Examines how motivations impact wellbeing in esports spectators across event formats, suggesting consistent psychological pathways.
This study explores how esports spectators' motivations lead to psychological benefits in two settings: official onsite events and unofficial online streams. The benefits examined are flow experience and subjective wellbeing. A professional research company conducted a cross-sectional survey of 400 South Korean esports consumers with 200 per viewing context. We used partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) to test the hypothesised relationships. The results showed that all three motivations predicted flow for onsite spectators, while only skill-based and relationship-based motivations influenced flow for online viewers. Entertainment-based motivations directly enhanced wellbeing in both contexts, while relationship-based motivations predicted wellbeing only for online viewers. Flow experience contributed significantly to wellbeing in both groups and fully mediated the skill-based motivation-wellbeing relationship. Despite these variations, multigroup analysis showed no significant differences between viewing contexts. These findings demonstrate that fundamental psychological mechanisms remain consistent across viewing contexts. • Flow experience fully mediates the relationship between skill-based motivations and wellbeing for both official onsite spectatorship and unofficial online viewership. • Entertainment-based motivations of esports consumption directly enhance wellbeing for both viewing contexts. • Permutation multigroup analysis confirms that the psychological pathway from motivation to wellbeing is consistent, showing no significant structural differences between onsite and online viewing contexts. • The study validates and extends Barney and Pennington's (2023) second order motivational framework in two different viewing contexts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kim et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: