Randomized trial examines how sports OTT user motivations affect technology acceptance and continuance intention, suggesting implications for platform competitiveness.
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to examine how the motivations of sports OTT (Over-The-Top) platform users influence technology acceptance perceptions and continuance intention by employing an extended Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Method: Data were collected via an online survey in May 2025 from 392 Korean adults with experience using sports OTT platforms. Usage motivations were categorized into four dimensions: informativeness, immediacy, hedonic motivation, and sociality. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, attitude, and continuance intention were measured using 7-point Likert scales. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM) were performed to test the proposed conceptual model. Results: The results revealed that informativeness, hedonic motivation, and sociality significantly and positively influenced perceived usefulness, whereas immediacy did not. Conversely, informativeness and immediacy had significant positive effects on perceived ease of use, while hedonic motivation and sociality showed no significant impact. Regarding the internal TAM structure, perceived ease of use significantly enhanced perceived usefulness but did not directly affect attitude. Perceived usefulness exerted a strong positive effect on attitude, which in turn significantly increased users’ continuance intention. Conclusion: The findings indicate that different usage motivations activate distinct cognitive pathways during the acceptance process of sports OTT platforms. Perceived usefulness emerged as a pivotal factor in shaping user attitudes, and attitude played a central role in strengthening continuance intention. These results suggest that the long-term competitiveness of sports OTT platforms depends not only on technical ease of use but also on delivering tangible, practical value that users can clearly perceive.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Woo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: