 2020; Jang et al.,
2021a; Ma et al., 2021; Qian et al., 2019a, b; Sj€oblom and Hamari, 2017; Tang et al., 2022; Xu
et al., 2021a, b).
Social sport, fanship and Schwabism, participation in FPS, MMORPG, fighting, sports and
MOBA esports competitions (Brown et al., 2017), tension release/entertainment motivations,
social motivations, informational motivations (Cabeza-Ramırez et al., 2020), escaping
everyday life, acquiring knowledge, novelty and the enjoyment of aggression (Hamari and Spectator
Sj€oblom, 2017), entertainment, social interactions (Hilvert-Bruce et al., 2018), game play behavior in
behavior (Jang and Byon, 2020), game play intention (Jang et al., 2021a), chat room, stream
quality, commentary features, player characteristics, event attractiveness, virtual rewards
esports
and streamer traits (Qian et al., 2019b), tension release motivation, social integrative
motivation (Sj€oblom and Hamari, 2017), MOBA, knowledge acquisition, consume sports
online/on mobile, number of devices used, donate, chat (Tang et al., 2022), push and pull
factors (Qian et al., 2020), arousal (Xu et al., 2021a), entertainment and enjoyment (Xu et al.,
2021b) were positively associated with esports spectatorship. Enjoyment of aesthetics,
personal integrative motivation (Hamari and Sj€oblom, 2017) and external support (Hilvert-
Bruce et al., 2018) were negatively associated with esports spectatorship. Competition
excitement, competitive, dramatic and entertaining nature, friends bonding, game
knowledge, socialization opportunity, skill appreciation and improvement and vicarious
achievement were significantly correlated with esports online spectator motivation, which
was albeit marginally associated with hours watched (Qian et al., 2019a). Habit, price value
and social influence positively and indirectly influenced online spectatorship through esports
gameplay intention (Jang et al., 2021a). Interaction effects between game genres and
aesthetics and between game genres and knowledge acquisition on time spent were found
(Ma et al., 2021).
Significant differences were found in motivation to consume esports or traditional sports
online (Brown et al., 2017). Other studies found significant differences across traditional
sports (soccer) and esports and across different esports genres (FIFA and StarCraft II, Pizzo
et al., 2018; NBA 2K and esports generally, Rogers et al., 2022).
Behavioral intention. Significant direct and/or indirect predictors or associations in
esports spectatorship behavioral intention were found (Jang et al., 2020, 2021b; Kim and Kim,
2020; Lim et al., 2020; Qian et al., 2019a, 2020; Sj€oblom et al., 2020; Xiao, 2020). Behavioral
intentions were operationalized as online/on-site consumption intention (Jang et al., 2021b;
Kim and Kim, 2020; Sj€oblom et al., 2020; Xiao, 2020), spreading word of mouth (WOM),
recommending and or encouraging friends/relatives to play (Kim and Kim, 2020; Qian et al.,
2019a, b, 2020, 2022; Sj€oblom et al., 2020), or purchase intention (Kim and Kim, 2020).
Affective responses (cheering behavior, similarity, cosplay and social density, Jang et al.,
2020), attitude toward watching esport (Xiao, 2020), esports’ recreational gameplay intention,
identification of streamer (Jang et al., 2021b), Flow experience, Subjective well-being (Kim and
Kim, 2020) were all significantly associated with behavioral intention. Behavioral intention
significantly influenced game loyalty (Kim and Kim, 2020). Motivation (Qian et al., 2019a) and
push and pull factors (Qian et al., 2020) were positively associated with esports commitment
and WOM intentions.

