1. technology and computing

Ph. D. Dissertation
박사 학위논문
Why do People Continually Use Social Computing?
An Experiential Perspective
소셜 컴퓨팅 지속 사용에 관한 연구: 경험적
관점을 중심으로
Global Information and Telecommunication Technology Program,
School of Innovation
KAIST
2012
Why do People Continually Use Social Computing?
An Experiential Perspective
-i-
Why do People Continually Use Social
Computing? An Experiential Perspective
Advisor: Professor Zo, Hangjung
By
Abiyot Bayou Tehone
Global Information and Telecommunication Technology Program,
School of Innovation
KAIST
A thesis submitted to the faculty of KAIST in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Information and
Telecommunication Technology. The study was conducted in accordance
with Code of Research Ethics1.
October 12, 2012
Approved by
__________________
Professor Hangjung Zo
Major Advisor
1
Declaration of Ethical Conduct in Research: I, as a graduate student of KAIST, hereby declare that I have not
committed any acts that may damage the credibility of my research. These include, but are not limited to:
falsification, thesis written by someone else, distortion of research findings or plagiarism. I affirm that my thesis
contains honest conclusions based on my own careful research under the guidance of my thesis advisor.
-ii-
Why do People Continually Use Social
Computing? An Experiential Perspective
Abiyot Bayou Tehone
The present dissertation has been approved by the dissertation
committee
as Ph. D. dissertation at KAIST
-iii-
DITP
20095405
아비욧 바이유 테혼.Abiyot Bayou Tehone. Why do People Continually Use Social
Computing? An Experiential Perspective. 소셜 컴퓨팅 지속 사용에 관한 연구: 경험적
관점을 중심으로. School of Innovation; Global Information and Telecommunication
Technology Program. 2012. 136 Page. Advisor, Professor Zo, Hangjung. Text in
English
Abstract
Research on adoption and use of social computing have gain much attention because of the wide
spread use of social computing like Social Networking Sites (SNSs) and blogs. Although various studies
have been done to investigate the factors contributing to the continual usage of social computing in
general, most of these studies have been using static and utilitarian based models like Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM) and Theory of Planned behavior (TPB). Most of the previous researches
related to usage continuance focused on transactional satisfaction with the assumption that if the user
gets satisfied with a certain system s/he will continually use the system. However given the proliferation
of various information systems, satisfaction alone cannot keep users to use the system continually.
Given various alternative online information systems, users’ persistence of using a particular system is
determined by the users’ relation with the system. In this study an attempt was made to investigate
usage continuance from a relationship perspective. The present study has two main objectives to be
addressed in two separate studies.
In the first study we develop a conceptual framework that can describe the continual usage of social
computing system from an experiential and relationship perspective. The conceptual framework is
developed based on various literatures including Information System, Social Psychology and
Philosophy of Technology. The framework encompasses the relationship and experiential perspective
of user-computer interactions. The framework shows the factors contributing for the continual usage of
social computing by the users, and how these factors are related with the features of the system and
the internal and external contexts of the users. The framework developed in this study can be used to
investigate the factors that may contribute to the continual usage of information system in general and,
hedonic information system in particular. The framework can also be used as a good starting point to
investigate the role of user’s experience in the adoption of information systems
-iv-
Based on the first study, the second study has tried to investigate the role of Close Relationship
between users and SNS activities for the continual usage of SNSs. The study examined the factors
contributing to the formation of Close Relationship between users and SNSs, and identified how this
relationship influences the continual usage of SNSs by individuals. The study was done using the
Dualistic Model of Passion (DMP) as the main theoretical back ground. This model gives explanation to
the types of passions. There are two types of passion: harmonious passion and obsessive passions.
The result of this study has showed that, passion towards SNSs activities contribute to the continual
usage of SNSs. Even though both harmonious and obsessive passions contribute to continual usage of
SNSs, only harmonious passion is positively related to continuance intention. The study also found
obsessive passion is related to problematic use of SNSs. The research is conducted using Facebook as
a case. The model developed in this study can also be used to study the usage continuances of other
social computing applications. The result of the research can be also used to identify reasons for
problematic uses of SNSs including addiction tendencies.
Key Words: Social Computing, Usage Continuance, Passion, User’s Experience, SNSs
-v-
Table of Contents
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................................IV
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................VI
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................VII
List of Tables .........................................................................................................................................VII
Chapter 1: Introduction............................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 RESEARCH BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION ..................................................................................... 1
1.2 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES AND EXPECTED CONTRIBUTION ................................................................... 3
Chapter 2: Development Of SCA’s Usage Continuance Conceptual Framework .................................. 5
2.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 5
2.1.1 IS Continuance Research ...................................................................................................... 7
2.1.2 Relationship, Interaction and User’s Experience ................................................................. 11
2.2 OVERALL DESCRIPTION OF THE FRAMEWORK................................................................................. 14
2.2.1 Affordance Perception.......................................................................................................... 16
2.2.2 Interaction Activity ................................................................................................................ 18
2.2.3 Relationship Formation ........................................................................................................ 22
2.3 A CLOSER LOOK AT THE FRAMEWORK ........................................................................................... 25
2.3.1 Events in Online Information Interaction .............................................................................. 25
2.3.2 Interaction Experience and Events ...................................................................................... 26
2.3.3 Sense Making Process and External Actions In Information Interaction ........................... 29
2.4 THE PROCESS MODEL ................................................................................................................... 34
2.4.1 Content and Action Representation ..................................................................................... 37
2.4.2 User and Technological Context ......................................................................................... 41
2.4.2.1 Technology Sprit ........................................................................................................... 42
2.4.2.2 Social Factors ............................................................................................................... 42
2.4.3 Need Fulfillment, Experiential Qualities and Motivated Behaviors ...................................... 44
2.4.4 Attachment Formation .......................................................................................................... 46
2.5 DISCUSSION AND SUMMERY .......................................................................................................... 48
Chapter 3: Social Network Sites’ Usage Continuance: A Passion Perspective ................................... 51
3.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 51
3.1.1 ISs Usage Continuance Studies And SNSs......................................................................... 53
3.1.2 Usage Continuance From a Relationship Perspective ........................................................ 55
3.1.3 Initial Research Model.......................................................................................................... 58
3.2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................... 61
3.2.1 Passion for Activities ............................................................................................................ 61
3.2.2 Dualistic Model of Passion ................................................................................................... 63
3.2.3 Passion for SNSs ................................................................................................................. 63
3.2.4 Basic Need Fulfillment and SNSs ........................................................................................ 65
3.3 RESEARCH MODEL AND HYPOTHESIS ............................................................................................. 68
3.4 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................ 73
3.4.1 Study Population and Sample Data ..................................................................................... 73
3.4.2 Sampling Procedure ............................................................................................................. 73
3.4.3 Survey Instrument and Measurements ................................................................................ 75
3.5 DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ...................................................................................................... 80
3.5.1 The Measurement Model ..................................................................................................... 80
3.5.2 Structural Model ................................................................................................................... 83
-vi-
3.6 DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 87
3.7 IMPLICATION FOR THEORY AND PRACTICE ...................................................................................... 90
3.7.1 Implication for Theory........................................................................................................... 90
3.7.2 Implication for Practice ......................................................................................................... 90
3.8 STUDY LIMITATION AND FUTURE DIRECTION.................................................................................... 91
Chapter 4: Conclusion.......................................................................................................................... 92
References ............................................................................................................................................ 99
Summary In Korea .............................................................................................................................. 120
Acknowledgment ................................................................................................................................. 128
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................................ 14
Figure 2.2 Sense Making Process ........................................................................................................ 28
Figure 2.3 The Social Computing Usage Continuance Model ( SCUCM) ........................................... 35
Figure 2.4 Content Representation In Facebook .................................................................................. 39
Figure 2.5 Clues And Categories In Facebook ..................................................................................... 40
Figure 3.1 Part of SCUCM Considered In The Present Study.............................................................. 59
Figure 3.2 Initial Research Model ......................................................................................................... 60
Figure 3.3 Research Model ................................................................................................................... 72
Figure 4.1 Relationship Between Passion (HP & OP) And IM , IR And FA ......................................... 96
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Literatures Related to Usage Continuance of SCAs............................................................. 55
Table 3.2 The Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents .................................................. 75
Table 3.3 Constructs and Measurment Items…..……………………………………………………….......79
Table 3.4 Construct Reliability Indicators .............................................................................................. 81
Table 3.5 AVE and Inter-Construct Correlation .................................................................................... 82
Table 3.6 Result of The Structural Test ................................................................................................ 83
-vii-
Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1
Research Background and Motivation
Online information systems can be profitable and sustainable only as far as they attract and retain
their users (Keen, 2001). While initial acceptance of any information systems (IS) is an important first
step toward realizing IS success, the ultimate viability of an IS is dependent on its continued usage
(Bhattacherjee, 2001a; Kim & Malhorta, 2005). Similar to other Information system the ultimate
success of Social Computing Applications (SCAs) also depends on continued usage rather than initial
acceptance. Therefore, obtaining a deeper understanding of continued use of SCAs and the factor
contributing to their continual use is critically important.
SCAs are increasingly become important for both the businesses and the general public that uses
them. For example, according to Nielsen report (Nielsen, 2011), nowadays nearly 4 in 5 active
Internet users visit social networks and blogs, and also social networks and blogs continue to
dominate Americans’ time online, now accounting for nearly a quarter of total time spent on the
Internet. Despite their popularity, social sites experience high turnover, with most visitors coming only
once and leaving after a short period because of difficulties attracting people to the community and
retaining them (Farzan et al., 2011; Ren, Harper, & Riedl, 2012). Even for the already successful
SCAs attracting and retaining users is very difficult. For instance in relation to Wikipedia only one out
of every 1,000 readers registers to make contributions and even fewer participate in sustainable
collaborations (Shneiderman, Preece, & Pirolli, 2011).
In addition to the issue of retention and continuity of existing SCAs, the design of successful SCAs
that attract and sustain users still remains more of an art than a science (Vassileva, 2012). There are
a number of practical guides and software patterns on how to develop attractive social interfaces,
however most of this tools are based on best practices of existing successful SCA, and there are only
few general methodologies for developing new SCAs from scratch (Paul Resnick & Kraut, 2012;
Vassileva, 2012). Identifying factors contributing the continual usage of SCAs is believed to contribute
for developing successful SCAs from the scratch as well as improving existing ones (Paul Resnick &
Kraut, 2012; Vassileva, 2012).
1
Previous studies of IS mainly focusing on Acceptance rather than Continuance. Acceptance refers to
users’ first time adoption of new IT, while Continuance refers to their long term usage of an IT that is
already in use (Bhattacherjee & Barfar, 2011; Bhattacherjee, 2001a; Limayem, Hirt, & Chin, 2001).
Recently, recognizing the contribution of Usage Continuance for the sustainability of ISs, continuing
use of information technology by individuals
well after initial adoption has become one of
the
concerns of the IS scholarship (Bhattacherjee & Barfar, 2011; Guinea & Markus, 2009; Huang & Lin,
2011; Limayem & Cheung, 2008a; Shiau, Huang, & Shih, 2011).
There are various psychological factors that may influence the user’s decision to use a certain
technology in a certain ways (Venkatesh, Thong, & Xu, 2012). These influences can be conscious to
the user or unconscious (Limayem, Hirt, & Cheung, 2007; Venkatesh, Thong, & Xu, 2012). In any
case, users will continue using a particular system as far as they sought a certain benefit out of using
that system. IT continuance can also be conceptualized as resulting from rational dimensions such
as experiential satisfaction,
or as
unthinking and subconscious dimension such has habit
(Bhattacherjee & Barfar, 2011).
The initial study of IS continuance was based on Expectation Confirmation Model (ECM) developed
by Bhattacherjee (Bhattacherjee, 2001a). Most of the researches done so far using ECM give little
regard for user’s experience. However, users’ experience has been recently found as one of the most
crucial factor in relation to interactive system (Hassenzahl, Diefenbach, & Göritz, 2010; Holbrook &
Hirschman, 1982; Van Boven & Gilovich, 2003). Users that had a good experience of using a system
will be the most satisfied and the one who will use the system continually. It has also been empirically
verified that, Users experiencing Positive online experience are motivated to make repeated online
interactions (Morgan-Thomas & Veloutsou, 2011).
However, studies on the effect of users’
experience on IS usage continuance are very limited in number.
Previous IS usage continuance literatures also narrowly focused on transaction related satisfactions
as the main factors that made users to use a particular information system continually. The
assumption was, if the user is satisfied with a certain IS s/he will use that system continually. This
assumption was working in previous time when there was limited number of online information
systems available to the user’s choices. However recently users have a number of alternate online
-2-
information systems as their own disposal to choose. Especially in relation to the proliferation of nontask related online information systems users have various options. Many researches
both in
Marketing and Information system have indicated that, with the availability of many choices
satisfaction only cannot keep users attached to a single source (Batra, Ahuvia, & Bagozzi, 2011; Li,
Browne, & Wetherbe, 2006; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Morgan-Thomas & Veloutsou, 2011). These
studies have suggested that instead of transaction related satisfactions it is more of the user’s relation
with the system that can keep the users to use a specific system continually. Different from the
transactional view which focuses on transaction related satisfactions, the relational view focuses on
increasing user engagement , trust and caring, and enjoyable and entertaining value (Benbasat &
DeSanctis, 2001; Keen, 2001). Therefore the current study is focusing on the relational aspects of
usage continuance.
Although prior research on both IS continuance and post-adoption of IS exists, such researches fail
to capture the domain of usage continuance of SCAs phenomena as its usage tends to be more
voluntary, more socially bound, and more evolutionary in use attributes and levels of involvement (Hu
& Kettinger, 2008; Lai & Turban, 2008; Parameswaran & Whinston, 2007). Therefore, the present
research is also an attempt to fill this gap.
1.2
Research Objectives and Expected Contribution
The discussions above indicate that relationships between users and information system and users’
experience during the actual interaction with the Information system affect the user’s decision to use a
particular system continually. Therefore, understanding Usage Continuance of online information
systems requires to understand how a relationship is formed between users and online applications,
and understanding the role of user’s online experiences in influencing the user to use a particular
system continually. In this regard, the present study has two main objectives to be addressed in
separate parts sequentially

Analyze existing conceptual frameworks of IS continuance studies, and suggest appropriate
conceptual
frameworks
for SCAs’ usage continuance based on the relationship view and
experiential perspective

Based on the frame work developed in the first part, identify relationship related factors from
psychological literature and develop a research model that will show how the relationship factor
-3-
contributes to SNS usage continuance. And validate the model using survey data to be collected
from users.
The research will contribute for both research and practice. The research will consolidate literatures
from various fields related to relationship, user’s experience, information system acceptance and
usage continuance. This will help future studies in the area. The conceptual model developed can
also be used as a base for further studies in the area of ISs Usage Continuance. The research will
also contribute for developing management tools that can be used to evaluate relationships between
users and online applications. Currently relationship based usage continuance researches are very
few; therefore the present study will also be an addition to the existing literatures in the area.
Nowadays, establishing relationship and maintaining online users is the main concern of the IS
industry. Together with this the impact of SNSs in some aspects of business is still controversial. This
study will answer some of the concerns. Especially the research will give alternate ways for firms who
want to improve their relationship with their online users and develop strategies to improve their
relationship with their online users.
The remaining part of this document has three chapters. The first part, Chapter Two, presents the
First study, while Chapter Three presents the Second study. The last part, Chapter Four, concludes
both studies as a whole.
-4-
Chapter 2. Development of SCA’s Usage Continuance Conceptual
Framework
2.1 Introduction
Social Computing Applications (SCAs) are among the major online information services that have a
significant impact on our daily life. SCAs are defined as a “set of open, web based and user friendly
applications that enables users to network, share data, collaborate and co-produce content” (Alamutka et al., 2009). Social Computing applications includes applications such as Social Networking
Sites (SNSs), blogs, photo & video sharing Sites, online multi-player games and collaborative
platforms for content creation and sharing (Ala-mutka et al., 2009; Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010).
Currently hundreds of millions of peoples are using these applications daily. Some of this applications,
for example SNSs has become one of the mainstream cultures integrated into the daily lives of many
people (Ofcom, 2008).
Online information systems, including SCAs can be sustainable if only they are used continually by
their users (Barnes, 2011; Chen, Yen, & Hwang, 2012; Cyr, 2007; Hong, Kim, & Lee, 2008;
Vatanasombut et al., 2008). Recognizing the importance of identifying the factors contributing for the
continual usage of information systems (IS) by individuals, IS continuance study has recently become
one of the major concerns of the IS scholarship (Bhattacherjee & Barfar, 2011; Guinea & Markus,
2009; Huang & Lin, 2011; Limayem & Cheung, 2008a; Shiau, Huang, & Shih, 2011).
An information system (IS) that cannot attract and retain its user cannot be survived or meet its
objective (Benbasat & DeSanctis, 2001; Keen, 2001; Kim, Malhotra, & Narasimhan, 2005) . User’s
satisfaction on the performance of the system has been considered as the main factor determining
the user’s continual usage of an information system (Bhattacherjee & Barfar, 2011; Bhattacherjee,
2001a; Limayem, Hirt, & Chin, 2001). However, given the proliferation of information systems that give
ample choices to the users, satisfaction only cannot guarantee retaining users
(Benbasat &
DeSanctis, 2001; Clements & Bush, 2011; Li, Browne, & Wetherbe, 2006). Therefore there is a need
for identifying the factors contributing for IS usage continuity beyond functional satisfaction.
Similar to other information systems the ultimate success of SCAs depends on continued usage
rather than initial acceptance. Usage continuance of SCAs at the individual level is fundamental to the
5
survival of many social technology-empowered businesses and organizations(Hu & Kettinger, 2008).
Therefore, obtaining a deeper understanding of the factors contributing for the continual use of SCAs
by individuals has a paramount importance.
Social computing is a new trend in which users are active contributors, producers and users of
content. These new trend has necessitated to change the traditional structured research pattern in IS,
where the questions focused around issues like efficiency/productivity or technology acceptance
(Parameswaran & Whinston, 2007). These new trends also required new approaches for studying
the factors contributing for the adoption and the continual usage of these applications (Benkler &
Nissenbaum, 2006; David & Shapiro, 2008; Parameswaran & Whinston, 2007; Rasmussen, 2010;
Wang et al., 2007).
Most SCAs have the nature of hedonic information systems. Hedonic information systems mainly
used for the pleasures they provide to the user (Heijden, 2004). For instance, SNS users may use
and contribute content without considering specific usage benefit except the pleasure they may gain
by doing the activity itself. In such type of cases usefulness becomes irrelevant since the user does
not need to achieve tasks with the information or functions from the system (Wang, 2010). According
to Heijden (2004) the main characteristics of hedonic information system includes: self-fulfilling rather
than instrumental, strongly connected to leisure activities, focus on the fun-aspect of using information
systems and encourage prolonged rather than productive use.
In previous technology adoption literatures, the basic premises is that users adopt technologies to
realize tasks by consuming certain function or information from IT (Venkatesh, Thong, & Xu, 2012;
Wang, 2010). However, that assumption does not necessarily hold in the usage of SCAs (Wasko &
Faraj, 2005). Different from traditional internet applications/services the main reason for using most of
SCAs is not solely task based. Similarly Hassenzahl (2008) has also noted that simply accomplishing
a given tasks may be a too narrowed view of what people do with and gain from technology: “insight,
pleasurable stimulation, social exchange are the true underlying motives for technology use” and
“ feelings and experiences its true outcomes”. Nowadays it is recognized that technology use in itself
can be a source of pleasure (Hassenzahl, 2008). Therefore studies related with usage continuance of
SCAs, should primarily consider the hedonic aspects of technology use.
-6-
Identifying the motivating factors for continual usage of SCAs contributes for theory based
development of new SCAs from scratch as well as evaluating and improving existing one (Gregor,
2007; Vassileva, 2012). However, despite increasing number of researches in IS continuance, such
researches fail to capture the domain of usage continuance of SCAs, especially those SCAs whose
usage tends to be more voluntary, socially bound, and evolutionary in usage
and levels of
involvement (Chang & Zhu, 2012; Hu & Kettinger, 2008; Lai & Turban, 2008; Parameswaran &
Whinston, 2007; Shiau & Luo, 2012). As a result there are few studies related to usage continuance
of SCAs to which the user is involved voluntarily and out of organizational and task contexts.
Therefore our research focuses on factors contributing for the continual usage of SCAs in which the
user is involved voluntarily and out of organizational contexts.
2.1.1 IS Continuance Research
Information System usage continuance behavior refers to “a usage stage when IS use transcends
conscious behavior and becomes part of normal routine activity” (Bhattacherjee, 2001a). IS usage
continuance is the result of a serious of individual decision to continue using a certain IS, (Limayem,
Hirt, & Cheung, 2007; Limayem, Hirt, & Chin, 2001).
The initial study of IS continuance was based on Expectation-Confirmation Theory (ECT) developed
in marketing research (Oliver, 1980). The concept introduced and adopted for the first time to the IS
literature by Bhattacherjee, by developing the Expectation Confirmation Model (ECM) based on ECT.
According to ECM, users' IS continuance intention is determined primarily by their satisfaction with
prior IS use, and the satisfaction of the user is determined by two constructs: expectation of the IS
and confirmation of expectation following actual use.
Various studies have been conducted using ECM (For summery look Bhattacherjee & Barfar, 2011).
However, recently most of these studies have been commented by various scholars including by
Bhattacherjee (Bhattacherjee & Barfar, 2011; Guinea & Markus, 2009). Bhattacherjee & Bafar (2011)
indicate the problem with these studies and noted that, “previous studies have attempted to advance
IT continuance research by employing other theories such as TAM, UTAUT, which are originally
designed to explain IT acceptance and are inadequately suited for explaining IT continuance”. Most of
the studies take “Continuance Intention” as dependent variable rather than “Continuance Behavior”.
However, the goal of IT continuance research is to predict actual behaviors and not intentions of the
-7-
same (Bhattacherjee & Barfar, 2011; Guinea & Markus, 2009). Intention (a mental predisposition) is
not the equivalent of behavior (an actual act) specially in continuance contexts where users are
already using the target IT (Bhattacherjee & Barfar, 2011; Guinea & Markus, 2009; Limayem, Hirt, &
Chin, 2001; Ouellette & Wood, 1998). Bhattacherjee & Barfar (2011) also noted that IT continuance
research should predict actual behavior and not intention of the same; and suggest that usage
continuance researches should focus on the actual IT usage behavior.
Most of the researches done so far using ECM are focusing on non-hedonic aspects and give very
little regard for users’ experience. This is may be due to the fact that the original ECT model (Oliver,
1980) is designed for functional products rather than hedonic service products (Oliver, Rust, & Varki,
1997), and overlooks good feelings in long-term relationships with products (Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006).
However, recently it has been found that one of the most important factor in interactive system is the
user experience (Hassenzahl, Diefenbach, & Göritz, 2010; Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982; Van Boven
& Gilovich, 2003). A user that had a good experience of using the system will be the most satisfied
and the one who will use the system continually. It has been empirically verified that, users’
experiencing positive online experience are motivated to make repeated online interactions (MorganThomas & Veloutsou, 2011).
It has also been recognized that, especially for hedonic systems,
pleasure is the primary reason for a user to use the information system in the first place (Heijden,
2004), and experiences with hedonic system are expected to satisfy more of emotional needs
(Morgan-Thomas & Veloutsou, 2011).
“Satisfaction” was the main construct predicting continuance intention in the ECM model.
“Satisfaction” refers to “individual’s evaluation and affective response to the overall experience of a
service or product” (Oliver, 1980). On the ECM, the satisfaction of a user depends on its previous
experience with the IS. Satisfied user expected to continue to use the system, while dissatisfied
users tend to discontinue the usage (Bhattacherjee & Barfar, 2011; Bhattacherjee, 2001a). However
in both models (ECT & ECM) (Bhattacherjee, 2001a; Oliver, 1980) , “Satisfaction” is operationalized
as a functional satisfaction (utility based), which is based on Easy of Use and Perceived Usefulness
and disregard experiential satisfactions (Hung, Chang, & Hwang, 2011).
-8-
Scitovsky (1991: 126), sited in Bianchi, 2003 (Bianchi, 2003) indicates that there are two categories of
satisfaction depending on the source of the satisfaction. The first type of satisfaction related to
comfort. Comfort related satisfactions come from those activities that relieve physical pain or distress
and also from those activities that save time, effort and skill. The second category of satisfaction
comes from pleasure or stimulation. Pleasure related satisfaction mainly arises from the delectation
and stimulation of the senses and the exercise and enrichment of one’s faculties. The second type of
satisfaction is an experiential satisfaction that is resulting from the users’ overall evaluation of their
experiences after using a service or a product (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982; Kao, Huang, & Wu,
2008; Kao, Y.F., Huang, L.S., and Yang, 2007). Hassenzahl et al (2010) have also indicated that user
satisfaction in product use comes from both “hedonic quality” and “Pragmatic quality” of the product.
Pragmatic quality refers the usability of a product such as security and control, while hedonic quality is
related with non-task related goals such as novelty and social power. Hedonic qualities further
classified as stimulation, identification and evocation. They also confirmed that, even though
pragmatic qualities are factors for maintaining satisfaction (as “hygiene factor”), it is the hedonic
quality of the product that is responsible for the positive experiences of users (Hassenzahl,
Diefenbach, & Göritz, 2010).
The above discussion shows that experiential satisfaction is not dependent on task performance
(productivity), which is contrary to the main assumption in the previous ECM model. Experiential
satisfaction has a special relevance to SCAs, because SCAs including SNSs, are mainly used in nontask environments and the involvement is usually voluntarily. In addition, the factors convincing users
to participate in SCAs is different from traditional online communities. For instance, people go to
SNSs sites mainly for satisfying social-emotional needs rather than informational needs (Rau, Gao, &
Ding, 2008). In relation to SCAs usage, Experiential Satisfaction can be considered as the affective
response of the user to its actual overall experience of using particular SCA. Therefore using the
“Satisfaction” construct as operationalized in the ECM (Bhattacherjee, 2001a) may not be appropriate
for such types of systems.
Recent research that have been done both in the area of Marketing and Information System have
showed that with the availability of various alternatives information sources , “satisfaction” only
cannot keep a user attached to a single source (Batra, Ahuvia, & Bagozzi, 2011; Li, Browne, &
-9-
Wetherbe, 2006; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Morgan-Thomas & Veloutsou, 2011). It has been noted that
with the proliferation of many choices, it is the emotional attachment relationship that may be formed
between the user and the Information System that can ensure the continuity of usage by the user. It is
this subsequent and repeated experiential satisfactions , as a result of interaction, that lead to
emotional ties or a long-term relationship between the interactants (Fournier, 1998). Experiential
satisfaction in online environment is the result of the actual interaction of the user with the system
(Nambisan & Nambisan, 2008). Relationships are process phenomena that evolve and change over a
series of interactions and in response to fluctuations in the contextual environment” (Fournier, 1998).
Experiential satisfaction is therefore, one of the most important factors that can help to establish
relationship between users and SCAs and as a result for the continual usage of SCAs.
True and loyal relationship requires the user to form an emotional bond , with the system that deliver
the service (Patwardhan & Balasubramanian, 2011). So the presence of emotional bond between the
user and the system is basic to usage continuance. Therefore to understand the users’ decisions to
use a system continually, we need to identify how and why an emotional bond between the user and
the system is created.
Acknowledging the impact of emotional relationship on usage continuance, recently studies focusing
on a relational view of User-IS interaction has gained momentum in IS literatures (Al-Natour &
Benbasat, 2009; Clements & Bush, 2011; Cyr, 2007; Li et al., 2006; Wu, Wang, & Tsai, 2010). Similar
concept focusing on brand love and romance is also advanced in marketing literature to study
customers post purchase behavior and loyalty (Albert & Valette-florence, 2010; Batra, Ahuvia, &
Bagozzi, 2011; Lastovicka & Sirianni, 2011; Patwardhan & Balasubramanian, 2011).
The Relationship view of managing IS-User interaction is different from the traditional approach which
focusing on the Transactional view (Benbasat & DeSanctis, 2001; Palmer, 2010). The Transactional
view of managing User-System interaction, “focuses on increasing task efficiency & Performance and
improving user friendliness” (Benbasat & DeSanctis, 2001). The assumption was, “to improve user
satisfaction so that the user will be loyal to the system”. However, If the user has many available
choices, satisfaction will not always keep the user from switching to other alternatives (Benbasat &
DeSanctis, 2001; Li, Browne, & Wetherbe, 2006). Different from the Transactional view, the Relational
-10-
view focuses on increasing user engagement, trust and caring, and enjoyable and entertaining value
(Benbasat & DeSanctis, 2001; Keen, 2001). As explained by Benbasat & Desanctis (2001), the
concern of the relationship view includes social-psychology, humanistic, context of exchange and
emotion. The relational view also aims to examine the social and psychological factors in on-line
interactions (Li et al., 2006).
The present study considers relational view of usage continuance and user’s experiential satisfaction
on usage continuance. The study focuses on hedonic information system in general and SCAs in
particular. In addition, this study considers the actual usage behavior related to SCAs and the social
and psychological factors underlying the relationship formation processes. Since Relationship is one
of the most important factors in this study, the next section will briefly discuss about the relationship
formation process as it related to interaction and user’s experience.
2.1.2 Relationship, Interaction and User’s Experience
Relationship is a social psychological concept which indicates an emotional attachment between
partners (Kelley et al., 1983; Rusbult & Buunk, 1993). Usage of the social psychological concepts of
relationship to describe the relationships
between users and websites (information systems or
products) needs to considers IT as a social actor (Al-Natour & Benbasat, 2009; Li, Browne, &
Wetherbe, 2006). This assumption indicates that users perceive IT as social actors, and view their
interactions with IT artifacts as interpersonal in nature, and react to them in a similar way they are
interacting in social situations (Marakas, 2000; Nass & Moon, 2000).
Relationships are the results of repeated interactions. However all repeated interaction may not result
in a relationship. Only those interactions considered by the user as pleasurable will result in a
relationship (Kelley et al., 1983; Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003). Interactions are experienced as
pleasurable to the extent that they gratify one or more important needs, and are experienced as
unpleasant or painful to the extent that they fail to gratify or are antithetical to important needs
(Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003). People in general, evaluate and give value to interaction activities
based on their perception of need fulfillments as a result of the interaction activity (Rusbult & Van
Lange, 2003). Therefore to understand the relationship formation process, it is necessary to identify
users’ interaction experience with the system and how do users perceive fulfillments of their needs as
a result of the interaction.
-11-
Similar with human interaction, understanding relationship between users and ISs requires
understanding the interaction dynamics between the user and the system. Users’ interaction with the
system is not a onetime activity, as far as the relation between the user and the system is maintained,
their interaction will be continued. Every interaction has a potential to change the relation between the
user and the system and can also affect subsequent interactions. Previous interactions and users’
beliefs about the system together with outcomes formed as a result of the previous interactions, can
affect the configuration of successive interactions as well as the overall beliefs the user may hold
about the system and her association with it (Al-Natour & Benbasat, 2009; Wang, 2010). These
interactions have a dynamic and recursive nature in the sense that current interaction is influenced by
past interactions. User’s interaction activity also regulates users’ attitude towards the interaction and
the system, and consequently the quality of the relation to be formed ultimately (Marakas, 2000).
In User-IS interaction, users’ experience plays a crucial role in determining the users’ attitude towards
the IS. Experience, in this sense,
is defined as “a stream of feelings, thoughts and action; a
continuous commentary on our current state of affairs”, (Hassenzahl, Diefenbach, & Göritz, 2010).
Every experience of the user can be unique based on the kind of emotion the user had during the
interaction activity (Mccarthy & Peter Wright, 2004). Users emotional reaction as a result of interaction
shapes the interaction itself and determines the user’s evaluation and communication about product
use (Hassenzahl, Diefenbach, & Göritz, 2010). As also noted by Marakas (2000), “it is through our
wide variety of experiences with computers that we begin to form our attitudes about what computers
can and cannot do”, and the users’ actual experience determines the user feelings towards the
interaction activities. Similarly studies focusing on user-product relationship also focuses on
emotional and experiential perspective of interaction to identify true relationships (Bargas-avila &
Hornbæk, 2011; Beaudry & Pinsonneault, 2010; Hassenzahl, Diefenbach, & Göritz, 2010; O’Brien &
Toms, 2008).
The discussions above indicate that IS usage continuance by an individual depends on the emotional
relationship formed between the user and the particular IS. This relationship is the result of a
recursive and dynamic interaction between the user and the system. Together with this, the impact of
the interaction on the relationship to be formed depends on the actual experience of the user during
the interaction activities. The quality of this experience is also depends on the type of emotions
-12-
triggered on the user by the system. Therefore, understanding usage continuance requires
considering how a relationship is formed as a result of repeated interaction and understanding user’s
experiences during the interaction activity.
The overall objective of this study was to develop and propose conceptual framework for the study of
factors contributing for the continual usage of Social Computing Applications. The framework
developed is based on Relationship and Experiential perspectives of the Human Information
Interaction. The study also attempted to formulate propositional hypothesis that can be considered
and verified by further studies of usage continuance of SCAs. To achieve the objectives of this study,
we draw on works from IS and HCI as well as researches from Social Psychology and philosophy of
technology.
The reaming part of this chapter is organized as follow. Section two describes the major components
of the framework developed in this study and clarifies major concepts and assumptions considered in
developing the framework. Section three describes a closer look at the framework. Section four
presents the process model of the framework and discusses the propositions made in the study. The
last section presents the discussion.
-13-
2.2 Overall Description of the Framework
This section presents the overview of the developed framework, and discusses about how the user
interaction experience facilitate the attachment relationship formation between the user and the ITArtifact. Deeper description and explanation of the framework is given in subsequent sections.
