3.9 Article

Content-, system-, and hardware-related effects on the experience of flow in VR gaming

期刊

JOURNAL OF MEDIA ECONOMICS
卷 34, 期 4, 页码 213-242

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/08997764.2022.2149159

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this research was to understand the flow experience of Virtual Reality (VR) gaming and explore its influencing factors. Based on a large survey of German VR users, it was found that gaming motives, content quality, system quality, and usage barriers significantly influence the flow experience in VR gaming. Additionally, age, gamer identification, and VR technology experience had interaction effects with these relationships. This study contributes to a better understanding of the multidimensional conception of flow and its antecedents and consequences.
The aim of this research was to conceptualize and measure the flow experience of Virtual Reality (VR) gaming as well as to develop and empirically test a research model that explains flow experience and subsequent usage behavior. This model highlights the effects of content-, system-, and hardware-related factors on flow, as well as the relevance of interaction effects. Based on a large survey of 1,784 German VR users, the structural equation model showed that gaming motives, perceived content quality, content range, system quality and barriers to VR usage significantly influence the experience of flow in VR gaming and thus behavioral intention and usage. Age, gamer identification, and VR technology experience had interaction effects with several of these relationships. This study contributes a multidimensional conception of flow and a better understanding of its antecedents and consequences. It yields practical implications by highlighting the need not only to differentiate between self-identified gamers and non-gamers but also to consider previous VR experience and the impact of real-world circumstances in the development and marketing of VR games.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据