$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Sample characteristics
Table 4 shows a well-balanced sample of 260 respondents across key demographic categories. By age, the largest group is participants in their 20s or younger (38.8%), followed by those in their 30s (32.3%). Respondents in their 40s (14.2%) and 50s (14.6%) are represented in smaller but similar proportions. Gender is almost evenly distributed, with 49.2% male and 50.8% female participants. In terms of education, university graduates make up the largest group (50.0%), followed by those with graduate school education (26.5%). Smaller shares reported high school (12.7%) and college-level education (10.8%). For annual household income, the sample is relatively spread across income brackets, though the largest proportion is under $30,000 (23.1%), while the smallest is $100,000 or more (16.5%). Overall, the income distribution appears fairly diverse without heavy concentration in a single category.
| Category | Item | Frequency | Ratio |
| Age | 20s or younger | 101 | 38.80% |
| 30s | 84 | 32.30% |
| 40s | 37 | 14.20% |
| 50s | 38 | 14.60% |
| Gender | Male | 128 | 49.20% |
| Female | 132 | 50.80% |
| Education | High school | 33 | 12.70% |
| College | 28 | 10.80% |
| University | 130 | 50.00% |
| Graduate school | 69 | 26.50% |
| Annual household | Under $30,000 | 60 | 23.10% |
| income | $30,000–$49,999 | 52 | 20.00% |
| $50,000–$74,999 | 57 | 21.90% |
| $75,000–$100,000 | 48 | 18.50% |
| $100,000 or more | 43 | 16.50% |
Table 4: Demographic characteristics of respondents (N = 260). This table presents the demographic distribution of the final analytical sample. Rows list the demographic categories (gender, age, education, and income), and columns present the frequency (n) and percentage (%) for each category.
Measurement model
As shown in Table 5, the external loadings of all constructs are well above the minimum threshold. CR and Cronbach's α values are above 0.7, indicating high internal consistency. The AVE value exceeds 0.5, which satisfies convergent validity26.
| Construct | Cronbach's alpha | CR (rho_a) | CR (rho_c) | AVE |
| AC | 0.830 | 0.833 | 0.898 | 0.747 |
| AS | 0.958 | 0.959 | 0.970 | 0.889 |
| CQ | 0.790 | 0.821 | 0.861 | 0.610 |
| HB | 0.899 | 0.915 | 0.937 | 0.831 |
| PT | 0.850 | 0.896 | 0.907 | 0.765 |
| CI | 0.923 | 0.923 | 0.951 | 0.866 |
Table 5: Reliability analysis. This table presents indicator loadings, Cronbach's alpha, composite reliability (CR), and average variance extracted (AVE) for all constructs. Rows list each construct (access convenience, passing time, content quality, affective satisfaction, habit, and continuance intention) and its indicator items, while columns present the standardized factor loadings, Cronbach's alpha, CR, and AVE values. These metrics were used to assess internal consistency, reliability, and convergent validity.
Discriminant validity was tested using the Fornell–Larcker and the heterotrait–monotrait ratio (HTMT) criteria. Table 6 shows that the square roots of the AVEs are greater than the correlations with other components for each component. Likewise, Table 7 shows that all HTMT ratios are significantly below the 0.85 threshold28.
| AC | AS | CQ | HB | PT | CI |
| AC | 0.864 | | | | | |
| AS | 0.497 | 0.943 | | | | |
| CQ | 0.493 | 0.666 | 0.781 | | | |
| HB | 0.461 | 0.686 | 0.612 | 0.912 | | |
| PT | 0.274 | 0.587 | 0.346 | 0.433 | 0.875 | |
| CI | 0.552 | 0.777 | 0.646 | 0.744 | 0.491 | 0.931 |
Table 6: Fornell-Larcker criterion. This table presents the Fornell-Larcker discriminant validity assessment. Rows and columns represent the study constructs (access convenience, passing time, content quality, affective satisfaction, habit, and continuance intention). Diagonal elements represent the square root of the AVE for each construct, whereas off-diagonal elements represent inter-construct correlations.
| AC | AS | CQ | HB | PT | CI |
| AC | | | | | | |
| AS | 0.557 | | | | | |
| CQ | 0.592 | 0.738 | | | | |
| HB | 0.523 | 0.73 | 0.724 | | | |
| PT | 0.3 | 0.627 | 0.372 | 0.47 | | |
| CI | 0.63 | 0.825 | 0.742 | 0.806 | 0.519 | |
Table 7: HTMT ratio. This table presents HTMT values for all construct pairs. Rows and columns represent the study constructs (access convenience, passing time, content quality, affective satisfaction, habit, and continuance intention). HTMT values below the recommended threshold indicate satisfactory discriminant validity between constructs.
Common method bias was additionally assessed using Harman's single-factor test and full collinearity VIF analysis. The first factor accounted for less than 50% of the total variance, and all VIF values were below 3.3, suggesting that common method bias was unlikely to threaten the validity of the findings.
Structural model
As shown in Figure 3 and Table 8, the structural model results indicate that affective satisfaction (AS) was significantly predicted by access convenience (β = 0.171, p < 0.01), passing time (β = 0.385, p < 0.001), and content quality (β = 0.448, p < 0.001), explaining 61.0% of its variance (R2 = 0.610), with content quality exerting the strongest influence. Affective satisfaction strongly predicted Habit (β = 0.686, p < 0.001; R2 = 0.470) and also had a significant direct effect on continuance Intention (β = 0.496, p < 0.001). Habit further contributed significantly to continuance Intention (β = 0.393, p < 0.001), which was explained at a substantial level (R2 = 0.689). These findings suggest a partial mediation pattern in which affective satisfaction is linked to continuance intention both directly and indirectly through habit formation. The control variables (age, gender, education, and income) did not show significant effects on continuance intention.
Predictive relevance (Q2) was assessed using Stone-Geisser's Q2. All endogenous constructs exhibited Q2 values above zero (AS = 0.412, HB = 0.356, CI = 0.523), indicating satisfactory predictive relevance.
In addition to examining path significance, the effect size (f2) results provide insight into the substantive contribution of each predictor to the explained variance of the endogenous constructs. Regarding antecedents of AS, CQ exhibits a large effect (f2 = 0.365), indicating that it is a primary driver of AS in the model. PT also demonstrates a substantial contribution (f2 = 0.329), approaching the threshold for a large effect and suggesting strong practical relevance. In contrast, AC shows only a small effect (f2 = 0.056), implying a comparatively limited incremental contribution to AS. These findings suggest that while all three antecedents contribute to AS, CQ and PT are the dominant explanatory factors, whereas AC plays a more supportive role.
For the downstream relationships, AS exerts an exceptionally large effect on HB (f2 = 0.887), underscoring its critical role in explaining habitual behavior. Furthermore, AS shows a large effect on CI (f2 = 0.409), indicating a substantial contribution to the model's explanatory power for continuance outcomes. HB also contributes meaningfully to CI (f2 = 0.256), with a medium-to-large effect size, though its incremental impact is smaller than that of AS. Overall, the effect size analysis highlights AS as the central mechanism in the structural model, exerting dominant influence on both HB and CI, while CQ and PT emerge as key upstream determinants of AS.
These findings reinforce the theoretical proposition that affective reinforcement plays a dominant role in shaping habitual engagement, which subsequently stabilizes continuance intention in short-form digital media contexts.
Structural model results (Figure 3) illustrate the standardized path coefficients (β) and coefficients of determination (R2) for the proposed research model. Control variables (age, gender, education, income) were included in the model but are omitted from the figure for visual clarity.

Figure 3: Structural model results. The results show the standardized path coefficients (β), significance levels, and coefficients of determination (R2) for the proposed research model. AC = Access Convenience; PT = Passing Time; CQ = Content Quality; AS = Affective Satisfaction; HB = Habit; CI = Continuance Intention. β represents standardized path coefficients, and R2 represents explained variance for endogenous constructs. Significance levels are indicated as follows: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, and ***p < 0.001. Control variables (age, gender, education, and income) were included in the analysis but are omitted from the figure for visual clarity. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Path coefficients and hypothesis testing results (Table 8) present the standardized path coefficients (β), standard errors (SE), t-values, p-values, and effect sizes (f2) for all hypothesized relationships in the structural model.
| Path | β | Mean | STD | t value | p value |
| AC→AS | 0.171 | 0.173 | 0.061 | 2.815 | 0.005 |
| AS→HB | 0.686 | 0.687 | 0.03 | 22.864 | 0.000 |
| AS→CI | 0.496 | 0.496 | 0.052 | 9.558 | 0.000 |
| CQ→AS | 0.448 | 0.449 | 0.052 | 8.56 | 0.000 |
| HB→CI | 0.393 | 0.393 | 0.054 | 7.284 | 0.000 |
| PT→AS | 0.385 | 0.380 | 0.059 | 6.492 | 0.000 |
Table 8: Path coefficients. This table presents the results of the structural model analysis. Rows list each hypothesized path in the structural model (e.g., access convenience → affective satisfaction, affective satisfaction → habit), while columns present the standardized path coefficients (β), standard errors (SE), t-values, p-values, and effect sizes (f2) for all hypothesized relationships. Significance levels: p < 0.001, p < 0.01, p < 0.05.
Mediation analysis
To examine the sequential mediation mechanism, we analyzed the indirect paths from environmental attributes to CI through AS and HB. The results of the specific indirect-effect analysis (Table 9) revealed that all sequential paths were statistically significant. The mediation analysis based on bootstrapping indicates that AS and HB transmit significant indirect effects across the model. Specifically, AS significantly mediates the effects of the antecedents on HB: the indirect effects are positive and statistically significant for AC → AS → HB (β = 0.117, t = 2.835, p = 0.005), CQ → AS → HB (β = 0.307, t = 7.822, p < 0.001), and PT → AS → HB (β = 0.264, t = 5.993, p < 0.001). Among these, the magnitude of the indirect effect is largest for CQ, followed by PT, with AC showing a smaller yet reliable mediated influence. This pattern suggests that improvements in AC, CQ, and PT primarily translate into stronger habitual outcomes through increases in AS, with CQ operating as the most influential upstream pathway.
In addition, the results provide consistent evidence that continuance-related outcomes (CI) are shaped through both single-step mediation via AS and serial mediation via AS and HB. The indirect effects of AC → AS → CI (β = 0.085, t = 2.598, p = 0.009), CQ → AS → CI (β = 0.222, t = 6.774, p < 0.001), and PT → AS → CI (β = 0.191, t = 5.091, p < 0.001) are all positive and significant, indicating that AS serves as a key mechanism linking the antecedents to CI. Moreover, the serial indirect effects through both mediators are also significant: AC → AS → HB → CI (β = 0.046, t = 2.636, p = 0.008), CQ → AS → HB → CI (β = 0.121, t = 5.261, p < 0.001), and PT → AS → HB → CI (β = 0.104, t = 4.638, p < 0.001). Together, these findings indicate a robust process in which antecedents first increase AS, which then strengthens HB and ultimately is associated with CI, while AS also exerts a direct mediating pathway to CI independent of HB. Overall, CQ shows the strongest mediated influence on both HB and CI, PT exhibits comparably strong indirect effects, and AC demonstrates smaller but statistically meaningful indirect effects, supporting the proposed mediation and serial mediation mechanisms in the model. Since the confidence intervals do not include zero, these findings are consistent with the proposed 'satisfaction-habit-continuance' chain in the context of short-form drama consumption.
| Path | β | Mean | STD | t value | p value |
| AC→AS→HB | 0.117 | 0.119 | 0.041 | 2.835 | 0.005 |
| AS→HB→CI | 0.270 | 0.270 | 0.040 | 6.776 | 0.000 |
| AC→AS→CI | 0.085 | 0.086 | 0.033 | 2.598 | 0.009 |
| CQ→AS→HB | 0.307 | 0.308 | 0.039 | 7.822 | 0.000 |
| AC→AS→HB→CI | 0.046 | 0.047 | 0.017 | 2.636 | 0.008 |
| CQ→AS→CI | 0.222 | 0.222 | 0.033 | 6.774 | 0.000 |
| PT→AS→HB | 0.264 | 0.261 | 0.044 | 5.993 | 0.000 |
| CQ→AS→HB→CI | 0.121 | 0.121 | 0.023 | 5.261 | 0.000 |
| PT→AS→CI | 0.191 | 0.189 | 0.038 | 5.091 | 0.000 |
| PT→AS→HB→CI | 0.104 | 0.103 | 0.022 | 4.638 | 0.000 |
Table 9: Indirect effects. This table presents the results of the bootstrapped mediation analysis. Rows list each hypothesized indirect path (e.g., AC → AS → HB, CQ → AS → HB → CI), while columns present the indirect effect estimates, standard errors, t-values, p-values, and 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals for the hypothesized mediation pathways.
Table 10 summarizes the hypothesis testing results. As shown in Table 10, all proposed hypotheses (H1–H8c) were supported.
| Hypothesis | Path | Result |
| H1 | AC→AS | Supported |
| H2 | PT→AS | Supported |
| H3 | CQ→AS | Supported |
| H4 | AS→CI | Supported |
| H5 | AS→HB | Supported |
| H6 | HB→CI | Supported |
| H7 | AS→HB→CI | Supported |
| H8a | AC→AS→HB→CI | Supported |
| H8b | PT→AS→HB→CI | Supported |
| H8c | CQ→AS→HB→CI | Supported |
Table 10: Hypothesis support summary. This table summarizes the outcomes of hypothesis testing and indicates whether each proposed hypothesis was supported based on the structural model and mediation analyses. Rows list each hypothesis (H1–H8c), and columns present the hypothesized path, the standardized path coefficient or indirect effect, and the support status (supported vs. not supported).
DATA AVAILABILITY
All anonymized raw survey data supporting the findings of this study are provided in Supplementary File 1 (CSV format). The file contains the complete de-identified participant responses used in all analyses reported in this manuscript. The SmartPLS project file, model settings, and analysis outputs are provided in Supplementary File 2. No personally identifiable information is included in any shared dataset.
Supplementary File 1: All anonymized raw survey data supporting the findings of this study.Please click here to download this file.
Supplementary File 2: The SmartPLS project file, model settings, and analysis outputs.Please click here to download this file.