See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/379805100

Esports for development? Exploring esports player profiles and their

development and well-being outcomes

Article in International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship · April 2024

DOI: 10.1108/IJSMS-08-2023-0160

CITATION READS

1 192

6 authors, including:

Wonjun Choi Wooyoung William Jang

Univeresity of New Hampshire Indiana University Bloomington
28 PUBLICATIONS 42 CITATIONS 18 PUBLICATIONS 319 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Hyunseok Song Min Jung Kim

University of West Georgia McPherson College
10 PUBLICATIONS 261 CITATIONS 12 PUBLICATIONS 48 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Wonjun Choi on 13 April 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1464-6668.htm

Esports for development? Esports for

development
Exploring esports player profiles
and their development and
well-being outcomes
Wonjun Choi Received 15 August 2023
Revised 19 December 2023
Department of Kinesiology, University of New Hampshire, Accepted 28 January 2024
Durham, New Hampshire, USA
Wooyoung (William) Jang and Hyunseok Song
Department of Sport Management, Wellness, and Physical Education,
University of West Georgia, Carrollton, Georgia, USA
Min Jung Kim
Department of Health and Sport Studies, McPherson College, McPherson,
Kansas, USA
Wonju Lee
Department of Economics, Accounting and Business, Muskingum University,
New Concord, Ohio, USA, and
Kevin K. Byon
Department of Kinesiology, Indiana University Bloomington, Bloomington,
Indiana, USA

Abstract
Purpose – This study aimed to identify subgroups of esports players based on their gaming behavior patterns
across game genres and compare self-efficacy, social efficacy, loneliness and three dimensions of quality of life
between these subgroups.
Design/methodology/approach – 324 participants were recruited from prolific academic to complete an
online survey. We employed latent profile analysis (LPA) to identify subgroups of esports players based on
their behavioral patterns across genres. Additionally, a one-way multivariate analysis of covariance
(MANCOVA) was conducted to test the association between cluster memberships and development and well-
being outcomes, controlling for age and gender as covariates.
Findings – LPA analysis identified five clusters (two single-genre gamer groups, two multigenre gamer
groups and one all-genre gamer group). Univariate analyses indicated the significant effect of the clusters on
social efficacy, psychological health and social health. Pairwise comparisons highlighted the salience of the
physical enactment-plus-sport simulation genre group in these outcomes.
Originality/value – This study contributes to the understanding of the development and well-being benefits
experienced by various esports consumers, as well as the role of specific gameplay in facilitating targeted
outcomes among these consumer groups.
Keywords Esports players, Latent profile analysis, Development outcomes, Player well-being
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
In recent years, esports has gained widespread popularity in various countries (Chan et al.,
2022). As esports do not require in-person gameplay and physical proximity, the growth has International Journal of Sports
Marketing and Sponsorship
been boosted through the COVID-19 pandemic (Ke and Wagner, 2022). According to the © Emerald Publishing Limited
1464-6668
Entertainment Software Association (2022), 66% of Americans (about 215 million people) DOI 10.1108/IJSMS-08-2023-0160
IJSMS play video games regularly. Although various video games are currently available, the top
video games in the U.S. in 2021 included several esports games such as Call of Duty, Madden
NFL 22, and FIFA 22 (Entertainment Software Association, 2022). Statista (2022) predicts
that the worldwide esports market revenue will grow from $996 million in 2020 to $1.87 billion
in 2025. As the esports industry continues to expand, it is crucial to delineate the focus of our
study. We specifically concentrate on esports consumers who play video games for
recreational purposes, given the growing popularity of esports gameplay among the general
population.
Since esports gameplay requires a certain level of time, effort and commitment for
competition, skill development and teamwork (Funk et al., 2018), playing esports games can
be considered a specific type of sport involvement (Jang and Byon, 2020a). To better
understand esports involvement, academic studies have been conducted to identify clusters
of esports players based on their motivations and/or behavioral patterns (e.g. Hedlund, 2019,
2021; Ip and Jacobs, 2005; Kallio et al., 2011). For instance, Hedlund (2021) recently identified
five clusters of esports players based on these factors via hierarchical and k-clustering
techniques. In addition, Tseng (2011) surveyed 228 esports players in Taiwan and found that
they could be classified into three clusters: (1) aggressive gamer, (2) social gamer and (3)
inactive gamer.
Understanding segments and clusters of esports players based on their involvement
patterns is crucial to better serve their needs and wants (Jang et al., 2021b). Currently, the
esports market offers various game formats and genres that require different knowledge and
skills, such as shooting games, real-time strategy games, sport simulation games and
multiplayer online battle arena (MOBA) games. However, few academic studies have
considered the specific characteristics of different game genres in understanding esports
player involvement and their development outcomes. Prior studies often examined the impact
of esports on players’ health outcomes (e.g. DiFrancisco-Donoghue et al., 2020; Rudolf et al.,
2020) because of concerns about problematic behaviors (e.g. addiction) and sedentary
lifestyles among esports players (Chan et al., 2022). Despite these concerns, esports gameplay
can provide a context where participants develop specific skills, facilitate social interactions
via online platforms and seek hedonic value (Funk et al., 2018; Jang et al., 2021b; O’Connor
et al., 2015), which can promote self-and-social efficacy, reduce loneliness and improve quality
of life. However, few studies have explored the role of esports involvement in players’
development and well-being outcomes. Several scholars have called for a need to further
understand the characteristics and development of esports players (B
anyai et al., 2019;
Hedlund, 2021; Pizzo et al., 2022).
To fill the gaps identified above, this study aimed to identify subgroups of esports
consumers based on their gaming behavior patterns across game genres and compare self-
efficacy, social efficacy, loneliness and quality of life (i.e. physical, psychological, and social)
between these subgroups. This study extends our understanding of esports involvement by
identifying player profiles based on gaming behavior patterns. By examining the association
between esports involvement patterns and development and well-being outcomes, the
present study’s findings are expected to assist practitioners in developing programs that
leverage esports to achieve desired outcomes among target populations while also marketing
the benefits of esports gameplay to a broad audience.

Conceptual background
Sport involvement
Esports has been increasingly recognized as a new sport activity featuring competitive
games, players and teams that are similarly present in traditional sports (Cunningham et al.,
2018; Funk et al., 2018). While there has been ongoing debate about whether esports meet the
criteria for physical skills and the development of general sport involvement (Cunningham Esports for
et al., 2018), esports require manual dexterity, fine motor skills and physiological readings, development
which demonstrate the physical skill component of esports similar to general sports (Funk
et al., 2018). Playing esports requires time, effort, skills and commitment (Jang et al., 2021b),
indicating one’s active involvement in esports. According to Allport (1945), involvement can
be present from six domains of activity: (1) educational, (2) familial, (3) political, (4)
recreational, (5) theological and (6) vocational. For example, individuals may be involved in
sport for educational (e.g. student-athletes), recreational (e.g. casual players) or vocational
purposes (e.g. professional athletes and employees of sport organizations). However, Beaton
et al. (2011) suggested that prior studies often examined sport involvement as an active
participant or spectator primarily using the consumer behavior literature. Based on prior
literature (e.g. Funk and James, 2001; Havitz and Dimanche, 1997), Beaton et al. (2011)
conceptualized sport involvement as “when individuals evaluate their participation in a sport
activity as a central component of their life that provides both hedonic and symbolic
value” (p. 128).
Beaton et al. (2011) suggested that the construct of sport involvement can be better
understood with its relationship with antecedents or outcomes. For instance, personal factors
(e.g. attitudes, knowledge, motivation) and demographic characteristics (e.g. age, gender)
serve as the antecedents to sport involvement at the individual level (Rowe et al., 2013).
In addition, individuals can increase their psychological and behavioral commitment, loyalty,
and continuance to their sport participation or consumption as a result of sport involvement
(Beaton et al., 2011). Sport involvement provides participants with hedonic value
(e.g. enjoyment), centrality (e.g. life purpose) and symbolic value (e.g. self-and-social
identity) (Beaton et al., 2011; Funk and James, 2001). As such, it can help promote health and
well-being (Kim and James, 2019) and psychological outcomes such as self-efficacy and self-
worth (Kim et al., 2020).
Sport involvement has been primarily studied within the traditional sport context.
However, as more people become involved in esports as active participants, it is necessary
to further examine esports involvement and its outcomes among those who play esports
games. Some prior studies have used esports motivations and behavioral patterns to
examine and cluster the types of esports involvement among players (Hedlund, 2021; Yee,
2006a). It would be advantageous to further understand esports players based on their
involvement patterns as a new sport group (cf. Beaton et al., 2011). However, few empirical
studies have explored esports involvement using cluster analysis and examined its
relationships with desired outcomes. Therefore, this study aims to explore the profiles of
esports players and examine the relationships between their involvement patterns and
development and well-being outcomes, providing insights into the potential benefits of
esports involvement.

Esports player segmentation

To better understand esports player groups, a market segmentation research approach can
be insightful for addressing its needs and wants (Jang et al., 2021b). As such, prior studies
have adopted this approach to identify clusters of esports players (e.g. Hedlund, 2021; Jang
et al., 2021b), given that they have become a fast-growing consumer group in the sport
industry (Chan et al., 2022). Based on a literature review of seven empirical studies that
cross multiple disciplines (Hedlund, 2021; Ip and Jacobs, 2005; Jang et al., 2021b; Kallio et al.,
2011; Tseng, 2011; Yee, 2006a, b), we summarized key findings related to esports player
segmentation (see Supplementary Table 1). These studies primarily used (online) surveys to
recruit samples of esports players from various countries, including the USA, Finland,
Taiwan and Wales. They measured motivational constructs (e.g. competition, socialization,
IJSMS escape), demographic factors (e.g. age, gender) and behavioral patterns (e.g. years of playing).
They primarily used factor analysis and K-means clustering to determine two to five
subgroups among esports players. We found that these subgroups share commonalities
between serious involvement (e.g. aggressive, hardcore, intensive) and casual involvement
(e.g. recreational, social, fun). For example, Hedlund (2021) investigated 1,165 esports players
primarily residing in the USA and identified five cluster groups using the Motivation Scale
for Esports Players (MSEP). The identified clusters were (1) competitive, (2) casual, (3) casual-
social, (4) casual-fun and (5) casual-competitive. Additionally, Kallio et al. (2011) analyzed data
from 922 Finnish esports players and determined three subgroups – (1) intensity, (2)
sociability and (3) games groups.
In addition to these categories, some studies have provided interesting insights into
esports player clusters and segments. For instance, Yee (2006a) studied 30,000 players from
multiuser online role-playing games (MMORPG) and classified them into different groups
based on their motivations – (1) achievement, (2) relationships, (3) immersion, (4) escapism
and (5) manipulation. Recently, Jang et al. (2021b) proposed four-game clusters based on high/
low gameplay and high/low viewing: (1) recreational gamer, (2) the observer, (3) conventional
player and (4) all-around gamer.
Although all seven empirical studies summarized above have made significant
contributions to the esports literature, research gaps still exist and further investigation is
needed to advance the knowledge of esports players. Prior studies have mainly used
demographic (e.g. age, gender), psychological (e.g. motivation) and behavioral factors (e.g.
gaming frequency, intensity) to identify esports player profiles and clusters. Esports players’
gaming patterns and behaviors serve as an important proxy that indicates levels of esports
involvement (Ip and Jacobs, 2005; Kallio et al., 2011). However, although people can
participate in various formats and genres of esports (Kallio et al., 2011), few studies have
considered game characteristics and genres in exploring the profiles and clusters of esports
players (except for Hedlund, 2021; Kallio et al., 2011). In addition, six out of the seven studies
used K-means clustering or factor analysis to segment and cluster esports players. Although
K-means clustering analysis was widely used in the prior literature, the researcher must
determine the number of clusters (i.e. K) before running the analysis (Tseng, 2011). While
K-means clustering has its merits, the associated assumptions are rather strict (e.g. spherical,
equally sized, equal variances). Considering that esports consumers are unique and distinct
from traditional sport fans, we adopted latent profile analysis (LPA), a statistical technique
used for grouping data that use continuous variables. It does not assume any specific shape
or size for latent profiles, offering more nuanced insights into the underlying esports
population structure (Vermunt, 2010). The categorization of esports players into distinct
clusters based on their gaming behaviors across diverse gaming genres can yield significant
insights into how players interact with esports games. Thus, this leads to our first research
questions:
RQ1. What clusters do esports players have based on their gaming behaviors across
gaming genres?

Esports player development and well-being

With an increasing number of individuals engaging in esports as a form of sporting activity,
Pizzo et al. (2022) suggest that scholars need to further explore the efficacy of esports
involvement in players’ well-being and development benefits (i.e. esports for development).
Specifically, esports gameplay can provide a context where participants experience hedonic
value, hone their skills, and facilitate social interactions via online platforms (Funk et al., 2018;
Jang et al., 2021b; O’Connor et al., 2015). Thus, esports can offer developmental assets to
promote one’s desired outcomes (Pizzo et al., 2018). We have identified and summarized the
key literature on esports player development and well-being based on ten empirical academic Esports for
studies that cross disciplines (DiFrancisco-Donoghue et al., 2020; Maldonado-Murciano et al., development
2022; Martoncik, 2015; Martoncik and Loksa, 2016; O’Connor et al., 2015; Rudolf et al., 2020;
Trotter et al., 2020, 2021; Weaver et al., 2009; Yee, 2006a) (see Supplementary Table 2).
As esports games are often based on limited mobility and sedentary behavior (Trotter
et al., 2020), four out of the eleven studies examined whether esports participation improves or
deteriorates one’s health status (DiFrancisco-Donoghue et al., 2020; Rudolf et al., 2020; Trotter
et al., 2020; Weaver et al., 2009). All these four studies found a somewhat negative association
between esports gameplay and health status (e.g. sedentary behavior, body-fat percentage),
even though there were mixed findings regarding the significant difference in body mass
index (BMI) between esports players and non-players (DiFrancisco-Donoghue et al., 2020;
Weaver et al., 2009).
Since participants can learn how to overcome challenges through esports competitions
and gameplay, which can apply to other life contexts (Fletcher et al., 2020), three out of the
eleven studies explored the intersection of esports and psychological and behavioral
outcomes such as self-regulation, commitment to life goals and leadership skills, and
provided some empirical evidence on these outcomes (Martoncik, 2015; Trotter et al., 2021;
Yee, 2006a). In addition, as many esports games are offered in the form of team battles (Funk
et al., 2018), three studies investigated the role of esports in individuals’ social outcomes
(Martoncik and Loksa, 2016; O’Connor et al., 2015; Trotter et al., 2021). For instance, O’Connor
et al. (2015) interviewed 22 Australian World of Warcraft (WOW). They reported a sense of
community, social identities, and social support through their interactions with other players.
Interestingly, Martoncik and Loksa (2016) compared esports players’ social experience
between the online (virtual) and the real world and suggested that esports players felt lower
levels of loneliness and social anxiety through the online context. However, Trotter et al.
(2021) found that esports participants perceived less social support than traditional sport
athletes.
Despite some empirical evidence on the positive role of esports in individual outcomes, the
efficacy of esports in health and well-being has often been questioned because it might cause
negative outcomes (Maldonado-Murciano et al., 2022; Weaver et al., 2009; Yin et al., 2020). For
example, Yin et al. (2020) revealed that uncontrolled esports gameplay causes the issue of
game addiction or disordered gaming. Also, Maldonado-Murciano et al. (2022) studied 5,734
professional and nonprofessional gamers through online surveys and supported a prevalence
of disordered gaming symptoms among professional gamers. In addition, Weaver et al. (2009)
found that female video gamer players experienced higher levels of depression than female
non-players.
Prior studies often focused on the health implications of esports participation. However,
for other possible outcomes, esports can provide participants with a context where they
experience “normative worlds” that require working toward intended goals, collaborative
work and receiving support from others (cf. Larson and Walker, 2006). In addition,
individuals can participate in esports to seek hedonic value as a leisure/recreation activity
(Seo, 2013). Thus, the present study considered the improvement of self-and-social efficacy,
reduction of loneliness and enhancement of quality of life as the potential outcomes of esports
involvement. Several scholars have called for further examining the potential of esports
involvement for various development and well-being outcomes (Campbell et al., 2018;
Monteiro Pereira et al., 2022; Pizzo et al., 2022). Furthermore, although some prior studies
determined the clusters of esports players based on their gaming patterns and behaviors (e.g.
Hedlund, 2021; Ip and Jacobs, 2005), few studies have examined the association between these
player clusters and specific target outcomes. As each cluster group may represent different
levels and patterns of esports involvement, it is worthwhile investigating outcome differences
according to esports cluster memberships. Thus, this leads to our second research question:
IJSMS RQ2. How are the esports player clusters associated with self-efficacy, social efficacy,
loneliness and quality of life?

Method
Data collection procedure and participants
Under institutional review board (IRB) approval, participants were recruited from prolific
academic, a crowdsourcing platform that has been increasingly used in sport management
(Ko et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2018). Through prolific academic, participants were directed to the
online survey created in SurveyMonkey after agreeing to participate in the study. To be eligible
for this study, participants had to be at least 18 years old, primarily residing in the U.S., and have
experience in esports gameplay. All Prolific Academic users are at least 18 years old, and we
filtered out participants who do not reside in the U.S. In our survey, we used a screening question:
“Do you currently play esports game(s)?" Those who answered “no” to this question were not
included in the survey. To ensure our data quality in prolific academic, only participants who
completed all responses as nonspeeders were included in the data analysis (Jang et al., 2021b).
Initially, 415 data were collected, but 32 were removed due to incomplete responses.
Furthermore, multivariate outliers were checked and 59 outliers were removed based on their
distance from the means (greater than þ3 or less than 3 standard deviations) (cf. Olukanmi and
Twala, 2017) as outliers might lead to extreme profiles with a few cases and biased results of
LPA (Vermunt and Magidson, 2002). Thus, 324 data were used for the data analysis.
By incorporating questions about whether they play esports games, we deliberately selected
survey respondents to ensure that the results of the current study would be more pertinent to
the target group intended for this paper. The demographics of the study participants effectively
represented the profile of esports consumers, as similarly reported in Jang et al. (2021b) and
Nielsen (2018). To describe the participants’ demographic characteristics, 27.2% identified as
female (n 5 88), 70.4% as male (n 5 228) and 2.5% as other (i.e. non-binary or prefer not to say;
n 5 8). The majority of respondents identified as White (n 5 200, 61.7%), followed by Asian
Americans (13.6%), Blacks or African Americans (12%) and Hispanic or Latin Americans
(9.3%). The majority of respondents had a bachelor’s degree (n 5 137, 42.3%) followed by a
high school diploma (33%) and an advanced degree (12.7%). The majority age group was 25–34
(n 5 157, 48.5%), followed by 35–44 (24.1%) and 18–24 (15.4%). Of the respondents, 55.2%
were single and 32.7% were married. The majority of respondents lived in suburban areas
(53.4%), followed by urban areas (36.1%) and rural areas (10.5%). Lastly, the majority of
respondents had a household income between US $40,000 and $69,999 (n 5 106, 32.7%), while
80 respondents (24.7%) had $10,000 – $39,999 and 68 respondents (21%) had $70,000 – $99,999.

Measures
Our online survey consisted of three sections: (1) esports gaming behavior patterns across
game genres, (2) development and well-being outcomes and (3) demographic questions. In the
first section, we asked if participants currently play esports game(s) in each of the three
genres identified (Jang and Byon, 2020b) – imagination, physical enactment and sport
simulation. We provided participants with a description of all three genres and examples of
esports games. To illustrate, the imagination genre refers to esports games framed with
imaginary worlds, characters and rules, including real-time strategy, multiplayer online role-
playing games, and MOBA games (e.g. League of Legends). The physical enactment genre
includes esports games prioritizing swift reaction times, attentive observation and cognitive
skills as key gameplay elements, such as traditional first-person shooter/third-person shooter
games, fighting games and battle royale games (e.g. Counter-Strike). The sport simulation
genre encompasses esports games that replicate the rules, teams or players of real-life sport
events, such as the FIFA series (currently EA Sports FC) and the NBA 2k series.
 In each game genre, participants who indicated that they currently play that genre were Esports for
asked how long they have played it and how many hours per week they currently play it. For development
those who did not find our genre categories relevant to their esports experience, we provided
an open-ended question where they can write the name of the esports game(s) they currently
play. Once we gathered all the write-in answers, we manually coded their esports games into
each of the three genres described above.
For development and well-being outcomes, self-efficacy was measured using five
items from the efficacy scale Sherer et al. (1982) on a 5-point scale ranging from
1 5 strongly disagree to 5 5 strongly agree. Example questions included, “I give up on
things before completing them” and “I avoid trying to learn new things when they look too
difficult for me.” Social efficacy was measured using four items from the same scale
(Sherer et al., 1982). An example question was, “It is difficult for me to make new friends.”
Loneliness was measured using six items from the University of California, Los Angeles
(UCLA) loneliness scale (Neto, 2014), on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 5 never to
4 5 often. Example questions included, “I lack companionship” and “I feel isolated from
others.” Three dimensions of quality of life – physical (7 items), psychological (6 items)
and social health (3 items) – were measured using 15 items from the World Health
Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL)-BREF (WHOQOL Group, 1998). Example
questions included, “Do you have enough energy for everyday life? (physical)," “To what
extent do you feel your life to be meaningful? (psychological)," and “How satisfied are you
with your personal relationships? (social)." Demographic information, including age,
gender, education, race/ethnicity, marital status, household income and living area, was
also collected.

Data analyses
To address the first research question, we used LPA to identify the subgroups of esports
players based on their behavioral patterns across genres (i.e. length of years and weekly
hours of esports gameplay). Following Vermunt’s (2010) suggestion, we employed a three-
step method. In the first step, we determined the optimal number of latent classes using only
predictor variables (i.e. esports gameplay behaviors across three genres). Specifically, we
compared a series of LPA models with two to six classes using multiple fit statistics to
determine the optimal number of latent classes. The final model was chosen based on the
Bayesian information criterion (BIC), the Bootstrap Likelihood Ratio Test (BLRT) and
entropy, along with consideration of interpretability (Nylund et al., 2007). The second step
involved assigning participants to the identified latent classes based on their posterior class
membership probabilities. In the last step, we conducted multinomial logistic regression to
examine the relationship between demographic variables and latent profiles. Then, we used a
one-way multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) to test the association between
cluster memberships and development and well-being outcomes after controlling for age and
gender as covariates. Univariate analyses and pairwise comparisons were used as follow-up
analyses to determine specific differences between pairs of groups. All the scales used in the
current study demonstrated acceptable reliability (Taber, 2018), with a Cronbach’s alpha of
0.935 in self-efficacy, 0.657 in social efficacy, 0.890 in loneliness, 0.825 in physical health, 0.896
in psychological health and 0.832 in social health.

Results
Latent profile analysis (LPA) – RQ1
Using RStudio (tidyLPA version 1.1.0), the results of LPA indicated that the five-cluster
model had an optimal fit with statistical significance based on the Bootstrap Likelihood Ratio
IJSMS Test (BLRT) (p < 0.05) and the lowest Bayesian information criterion (BIC) (see Table 1).
Overall, the five-cluster model revealed different patterns of esports involvement across the
clusters. We identified five distinct groups: (1) imagination genre-driven players, hereafter
referred to as the I group (n 5 41, 12.7%); (2) physical enactment genre-driven players,
referred to as the P group (n 5 68, 21%); (3) physical enactment-plus-imagination-driven
players, referred to as the P þ I group (n 5 97, 29.9%); (4) physical enactment-plus-sport
simulation-driven players, referred to as the P þ S group (n 5 65, 20.1%) and (5) all-around
players (n 5 53, 16.4%).
Specifically, the I group (cluster 1) consisted of individuals mainly playing the imagination
genre (average game years 5 5.83 and weekly game hours 5 7.80). The P group (cluster 2)
comprised individuals primarily engaging in the physical enactment genre (average game
years 5 3.73 and weekly game hours 5 5.76). The P þ I group (cluster 3) consisted of
individuals who mainly play in both the physical enactment (average game years 5 4.66 and
weekly game hours 5 8.04) and imagination genres (average game years 5 5.69 and weekly
game hours 5 7.20). The P þ S group (cluster 4) consisted of individuals who primarily engage
in both the physical enactment (average game years 5 2.73 and weekly game hours 5 2.74) and
sport simulation genres (average game years 5 3.14 and weekly game hours 5 3.52). Finally,
the all-around group (cluster 5) consisted of individuals who engage in all three genres of
gameplay, including imagination (average game years 5 4.56 and weekly game hours 5 8.32),
physical enactment (average game years 5 4.05 and weekly game hours 5 5.30) and sport
simulation (average game years 5 6.28 and weekly game hours 5 4.22) (see Table 2).
The profile of the five-cluster model, depicted in Figure 1, illustrates the average number of
years each group has played certain game genres and the weekly average hours spent on
these genres.
In terms of demographic characteristics, the results of multinomial logistic regression
revealed that household income, gender, education and marital status were significantly
associated with latent profiles (p < 0.05). In this analysis, the all-around group (cluster 5) was
used as reference. Specifically, household income was positively correlated with the P group
(p < 0.05). While respondents who reported themselves as female were more likely to be
designated in the P group than those who identified themselves as male (p < 0.05). Meanwhile,
the education level of respondents was negatively associated with the P þ I group (p < 0.05).
Respondents living in suburban were more likely to be assigned to the P þ I group than those
living in rural area (p < 0.05). Additionally, female respondents were more likely to be
classified into the I group than male respondents (p < 0.05). Any relationships other than
those associations were not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

Multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) – RQ2

Prior to running a one-way MANCOVA, we examined the box’s M test to assess the
assumptions of multivariate normality and homogeneity of covariance matrices for the five

Profiles BIC Entropy BLRT

2 5291.90 0.94 0.01

3 4874.75 0.96 0.01
4 4774.35 0.94 0.01
5 4456.76 0.96 0.01
Table 1. 6 4493.55 0.91 0.85
Latent profile model Note(s): BIC 5 Bayesian Information Criterion; BLRT 5 Bootstrap Likelihood Ratio Test
selection Source(s): Authors own creation
 Cluster 1 Cluster 3 Cluster 5
Esports for
(n 5 41, Cluster 2 (n 5 97, Cluster 4 (n 5 53, development
12.7%) (n 5 68, 21%) 29.9%) (n 5 65.20.1%) 16.4%)

Imagination_ 5.83 0.04 4.66 0.05 4.56

Years
Imagination_ 7.80 0.56 8.04 0.92 8.32
Hours
Physical 0.01 3.73 5.69 2.73 4.05
Enactment_Years
Physical 0.02 5.76 7.20 2.74 5.30
Enactment_
Hours
Sport Simulation_ 0.02 0.00 0.04 3.14 6.28
Years
Sport Simulation_ 0.02 0.01 0.03 3.52 4.22
Hours
Age
18–24 12.2% 16.2% 18.6% 13.8% 13.2%
25–34 58.5% 41.2% 55.7% 35.4% 52.8%
35–44 22% 27.9% 19.6% 32.3% 18.9%
45–54 2.4% 8.8% 5.2% 9.2% 15.1%
55 or older 4.9% 5.9% 1% 9.2% 0%
Gender*
Female 34.1% 39.7% 24.7% 24.6% 13.2%
Male 63.4% 57.4% 74.2% 73.8% 81.1%
Non-Binary 2.4% 2.9% 1% 1.5% 5.7%
Race
White 61% 63.2% 56.7% 66.2% 64.2%
Black 9.8% 13.2% 7.2% 18.5% 13.2%
Hispanic or 4.9% 4.4% 16.5% 7.7% 7.5%
Latino
Asian 17.1% 14.7% 17.5% 7.7% 9.4%
Other 7.3% 4.4% 2.1% 0% 5.7%
Marital Status*
Single 61% 61.8% 63.9% 38.5% 47.2%
Married 29.3% 30.9% 22.7% 47.7% 37.7%
Other 9.8% 7.4% 13.4% 13.8% 15.1%
Education*
High school 34.1% 36.8% 41.2% 23.1% 24.5%
graduate
Associate degree 9.8% 7.4% 10.3% 12.3% 15.1%
Bachelor’s degree 39% 48.5% 38.1% 47.7% 37.7%
Advanced degree 14.6% 5.9% 9.3% 16.9% 20.8%
Other 2.4% 1.5% 1% 0% 1.9%
Income*
Less than $10,000 7.3% 2.9% 6.2% 3.1% 5.7%
$10,000-$39,000 22% 25% 29.9% 16.9% 26.4% Table 2.
$40,000-$69,000 31.7% 30.9% 29.9% 36.9% 35.8% Demographics and
behaviors of the five
(continued ) clusters
IJSMS Cluster 1 Cluster 3 Cluster 5
(n 5 41, Cluster 2 (n 5 97, Cluster 4 (n 5 53,
12.7%) (n 5 68, 21%) 29.9%) (n 5 65.20.1%) 16.4%)

$70,000-$99,000 22% 19.1% 19.6% 24.6% 20.8%

More than 17.1% 22.1% 14.4% 18.5% 11.3%
$100,000
Area
Urbana 41.5% 23.5% 32% 47.7% 41.5%
Suburban 48.8% 58.8% 62.9% 43.1% 45.3%
Rural 9.8% 17.6% 5.2% 9.2% 13.2%
Note(s): Cluster 1 5 imagination genre-driven players; Cluster 2 5 physical enactment genre-driven players;
Cluster 3 5 physical enactment-plus-imagination genre-driven players; Cluster 4 5 physical enactment-plus-
sport simulation-driven players; Cluster 5 5 all-around players. Boldface indicates statistical significance as
determined by multinomial regression analysis (*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001). The reference group is
cluster 5 (all-around)
Table 2. Source(s): Authors own creation

Figure 1.
Profile of the five-
clusters model

groups. As the sample sizes were unequal, we applied a stricter criterion for the Box’s M test
(p < 0.001). If the Box’s M test is significant at p < 0.001, the assumption of homogeneity of
covariance matrices cannot be held. However, as our box’s M test was only significant at
p < 0.05, we could proceed with the MANCOVA (Ntumi, 2021). The results of Wilks’ Lambda
showed significant differences across the means of the five groups on a combination of
outcome variables when controlling for age and gender as covariates [Λ 5 0.828, F(24,
1,090) 5 2.530, p < 0.001].
Univariate tests showed the significant effects of the groups on social efficacy [F(4,
317) 5 4.945, p 5 < 0.001, partial η 5 0.059], psychological health [F(4, 317) 5 3.008, p 5 0.019,
2

partial η 5 0.037] and social health [F(4, 317)53.455, p 5 0.009, partial η2 5 0.042]. Pairwise
2

comparisons indicated that the P þ S group (M 5 3.481, tandard deviation (SD) 5 0.727)
demonstrated significantly higher levels of social efficacy compared to the I group Esports for
(M 5 2.878, SD 5 0.860) (p < 0.001), the P group (M 5 2.938, SD 5 0.806, p < 0.001) and the development
P þ I group (M 5 3.481, SD 5 0.727, p 5 0.005). Furthermore, the P þ S group (M 5 1.882,
SD 5 0.771) reported significantly lower loneliness levels than the P group (M 5 2.177,
SD 5 0.795, p 5 0.035). Regarding physical health, the P þ S group (M 5 4.024, SD 5 0.632)
demonstrated significantly higher levels than the P þ I group (M 5 3.717, SD 5 0.757,
p 5 0.011). With regard to psychological health, the P þ S group (M 5 3.746, SD 5 0.799) had
significantly higher levels compared to the P group (M 5 3.355, SD 5 0.891, p 5 0.019) and the
P þ I group (M 5 3.287, SD 5 0.890, p 5 0.006). The all-around group (M 5 3.682, SD 5 0.859)
reported significantly higher levels of psychological health compared to the P group
(M 5 3.355, SD 5 0.891, p 5 0.050) and the P þ I group (M 5 3.287, SD 5 0.890, p 5 0.018). In
terms of social health, the P þ S group (M 5 3.882, SD 5 0.967) had significantly higher levels
compared to the I group (M 5 3.431, SD 5 1.133) (p 5 0.027), the P group (M 5 3.348,
SD 5 0.978, p 5 0.002) and the P þ I group (M 5 3.522, SD 5 0.974, p 5 0.038). The all-around
group (M 5 3.799, SD 5 0.875) reported significantly higher social health levels than the P
group (M 5 3.348, SD 5 0.978, p 5 0.009). It is worth nothing that there were no significant
differences in self-efficacy across the groups (see Table 3).