Discussion
Thematic agenda and directions for future research
Several antecedents of spectatorship were identified through the SLR. However, the results
focused on esports spectators as one group instead of looking for differences or clusters. The
esports industry has matured. Therefore, research into different segments of esports
spectators is needed to provide promotional messages targeted towards a particular
consumer segment. A one size fits it all approach sought not to work – similar to general
consumer behavior. This has also been suggested to a varying degree in the 24 papers.
Researchers asked for investigating differences in Twitch user profiles (Cabeza-Ramırez
et al., 2020), esports game genres (Hilvert-Bruce et al., 2018; Jang and Byon, 2020; Kim and
Kim, 2020; Ma et al., 2021; Pizzo et al., 2018; Qian et al., 2019a, b; Rogers et al., 2022; Sj€oblom
et al., 2020), across cultures (Hilvert-Bruce et al., 2018; Ma et al., 2021; Qian et al., 2019a;
IJSMS Sj€oblom et al., 2020; Tang et al., 2022), across genders (Hilvert-Bruce et al., 2018; Ma et al., 2021;
Qian et al., 2019a; Rogers et al., 2022), generations (Ma et al., 2021) and the number of years
considering oneself as esports fan (prior esports experience, Jang et al., 2021a; casual and
enthusiast/die-hard, Qian et al., 2019a, 2020). Therefore, gender disparity should be addressed
as well as capturing major markets to provide a more comprehensive understanding (Qian
et al., 2019b; Tang et al., 2022) and global perspective (Rogers et al., 2022).
Motivation is an important concept for studying spectators. Several scales have been
developed to measure spectator motivation in traditional sports and esports. The next step
would be to use this psychographic construct to create consumer segments. Thereafter, socio-
demographic and behavioral variables should be used to enrich the segments and create clear
consumer profiles. This resonates with a call brought forward by previous research as
Sj€oblom and Hamari (2017) called for a comparative approach in motivation levels between
demographic factors like gender, country of residence and income.
Additionally, several new topics in esports have become relevant and should be
investigated. Contextual and structural cues in individual choice are one of it (Tang et al.,
2022). Service usage habits and subscription behavior are new topics and outcome variables
to be looked at in esports research (Sj€oblom and Hamari, 2017). Structural factors such as peer
pressure, video game graphics, devices and other factors being distinct to esports should be
taken into account (Pizzo et al., 2018). Since the esports market is growing globally but
differently, the structural factors differ between the markets. The difference in devices and
media should be considered in the thematic agenda of future research (Wulf et al., 2018). As
media representation of esports differs between markets, consequently, the influence on
consumers’ perception of esports as a sport should be considered (Pizzo et al., 2018).
Recent technology developments should be considered impacting esports consumption as
a whole. This includes implementation of augmented reality (AR), enabling users to
experience the reality with virtual objects combined in the real world, as well as virtual reality
(VR), multidimensionally presenting/simulating a computer-generated immersive
environment and gamification, design incorporating engaging games (Jacobsson, 2019). In
recent years, user engagement benefitted from advancements in technology and computing
power. The Newzoo report from 2021 forecasted gamified fundraising campaigns and VR
facilities. Cacho-Elizondo et al. (2020) stated that “these technologies [AR and VR] are going to
be crucial to the future of eSports because they will be the new way of playing and a
marketing revolution” (p. 37). As virtual reality gear is expected to influence the consumers’
various perceptions, it suggests further research in the emerging technological development
of esports (Jang et al., 2021a).
Direction 1: Implementation of comparative approach (across user profiles, esports genres,
cultures, demographics, markets, technology).
Direction 2: Analysis of contextual and structural cues in choice and decision making
(service usage, subscription, devices, peer pressure).
Direction 3: Media representation of esports and the influence on consumers’ perception of
esports as a sport.

Theoretical agenda and directions for future research

As the number of studies in esports is growing, the number of theoretical frameworks applied is
also growing. Although 25 papers referenced theoretical frameworks, there is a call for more
complex models and scales (Cabeza-Ramırez et al., 2020; Hilvert-Bruce et al., 2018; Sj€oblom and
Hamari, 2017; Xu et al., 2021a, b). Similar to the thematical agenda calling for more variables and
different approaches, the theoretical agenda calls for additional variables, negatively worded
variables (e.g. Hilvert-Bruce et al., 2018) and new theoretical frameworks. These frameworks
could include sport involvement, identification with sport and/or esports and medium-specific Spectator
motivations. Since most theoretical frameworks stem from sport or other disciplines, new or behavior in
subsidiary frameworks or variables shall be implemented. The inclusion of further variables and
constructs should take the unique features of esports into account. Thus, adopting theoretical
esports
frameworks in a relevant way may help suitability and move this research area forward.
Variables that influence game attendance frequency and additional consumption
behaviors should be examined (Pizzo et al., 2018; Rogers et al., 2022) to better understand
esports consumption drivers, extrinsic motivation and associated regulatory styles (Qian
et al., 2022). Since models were adapted and slightly changed from traditional sport consumer
behavior, models should be further expanded by adding variables such as the sets of
motivations (Hamari and Sj€oblom, 2017; Pizzo et al., 2018). The Esports Consumption Model
(Jang et al., 2021b) and the Motivation Scale for Esport Consumption (Qian et al., 2022) provide
a good starting point for further expansion beyond traditional motivations linked to
traditional sport consumption. Furthermore, the range of processes should be considered self-
determinant and non-self-determinant (Qian et al., 2022).
When investigating consumption behavior, the variables should be considered as more
than only live streaming and usage behavior. Actual behavior can be included in existing
models to improve the explanatory power (Xiao, 2020). The impact of the demand factors on
consumer behavior can be verified by implementing actual behavior (Qian et al., 2019b).
Existing scales should be updated to investigate esports consumption in more detail and in
different directions. Kim and Kim (2020) and others proposed a direction on esports fandom
and loyalty (Qian et al., 2022). The parasocial interaction scale should be updated to capture
fan-influencer relationships observable on platforms.
Direction 1: Adoption of theoretical frameworks that accommodate the unique
characteristics/features of esports.
Direction 2: Expansion of existing models beyond traditional motivations.

Methodological agenda and directions for future research

Besides the time span in which researchers investigated esports consumption is growing, the
literature still lacks longitudinal studies. This paper proposes that future studies might
explore the changes in consumer behavior over time. This was also identified by different
authors (Cabeza-Ramırez et al., 2020; Hilvert-Bruce et al., 2018; Qian et al., 2022; Xu et al.,
2021a, b). Moreover, esports research lacks experimental designs, since only one paper was
quasi-experimental. The study included did not manipulate any features (of Twitch; Wulf
et al., 2018). Therefore, experimental designs and a more profound way should help determine
cause-effect relationships (Cabeza-Ramırez et al., 2020; Hamari and Sj€oblom, 2017; Hilvert-
Bruce et al., 2018; Qian et al., 2022).
In general, the implemented designs and methods still lack variance due to the evolving
research in esports. To better capture interactions within and across factors,
multidimensional scales and advanced statistics should be implemented (Pizzo et al., 2018;
Tang et al., 2022). This goes with the aforementioned update of scales and models in terms of
adding variables, mediators or implementing a more experimental design. The call for a more
comparative approach asks for implementing multiple methods (Rogers et al., 2022) and
mixed methods approaches along with qualitative studies (Pizzo et al., 2018). As indicated by
Figure 2, moderating effects of (new) variables should be taken into account to expand
variance and understanding in esports research (Cabeza-Ramırez et al., 2020; Jang and Byon,
2020; Jang et al., 2021b; Kim and Kim, 2020; Ma et al., 2021; Qian et al., 2022).
Although live streaming is a relatively new form of consuming sports, the method used in data
collection is relatively old fashioned. Most papers implemented a survey asking for behavior
IJSMS instead of looking at actual usage behavior. Since actual usage behavior is available in online
usage it should complement the data of esports online consumption. The implementation of
surveys had become a major trend in acquiring data, which was also the case for the analyzed
papers. The expansion in methods could include combining technology-enhanced data and actual
data to better capture real-time behavior (Hamari and Sj€oblom, 2017; Qian et al., 2020; Tang et al.,
2022). To collect actual behavior data, users’ Internet behavioral patterns are tracked. This could
be done with explicit tracking techniques like HTTP cookies (Banse et al., 2012), which is coding
and sending personal web browsing behavior, searching and purchasing information to third-
party advertisers. Tracking passively without using cookies is common (Banse et al., 2012).
However, behavioral tracking is still being discussed as unethical because of being an invasion of
privacy and putting consumers’ information at risk. A broader approach in data collection and
additional measurement instruments should be considered such as differentiation in samples,
esports event attendance in combination with online spectatorship and third-party data sources
(Jang and Byon, 2020; Qian et al., 2022; Sj€oblom et al., 2020; Xu et al., 2021b).
Direction 1: Implementation of longitudinal studies to analyze potential behavioral
changes over time and increase evidence levels.
Direction 2: Analyze moderating effects (individual factors, structural factors).
Direction 3: Survey data and actual data should be combined to capture consumption
behavior.

Practical agenda and directions for future research

Reviewing practical implications, the studies give manageable and informative implications.
However, practical implications supported the former call for new thematic, theoretical and
methodological agendas. When developing marketing strategies, contextual or cultural
differences should be considered. Since generalizing results to other settings should be
exercised cautiously, practitioners should be aware of differences (Cabeza-Ramırez et al.,
2020; Pizzo et al., 2018). Live stream platforms are still relatively new and evolving, which
made the managers go through trial and error phases in the last years. Further research in
consumers’ preferences could improve marketing tools. Platforms should decide what the
viewer sees first based on their country or IP of origin and what they know about motivations
(Cabeza-Ramırez et al., 2020). Cabeza-Ramırez et al. (2020) suggested targeting audiences
based on user profiles. This should be done by streamers asking questions before users
access their channel. Users should be provided with more tools (virtual cheering tools such as
emoticons and symbols) customized to teams and/or athletes to be used during streaming
(Kim and Kim, 2020). Since streamers are the information producers, they should
conceptualize their content based on practical implications found by research in esports
online consumption. Moreover, they should attract users among recreational esports gamers
rather than directly attract them to professional esports event spectatorship (Jang et al.,
2021b). To maintain the users’ flow experience, short video clips of the match highlights or
teams should be provided (Kim and Kim, 2020). Event organizers should show the players
more often to facilitate the spectators’ emotions, as suggested previously (Sj€oblom et al., 2020).
Since social motivation was one of the significant predictors of esports spectatorship,
social relationships and the demand for social interaction need to be satisfied (Kim and Kim,
2020). Social motivations should be recognized by online platforms (Sj€oblom et al., 2020).
Esports marketers and/or organizers could benefit from new players and teams as indicated
by novelty (Sj€oblom et al., 2020).
The creative integration of products by sponsors and advertisers could be game-related,
because spectators are at least casual players (Qian et al., 2019a). However, the relationship
between advertisers, sponsors and consumption or intention was not studied.
 Direction 1: Take cultural differences into account when developing marketing strategies. Spectator
Direction 2: Take country or IP of origin into account when deciding on exposure to behavior in
viewers on platforms. esports
Direction 3: Take social motivations and interaction into account when developing
platforms.

Conclusion
The study reviewed empirical studies examining esports spectatorship. At present, no
similar literature review is found in the field of spectators’ motivation in esports. Academics
should draw attention to the topic in emerging fields of esports and encourage empirical
studies in sport management. Two main topics have been studied: motivation and intention
in online and on-site spectatorship. This review summarized the core definitions, theories,
methodologies and theoretical frameworks. The review evaluated online and on-site
spectators’ motivation and behavioral intention separately. The findings showed significant
antecedents for motivation to watch esports online and on-site. The detected motives may
differ between motivation to spectate traditional sports or esports and within esports. Not all
studies concluded similarities. Consequently, research is needed to set a new agenda on
the topic.
As discussed, esports spectators were investigated as one group instead of segmenting
them. The growth of the esports market is a good argument to investigate consumer
segments, the consumer’s individual development and differences in general. Especially, the
unique characteristics, recent developments in information technology and experiential
consumer experience in esports are important for future research direction. Besides
implementing existing constructs and scales, new theoretical frameworks should be
considered applicable to the esports research field.
The review advances our understanding and knowledge of frequently used antecedents
and outcomes in esports spectatorship research. Motivation constructs were applied and
combined with structural factors unique to the esports industry. These unique factors were
subscription to streamers and channels, genres, use of features (bit, chat, donate) and devices
used. In addition, the outcome variables took the specific characteristics of esports into
account: on-site and online spectatorship.
Answering the question “why people watch esports”, the paper found social and
informational factors, entertainment and unique esports features positively associated with
esports spectatorship. Investigated papers found differences in consumption of esports and
traditional sports as well as esports genres.

Limitations
The literature search focused only on two databases, resulting in a limited number of papers
(N 5 25) collected for subsequent analysis. This might be due to the topic being still new.
Since only studies published in the English language were included in the review, some key
studies in other languages might be excluded. However, English is the language in which the
core publications can be found. Due to motivation and intention being the most frequently
used antecedents and outcomes when investigating consumer behavior, especially in sport
spectatorship, only these two variables were looked at. However, the factors influencing
spectators’ behavior are more complex and other aspects such as cultural differences were
not considered. Before any definite conclusion can be made concerning the motivations of
esports spectators and their behavioral intentions, paucity of empirical data and further
research is needed.
IJSMS References
Banyai, F., Griffiths, M.D., Kiraly, O. and Demetrovics, Z. (2019), “The psychology of esports:
a systematic literature review”, Journal of Gambling Studies, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 351-365.
Banse, C., Herrmann, D. and Federrath, H. (2012), “Tracking users on the internet with behavioral
patterns: evaluation of its practical feasibility”, Proceedings of SEC 2012, pp. 235-248.
Brown, K.A., Billings, A.C., Murphy, B. and Puesan, L. (2017), “Intersections of fandom in the age of
interactive media: eSports fandom as a predictor of traditional sport fandom”, Communication
and Sport, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 418-435.
Cabeza-Ramırez, L.J., Sanchez-Ca~
nizares, S.M. and Fuentes-Garcıa, F.J. (2020), “Motivation for the use
of video game streaming platforms: the moderating effect of sex, age and self-perception of
level as a player”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 17
No. 19, p. 7019.

Cacho-Elizondo, S., Lazaro Alvarez, J.-D. and Garcia, V.-E. (2020), “The emerging eSport market:
analyzing the impact of virtual and augmented reality”, Chinese Business Review, Vol. 19 No. 2,
pp. 37-54.
Falagas, M.E., Pitsouni, E.I., Malietzis, G.A. and Pappas, G. (2007), “Comparison of PubMed, scopus,
web of science, and Google scholar: strengths and weaknesses”, The FASEB Journal, Life
Sciences Forum, Vol. 22, pp. 338-342.
Garcia-Naveira, A., Toribio, M., Molero, B. and Suarez, A. (2018), “Beneficos cognitivos, psicologicos y
personales de luso de los videojuegos y esports: una revision”, Revista de Psicologıa Aplicada Al
Desporte y Al Ejercicio Fısico, Vol. 3 No. e16, pp. 1-15.
Halevi, G., Moed, H. and Bar-Ilan, J. (2017), “Suitability of Google Scholar as a source of scientific
information and as a source of data for scientific evaluation-Review of the Literature”, Journal
of Informetrics, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 823-834.
Hallmann, K. and Giel, T. (2018), “eSports – competitive sports or recreational activity?”, Sport
Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 14-20.
Hamari, J. and Sj€oblom, M. (2017), “What is eSports and why do people watch it?”, Internet Research,
Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 211-232.
Hilvert-Bruce, Z., Neill, J.T., Sj€oblom, M. and Hamari, J. (2018), “Social motivations of live-streaming
viewer engagement on Twitch”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 84, pp. 58-67.
Jacobsson, S. (2019), “Deepening user engagement on an esports platform using gamification”, Degree
Project in Computer Science and Engineering, available at: https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/
get/diva2:1337233/FULLTEXT01.pdf (accessed 27 Febraury 2022).
Jang, W.W. and Byon, K.K. (2020), “Antecedents and consequence associated with esports gameplay”,
International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Jang, W.W., Kim, K.A. and Byon, K.K. (2020), “Social atmospherics, affective response, and behavioral
intention associated with esports events”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 11, p. 1671.
Jang, W.W., Byon, K.K. and Song, H. (2021a), “Effect of prior gameplay experience on the relationships
between esports gameplay intention and live esports streaming content”, Sustainability,
Vol. 13, 8019.
Jang, W.W., Byon, K.K., Baker, T.A. III and Tsuji, Y. (2021b), “Mediating effects of esports content live
streaming in the relationship between esports recreational gameplay and esports event
broadcast”, Sport, Business and Management, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 89-108.
Kim, J. and Kim, M. (2020), “Spectator e-sport and well-being through live streaming services”,
Technology in Society, Vol. 63, 101401.
Lee, D. and Schoenstedt, L.J. (2011), “Comparison of eSports and traditional sports consumption
motives”, The ICHPER-SD Journal of Research in Health, Physical Education, Recreation, Sport
and Dance, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 39-44.
Li, Y., Wang, C. and Liu, J. (2020), “A systematic review of literature on user behavior in video game Spectator
live streaming”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 17
No. 9, 3328. behavior in
Lim, J.S., Choe, M.-J., Zhang, J. and Noh, G.-Y. (2020), “The role of wishful identification, emotional
esports
engagement, and parasocial relationships in repeated viewing of live- streaming games: a social
cognitive theory perspective”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 108, 106327.
Ma, S.-C., Byon, K.K., Jang, W.W., Ma, S.-M. and Huang, T.-N. (2021), “Esports spectating motives and
streaming consumption: a moderating effect of game genres and live-streaming types”,
Sustainability, Vol. 13, pp. 1-21.
Moher, D., Librati, A., Tettzlaff, J. and Altmann, D.G. (2009), “Preferred reporting Items for systematic
reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement”, PLOS Medicine, Vol. 6 No. 7, pp. 1-6.
Mora-Cantallops, M. and Sicilia, M.-A.  (2018), “MOBA games: a literature review”, Entertainment
Computing, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 128-138.
Newzoo (2020), “2020 global esports market report”, available at: https://newzoo.com/insights/trend-
reports/newzoo-global-games-market-report-2020-light-version (accessed 28 February 2021).
Newzoo (2021), “Global market report - the VR & metaverse edition”, available at: https://newzoo.com/
insights/trend-reports/newzoo-global-games-market-report-2021-free-version (accessed 3
April 2022).
Pedraza-Ramirez, I., Musculus, L., Raab, M. and Laborde, S. (2020), “Setting the scientific stage for
esports psychology: a systematic review”, International Review of Sport and Exercise
Psychology, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 319-352.
Pellicone, A.J. and Ahn, J. (2017), “The game of performing play: understanding streaming as cultural
production”, Paper Presented at the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems, Denver, CO, USA, 6 May 2017, available at: http://library.usc.edu.ph/ACM/CHI%
202017/1proc/p4863.pdf (accessed 22 May 2021).
Pizzo, A.D., Baker, B.J., Na, S., Lee, M.A., Kim, D. and Funk, D.C. (2018), “eSport vs. Sport: a
comparison of spectator motives”, Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 108-123.
Podsakoff, N. (2003), “Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature
and recommended remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Popper, B. (2013), “Field of streams: how Twitch made video games a spectator sport”, available at:
https://www.theverge.com/2013/9/30/4719766/twitch-raises-20million-esports-market-booming
(accessed 3 May 2020).
Qian, T.Y., Wang, J.J., Zhang, J.J. and Lu, L.Z. (2019a), “It is in the game: dimensions of esports online
spectator motivation and development of a scale”, European Sport Management Quarterly,
Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 458-479.
Qian, T.Y., Zhang, J.J., Wang, J.J. and Hulland, J. (2019b), “Beyond the game: dimensions of esports
online spectator demand”, Communication and Sport, Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 825-851.
Qian, T.Y., Wang, J.J. and Zhang, J.J. (2020), “Push and pull factors in E-sports livestreaming: a partial
least squares structural equation modelling approach”, International Journal of Sport
Communication, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 621-642.
Qian, T.Y., Wang, J.J., Zhang, J.J. and Hulland, J. (2022), “Fulfilling the basic psychological needs of
esports fans: a self-determination theory approach”, Communication and Sport, Vol. 10 No. 2,
pp. 216-240.
Rogers, R., Farquhar, L. and Mummert, J. (2022), “Motivational differences among viewers of
traditional sports, esports, and NBA 2K league”, Communication and Sport, Vol. 10 No. 2,
pp. 175-194.
Ruggiero, T.E. (2000), “Uses and gratifications theory in the 2st century”, Mass Communication and
Society, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 3-37.
IJSMS Sj€oblom, M. and Hamari, J. (2017), “Why do people watch others play video games? An empirical
study on the motivations of Twitch users”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 75, pp. 985-996.
Sj€oblom, M., T€orh€onen, M., Hamari, J. and Macey, J. (2017), “Content structure is king: an empirical
study on gratifications, game genres and content type on Twitch”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 73, pp. 161-171.
Sj€oblom, M., Macey, J. and Hamari, J. (2020), “Digital athletics in analogue stadiums - comparing
gratifications for engagement between live attendance and online esports spectating”, Internet
Research, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 713-735.
Tang, T., Kucek, J. and Toepfer, S. (2022), “Active within structures: predictors of esport gameplay
and spectatorship”, Communication and Sport, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 195-215.
Taylor, N. (2016), “Now you’re playing with audience power: the work of watching games”, Critical
Studies in Media Communication, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 293-307.
Wulf, T., Schneider, F.M. and Beckert, S. (2018), “Watching players: an exploration of media
enjoyment on Twitch”, Games and Culture, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 328-346.
Xiao, M. (2020), “Factors influencing eSports viewership: an approach based on the theory of reasoned
action”, Communication and Sport, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 92-122.
Xu, X.-Y., Luo, X.R., Wu, K. and Zhao, W. (2021a), “Exploring viewer participation in online video
game streaming: a mixed-methods approach”, International Journal of Information
Management, Vol. 58, 102297.
Xu, X.-Y., Niu, W.-B., Jia, Q.D., Nthoiwa, L. and Li, L.W. (2021b), “Why do viewers engage in video
game streaming? The perspective of cognitive emotion theory and the moderation effect of
personal characteristics”, Sustainability, Vol. 13, 11990.

Corresponding author
Julia Rietz can be contacted at: julia.rietz@web.de

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com