Games and Culture-2015-Tan-1555412015574942

Original Manuscript
The Role of Social

Interaction Element
on Intention to Play
MMORPG in the
Future: From the
Perspective of
Leisure Constraint
Negotiation Process
Games and Culture

1-28
The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1555412015574942
gac.sagepub.com
Wee Kheng Tan1, Yi Der Yeh1, and Ssu Han Chen1
Abstract
Few studies examine how massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG)
players react when they are faced with constraints that prevent them from continuing to play the game or to play as much as they desire. This study used the concept
of leisure constraint negotiation process and social capital construct to understand
how players deal with the above situation by initiating negotiation strategies to mitigate the constraints. Using partial least squares method as the analytical tool, this
empirical study showed that the social interaction element of MMORPG plays a major
role in influencing the outcomes of the negotiation process. Social capital plays a role
in propelling negotiation strategies, and different types of social capitals are needed
to trigger different negotiation strategies. This study further demonstrates: which
negotiation strategy is triggered depends on which constraints and negotiation
strategies matter most to the leisure seekers. There is also a need for congruence
between motivation and negotiation strategy.
Kainan University, Luchu, Taiwan
Corresponding Author:
Wee Kheng Tan, Kainan University, No. 1, Kainan Road, Luchu, Taoyuan County 33857, Taiwan.
Email: tanwk@mail.knu.edu.tw
Downloaded from gac.sagepub.com at Fac of Hum. & Social Sciences on November 23, 2015
Games and Culture
Keywords
massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG), social interaction, social
capital, constraint, constraint negotiation process
Introduction
Many studies have examined the circumstances that propel players to play online
games (Cole & Griffiths, 2007; Hsu & Lu, 2008; Wan & Chiou, 2007; Yee, 2006b).
However, there are few studies that examine how multiplayer online role-playing game
(MMORPG) players manage the constraints that prevent them from continuing to play
or to play as much as they desire. This is despite the fact that leisure constraint and its
associated concept is well-established as a recognizable and distinct sub-field within
leisure studies (Jackson, 2005, p. 10) and has been applied to a wide variety of leisure
contexts (Gilbert & Hudson, 2000; Hubbard & Mannell, 2001; Lawton & Daniels,
2009; Scott, 1991).
Constraints, in the leisure context, are factors perceived or experienced by individuals that limit leisure preference formation and/or inhibit participation and
enjoyment in leisure (Jackson, 2000). These constraints could be mitigated by the
leisure constraint negotiation process (Hubbard & Mannell, 2001; Jackson, Crawford,
& Godbey, 1993). The progress involves applying appropriate negotiation strategies to
avoid or reduce the impact of the constraints and barriers to leisure participation and
enjoyment (Mannell & Kleiber, 1997). Using the lens of constraint negotiation process
to examine how MMORPG players cope with constraints could provide new insights
into how and why they will continue to play MMORPGs in future.
MMORPG is a leisure activity with strong social interaction element (Lu &
Wang, 2008). Taking up fictional characters, MMORPG players are required to
collaborate and form relationships with many players in a virtual world to achieve
structured goals (Yee, 2006a). Through these interactions, individuals could possibly form a social network with positive affective bonds (Williams, 2006) and
build as well as maintain social capital (Ellison, Steinfeld, & Lampe, 2006; Ganley
& Lampe, 2009). Chen (2009) has also shown that a players social skills are
needed to access the expert player groups, and the social dimension (such as social
capital) plays an important role in deciding the success of the player.
Even though past studies have provided numerous models (Alexandris, Funk, &
Pritchard, 2011; Covelli, Graefe, & Burns, 2007; Hubbard & Mannell, 2001;
Loucks-Atkinson & Mannell, 2007; Son, Mowen, & Kerstetter, 2008; Stanis,
Schneider, & Russell, 2009b) to describe the leisure constraint negotiation process,
these models do not adequately address the influence of social capital on the negotiation process. Social capital is the basis for collective action (Huvila, 2010). It also represents a form of advantages and opportunities obtained by belonging to a certain
community, such as the social support one can obtain in times of need (Lin, 2001).
Tan et al.
Since MMORPGs have a strong social interaction element, its presence and repercussion should be incorporated as part of the negotiation model. It is also reasonable to
suggest that support from other players, such as emotional support or the ability
to mobilize others (Williams, 2006), may help the players to be in a better position
to trigger and execute negotiation strategies. This study suggests that social capital
should be included as part of the constraint negotiation process model to consider
the impact of social interaction on the negotiation process.
Thus, this study provides a new angle of examining the intention of MMORPG
players to continue to play the game in future through the concept of leisure constraint negotiation process. By incorporating social capital into the negotiation process, this study also addresses the impact of social interaction element of MMORPG
on the negotiation process. Besides further understanding the role of social interaction element in the negotiation process, this study also adds to the leisure constraint
negotiation process literature.
As for the research approach, partial least squares (PLS) analysis was performed on the data obtained from Taiwanese MMORPG players who belong to the
age-group of 1840 years. According to the classification by Arnett (2000) on
emerging adults and Erikson and Erikson (1987) on young adults, they could be
labeled as emerging and young adults. Even though MMORPGs appeal to diverse
demographic groups (Yee, 2006a), the sample used in this study was restricted to
this age-group because they form a major group of MMORPG players. We can also
remove other possible influences, such as health and IT skills, on the negotiation
process. This rationalization is also in line with the suggestion made by researchers
such as Jackson (2000) to consider sociodemographic factors such as age in leisure
constraints research. Similar to the approach adopted by studies such as Cole and
Griffiths (2007), Teng (2008), and Yee (2006c), this study does not restrict the
analysis to a specific MMORPG so that the findings could be as generalizable
as possible.
Literature Review
The leisure constraint concept has been applied to a wide variety of leisure contexts
such as bridge (Scott, 1991), leisure activities arising from celebrity fandom (Lee &
Scott, 2009), museum attendance (Jun, Kyle, & OLeary, 2008; Lawton & Daniels,
2009), park visitation (Burns & Graefe, 2007), physical exercise (Hubbard & Mannell,
2001), pool (Chick, Roberts, & Romney, 1991), recreational participation during early
adolescence (Hultsman, 1993; Jackson & Rucks, 1995), and skiing (Gilbert & Hudson,
2000).
Individuals may be prevented from continuing to play MMORPGs in future or to
play the game as much as they desired because of the presence of constraints (such
as lack of time, money, and partners). Constraints limit the formation of leisure
preferences and/or to inhibit or prohibit participation and enjoyment in leisure
(Jackson, 2000, p. 62).
Games and Culture
Leisure constraint researchers have suggested a three-dimensional constraint

structure composed of intrapersonal, interpersonal, and structural constraints. Intrapersonal constraints are internal constraints that are concerned with individual psychological qualities and contribute to individuals judgment of whether a particular
leisure activity is appropriate and interesting (Alexandris et al., 2011; L. Chen, 2013;
Jun, Kyle, & Mowen, 2009). Examples of intrapersonal constraints are fear, lack of
interest, and religiosity. Interpersonal constraints result from social interaction with
friends, family, and others. They are common in leisure activities where one or more
partners are preferred or needed (Jun et al., 2008; Son, Kerstetter, & Mowen, 2009).
Examples of interpersonal constraint are lack of companionship and intrafamily disapproval. Structural constraints are noninterpersonal external environment factors
(Alexandris et al., 2011; Jun et al., 2008; Son et al., 2009; Walker & Virden,
2005). Time-related and cost-related constraints are the most common structural
constraints.
Earlier studies have provided an inconsistent picture of how the constraint influences participation. Whereas Hubbard and Mannell (2001) and Son, Mowen, and
Kerstetter (2008) showed that the constraint negatively influences participation, the
results by Stanis, Schneider, and Russell (2009b; although significant at a threshold
of p < .1) and Loucks-Atkinson and Mannell (2007) did not indicate such an
outcome.
Jackson, Crawford, and Godbey (1993) have introduced propositions concerning
the process of leisure constraints negotiation to explain why people participate in leisure despite constraint (Kay & Jackson, 1991), that is, the weak or nonrelationship between constraints and participation found in some studies (Alexandris
et al., 2011).
The process involves the use of negotiation strategies. Defined as the strategies
people use to avoid or reduce the impact of the constraints and barriers to leisure
participation and enjoyment (Mannell & Kleiber, 1997, p. 341), negotiation strategies could be classified as cognitive and behavioral strategies (Jackson et al., 1993).
Cognitive strategies involve changing leisure aspiration such as convincing oneself
on how important an activity is. Behavioral strategies involve accommodating the
chosen leisure activity by adjusting the non-leisure aspects of ones life or modifying
the chosen leisure activity. Examples of behavioral strategies are time management,
financial management, and interpersonal coordination (Hubbard & Mannell, 2001).
A negotiation-related construct that is included in some of the leisure negotiation
studies is the negotiation-efficacy construct (Loucks-Atkinson & Mannell, 2007;
White, 2008). This construct refers to peoples confidence in their ability to successfully use negotiation strategies to overcome constraints they encounter
(Loucks-Atkinson & Mannell, 2007, p. 22).
According to the negotiation proposition (Jackson et al., 1993), the outcome of an
individuals negotiation might also be affected by motivation. Motivation differs
from one leisure activity to another. The Recreation Experience Preference scales
capture the psychological, social, and perceived physiological reasons that drive
Tan et al.
people to engage in outdoor recreational activities (Driver, 1983). Yee (2006b) has
suggested three motivation dimensions that propel people to play MMORPGs:
immersion, achievement, and social motivation.
Immersion motivation is related to escapism, role-playing, and the desire to be
part of the story. As an entertainment-oriented technology (Hsu & Lu, 2008), immersion in an advanced and detailed visual and auditory shared virtual environment
(Cole & Griffiths, 2007; Yee, 2006b) provides MMORPG players the illusion of
transcending space and time (Wang & Wang, 2008).
Achievement motivation refers to achieving game mastery, gaining power, and
accumulating status and symbols of wealth. MMORPG operators make the game
interesting by manipulating rewards through a random-ratio reinforcement schedule
based on operant conditioning (Yee, 2006a).
Social motivation refers to the interaction and the development of relationships
with other players. There is a strong social interaction element in the MMORPGs
(Lu & Wang, 2008) because most forms of advancement in MMORPGs require
increasing cooperation or dependency on other users, oftentimes mutually beneficial (Yee, 2006a, p. 189). Resembling miniature societies, players create individual
factions, guilds, and teams to complete game tasks, exchange virtual assets,
develop strong relationships, and strengthen social ties (Lo, 2008, p. 1949). The
highly socially interactive environment provides players the opportunity to make
lifelong friends and partners and contributes to game enjoyment (Cole & Griffiths,
2007). Cole and Griffiths (2007) also revealed that 39.3% of the players have discussed sensitive issues with their online gaming friends that they would not discuss
with their real-life friends.
Social interaction within a social network (such as via the MMORPGs) allows for
the generation and maintenance of social capital. Social capital (Bourdieu, 1985;
Lin, 2001, 1982) refers to the social structure that facilitates certain actions of actors
(Coleman, 1988) and is the sum of social resources accrued by an individual or a
group, embedded within, available through, and derived from the network of relationships (Burt, 1992; Coleman, 1988; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). It is the advantages and opportunities obtained by belonging to a certain community. It is also the
basis for collective action (Huvila, 2010).
Individuals involved in online social activities can build and maintain social capital (Ellison et al., 2006; Ganley & Lampe, 2009). Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe
(2007) found that online social network sites sustain both strong and weak social ties
(which are associated with bonding and bridging social capital, respectively) and
bridging social capital is most valued by Facebook users. Bridging social capital
describes the loose connections between individuals, that is, our friends of
friends, whereas bonding social capital refers to the close relationship through
which emotional support is provided, that is, the shoulder to cry on (Greenhow
& Robelia, 2009; Pfeil, Arjan, & Zaphiris, 2009). However, other studies have found
that social networking websites support the formation and maintenance of weak ties
rather than the creation of strong ties (Donath & Boyd, 2004). According to
Games and Culture
Granovetter (1973), online social networks are likely to comprise weak ties and bridging social capital instead of strong ties and bonding social capital. Given the strong
social interaction element of MMORPGs, where virtual networks with shared interests and goals are formed, the MMORPG environment helps players to maintain
relationships with other players who already know each other in the real world and
to generate bridging social capital with others (Williams et al., 2008).
The negotiation process could also be affected by the attitudes of leisure seekers
toward leisure participation. Known as activity attachment, these attitudes represent
the functional, emotional, and symbolic meaning of a recreational activity that
guides future behavior (Alexandris et al., 2011).
Numerous conceptual models of negotiation process (Alexandris et al., 2011;
Covelli et al., 2007; Hubbard & Mannell, 2001; Loucks-Atkinson & Mannell,
2007; Son et al., 2008; Stanis et al., 2009b) have been suggested to describe the relationships between some of the above-mentioned constructs and to guide the study of
leisure participation and nonparticipation (Son et al., 2008) in various leisure
contexts.
Using work-site physical recreation activities as the context, Hubbard and
Mannell (2001) proposed a slightly modified version of the constraint-effectsmitigation model (Figure 1a).
When considering the recreational activity of middle-aged and older adults in a
metropolitan park setting, Son et al. (2008) established a reduced negotiation model
where the paths linking negotiation to constraint and motivation to participation
were removed (Figure 1b). A rather similar model but with the two paths between
constraint and participation and between constraint and negotiation being significant
only at p < .1 instead of p < .05 was provided by Stanis et al. (2009b) when they
examined leisure time physical activity at Afton State Park. These two paths were
retained because removing them would have significantly reduced the model fit. The
model was further tested by Covelli, Graefe, and Burns (2007) with recreational forest visitors as the subjects. Covelli et al. (2007) provided the simplest negotiation
process model. Although their data fit the constraints-effects-mitigation model, the
removal of the constraint construct better predicts participation (Figure 1d).
Some researchers have incorporated additional constructs into the models to
cater to different conditions. Loucks-Atkinson and Mannell (2007) considered
the physically active leisure activities among individuals with fibromyalgia and
added negotiation-efficacy construct to the model to consider how individuals
belief that they are capable of using negotiation strategies to overcome the constraints they encounter affects negotiation. They found that negotiation-efficacy
positively influenced motivation and negotiation efforts (Figure 1e). Targeted at
future behavioral intentions to ski, Alexandris, Funk and Pritchard (2011)
included the activity attachment construct and found that activity attachment has
a positive effect on intention (Figure 1f). Thus, there is no consensus on a single
model that describes the interaction of various key constructs of the negotiation
process model.
Tan et al.
Figure 1. Negotiation process models. (a) Hubbard and Mannell (2001); (b) Son, Mowen and
Kerstetter (2008); (c) Stanis, Schneider and Russell (2009b); (d) Covelli, Graefe and Burns
(2007); (e) Loucks-Atkinson and Mannell (2007); (f) Alexandris, Funk and Pritchard (2011).
Some researchers have suggested that the nature of leisure activities considered in
these studies could explain some of these inconsistencies, especially if the studies
involved restrictive contexts. For example, Loucks-Atkinson and Mannell (2007),
who restricted the context to physically active leisure activities among individuals
with fibromyalgia (FM), argued that due to the nature of FM (i.e., pain, discomfort,
and fatigue), even high efforts to negotiate using a variety of strategies may not completely remove or reduce the effects of the constraints caused by the disability itself.
Consequently, the effectiveness of negotiation strategies may be limited and sheer
motivational drive to participate in these activities increased participation (p. 33).
Alexandris et al. (2011), who examined recreational skiing, have mentioned that given
the specific characteristics and requirements for participation, the results obtained in
Games and Culture
Figure 2. Research model.
their study might be confined to similar recreational activities. Stanis et al. (2009b)
also commented that their findings are limited to park settings and may not apply
to active leisure in general (p. 300). Given these inconsistencies, Stanis et al.
(2009b) commented that model revision continues and is called for (p. 291).
Research Model
To investigate the intention of a sample of emerging and young adults to play
MMORPGs in future from the perspective of negotiation process and to consider the
role of bridging social capital and bonding social capital on the negotiation process,
the following research model, which incorporated negotiation-related constructs
considered in past studies (Figure 2), is proposed:
Individuals may perceive or experience leisure constraints that prevent them from
continuing to play MMORPGs or to play the game as much as they desired. According to Hubbard and Mannell (2001), when faced with leisure constraints, individuals
will be prompted to employ negotiation strategies to avoid or reduce the impact of
these constraints.
Motivation is frequently used to explain leisure behavior (Iso-Ahola, 1999).
Motivation is always an important construct in the negotiation process models and
performs multiple roles in the process. It is one of the most important factors that
decide the successful outcome of negotiation (Alexandris, Tsorbatzoudis, &
Grouios, 2002; Mannell & Loucks-Atkinson, 2005).
Social capital refers to the sum of social resources accrued by an individual from
a network of relationships. It is closely related to the social support a network
Tan et al.
member can obtain in times of need (Lin, 2001). Social support can come in the form
of emotional concern, instrumental aid, information, or appraisal (House, 1986).
With the appropriate support from other members of a social network, it is proposed
that one will be in a better position to trigger and execute negotiation strategies than
if no support is provided from other members. This study considers two types of
social capitals: bridging social capital and bonding social capital.
Negotiation-efficacy involves players belief that they are capable of using negotiation strategies to overcome the constraints they encounter (Loucks-Atkinson &
Mannell, 2007). In the studies by Loucks-Atkinson and Mannell (2007) and White
(2008), negotiation-efficacy was found to strengthen motivation and prompt negotiation efforts, thus showing that higher confidence in the ability to successfully
negotiate constraints can cause one to be more motivated and provides the impetus
for greater efforts to negotiate. Thus, this study hypothesized that
Hypothesis 1: Constraint positively affects negotiation.
Hypothesis 2: Motivation positively affects negotiation.
Hypothesis 3: Social capital positively affects negotiation.
Hypothesis 4: Negotiation-efficacy positively affects negotiation.
Hypothesis 5: Negotiation-efficacy positively affects motivation.
Activity attachment represents the functional, emotional, and symbolic meaning
of a recreational activity that guides future behavior (Alexandris et al., 2011). Alexandris et al. (2011) have shown that individuals with a high motivational level are
likely to have higher levels of attachment with an activity. The authors also provided
empirical support for the negative relationship between constraint and activity
attachment. Hence, this study posits that
Hypothesis 6: Motivation positively affects activity attachment.
Hypothesis 7: Constraint negatively affects activity attachment.
According to the leisure constraint concept, leisure constraints negatively affect
the frequency of participation. Leisure motivation has also been suggested to explain
why constraints do not necessarily reduce or prevent leisure participation (Son et al.,
2008). Many studies have shown that motivation directly influences participation in
leisure activities. Numerous negotiation models, such as Alexandris et al. (2011),
Loucks-Atkinson and Mannell (2007), and Stanis et al. (2009b), have provided
empirical evidence to support motivation as an immediate antecedent of participation. On the other hand, the models of Covelli et al. (2007), Hubbard and Mannell
(2001), and Son et al. (2008) did not establish a direct influence of motivation on participation. Hence, there is inconsistency among these studies. Alexandris et al. (2011)
10
Games and Culture
have shown that individuals who place more emotional, functional, and symbolic
meaning on an activity are more likely to show positive future behavioral intentions.
Many studies have also consistently shown that negotiation strategies facilitate leisure participation despite constraints. This trend explains the unexpected low correlation between some constraints and actual leisure participation (Kay & Jackson,
1991) and even the positive relationship found in one study (Shaw, Bonen, & McCabe,
1991) (Lee & Scott, 2009, p. 143). The final four hypotheses are as follows:
Hypothesis 8: Constraints negatively affects future behavioral intention.
Hypothesis 9: Motivation positively affects future behavioral intention.
Hypothesis 10: Activity attachment positively affects future behavioral intention.
Hypothesis 11: Negotiation positively affects future behavioral intention.
Research Method
The constraints used in the past studies, such as Alexandris et al. (2011), Hubbard
and Mannell (2001), and Scott, Lee, Lee, and Kim (2006) were tabulated, and 30
MMORPG players, of which 17 (56.7%) were males and 21 (70.0%) were in the
age-group of 2025 years, were asked to identify relevant constraints for this study.
The measurements for negotiation were modified from Stanis, Schneider, and
Anderson (2009a) and Stanis et al. (2009b). Negotiation-efficacy was measured
using a scale from White (2008). The questions for motivation were adopted and
modified from items used in Yee (2006b), Yee, Ducheneaut and Nelson (2012), and
Driver (1983). The items of activity attachment constructs were developed from
Alexandris et al. (2011). The items of intention were modified from studies such
as Alexandris et al. (2011), Deng, Turner, Gehling, and Prince (2010), and Wang and
Wang (2008). The social capital construct was measured by adopting the items from
Williams (2006). The items of each construct are shown in Tables 13. Respondents
indicated their level of agreement with the items on a 5-point Likert-type scale.
A pilot study involving another 25 MMORPG players, of which 13 (52.0%) were
males and 17 (68.0%) were in the age-group of 2025, was carried out to test the
feasibility of the proposed questionnaire. Questions that were deemed ambiguous
were modified according to the responses.
Similar to studies such as Alexandris et al. (2011) and Son et al. (2008), survey
participants were selected based on a convenience sampling method. Survey
responses were collected by approaching potential survey respondents personally.
If they were within 1840 years and expressed that they could not indulge in playing
MMORPGs as much as they wished, they were invited to participate in the survey. If
they agreed, the survey purpose was explained, and they were given a hard copy survey form to complete. Two hundred thirty-three (233) valid questionnaires were
obtained, of whom 132 (56.7%) are males (Table 4).
Tan et al.
11
Table 1. Dimensions and Items of Constructs (Negotiation, Constraints, and Motivation).

Construct
Item
Negotiation
Interpersonal
strategy
Financial strategy
Time strategy
Cognitive strategy
Constraints
Structural
Interpersonal
Intrapersonal
Motivation
Achievement
Immersion
Try to find people to play MMORPG with

Try to meet people with similar MMORPG interests
Join MMORPG social group to meet people with same interest
Try to persuade friends to play MMORPG
Save money
Try to live within my means (deleted)
Try to budget my money
Cut off my MMORPG session (deleted)
Get up earlier or stay up later to have more time
Try to plan ahead so that I can play MMORPG
Set aside time for MMORPG
Think about how important MMORPG is
Ignore what people think of me
Avoid allowing things to get to me
Make light of conflict situations (deleted)
The high cost
Too many other leisure commitments
I do not have time because of my family/work/school commitments
1 do not have time because of my social commitments
Dont have enough money (deleted)
I dont have friends with whom to participate
People with whom I would participate are on different schedules
My friends are not interested (deleted)
Feel uneasy
Does not suit my personality
Not skilled enough (deleted)
Not getting a feeling of accomplishment
To learn what you are capable of
To have others think highly of you for doing it
I believe it is very important to get higher level
Dominating/killing other players
Doing things that annoy other players
To experience excitement
To be on my own
To avoid everyday responsibilities for awhile
Getting away from the demands of other people
To get away from the usual demands of life
I like staying in fantasy virtual world
Make up stories and histories for your characters
Role-play different characters
(continued)
12
Games and Culture
Table 1. (continued)
Construct
Item
Social
Prefer to finish a mission in a group with others

To be with members of your group
To be with friends
Chatting with other players
Being part of a guild
Sharing your knowledge with others
Sharing your MMORPG skills with others
Teaching your MMORPG outdoor skills to others
Note. MMORPG massively multiplayer online role-playing game.
Table 2. Dimensions and Items of Constructs (Intention, Activity Attachment, and Negotiation-Efficacy).
Construct
Item
Intention
I intent to play MMORPG in the future

I predict I will play MMORPG in the future (deleted)
I will continue to play MMORPG
Activity attachment
Functional meaning I possess a great deal of knowledge about MMORPG
I consider myself an expert on MMORPG
If I were to list everything I know about MMORPG, the list would be
quite long
Symbolic meaning My friends have a positive impression of me if they know that I play
MMORGP
Others think well of me if they know Im an MMORPG player
Being an MMORPG player helps me project a good image to others
Emotional meaning MMORPG is important to me
Compared to other leisure activities, MMORPG is very
important to me
Being an MMORPG player is very important to me
Negotiation-efficacy
In the past, I have been successful getting around the barriers to
playing MMORPG
People I admire find ways around challenges they face when trying to
play MMORPG
My friends encourage me to play MMORPG even when there are
obstacles
I enjoy overcoming obstacles to playing MMORPG
We performed PLS regression using SmartPLS 2.0 (M3) beta (Ringle, Wende, &
Will, 2008) to validate the measurement model and test the hypotheses. PLS was used
because, to our knowledge, few studies have empirically examined the effect of social
Tan et al.
13
Table 3. Dimensions and Items of Constructs (Negotiation, Constraints, and Motivation).

Construct
Social capital
Bridging
Bonding
Item
Interacting with people when playing MMORPG makes me interested in
things that happen in other places
Interacting with people when playing MMORPG makes me want to try
new things
Interacting with people when playing MMORPG makes me interested in
what people unlike me are thinking
Interacting with people when playing MMORPG makes me curious
about other places in the world
Interacting with people when playing MMORPG makes me feel like part
of a larger community
Interacting with people when playing MMORPG makes me feel
connected to the bigger picture
Interacting with people when playing MMORPG reminds me that
everyone in the world is connected
I am willing to spend time to support MMORPG community activities
Interacting with people when playing MMORPG gives me new people to
talk to
When playing MMORPG, I come in contact with new people all the time
Through playing MMORPG, I know several people I trust to help solve
my problems
Through playing MMORPG, I know someone I can turn to for advice
about making very important decisions
Through playing MMORPG, I know someone I feel comfortable talking
to about intimate personal problems
Through playing MMORPG, I know several people I can talk to when I
feel lonely
Through playing MMORPG, I know someone I can turn to if I need an
emergency loan (deleted)
Through playing MMORPG, I interact with people who would put their
reputation on the line for me (deleted)
Through playing MMORPG, I interact with people who would be good
job references for me
Through playing MMORPG, I interact with people who would share
their last dollar with me
Through playing MMORPG, I know someone well enough to get them
to do anything important
Through playing MMORPG, I interact with people who would help me
fight an injustice
capital on negotiation process. PLS can be applied to complex models with a large
number of constructs, which is the case for this study. PLS also has the added
14
Games and Culture
Table 4. Demographic Profile of Survey Respondents.
Gender
Age
Education
Male
Female
1819
2025
2630
3135
3640
High school and below
Undergraduate
Postgraduate
No.
132
101
29
172
19
9
4
19
196
18
56.7
43.3
12.4
73.8
8.2
3.9
1.7
8.2
84.1
7.7
advantage of placing minimal demands on measurement scales, sample size, and residual distributions (Chin, 1998). The bootstrap procedure was used to generate the t
values.
Many previous negotiation modeling procedures (such as Alexandris et al., 2011;
Lee & Scott, 2009; Loucks-Atkinson & Mannell, 2007; Son et al., 2008; Stanis et al.,
2009b) have used subdomain mean scores as indicators of constructs such as activity
attachment, constraints, negotiation, and motivation. For example, with respect to
constraints, the mean scores for each of the three constraint types were calculated.
These three subdomain mean scores (intrapersonal mean score, interpersonal mean
score, and structural mean score) were then used as the three indicators of the constraints construct. In other words, these constructs are modeled as first-order constructs. However, many of these constructs are second-order constructs. For
example, the activity attachment construct comprises three subconstructs: functional, symbolic, and emotional meaning. In turn, each of these subconstructs is
measured via a number of items.
This study, insofar as it was statistically suitable, attempted to represent the constructs as second-order constructs. The activity attachment construct was thus represented as a second-order construct with functional, symbolic, and emotional meaning
as the subconstructs. The constraint construct was also expressed as a second-order construct with structural, intrapersonal, and interpersonal constraints as the subconstraints.
However, the attempt to represent the social capital construct (with bridging and bonding social capital as subconstructs), negotiation construct (with financial, time, interpersonal, and cognitive strategies as subconstructs), and motivation construct (with
achievement, immersion, and social motivation as subconstructs) as second-order constructs failed the discriminant validity test. Hence, as advised by Hair, Hult, Ringle, and
Sarstedt (2013), the subconstructs related to social capital, negotiation, and motivation
constructs were included in the model as first-order constructs.
Table 5 shows the descriptive statistics, composite reliability (CR), and average
variance extracted (AVE) of the constructs. They showed good internal consistency
Tan et al.
15
Table 5. Descriptive Statistics, AVE, and CR Values of Constructs.

Construct
Mean
SD
AVE
CR
Negotiation (interpersonal strategy)

Negotiation (time strategy)
Negotiation (cognitive strategy)
Negotiation (financial strategy)
Constraint
Structural
Interpersonal
Intrapersonal
Motivation (social)
Motivation (immersion)
Motivation (achievement)
Intention
Activity attachment
Symbolic meaning
Functional meaning
Emotional meaning
Negotiation-efficacy
Social capital (bridging)
Social capital (bonding)
3.09
2.93
2.78
2.50
3.01
3.17
3.15
2.69
3.39
3.23
2.86
3.10
2.61
2.67
2.63
2.54
2.78
3.24
2.89
0.88
0.86
0.75
0.93
0.73
0.81
0.86
0.90
0.93
0.85
0.89
0.99
0.83
0.83
0.97
0.91
0.78
0.83
0.81
0.72
0.67
0.61
0.76
0.51
0.61
0.76
0.77
0.74
0.69
0.60
0.92
0.70
0.83
0.80
0.85
0.70
0.68
0.66
0.91
0.86
0.86
0.86
0.90
0.86
0.86
0.91
0.93
0.94
0.88
0.96
0.95
0.94
0.92
0.94
0.90
0.95
0.94
Note. CR composite reliability; AVE average variance extracted.
reliability with CR values exceeding the recommended value of 0.7 (Fornell &
Larcker, 1981). The loadings of the measurement items on their respective constructs and dimensions are greater than the cutoff value of 0.70 (Fornell & Larcker,
1981). These high loadings support the convergent validity of the measured items on
the corresponding latent constructs. Convergent validity is further supported by
AVE values exceeding the recommended value of 0.5. Each item loads on its latent
construct at the significance level of t statistic values (t > 1.96), indicating the presence of individual item reliability. All the measurement items load more highly on
their own latent construct than on other constructs. The square root of AVE of each
construct is larger than the correlation coefficients involving the construct (Table 6),
thus confirming discriminant validity (Chin, 1998). For the sake of brevity, the PLS
results for hypothesis testing listed in Table 7 only included paths that are statistically significant.
Discussion
The results obtained from this study clearly illustrate the central role played by the
social interaction element of MMORPGs in affecting the relationships between
constructs.
16
0.777
0.613
0.567
0.599
0.111
0.712
0.567
0.655
0.585
0.495
0.583
0.480
0.674
0.836
0.621
0.618
0.101
0.637
0.631
0.663
0.604
0.529
0.648
0.551
0.641
AA
0.811
0.778
0.217
0.629
0.578
0.710
0.707
0.519
0.662
0.686
0.677
SCBo
0.822
0.314
0.759
0.631
0.719
0.774
0.502
0.670
0.684
0.760
SCBr
0.715
0.204
0.047
0.226
0.302
0.223
0.187
0.304
0.174
Con
0.829
0.634
0.684
0.712
0.509
0.678
0.520
0.809
MImm
0.960
0.628
0.670
0.448
0.630
0.519
0.637
Int
0.781
0.759
0.647
0.775
0.693
0.688
NCS
0.850
0.541
0.820
0.631
0.772
NIS
0.872
0.589
0.527
0.411
NFS
0.821
0.621
0.678
NTS
0.834
0.554
NEf
0.857
MSoc
Note. Mach motivation (achievement); AA activity attachment; SCBo social capital (bonding); SCBr social capital (bridging); Con constraint; MImm
motivation (immersion); Int intention; NCS negotiation (cognitive strategy); NIS negotiation (interpersonal strategy); NFS negotiation (financial
strategy); NTS negotiation (time strategy); Nef negotiation-efficacy; MSoc motivation (social).
Diagonal elements (bold) are the square root of average variance extracted. Off-diagonal elements are correlations between constructs.
MAch
AA
SCBo
SCBr
Con
MImm
Int
NCS
NIS
NFS
NTS
NEf
MSoc
MAch
Table 6. Discriminant Validity Assessment.
Tan et al.
17
Table 7. Results of Hypotheses.

Path coefficient t value
Hypothesis 1: Constraint ! Negotiation
Constraint ! Negotiation (interpersonal strategy)
Hypothesis 2: Motivation ! Negotiation
Motivation (immersion) ! Negotiation (time strategy)
Motivation (immersion) ! Negotiation (cognitive strategy)
Motivation (immersion) ! Negotiation (financial strategy)
Motivation (social) ! Negotiation (interpersonal strategy)
Motivation (social) ! Negotiation (time strategy)
Motivation (social) ! Negotiation (financial strategy)
Motivation (achievement) ! Negotiation (cognitive strategy)
Motivation (achievement) ! Negotiation (financial strategy)
Hypothesis 3: Social capital ! Negotiation
Social capital (bonding) ! Negotiation (cognitive strategy)
Social capital (bonding) ! Negotiation (time strategy)
Social capital (bonding) ! Negotiation (financial strategy)
Social capital (bonding) ! Negotiation (interpersonal strategy)
Social capital (bridging) ! Negotiation (interpersonal strategy)
Hypothesis 4: Negotiation-efficacy ! Negotiation
Negotiation-efficacy ! Negotiation (time strategy)
Negotiation-efficacy ! Negotiation (cognitive strategy)
Negotiation-efficacy ! Negotiation (financial strategy)
Negotiation-efficacy ! Negotiation (interpersonal strategy)
Hypothesis 5: Negotiation-efficacy ! Motivation
Negotiation-efficacy ! Motivation (immersion)
Negotiation-efficacy ! Motivation (social)
Negotiation-efficacy ! Motivation (achievement)
Hypothesis 6: Motivation ! Activity attachment
Motivation (social) ! Activity attachment
Motivation (achievement) ! Activity attachment
Motivation (immersion) ! Activity attachment
Hypothesis 7: Constraint ! Activity attachment
Hypothesis 8: Constraint ! Intention
Hypothesis 9: Motivation ! Intention
Hypothesis 10: Activity attachment ! Intention
Hypothesis 11: Negotiation strategies ! Intention
Negotiation (interpersonal strategy) ! Intention
0.088
2.177*
0.245
0.136
0.297
0.359
0.171
0.257
0.202
0.220
2.323*
2.011*
2.858*
5.064*
2.135*
2.226*
3.390*
2.437*
0.185
0.186
0.199
0.141
0.215
2.526*
1.996*
1.753**
1.747**
2.635*
0.234
0.294
0.265
0.112
3.417*
4.611*
3.329*
1.801**
0.520
0.554
0.480
8.413*
9.488*
7.207*
0.289
0.265
0.219
0.140
0.232
0.342
2.649*
3.299*
1.946**
3.392*
2.706*
3.502*
Note. Only those relationships which are statistically significant, that is, p < .05 and p < .1 are listed.
R2 (motivation (immersion)) 0.270; R2 (motivation (social)) 0.307; R2 (motivation (achievement))
0.231; R2 (negotiation (interpersonal strategy)) 0.708; R2 (negotiation (time strategy)) 0.597; R2
(negotiation (cognitive strategy)) 0.680; R2 (negotiation (financial strategy)) 0.403; R2 (activity attachment) 0.485; R2 (intention) 0.570.
*p < .05. **p < .1.
18
Games and Culture
Negotiation Strategy
The interpersonal negotiation strategy (mean 3.09, SD 0.88) is the top strategy
used by MMORPG players. This is followed by time management strategy (mean
2.93, SD 0.86), cognitive strategy (mean 2.78, SD 0.75), and financial strategy (mean 2.50, SD 0.93). Interpersonal negotiation strategy is a response to
problems faced by MMORPG players that are related to the social interaction element. The interpersonal negotiation strategy is influenced by the constraints, bridging social capital and social motivation constructs. These constructs explained a
great amount of the variance in interpersonal negotiation strategy (R2 0.708).
Constraints and Negotiation Strategy

The interpersonal constraint (mean 3.15, SD 0.86) faced by players is quite
close in intensity to the structural constraint (mean 3.17, SD 0.81). This study
shows that the constraint faced by MMORPG players can affect negotiation
(Hypothesis 1), but it is only restricted to triggering the interpersonal negotiation
strategy (with a path coefficient of 0.088). We speculate that this path is significant
because of the importance of social interaction aspect of MMORPGs.
Hence, even though past studies have shown that, in some cases, negotiation
efforts may appear when one faces constraints, this study adds: Which negotiation
strategy is triggered will depend on which constraints and negotiation strategies matter most to the leisure seekers, which in turn will depend on the nature of the leisure
activity. For the case of MMORPGs, interpersonal negotiation strategy is the top
strategy being triggered because social interaction elements matter a lot to the
players.
Social Capital and Negotiation Strategies

The inclusion of social capital in the negotiation process model is relevant in the
context of this study because of the strong social interaction element of MMORPGs.
The level of bridging social capital (mean 3.24, SD 0.83) is higher than that of
bonding social capital (mean 2.89, SD 0.81) in the MMORPG virtual environment. Hence, although this study supports the results of past studies that indicated
that online social networks are more likely to comprise and support the maintenance
of weak ties (bridging social capital) instead of containing and supporting the creation of strong ties (bonding social capital; Granovetter, 1973), this study reveals
that the online social network formed by MMORPG players also creates and comprises bonding social capital but at a lower level.
Social capital is closely related to the social support a network member can obtain
in times of need, such as emotional support or the ability to mobilize others
(Williams, 2006). Such supports are useful when triggering and executing negotiation strategies (Hypothesis 3). The two types of social capitals play different roles in
Tan et al.
19
helping to propel the negotiation strategies. The resources embedded in bonding

social capital are capable of providing the more-demanding instrumental support
(e.g., material aid and behavioral assistance) and emotional support. On the other
hand, the resources available through bridging social capital are more related to
knowing more people who are different and connecting people together (Greenhow
& Robelia, 2009; Pfeil et al., 2009; Williams, 2006). Hence, bonding social capital is
important in helping to trigger time and cognitive negotiation strategies. Bonding
social capital also affects financial and interpersonal negotiation strategies but only
at a generous threshold (i.e., p < .1). On the other hand, bridging social capital is only
limited to influencing the interpersonal negotiation strategy. It is not able to affect
other types of negotiation strategies that require more instrumental or emotional support (such as helping to find time and reminding one of the importance of a game).
Hence, this study found that different types of social capitals are needed to trigger
different negotiation strategies.
Motivation and Negotiation Strategies

Social motivation refers to the desire to develop relationships with other players. Social
motivation is the strongest among the three types of motivations. This study found that
players are more motivated by social (mean 3.39, SD 0.93) than immersion (mean
3.23, SD 0.85) and achievement (mean 2.86, SD 0.89) motivation.
Social motivation is active in triggering various types of negotiation strategies
directly (Hypothesis 2). As expected, social motivation works best in propelling the
interpersonal negotiation strategy (path coefficient 0.359). It also triggers other
types of negotiation strategies other than the cognitive strategy. Interestingly, social
motivation reduces the need for financial negotiation strategy (path coefficient
0.257). This result implies that the drive for social interaction in MMORPGs can
be so strong that people reduce their need to negotiate financially.
Social motivation also serves as a conduit for negotiation-efficacy to indirectly
influence interpersonal negotiation strategy. Negotiation-efficacy involves players
belief that they are capable of using negotiation strategies to overcome constraints
they encounter (Loucks-Atkinson & Mannell, 2007). Negotiation-efficacy does not
influence the use of interpersonal negotiation strategy (Hypothesis 4) at a threshold
of p < .05 (but is significant at a threshold of p < .1). However, negotiation-efficacy
promotes the use of interpersonal negotiation strategy via the social motivation
(Hypotheses 2 and 5: negotiation-efficacy!social motivation!interpersonal negotiation strategy). A possible reason for this finding is the presence of an important
characteristic of MMORPGs, that is, the need for team effort. Although cognitive,
financial, and time negotiation strategies can be settled alone, interpersonal negotiation strategy requires the cooperation of others. An extra push is needed and is provided by the social motivation. Thus, the result obtained on the interaction of
negotiation-efficacy with other constructs further highlights the central role of social
motivation in the negotiation process.
20
Games and Culture
Activity Attachment
Activity attachment represents the functional, emotional, and symbolic meaning of a
recreational activity that guides future behavior. It is no surprise that there is a relationship between motivation and activity attachment (Hypothesis 6). MMORPG
players with high social, achievement, and immersion motivational levels are likely
to have higher levels of attachment to MMORPGs. The important role played by the
social interaction element of MMORPGs is manifested by the path coefficient from
social motivation to activity attachment (path coefficient 0.289) being the highest,
followed by that from achievement motivation to activity attachment (path coefficient 0.265).
The lack of a significant relationship between constraints and activity attachment
(Hypothesis 7) could possibly be an outcome of players being more attached, even to
the extent of being addicted to MMORPGs. Addiction to online games and
MMORPGs has often been encountered in real life. This topic has also been studied
by many researchers, such as Chuang (2006), Lu and Wang (2008), Ng and WiemerHastings (2005), Wan and Chiou (2007), and Yee (2002). Activity attachment can
create strength-related outcomes such as persistence, that is, being attached to the
activity for a long period of time, and resistance (being able to withstand counterpersuasive communication and other recreational activities; Alexandris et al.,
2011). As a result, constraints faced by MMORPG players are not able to undermine
activity attachment in the context to continue playing MMORPGs. This result is
unlike Alexandris et al. (2011) who established a negative relationship between constraint and activity attachment in the different context of intention to continue
recreational skiing. Although recreational skiing could be intrinsically enjoyable and
satisfying, we hear less often of people being addicted to recreational skiing. Further
study on the relationship between activity attachment and constraints is suggested to
examine this result further.
Behavioral Intention
Only a limited number of factors, constraints (Hypothesis 8), activity attachment
(Hypothesis 10), and interpersonal negotiation strategy (Hypothesis 11) directly
influence behavioral intention to play MMORPGs in future even though these factors are able to explain a relatively high percentage (57%) of the variance in intention (R2 .570). The influence of social interaction element is also strongly felt
here. Interpersonal negotiation strategy is the only negotiation strategy that propels
people to continue playing online games. As commented by Hubbard and Mannell
(2001), the strength and effectiveness of negotiation efforts, once triggered,
likely also depend on a variety of other factors (p. 158). Thus, this result is in line
with the above-mentioned argument that individuals are more interesting in the
social interaction element of MMORPGs and the central role of cooperation
between players. Although achievement motivation only influences intention via
Tan et al.
21
activity attachment, social motivation is the only type of motivation that indirectly
influences intention via two constructs, activity attachment and interpersonal
negotiation strategy.
Comparison With the Existing Constraint Negotiation Models

The results also contribute to the concept of leisure negotiation in several ways.
Constraints and intention. This study demonstrates that the constraints faced by
MMORPG players will negatively influence their future behavioral intention. Thus,
the result of this study support the findings of Hubbard and Mannell (2001) and Son
et al. (2008), who found that constraint influences future behavioral intention
negatively.
Constraints and negotiation. Although past studies have shown that, in some cases,
negotiation efforts may appear when one faces constraint, this study adds: Which
negotiation strategy is triggered depends on which constraints and negotiation strategies matter most to the leisure seekers, which in turn will depend on the nature of
the leisure activity.
Negotiation-efficacy, motivation, and negotiation. According to Loucks-Atkinson and
Mannell (2007), negotiation-efficacy positively influences motivation and negotiation. Our results are generally in line with those of Loucks-Atkinson and Mannell
(2007) in three ways. First, negotiation-efficacy significantly influences the three
dimensions of motivation (social, immersion, and achievement). Second,
negotiation-efficacy also significantly influences the negotiation strategies of cognitive, financial, and time at a threshold of p < .05 and interpersonal negotiation strategy, albeit at a generous threshold of p < .1. Third, the path coefficients from
negotiation-efficacy to the three types of motivation (0.4800.520) are all greater
than the path coefficients from negotiation-efficacy to negotiation (0.2340.294).
Hence, ones confidence in his or her ability to use negotiation strategies could
directly influence the use of negotiation strategies or influence subjects via motivation indirectly.
Motivation and negotiation. Past studies on the negotiation process have shown that
motivation triggers negotiation (Covelli et al., 2007; Hubbard & Mannell, 2001;
Loucks-Atkinson & Mannell, 2007; Son et al., 2008; Stanis et al., 2009b). However,
this study reveals that each type of motivation triggers negotiation strategies differently. For example, immersion involves the illusion of oneself transcending space
and time, whereas achievement motivation emphasizes ones achieving game mastery, gaining power and accumulating status and symbols of wealth. Hence, these
two motivation dimensions focus on the aspects of self rather than we. As a
result, immersion motivation and achievement motivation fail to trigger the
22
Games and Culture
interpersonal negotiation strategy but trigger the cognitive strategy, which is associated with convincing oneself about how important a leisure activity is. Previous
studies have emphasized the need for the congruence (matching) between constraint
and negotiation (Lee & Scott, 2009; Son et al., 2008). This study further illustrates
the need for congruence between motivation and negotiation.
Motivation and intention. As indicated by Hubbard and Mannell (2001), Son et al.
(2008), and Covelli et al. (2007), motivation does not have a direct influence on
intention. For this study, motivations influence on intention is mediated through
activity attachment and interpersonal negotiation strategy via three indirect paths:
(1) social motivation ! activity attachment ! intention (path coefficient 0.289
0.232 0.067), (2) achievement motivation ! activity attachment ! intention
(path coefficient 0.265 0.232 0.061), (3) social motivation ! interpersonal
negotiation strategy ! intention (path coefficient 0.359 0.342 0.123).
Examining at the Level of Individual Negotiation Strategies

Last but not the least, the results provide evidence of the usefulness of examining the
negotiation process at the level of individual negotiation strategies rather than aggregating these strategies into a single second-order negotiation construct or using the
mean scores of the negotiation strategies as indicators of the negotiation construct. A
similar approach was also recommended by researchers such as Son et al. (2008),
who called for future research might look at the relationships between specific
negotiation strategies and specific constraints to participation rather than looking
at overall levels of negotiation and constraint (p. 209). Alexandris et al. (2011) used
the latent variables in the structural model to obtain statistically valid results. However, they also suggested that research be carried out at a specific level (similar to the
approach adopted in this study) to examine the influence of specific types of constraints on specific subdimensions of activity attachment. This study has examined
some of the constructs at specific levels rather than at the overall level while providing statistically valid results. If the focus of this study had been placed on the overall
levels of constructs, the impact of the social interaction element of MMORPGs on
the negotiation process could have been masked. Furthermore, the need for congruence between motivation and negotiation strategies could also be overlooked.
Research Limitations and Future Research

The limitation of this study is its relatively small sample size. Approximately 74% of
the respondents were in the 2025 years age-group, although this age-group is within
the emerging and young adult category. Future research should increase the sample
size and include other age-groups within this category. The study could also be
extended to other age-groups representing different stages of human development,
such as middle adulthood and old age. It would be worthwhile and interesting to
Tan et al.
23
determine whether the constraint negotiation process would differ for MMORPG
players at different stages of human development. This study only measured a limited set of constraints and might not reflect the full array of constraints faced by
MMORPG players. Future research could consider using a broader range of constraints. This study measured the intention to play MMORPGs in future. Future
research could instead consider the frequency with which players would play
MMORPGs. This is a general study, which viewed MMORPGs in totality and did
not consider a specific MMORPG. While useful in providing the general picture
of the role of social interaction element on continuing to play MMORPGs, the findings of this study should be read taking into consideration that the game mechanics
(such as the social interaction element) of MMORPGs could differ from one game to
another. Future studies could consider replicating this study and apply it to different
specific MMORPGs. The desire to continue playing MMORPGs could also be a possible indication of addictive behavior. A form of behavioral addiction (Marks, 1990),
such kind of nonchemical addiction that involves excessive humanmachine interaction has been labeled as technological addiction (Griffiths, 1995). This study did
not consider this aspect. Future study could consider MMORPG as an addictive good
and apply economic concepts such as rational addiction (Becker & Murphy, 1988),
as well as use the operational definitions of addiction, such as those by Griffiths and
Davies (2005), to further explore the relationship between leisure constraint negotiation process, continue playing, and addiction. Despite these limitations, the study has
provided numerous theoretical insights into the constraint negotiation process.
Furthermore, this study has provided a good basis for future confirmation of these
exploratory results by using larger and more diversified sample as well as including
other considerations to increase the generalization of results.
Conclusion
This study has applied the concept of negotiation process to understand how
MMORPG players cope with constraints and continue to play the game in future.
Many of the results obtained are derived from the central role played by the social
interaction element of MMORPGs. Social capital propels negotiation strategies. By
using bridging social capital and bonding social capital, this study further shows that
different types of social capitals are needed to trigger different negotiation strategies.
In the process, we have also highlighted the theoretical implications of the negotiation process. The study shows that the key constructs in the negotiation process
model are interrelated and they collectively form a complex process to influence
intention. Many of the relationships between constructs could be explained by the
strong social interaction element of MMORPGs. Although data analysis provides
evidence that supports the results of some previous negotiation process studies, this
study provides additional insights into the process that deserve further investigation.
The study demonstrates: Which negotiation strategy is triggered depends on which
constraints and negotiation strategies matter most to leisure seekers, which is
24
Games and Culture
affected by the nature of the leisure activity. There is also a need for congruence
between motivation and negotiation strategy. It is also useful to examine the negotiation process at the level of individual negotiation strategies rather than aggregating strategies into a single second-order negotiation construct.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
References
Alexandris, K., Funk, D. C., & Pritchard, M. (2011). The impact of constraints on motivation,
activity attachment, and skier intentions to continue. Journal of Leisure Research, 43,
5679.
Alexandris, K., Tsorbatzoudis, C., & Grouios, G. (2002). Perceived constraints on recreational sport participation: Investigating their relationship with intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and amotivation. Journal of Leisure Research, 34, 233252.
Arnett, J (2000). Emerging adulthood: A theory of development from the late teens through
the twenties. American Psychologist, 55, 469480.
Becker, G., & Murphy, K. (1988). A theory of rational addiction. Journal of Political
Economy, 96, 675700.
Bourdieu, P. (1985). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education (pp. 241258). New York, NY: Greenwood.
Burns, R. C., & Graefe, A. R. (2007). Constraints to outdoor recreation: Exploring the effects
of disabilities on perceptions and participation. Journal of Leisure Research, 39, 156181.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Chen, L. (2013). Consumer-based leisure constraint for online gaming. The Service Industries
Journal, 33, 115132.
Chen, M. (2009). Social dimensions of expertise in World of Warcraft players.
Transformative Works and Cultures, 2. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.3983/twc.
2009.0072.
Chick, G. E., Roberts, J. M., & Romney, A. K. (1991). Conflict and quitting in the Monday
night pool league. Leisure Sciences, 13, 293308.
Chin, W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In
G. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295358).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chuang, Y. (2006). Massively multiplayer online role-playing game-induced seizures: A
neglected health problem in Internet addiction. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 9,
451456.
Tan et al.
25
Cole, H., & Griffiths, M. D. (2007). Social interactions in massively multiplayer online roleplaying gamers. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 10, 575583.
Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of
Sociology, 94, 95120.
Covelli, E., Graefe, A., & Burns, R. (2007). A re-examination of constraint negotiation models for forest recreation. In I. Schneider & B. McCormick (Eds.), Leisure research symposium 2007 (pp. 58). Ashburn, VA: National Recreation and Park Association.
Deng, L., Turner, D. E., Gehling, R., & Prince, B. (2010). User experience, satisfaction, and
continual usage intention of IT. European Journal of Information Systems, 19, 6075.
Donath, J., & Boyd, D. (2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal, 22,
7182.
Driver, B. L. (1983). Master list of items for Recreation Experience Preference scales and
domains. Unpublished document. USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO: Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.
Ellison, N., Steinfeld, C., & Lampe, C. (2006). Spatially bounded online social networks and
social capital: The role of Facebook. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the
International Communication Association, June 1923, Dresden, Germany.
Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook friends: Social
capital and college students use of online social network sites. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 12, 11431168.
Erikson, E. H., & Erikson, J. M. (1987). The life cycle completed. New York, NY: Norton.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 3950.
Ganley, D., & Lampe, C. (2009). The ties that bind: Social network principles in online communities. Decision Support Systems, 47, 266274.
Gilbert, D., & Hudson, S. (2000). Tourism demand constraints: A skiing participation. Annals
of Tourism Research, 27, 906925.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78,
13601380.
Greenhow, C., & Robelia, B. (2009). Old communication, new literacies: Social network sites
as social learning resources. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14,
11301161.
Griffiths, M. (1995). Technological addictions. Clinical Psychology Forum, 76, 1419.
Griffiths, M., & Davies, M. (2005). Does video game addiction exist? In J. Raessens &
J. Goldstein (Eds.), Handbook of computer game studies (pp. 361369). Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2013). A primer on partial least
squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
House, J. S. (1986). Social support and the quality and quantity of life. In F. M. Andrew
(Ed.), Research on the quality of life (pp. 253269). Ann Arbor, MI: University of
Michigan.
Hsu, C. L., & Lu, H. P. (2008). Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM with
social influences and flow experience. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 19471958.
26
Games and Culture
Hubbard, J., & Mannell, R. (2001). Testing competing models of the leisure constraint negotiation process in a corporate employee recreation setting. Leisure Sciences, 23, 145163.
Hultsman, W. Z. (1993). The influence of others as a barrier to recreation participation among
early adolescents. Journal of Leisure Research, 25, 150164.
Huvila, I. (2010). Social capital in second life. Online Information Review, 34, 295316.
Iso-Ahola, S. (1999). Motivational foundations of leisure. In E. L. Jackson & T. L. Burton
(Eds.), Leisure studies. Prospects for the twenty-first century (pp. 3551). College State,
PA: Venture Publishing.
Jackson, E. (2000).Will research on leisure constraints still be relevant in the twenty-first century? Journal of Leisure Research, 32, 6268.
Jackson, E. (2005). Constraints to leisure. State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Jackson, E., Crawford, D. W., & Godbey, G. (1993). Negotiation of leisure constraints.
Leisure Sciences, 15, 111.
Jackson, E., & Rucks, V. (1995). Negotiation of leisure constraints by junior-high and highschool students: An exploratory study. Journal of Leisure Research, 27, 85105.
Jun, J., Kyle, G. T., & Mowen, A. J. (2009). Market segmentation using perceived constraints.
Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 26, 3555.
Jun, J., Kyle, G. T., & OLeary, J. T. (2008). Constraints to art museum attendance. Journal of
Park and Recreation Administration, 26, 4061.
Kay, T, & Jackson, E. L. (1991). Leisure despite constraint: The impact of leisure constraints
on leisure participation. Journal of Leisure Research, 23, 301313.
Lawton, L., & Daniels, M. (2009). Resident non-visitation to a national museum site: The
Steven F. Udvar-Hazy center. Visitor Studies, 12, 1629.
Lee, S., & Scott, D. (2009). The process of celebrity fans constraint negotiation. Journal of
Leisure Research, 41, 137155.
Lin, N. (1982). Social resources and instrumental action. In P. V. Marsden & N. Lin (Eds.),
Social structure and network analysis (pp. 131145). Beverly-Hills, CA: Sage.
Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Lo, S. K. (2008). The impact of online game characters outward attractiveness and social status on interpersonal attraction. Computers in Human Behavior, 24, 19471958.
Loucks-Atkinson, A., & Mannell, R. (2007). Role of self-efficacy in the constraints negotiation
process: The case of individuals with Fibromyalgia Syndrome. Leisure Sciences, 29, 1936.
Lu, H. P., & Wang, S. M. (2008). The role of Internet addiction in online game loyalty: An
exploratory study. Internet Research, 18, 499519.
Mannell, R. C., & Kleiber, D. A. (1997). A social psychology of leisure. State College, PA:
Venture Publishing.
Mannell, R. C., & Loucks-Atkinson, A. (2005). Why dont people do whats good for
them? Crossfertilization among the psychologies of nonparticipation in leisure, health, and
exercise behaviors. In E. L. Jackson (Ed.), Constraints to leisure (pp. 221232). State
College, PA: Venture.
Marks, I. (1990). Non-chemical (behavioral) addictions. British Journal of Addiction, 85,
13891394.
Tan et al.
27
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational
advantage. The Academy of Management Review, 23, 242266.
Ng, B. D., & Wiemer-Hastings, P. (2005). Addiction to the Internet and online gaming.
CyberPsychology and Behavior, 8, 110113.
Pfeil, U., Arjan, R., & Zaphiris, P. (2009). Age differences in online social networkingA
study of user profiles and the social capital divide among teenagers and older users in
MySpace. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 643654.
Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Will, A. (2008). SmartPLS 2.0 (Beta). Retrieved from http://
www.smartpls.de
Scott, D. (1991). The problematic nature of participation in contract bridge: A qualitative
study of group-related constraints. Leisure Sciences, 13, 321336.
Scott, D., Lee, S., Lee, J., & Kim, C. (2006). Leisure constraints and acculturation among
Korean immigrants. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 24, 6386.
Shaw, S. M., Bonen, A., & McCabe, J. R (1991). Do more constraints mean less leisure?
Examining the relationship between constraints and participation. Journal of Leisure
Research, 23, 286300.
Son, J. S., Kerstetter, D. L., & Mowen, A. J. (2009). Illuminating identity and health in the
constraint negotiation of leisure-time physical activity in mid to late life. Journal of
Park and Recreation Administration, 27, 96115.
Son, J., Mowen, A., & Kerstetter, D. (2008). Testing alternative leisure constraint negotiation
models: An extension of Hubbard and Mannells study. Leisure Sciences, 30, 198216.
Stanis, S., Schneider, I., & Anderson, D. H. (2009a). State park visitors leisure time physical
activity, constraints, and negotiation strategies. Journal of Park and Recreation
Administration, 27, 2141.
Stanis, S., Schneider, I., & Russell, K. (2009b). Leisure time physical activity of park visitors:
Retesting constraint models in adoption and maintenance stages. Leisure Sciences, 31,
287304.
Teng, C. I. (2008). Personality differences between online game players and nonplayers in a
student sample. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11, 232234.
Walker, G., & Virden, R. (2005). Constraints on outdoor recreation. In E. Jackson (Ed.),
Constraints to leisure (pp. 201219). State College, PA: Venture Publishing.
Wan, C. S., & Chiou, W. B. (2007). The motivations of adolescents who are addicted to online
games: A cognitive perspective. Adolescence, 42, 179197.
Wang, H. Y., & Wang, Y. S. (2008). Gender differences in the perception and acceptance of
online games. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39, 787806.
White, D. D. (2008). A structural model of leisure constraints negotiation in outdoor recreation. Leisure Sciences, 30, 342359.
Williams, D. (2006). On and off the net: Scales for social capital in an online era. ComputerMediated Communication, 11, 593628.
Williams, D., Ducheneaut, N., Xiong, L., Zhang, Y., Yee, N., & Nickell, E. (2008). From tree house
to barracks: The social life of guilds in World of Warcraft. Games and Culture, 1, 338361.
Yee, N. (2002). Ariadne: Understanding MMORPG addiction. Retrieved from http://www.
nickyee.com/hub/addiction/home.html
28
Games and Culture
Yee, N. (2006a). The psychology of massively multi-user online role-playing games:

Motivations, emotional investment, relationships and problematic usage. In R.
Schroeder & A. S. Axelsson (Eds.), Avatars at work and play (pp. 187207). London,
England: Springer.
Yee, N. (2006b). Motivations for play in online games. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9,
772775.
Yee, N. (2006c). The demographics, motivations, and derived experiences of users of massively multi-user online graphical environments. Presence, 15, 309329.
Yee, N., Ducheneaut, N., & Nelson, L. (2012). Online gaming motivations scale:
Development and validation. Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on
Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2012), 510 May 2012, Austin, TX, NY:
ACM, pp. 28032806.
Author Biographies
Wee Kheng Tan received his PhD from National University of Singapore. He is currently an
associate professor at Kainan University, Taiwan. His research interests include consumer
behavior, tourism, and leisure activities. He has published articles in journals such as Asia
Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, Current Issues in Tourism, Expert Systems with Applications, Information Research, Service Business, Telematics and Informatics, and The Service
Industries Journal.
Yi Der Yeh received his PhD from Chung Yuan Christian University, Taiwan. He is currently
an assistant professor at Kainan University, Taiwan. His research interests include computer
graphics and e-marketing.
Ssu Han Chen is a masters student at Kainan University. His research interests include
leisure constraints and leisure activities.

Games and Culture-2015-Tan-1555412015574942

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Games and Culture-2015-Tan-1555412015574942

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Original Manuscript

The Role of Social

Games and Culture

Wee Kheng Tan1, Yi Der Yeh1, and Ssu Han Chen1

Kainan University, Luchu, Taiwan

Games and Culture

Games and Culture

Leisure constraint researchers have suggested a three-dimensional constraint

Games and Culture

Games and Culture

Figure 2. Research model.

Games and Culture

Table 1. Dimensions and Items of Constructs (Negotiation, Constraints, and Motivation).

Try to find people to play MMORPG with

Games and Culture

Prefer to finish a mission in a group with others

Note. MMORPG massively multiplayer online role-playing game.

I intent to play MMORPG in the future

Table 3. Dimensions and Items of Constructs (Negotiation, Constraints, and Motivation).

Note. MMORPG massively multiplayer online role-playing game.

Games and Culture

Table 4. Demographic Profile of Survey Respondents.

Table 5. Descriptive Statistics, AVE, and CR Values of Constructs.

Negotiation (interpersonal strategy)

Note. CR composite reliability; AVE average variance extracted.

Table 6. Discriminant Validity Assessment.

Table 7. Results of Hypotheses.

Games and Culture

Constraints and Negotiation Strategy

Social Capital and Negotiation Strategies

helping to propel the negotiation strategies. The resources embedded in bonding

Motivation and Negotiation Strategies

Games and Culture

Comparison With the Existing Constraint Negotiation Models

Games and Culture

Examining at the Level of Individual Negotiation Strategies

Research Limitations and Future Research

Games and Culture

Games and Culture

Games and Culture

Yee, N. (2006a). The psychology of massively multi-user online role-playing games:

S-ar putea să vă placă și