Discussion
With the increasing number of esports players and gamers, more scholars have attempted to
explore their profiles and clusters based on demographic, psychological or behavioral
characteristics (Hedlund, 2021; Jang et al., 2021b; Kallio et al., 2011). However, although people
can now play and enjoy various kinds of esports games, few studies have been conducted to
understand esports player profiles and clusters using the patterns of esports gameplay
across genres. Additionally, while each game genre can develop different life skills and
outcomes (Jang and Byon, 2020b), there is little understanding of how esports involvement,
based on gameplay patterns across genres, is associated with desired outcomes. To fill these
gaps, our study aimed to identify subgroups of esports players based on their gaming
behavior patterns across game genres. To examine the different features of the five groups,
we tested players’ development and well-being factors, such as self-efficacy, social efficacy,
loneliness and quality of life across the five clusters. Our study identified the five distinctive
esports player groups based on their game years and weekly game hours across three genres,
extending the understanding of esports involvement and player profiles (e.g. Hedlund, 2021;
Jang et al., 2021b; Yee, 2006a). Furthermore, as particular subgroups were associated with
specific development and well-being outcomes, our study can have practical implications for
future programs that leverage esports as a conduit for desired outcomes among target
populations, while also marketing the benefits of esports gameplay to a broad audience (cf.
Inoue et al., 2020; Sato et al., 2023).

Five clusters: definitions by playtime and genres

The LPA results revealed the five distinctive cluster groups: two groups who mainly played a
single genre of game for longer years and hours per week (the I group and the P group), two
groups who primarily played two genres of games for similar years and hours per week (the
P þ I group and the P þ S group), and one group who played all three genres for longer years
and hours per week (the all-around group). Prior studies have focused on the attitudinal and
behavioral intensity of overall esports involvement to cluster esports players (Hedlund, 2021;
Ip and Jacobs, 2005; Kallio et al., 2011). Thus, these clusters were often found to range from
casual/recreational to serious/competitive groups on the continuum. Theoretically, the
current study extends the understanding of esports involvement and player profiles/
 IJSMS

Table 3.

five clusters
Means, univariate
tests, and pairwise
comparisons by the
Cluster 1 Cluster 2 Cluster 3 Cluster 4 Cluster 5 Univariate tests Pairwise comparisons
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) F P (ηp2) Clusters p

SE_E 3.654 (0.976) 3.662 (0.991) 3.928 (0.954) 3.680 (1.025) 3.883 (1.032) 1.602 (4, 317) 0.174 (0.020) C2 vs C3 0.053
SO_E 2.878 (0.860) 2.938 (0.806) 3.080 (0.860) 3.481 (0.727) 3.179 (0.709) 4.924 (4, 317) <0.001 (0.058)*** C1 vs C4 <0.001***
C2 vs C4 <0.001***
C3 vs. C4 0.005**
LO 2.163 (0.854) 2.177 (0.795) 2.058 (0.793) 1.882 (0.771) 1.940 (0.710) 1.626 (4, 317) 0.167 (0.020) C2 vs C4 0.035*
PH_H 3.937 (0.701) 3.897 (0.797) 3.717 (0.757) 4.024 (0.632) 3.830 (0.838) 1.793 (4, 317) 0.130 (0.022) C3 vs C4 0.011*
PS_H 3.480 (0.993) 3.355 (0.891) 3.287 (0.890) 3.746 (0.799) 3.682 (0.859) 2.929 (4, 317) 0.021 (0.036)* C2 vs C4 0.019*
C2 vs C5 0.050*
C3 vs C4 0.006**
C3 vs. C5 0.018*
SO_H 3.431 (1.133) 3.348 (0.978) 3.522 (0.974) 3.882 (0.967) 3.799 (0.875) 3.412 (4, 317) 0.009 (0.041)** C1 vs C4 0.027*
C2 vs C4 0.002**
C2 vs. C5 0.009**
C3 vs C4 0.038*
Note(s): Cluster 1 5 imagination genre-driven players; Cluster 2 5 physical enactment genre-driven players; Cluster 3 5 physical enactment-plus-imagination genre-
driven players; Cluster 4 5 physical enactment-plus-sport simulation-driven players; Cluster 5 5 all-around players; SE_E 5 self-efficacy; SO_E 5 social-efficacy;
LO 5 loneliness, PH_H 5 physical health; PS_H 5 psychological health; and SO_H 5 social health; *** denotes p < 0.001, ** denotes p < 0.01, * denotes p < 0.05
Source(s): Authors own creation
segmentations (e.g. Hedlund, 2021; Jang et al., 2021b; Yee, 2006a) by identifying the five Esports for
distinctive esports player groups based on their behavioral patterns across different game development
genres (i.e. the number and combination of esports game genres played). While traditional
sport research has explored sport consumer groups based on factors such as the number of
sports played and individual vs. team sports (e.g. Crouch et al., 2022; Hanrahan and Cerin,
2009), such insights are notably scarce in esports research despite the burgeoning field.
Clustering esports players based on the type or number of games played can provide insights
into their engagement patterns, helping tailor marketing strategies to specific groups.
Therefore, our study contributes valuable insights to esports player segmentation and target
markets literature.
Additionally, the current study confirms and extends the three categories of game genres
proposed by Jang and Byon (2020b: imagination, physical enactment and sport simulation). Jang
and Byon (2020b) found that the imagination (I) group was significantly different from the
physical enactment (P) and sport simulation (S) groups regarding the relationship between
antecedents (e.g. hedonic motivation, habit, price value, social influence) and gameplay intention.
In contrast, they found a similarity between the physical enactment (P) group and the sport
simulation (S) group. The three esports genre categories (i.e. I, P and S) have been empirically
examined. Specifically, Jang et al. (2021a) tested the full mediation model, including the
relationship between esports gameplay, streamers’ live streaming and esports events
broadcasting. They found the model generally operated across the three exclusive genre
category groups. Another study (Jang et al., 2021c) used a two-way MANOVA (Multivariate
Analysis of Variance) to determine the impact of the six groups based on the interaction of gender
(i.e. male and female) and the three genres’ categories (i.e. I, P and S) on the drivers behind esports
gameplay intention. They revealed that the six groups were distinguished by three boundaries,
“male-P” and “male-I,” “female-P” and “female-S,” and “female-I” and “male-S,” indicating the
significant impact of gender and genre. Although those previous findings shed light on the
empirical evidence of the impact of the three esports game genre categories, they only revealed
the single-genre gamers. Multigenre esports game players exist, but they have been neglected in
esports consumer behavior research. The results of the present study highlight the potential of
using the three-game genres as the basis for classifying single-and multiple-genre gamer groups.
Interestingly, we did not find a subgroup that primarily plays the sport simulation genre,
nor one that plays both the imagination and sport simulation genres. The findings may
indicate that the participants of this study prefer playing the sport simulation genre in
conjunction with other types of games, such as those involving in physical enactment and
sport simulation, rather than exclusively opting for sport simulation alone. Thus, these
findings may not indicate lower popularity for the sport simulation genre. Indeed, sport
simulation games, such as FIFA, NBA 2K and Madden series, are popular in the U.S. due to
the cultural significance of sport (Entertainment Software Association, 2022; Knoester and
Davis, 2022). People are likely to engage in sport simulation esports games alongside other
genres, given the relatively smaller number of sport simulation esports games compared to
other genres. According to the report from the esports Earnings website (2023), there are
roughly nine esports games in the sports simulation genre among the top one hundred most
popular esports games. Fans of sports simulation esports games may have purchased a
gaming console or personal computer (PC) for gameplay, intending to use it for various other
games. However, they might have limited options within the sports simulation genres.
Similarly, Hedlund (2021) found that people tended to participate in multiple esports games,
and those who indicated the sport simulation genre as their top favorite game ranked the
shooting game genre (i.e. the physical enactment genre) as their second favorite game, or vice
versa. Regarding the absence of an imagination-plus-sport simulation gamer group, these
two game genres may have more distinct attributes and features compared to the imagination
and physical enactment game genres. Imagination genre gamers may prefer to immerse
IJSMS themselves in virtual and imaginary worlds created by their games. In contrast, sport
simulation genre games may allow players to actively engage with real-life sport events,
games and players emulated in the game. As a result, these two gamer groups may not
converge into a single group. However, despite the different skillsets required in the physical
enactment genre (such as fast reaction times and vigilant monitoring), physical enactment
genre gamers may enjoy imaginary war and conflict situations where they can role-play as a
veteran soldier or hero, similar to those reflected in the imagination genre games. Future
research should examine the personality and preferences of esports players who participate
in similar or different esports genres.
With our cluster findings, sport marketers can design targeted marketing campaigns
tailored to specific clusters of esports players, considering their preferred types or number of
games played. Furthermore, sponsoring companies can formulate partnership strategies by
aligning with esports games that are popular within specific player clusters.

Five clusters: demographics characteristics

Although demographic factors were not considered to determine esports player clusters, we
tested the association between these factors and cluster membership to enhance our
understanding of the five clusters. In our study, most esports game participants were male,
aged 25–34, White, single, with a Bachelor’s degree, earning between $40,000 and $69,000,
and living in suburban areas. These findings are consistent with previous studies (Hedlund,
2021; Jang et al., 2021b). Specifically, our study highlights a positive association between
household income and the P group. Esports consumers purchase or upgrade their gaming
hardware to enhance their enjoyment of favorite games with superior visual and functional
performance (Jang et al., 2021b). It is possible that the physical enactment genre may
necessitate high-end, expensive hardware, enabling gamers to maintain a high level of
manual dexterity (e.g. swift reaction times, attentive observation) for an enjoyable gaming
experience. However, future research should explore the relationship between purchasing
behavior and esports consumer groups. Moreover, considering the association between
female participants and both the P group and I group, esports marketers should develop
marketing and promotional strategies tailored to the specific needs of female gamers in the P
genre and I genre. According to Tacca (2019), the esports leagues with a higher prevalence of
women’s fandom include Call of Duty, Fortnite, and Super Smash Bros, all belonging to the P
genre. Female esports fans constitute a significant global presence, indicating a profound
passion for both playing and watching esports games. However, 62% of these fans feel that
esports brands should tailor their marketing to address their preferences (Tacca, 2019).
Therefore, practitioners in the esports industry should prioritize ensuring more
representation for women in esports leagues. This does not necessarily mean creating
women-only esports teams or leagues, as women are already avid esports fans. Moreover,
promoting larger esports leagues or tournaments for games known to be attractive to women,
such as the P genre esports games, may encourage greater participation among women.
Practically, as different esports genres or combinations thereof may appeal to specific
demographic groups, esports organizations must consider these factors in formulating policies
and programs to recruit, retain and develop diverse esports gamers, whether as competitive or
recreational players. In addition, the current study identified two multi-genre gamer groups and
one all-genre gamer group. Hence, esports marketers need to explore ways to cross-market their
products and services. For instance, collaboration with a global esports performance brand,
such as FNATIC, may be practical to reach the cross-market because FNATIC has worldwide
professional esports teams across multiple esports leagues (e.g. League of Legends, Counter-
Strike (CS):GO 2, Valorant, Rainbow Six Siege), which align with the P þ I group that this
study found.
Development and well-being characteristics Esports for
Given that different game genres may promote distinct life skills and outcomes (Jang and development
Byon, 2020b), we compared mean differences in self-efficacy, social efficacy, loneliness and
quality of life (physical, psychological and social health) across the five clusters. Our results
indicated that certain subgroups were associated with specific outcomes, which also helps to
examine the distinctive characteristics of the five clusters. The results of the univariate tests
indicated a significant effect of the groups on social efficacy, psychological health and social
health. Specifically, three or more groups differed significantly and the P þ S group (cluster 4)
exhibited the highest means, followed by the all-around group (cluster 5). Overall, the P þ S
group (as the dual-genre gamer cluster) was significantly higher than two single-genre
groups and another dual-genre group in social efficacy, psychological health and social
health. The all-around group was significantly higher than the single-genre cluster (P) and the
dual-genre cluster (P þ I) only in psychological and social health. These results suggest that
the number of esports games played may foster certain developmental and well-being
outcomes. It is possible that having a broad range of esports games in one’s repertoire could
indicate a diverse set of mediums for facilitating social relationships and coping with stress
(cf. Lee et al., 2023).
However, it was found that the mixture of game genres also plays a role in facilitating
various outcomes when people play the same number of games. Specifically, between the
dual-genre gamer clusters, the P þ S group was significantly higher than the P þ I group
regarding social efficacy and all three dimensions of quality of life (physical, psychological
and social). The effects of the groups on social efficacy and health can be attributed to the fact
that one game genre may require a more intense level of communication and social skills than
another. Still, many imaginary genre games, including MOBA games and real-time strategy
games, allow for team matches and competitions, just like sport simulation genre games such
as the FIFA series and Madden NFL series. Possibly, sport simulation genre games that
reflect real-life sports events’ rules, players, or teams can generate in-game knowledge that
can be transferred to real-life situations, facilitating social interactions with others. As sport
has been culturally ingrained in U.S. society, it is often considered a cultural language and
knowledge that facilitates social capital (Knoester and Davis, 2022). As such, these findings
can have practical implications for organizations attempting to leverage esports programs
for desired outcomes among youth and other populations. They can consider embracing the
sport simulation genre into their program curriculum specifically for social-related outcomes.
Sport simulation genre games may have a dual nature of sport spectatorship (watching and
replaying unreal gameplay) and sport participation (using motor and mental skills). Previous
literature has suggested that sport spectatorship can foster one’s well-being and life
satisfaction through emotional and social support from identifying with a sport team (Inoue
et al., 2017, 2020). Perhaps playing the sport simulation genre can allow gamers to build and
strengthen relationships with their favorite sports teams for well-being outcomes. Both sport
and esports organizations can highlight the effectiveness of sport simulation games in fan
engagement and consumer well-being across their marketing campaigns. However, future
research is needed to investigate the psychological mechanism of the sport simulation genre
to facilitate psychological and social health among esports consumers. The partnership
between NBA 2K League and the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA) serves as
an example of the effectiveness of sport simulation games in fostering fan engagement. This
collaboration enabled NBA players to promote the NBA 2K League and engage with fans of
both the NBA and NBA 2K (SVG, 2023). Similar partnerships between sport organizations
and esports leagues should be considered in other domains, such as soccer and EA Sports FC,
or motorsports and iRacing esports, as a means of approaching their fans innovatively.
It is important to note that the P þ S group (cluster 4) played their game genres for shorter
years and lower weekly hours than the P group (cluster 2), the P þ I group (cluster 3) and the
IJSMS all-around group (cluster 5). The significant finding of increased physical health from cluster
3 to cluster 4 makes sense, given that several studies have found a negative association
between game hours and health outcomes (Hellstr€om et al., 2012; Rudolf et al., 2020). The
P þ S group also reported the highest score for various desired outcomes, even with their
shorter game years and lower weekly hours. However, the all-around group, who played all
three genres for relatively longer years and hours per week, reported the highest score for
self-efficacy and the second-highest score for three outcomes (social efficacy, psychological
health and social health), although not statistically significant from other clusters with lower
scores. Thus, future research should examine the optimal level of game hours to maximize
desired outcomes (e.g. linear, quadratic, inverted U-shape relationships) since excessive
esports gaming may lead to game addiction and disordered gaming (Maldonado-Murciano
et al., 2022).
Lastly, the univariate tests indicated no effect of the groups on self-efficacy, loneliness and
physical health. In terms of self-efficacy, all five clusters had a mean above 3.5 (out of 5
points), with the P þ I group (cluster 3) and the all-around group (cluster 5) being close to 4
points. We might not find group differences since each game genre requires a distinctive set
of skillsets and knowledge, possibly not at significant levels. Regarding loneliness and
physical health, the only significant difference between groups was between the P þ S group
and the P group (for loneliness) or the P þ I group (for physical health). These findings may be
attributed to the fact that the P þ S group was found to generate similar social-related
outcomes and played fewer game hours in this study.

Limitations and future research

As with other studies, the current study has limitations. First, this study only used the
behavioral aspects of esports involvement, especially game years and weekly game hours.
The study might not holistically capture esports player clusters and profiles without
psychological attributes. In addition, other possible variables related to gameplay can
indicate esports involvement, such as the extent to which one participates in esports
competitions/leagues, clans/clubs and spends money on in-game characters, items and
upgraded equipment. Thus, future research should consider psychological and other
behavioral aspects of esports involvement to classify esports players and gamers.
Second, the current study used LPA, a data-driven approach to clustering samples, so our
results may not be generalizable to esports players in other regions and countries. While we
collected a sample with a rigorous data collection procedure for the generalizability of the
findings, it might not perfectly represent our target population, the esports players in the U.S.
Future studies should be conducted to test the five clusters with various samples in the U.S.
and other cultures.
Lastly, this study compared mean differences in the six development and well-being
outcomes among the five cluster memberships using game years and weekly game hours.
However, future research should examine the causal relationship between esports
involvement determinants (e.g. weekly game hours, the number of games played) and
various outcomes via a longitudinal research design. Furthermore, an experimental research
design can help assess the effectiveness of different types of esports gameplay using multiple
intervention groups and a control group.

Conclusion
This study highlights the distinctive five esports player clusters characterized by the number
of game genres and the combination of game genres played. Despite the variety of esports
games available in the market, prior studies often focused on motivation and playing habits
without considering game genres to understand esports player clusters and profiles. Thus, Esports for
the current study extends an understanding of esports involvement by demonstrating development
diverse game genre behavior patterns among players. Given that playing different game
genres can promote distinct life skills and outcomes (Jang and Byon, 2020b), the results of this
study indicated that having a broad range of esports games in one’s repertoire could facilitate
social skills and psychological health. In addition, for those who play two genres,
participating in the sport simulation genre plays a role in one’s social outcomes, as it can
generate in-game knowledge that can be transferred to real-life situations to improve social
interactions. Sport organizations can use these findings to develop programs that leverage
esports to facilitate desired outcomes among target populations while also marketing the
benefits of esports gameplay to a broad audience. However, as the two cluster groups with the
highest levels of various outcomes diverged based on game years and times, future research
is needed to further clarify the optimal levels of esports involvement to maximize
development and well-being outcomes.

References
Allport, G.W. (1945), “The psychology of participation”, Psychological Review, Vol. 52 No. 3,
pp. 117-132, doi: 10.1037/h0056704.
B
anyai, F., Griffiths, M.D., Kir
aly, O. and Demetrovics, Z. (2019), “The psychology of esports: a
systematic literature review”, Journal of Gambling Studies, Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 351-365, doi: 10.
1007/s10899-018-9763-1.
Beaton, A.A., Funk, D.C., Ridinger, L. and Jordan, J. (2011), “Sport involvement: a conceptual and empirical
analysis”, Sport Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 126-140, doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2010.07.002.
Campbell, M.J., Toth, A.J., Moran, A.P., Kowal, M. and Exton, C. (2018), “eSports: a new window on
neurocognitive expertise?”, Progress in Brain Research, Vol. 240, pp. 161-174, doi: 10.1016/bs.
pbr.2018.09.006.
Chan, G., Huo, Y., Kelly, S., Leung, J., Tisdale, C. and Gullo, M. (2022), “The impact of eSports and
online video gaming on lifestyle behaviours in youth: a systematic review”, Computers in
Human Behavior, Vol. 126, 106974, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106974.
Crouch, K.L., Larson, A. and DeBeliso, M. (2022), “Motivation differences between youth single-sport,
multi-sport, and single-sport specialized athletes in the Western United States”, Athens Journal
of Sports, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 37-50, doi: 10.30958/ajspo.9-1-3.
Cunningham, G.B., Fairley, S., Ferkins, L., Kerwin, S., Lock, D., Shaw, S. and Wicker, P. (2018), “eSport:
construct specifications and implications for sport management”, Sport Management Review,
Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-16, doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2017.11.002.
DiFrancisco-Donoghue, J., Werner, W.G., Douris, P.C. and Zwibel, H. (2020), “Esports players, got
muscle? Competitive video game players’ physical activity, body fat, bone mineral content, and
muscle mass in comparison to matched controls”, Journal of Sport and Health Science, Vol. 11
No. 6, pp. 725-730, doi: 10.1016/j.jshs.2020.07.006.
Entertainment Software Association (2022), 2022 Essential Facts about the Video Game Industry,
available at: https://www.theesa.com/resource/2022-essential-facts-about-the-video-game-industry/
Esports Earnings (2023), Top Esports Games of 2022, available at: https://www.esportsearnings.com/
history/2022/games
Fletcher, B., Gowers, R. and Saeed, S. (2020), “The effects of esports school tournaments on positive
behavioural change”, Serious Games: Joint International Conference, JCSG 2020, November 19-
20, 2020, Stoke-on-Trent, UK, pp. 219-229, Proceedings 6.
Funk, D.C. and James, J. (2001), “The psychological continuum model: a conceptual framework for
understanding an individual’s psychological connection to sport”, Sport Management Review,
Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 119-150, doi: 10.1016/S1441-3523(01)70072-1.
IJSMS Funk, D.C., Pizzo, A.D. and Baker, B.J. (2018), “eSport management: embracing eSport education and
research opportunities”, Sport Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 7-13, doi: 10.1016/j.smr.
2017.07.008.
Group, W. (1998), “Development of the world health organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life
assessment”, Psychological Medicine, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 551-558, doi: 10.1017/
s0033291798006667.
Hanrahan, S.J. and Cerin, E. (2009), “Gender, level of participation, and type of sport: differences in
achievement goal orientation and attributional style”, Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport,
Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 508-512, doi: 10.1016/j.jsams.2008.01.005.
Havitz, M.E. and Dimanche, F. (1997), “Leisure involvement revisited: conceptual conundrums and
measurement advances”, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 245-278, doi: 10.1080/
00222216.1997.11949796.
Hedlund, D.P. (2019), “The motivations of eSports players”, in Rogers, R. (Ed.), Understanding Esports:
an Introduction to the Global Phenomenon, Lexington Books, pp. 95-114.
Hedlund, D.P. (2021), “A typology of esport players”, Journal of Global Sport Management, Vol. 8 No. 2,
pp. 460-477, doi: 10.1080/24704067.2021.1871858.
Hellstr€om, C., Nilsson, K.W., Leppert, J. and Slund, C. (2012), “Influences of motives to play and time
spent gaming on the negative consequences of adolescent online computer gaming”, Computers
in Human Behavior, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 1379-1387, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.02.023.
Inoue, Y., Sato, M., Filo, K., Du, J. and Funk, D.C. (2017), “Sport spectatorship and life satisfaction: a
multicountry investigation”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 419-432, doi: 10.
1123/jsm.2016-0295.
Inoue, Y., Wann, D.L., Lock, D., Sato, M., Moore, C. and Funk, D.C. (2020), “Enhancing older adults’
sense of belonging and subjective well-being through sport game attendance, team
identification, and emotional support”, Journal of Aging and Health, Vol. 32 Nos 7-8,
pp. 530-542, doi: 10.1177/0898264319835654.
Ip, B. and Jacobs, G. (2005), “Segmentation of the games market using multivariate analysis”, Journal
of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 275-287, doi: 10.1057/
palgrave.jt.5740154.
Jang, W.W. and Byon, K.K. (2020a), “Antecedents and consequence associated with esports
gameplay”, International Journal of Sports Marketing and Sponsorship, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 1-22,
doi: 10.1108/IJSMS-01-2019-0013.
Jang, W.W. and Byon, K.K. (2020b), “Antecedents of esports gameplay intention: genre as a
moderator”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 109, 106336, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2020.106336.
Jang, W.W., Byon, K.K., Baker III, T.A. and Tsuji, Y. (2021a), “Mediating effect of esports content live
streaming in the relationship between esports recreational gameplay and esports event
broadcast”, Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 1,
pp. 89-108, doi: 10.1108/SBM-10-2019-0087.
Jang, W.W., Byon, K.K., Pecoraro, J. and Tsuji, Y. (2021b), “Clustering esports gameplay consumers
via game experiences”, Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, Vol. 3, 669999, doi: 10.3389/fspor.
2021.669999.
Jang, W.W., Byon, K.K., Williams, A. and Pedersen, P.M. (2021c), “Augmenting the formation of
esports gameplay intention: interaction effects of genre and gender”, Sport, Business and
Management: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 620-646, doi: 10.1108/SBM-04-
2021-0049.
Kallio, K.P., M€ayr€a, F. and Kaipainen, K. (2011), “At least nine ways to play: approaching gamer
mentalities”, Games and Culture, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 327-353, doi: 10.1177/1555412010391089.
Ke, X. and Wagner, C. (2022), “Global pandemic compels sport to move to esports: understanding from
brand extension perspective”, Managing Sport and Leisure, Vol. 27 Nos 1-2, pp. 152-157, doi: 10.
1080/23750472.2020.1792801.
Kim, J. and James, J.D. (2019), “Sport and happiness: understanding the relations among sport Esports for
consumption activities, long-and short-term subjective well-being, and psychological need
fulfillment”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 119-132, doi: 10.1123/jsm. development
2018-0071.
Kim, A.C.H., Park, S.H., Kim, S. and Fontes-Comber, A. (2020), “Psychological and social outcomes of
sport participation for older adults: a systematic review”, Ageing and Society, Vol. 40 No. 7,
pp. 1529-1549, doi: 10.1017/S0144686X19000175.
Knoester, C. and Davis, E.A. (2022), “Patriotism, competition, nationalism, and respect for the military
in US sports: public recognition of American institutionalized sports nationalism”, International
Review for the Sociology of Sport, Vol. 57 No. 7, pp. 1021-1043, doi: 10.1177/10126902211048769.
Ko, Y.J., Kwak, D.H., Jang, E.W., Lee, J.S., Asada, A., Chang, Y., Kim, D., Pradhan, S. and Yilmaz, S.
(2023), “Using experiments in sport consumer behavior research: a review and directions for
future research”, Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 33-46, doi: 10.32731/SMQ.321.
032023.03.
Larson, R.W. and Walker, K.C. (2006), “Learning about the “real world” in an urban arts youth
program”, Journal of Adolescent Research, Vol. 21 No. 3, pp. 244-268, doi: 10.1177/
0743558405285824.
Lee, C., Choi, W., Lim, J. and Lee, W. (2023), “Examining the long-term effect of leisure engagement,
leisure satisfaction, and perceived discrimination on stress perception among Koreans with
physical disabilities”, Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 55, pp. 1-19, doi: 10.1080/00222216.2023.
2187266.
Maldonado-Murciano, L., Guilera, G., Montag, C. and Pontes, H.M. (2022), “Disordered gaming in
esports: comparing professional and non-professional gamers”, Addictive Behaviors, Vol. 132,
107342, doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2022.107342.
Martoncik, M. (2015), “E-Sports: playing just for fun or playing to satisfy life goals?”, Computers in
Human Behavior, Vol. 48, pp. 208-211, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.056.
Martoncik, M. and Loksa, J. (2016), “Do World of Warcraft (MMORPG) players experience less
loneliness and social anxiety in online world (virtual environment) than in real world (offline)?”,
Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 56, pp. 127-134, doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.035.
Monteiro Pereira, A., Costa, J.A., Verhagen, E., Figueiredo, P. and Brito, J. (2022), “Associations
between esports participation and health: a scoping review”, Sports Medicine, Vol. 52 No. 9, pp.
2039-2060, doi: 10.1007/s40279-022-01684-1.
Neto, F. (2014), “Psychometric analysis of the short-form UCLA Loneliness Scale (ULS-6) in older
adults”, European Journal of Ageing, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 313-319, doi: 10.1007/s10433-014-0312-1.
Nielsen (2018), U.S. Games 360 Report: 2018, Nielsen, available at: https://www.nielsen.com/us/en/
insights/report/2018/us-games-360-report-2018/ (accessed 19 December 2023).
Ntumi, S. (2021), “Reporting and interpreting Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA): adopting
the best practices in educational research”, Journal of Research in Educational Sciences (JRES),
Vol. 12 No. 14, pp. 48-57, doi: 10.14505/jres.v12.14.05.
Nylund, K.L., Asparouhov, T. and Muth
en, B.O. (2007), “Deciding on the number of classes in latent
class analysis and growth mixture modeling: a Monte Carlo simulation study”, Structural
Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 535-569, doi: 10.1080/
10705510701575396.
Olukanmi, P.O. and Twala, B. (2017), “Sensitivity analysis of an outlier-aware k-means clustering
algorithm”, in 2017 Pattern Recognition Association of South Africa and Robotics and
Mechatronics (PRASA-RobMech), pp. 68-73.
O’Connor, E.L., Longman, H., White, K.M. and Obst, P.L. (2015), “Sense of community, social identity
and social support among players of massively multiplayer online games (MMOGs): a
qualitative analysis”, Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 6,
pp. 459-473, doi: 10.1002/casp.2224.
IJSMS Pizzo, A., Baker, B., Na, S., Lee, M., Kim, D. and Funk, D. (2018), “eSport vs sport: a comparison of
spectator motives”, Sport Marketing Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 108-123, doi: 10.32731/SMQ.
272.062018.04.
Pizzo, A.D., Su, Y., Scholz, T., Baker, B.J., Hamari, J. and Ndanga, L. (2022), “Esports scholarship
review: synthesis, contributions, and future research”, Journal of Sport Management, Vol. 1,
aop, pp. 1-12, doi: 10.1123/jsm.2021-0228.
Rowe, K., Shilbury, D., Ferkins, L. and Hinckson, E. (2013), “Sport development and physical activity
promotion: an integrated model to enhance collaboration and understanding”, Sport
Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 364-377, doi: 10.1016/j.smr.2012.12.003.
Rudolf, K., Bickmann, P., Frob€ose, I., Tholl, C., Wechsler, K. and Grieben, C. (2020), “Demographics and
health behavior of video game and esports players in Germany: the esports study 2019”,
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 17 No. 6, p. 1870,
doi: 10.3390/ijerph17061870.
Sato, M., Yoshida, M., Doyle, J. and Choi, W. (2023), “Consumer-brand identification and happiness in
experiential consumption”, Psychology and Marketing, Vol. 40 No. 8, pp. 1579-1592, doi: 10.1002/
mar.21852.
Seo, Y. (2013), “Electronic sports: a new marketing landscape of the experience economy”, Journal
of Marketing Management, Vol. 29 Nos 13-14, pp. 1542-1560, doi: 10.1080/0267257X.2013.
822906.
Sherer, M., Maddux, J.E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B. and Rogers, R.W. (1982), “The
self-efficacy scale: construction and validation”, Psychological Reports, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 663-671,
doi: 10.2466/pr0.1982.51.2.663.
Statista (2022), Video Games - Worldwide, available at: https://www.statista.com/outlook/dmo/digital-
media/video-games/worldwide
SVG (2023), “NBA 2K leagues, NBA players association partner to allow players to promote esports
competition”, Sports Video Group, available at: https://www.sportsvideo.org/2023/09/07/nba-2k-
league-nba-players-association-partner-to-allow-players-to-promote-esports-competition/
Taber, K.S. (2018), “The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments
in science education”, Research in Science Education, Vol. 48 No. 6, pp. 1273-1296, doi: 10.1007/
s11165-016-9602-2.
Tacca, T. (2019), “Women are big - and underserved - esports fans. Here’s how to market to them”,
VentureBeat, available at: https://venturebeat.com/esports/women-are-big-and-underserved-
esports-fans-heres-how-to-market-to-them/
Trotter, M.G., Coulter, T.J., Davis, P.A., Poulus, D.R. and Polman, R. (2020), “The association
between esports participation, health and physical activity behaviour”, International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 17 No. 19, pp. 1-14, doi: 10.3390/
ijerph17197329.
Trotter, M.G., Coulter, T.J., Davis, P.A., Poulus, D.R. and Polman, R. (2021), “Social support, self-
regulation, and psychological skill use in E-athletes”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 12, 722030,
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.722030.
Tseng, F.C. (2011), “Segmenting online gamers by motivation”, Expert Systems with Applications,
Vol. 38 No. 6, pp. 7693-7697, doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.12.142.
Vermunt, J.K. (2010), “Latent class modeling with covariates: two improved three-step approaches”,
Political Analysis, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 450-469, doi: 10.1093/pan/mpq025, available at: https://www.
jstor.org/stable/25792024
Vermunt, J.K. and Magidson, J. (2002), “Latent class cluster analysis”, in Hagenaars, J. and
McCutcheon, A. (Eds), Applied Latent Class Analysis, Cambridge University Press, pp. 89-106.
Wang, J.J., Wann, D.L., Lu, Z. and Zhang, J.J. (2018), “Self-expression through sport participation:
exploring participant desired self-image”, European Sport Management Quarterly, Vol. 18 No. 5,
pp. 583-606, doi: 10.1080/16184742.2018.1446994.
Weaver, J.B., Mays, D., Sargent Weaver, S., Kannenberg, W., Hopkins, G.L., Ero^
glu, D. and Bernhardt, Esports for
J.M. (2009), “Health-risk correlates of video-game playing among adults”, American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 299-305, doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.06.014. development
Yee, N. (2006a), “The demographics, motivations and derived experiences of users of massively multi-
user online graphical environments”, Presence Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, Vol. 15
No. 3, pp. 309-329, doi: 10.1162/pres.15.3.309.
Yee, N. (2006b), “Motivations for play in online games”, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social
Networking, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 772-775, doi: 10.1089/cpb.2006.9.772.
Yin, K., Zi, Y., Zhuang, W., Gao, Y., Tong, Y., Song, L. and Liu, Y. (2020), “Linking Esports to health
risks and benefits: current knowledge and future research needs”, Journal of Sport and Health
Science, Vol. 9 No. 6, pp. 485-488, doi: 10.1016/j.jshs.2020.04.006.

Supplementary Material
The supplementary material for this article can be found online.

Corresponding author
Wonjun Choi can be contacted at: Wonjun.Choi@unh.edu

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

View publication stats