The central assumption of the conceptual model is that, Usage Continuances depends on the intimate
relationship that may be formed between the user and the system. This intimate relation is the result
of the dynamic interaction of the user and the system, and created through the attribution process of
the user experiences. The model also recognizes the fulfillments of basic psychological needs as the
main motivational factor for the formation of the intimate relationship between the user and the system.
Figure 2-1 shows the major components of the conceptual framework.
Figure 2.1. Conceptual Framework
As shown in Figure 2-1, before starting to interact with the system, users should perceive the
affordances of the system. Either first time or experienced user, when approaching the system, the
user may perceive the affordances of the system, which depends on the user’s previous experience,
current actions and goals. Affordance Perception is the step at which the user perceives the
affordances of the system. The system affords to the user the functionalities it has. The user
perceives these affordances based on her needs and capabilities. Even though what the system
-14-
affords definite functionalities, different users may perceive it differently based on their needs and
capabilities, and also the same user may perceive the same system differently in different time.
Once the user perceives the affordances of the system, the user will start to interact with the system.
Interaction activity is the actual involvement of the user in inputting and/or reading information from
the system. The interaction activity can be pleasurable, disgusting or meaningless to the user. The
occurrences of such feelings may depend on the extent that the system fulfills the user’s needs. Users
who perceive that the system fulfills their needs will experience positive feelings. Such pleased users
will start to show affection for the system, and after a repeated interaction with the system they will
start to develop an attachment relationship with the system.
Relationship formation is a process by which a user establishes an emotional attachment with the
system. This emotional attachment is the result of a continued interaction between the user and the
system. All continued interactions do not necessarily result in emotional attachments. Only those
interactions which are capable of triggering user emotions and are evaluated to be pleasant will result
in emotional attachment. Once the user establishes a relationship with the system she will start to use
the system continually. A user in a relationship will see the system differently and possibly can
perceive more affordances which she did not perceive at the beginning.
In general, according to our framework SCAs usage continuance is a dynamic activity that includes
four recursive steps shown in Figure 2-1: Affordance Perception, Interaction Activity, Relationship
Formation and Usage Continuance. Perceived affordance helps the user to perceive functional
possibilities, and during the interaction activities the user evaluates the system, and based on the
evaluation results the user may form attachment relationship with the system. Once the attachment
relationship is formed the user will have a tendency to use the system continually.
Recently Al-Natour & Benbasat (2009) has developed a conceptual model for the study of user
interaction with IT artifact. Their model also describes how relationship formed as a result of
interaction and how the interactions affect the future usage of the IT artifact. However the focus of
their model was on organizational (task based) system. In this study our focus is on nonorganizational systems specifically SCAs, in which users participate voluntarily. While describing our
framework we mentioned about how the framework developed in this study is different from the others.
-15-
The remaining part of this section presents the major components of the framework and their relation
to each other, and the basic concepts and assumptions considered in developing the framework.
2.2.1 Affordance Perception
In this subsection, we will discuss about perceived affordance in relation with user-IS interaction and
relationship formation. First we will explain about affordance in general, then we will discuss about
affordance in IS usage. And finally we will explain the role of affordance in our framework.
Gibson (1979) noted that, to act in the world an animal needs to perceive the affordances of the
environment. An affordance is a quality of an object, or an environment, which allows an individual to
perform an action (McArthur & Baron, 1983). The Ecological theory of perception emphasizes the
intrinsic connection between action and perception, which is a suitable way to explain interactive
activities (McArthur & Baron, 1983). According to McArthur and Baron (1983) , The ecological theory
of perception assumes that, environment provides perceivable information which specifies
environmental affordance and indicates environmental affordances as opportunities for acting or
being acted upon that are provided by environmental entities(McArthur & Baron, 1983).
Based on J.Gibson (1979), McArthur and Baron (1983) indicate that, the perception of environmental
affordances depends upon the perceivers' attunement, that is, the particular stimulus invariants to
which the perceiver attends. This perception is concerned with the pick-up of useful information
instead of just any information (McArthur & Baron, 1983; Shepard, 1984). The usefulness of the
information is determined by the perceiver based on the relevance of the information to the
perceiver’s actions and goals. In addition to relevance to the perceiver, certain perceptions may also
depend on learning. In general, the environmental information to which perceivers are attuned may
vary as a function of their perceptual learning, goals, expectations, and actions (McArthur & Baron,
1983). As perception develops, the perceiver extracts more environmental stimulus and relationships
which previously not detected (McArthur & Baron, 1983; Shepard, 1984).
From the above discussion it is possible to see that, we human beings are focusing more on
environmental information that are relevant to our goals and our actions, and also our focus is
influenced by our previous exposures. The affordances the users recognize are contingent up on their
perceptions. Since goals, actions and perception are unique to individuals, as a result perception of
-16-
affordance is also depend on the individual (Chemero, 2003; McArthur & Baron, 1983). Chemero
(2003) also indicate that it is better to see affordances as relations between the abilities of animals
and particular aspects of situations (Chemero, 2003). He indicated that, what we perceive is not in the
environment alone, it is instead the relation between the perceiver and the environment, we perceive
based on our unique situation.
Affordances can be changed as a result of a change in the environment or a change in the abilities of
the perceiver. That means there can be a possibility of a change on the affordance without a change
in the environment, just because of a change in the abilities of the person. Similarly, there is a
possibility of a change in affordance without a change in the ability of the perceiver only as a result of
a change in the environment (Chemero, 2003)
Affordances of information system can be described by considering the system as environment and
the user as a perceiver. As explained above affordance is the relation between the environment and
the perceiver, therefore Information system affordances (ISAs) can be considered as the relation
between the information system and the user. The affordance in information system are the action
possibilities of a user when the user interacts with the information system (Kannengiesser & Gero,
2012). ISAs are dynamic in the sense that they emerge from the interaction between the user and the
system and at the same time affect the interaction activity. Users interact differently with the same
artifact at different time, which give rise to different interpretations of affordances by these users
(Kannengiesser & Gero, 2012; Vyas & Chisalita, 2006).
Similar to environmental affordance , ISA can be considered as the property of both the system and
the user (Grange & Benbasat, 2011). What the system affords is independent of the user. However
users perception of the system is dependent on the users’ ability and needs (Markus & Silver, 2008).
Most importantly Markus & Silver (2008) have indicated, users should perceive the affordance of IS
before they start to act using the information system.
In our framework, initially users’ perception of the system depends on external information, but once
users perceive the affordances of the system and start involving in the interaction activity, they will
perceive more and more affordances based on their actual experiences in addition to the external
information.
-17-
Based on the discussion above, what the user will know about the system depends on her perception.
The user perceives the system based on her own abilities, knowledge, goal, action requirements and
also her previous interaction and attitude towards the system. Through perception users identify
action possibilities offered by the system. These action possibilities of the system are the perceived
affordances. Perceived affordance is what a person thinks can be done with a technology (Norman,
1999). The way the user understands the affordances of the system will determine the user’s mental
image about the system. The user’s perception of affordance influences the user’s future interaction
with the system, and subsequently the relationship to be formed between the user and the IT Artifact.
At the same time the interaction activities and the type (or extent) of relationship will in turn influence
the perception of affordance.
In the conceptual model developed by Al-Natourr & Benbasat, (2009) a similar process is described
as “Interaction determinants”, which indicates how the user forms the mental image of the artifact.
However we suggest that it is better to use the concepts of affordance, because affordance is a better
concept to describe both the artifact and the user altogether and independently at the same time
(Grange & Benbasat, 2011; Markus & Silver, 2008)
2.2.2
Interaction Activity
Interaction Activities are also the major components of the framework developed in this study. In this
section we will outline the process of user computer interaction, and how this interaction is influenced
by the features of the system and at the same time influence the user experience and the relationship
formation process.
Interaction is a special kind of action that involves two or more entities and a set of reciprocities that
effect changes to each entity (Marchionini, 2008). The word interaction has gain various interpretation
and meaning by different researchers. Given the number of disciplines concerned about interaction it
is not strange to have such various definitions. However, the definition given by Steuer (1992) is
taken as starting point for explaining interactivity in many researches (Mollen & Wilson, 2010).
Steuer’s definition indicate that interactivity is “the extent to which users can participate in modifying
the form and content of the mediated environment in real time,” (Mollen & Wilson, 2010; Steuer, 1992).
The literature distinguishes three levels of interactivity: interactivity as a feature of technology, as a
-18-
process of message exchange, or as something that a user perceives after using a technology or
going through a process (Bucy & Tao, 2007; Lowry et al., 2009; Mechant & Evens, 2009).
Interacting with Information System is realized through interacting with the system’s user interface. To
enable interaction the system should afford interactivity and the interactivity affordance have to be
perceived by the user before the user can acted (Marakas, 2000; Markus & Silver, 2008).User
interfaces represent action potentials (Kaptelinin, 1992; Laurel, 1993). As explained by Laural (Laurel,
1993: 7), what is represented in the interface is not only the task’s environment and tools but also the
process of interaction-the contribution made by both the actor and the computer.
Interaction is a goal oriented activity (Nardi, 1993). Interacting with SCAs can has two types of goals
from the user perspective (Hoffman & Novak, 2012a). The first one is social goal, which has a primary
objective of connecting with other people. The Second goal is content goal, which is focused primarily
on interacting with the social media content. Content goal involve individuals focusing primarily on
either consuming social media content or creating it (Hoffman & Novak, 2012a).
In relation to web 2.0, Mechant & Evens (2009) identified three kinds of interactions: (1) user-to-user,
(2) user-to-document and (3) User-to-website. These types of interactions are also relevant for SCAs.
User-to-user
interaction
indicates
a
synchronous
as
well
as
asynchronous
bidirectional
communication using a technology among people (Sally J. McMillan, 2006). User-to-document
interaction refers how media users interact with the texts, images and sounds they consume. Given
the features of SCAs, in addition to consumption users have the possibility to control and manipulate
media contents. User-to-website interaction deals with the interaction between the user and the
system’s interface.
More recently user-to-document (information objects)
interaction had more wider meaning and
termed as Human Information Interaction (HII) (Marchionini, 2008). The idea of HII is introduced by
Nahom Gershon(1995),
to describe how human beings interact with, relate to, and process
information regardless of the medium connecting the two (Chang & Wang, 2011; Gershon, 1995).
Marchionini (2008) has indicated that, as a result of the new technology, “human are moving towards
apparently more symmetrical meaning of human information interaction where both human and
information objects evolves as a result and through interaction”. He also noted that, in information
-19-
interaction, the user typically does something repeatable (e.g. Click, read, response. Click again); and
the user experiences different information each time without regard to changes in the objects used.
HII is basically different from human computer interaction (HCI). HCI deals with, how people interact
with computer, specifically with the computer interface; different from HCI, human information
interaction deals with, human interaction with the information, i.e. how people interact with and
interpret that information (Albers, 2008). According to Albers (2008) for effective human-information
interaction the information must be clearly thought out to enable a person to easily comprehend the
content; and the ultimate test of whether or not information communicates is what the reader does
after reading it. As explained by Albers, HII approaches the communication problem from the view
point of how users interacts with, interprets and uses text to understand factors which go into a
person interacting with the text; this will help to understand what motivate a person to read,
comprehend, and properly use information in a specific context. In this study we will consider the
concept of Human Information Interaction to describe the “Interaction Activity” in our framework.
The concept of HII is very helpful for explaining the framework developed in this study. HII is media
independent (Parsons & Sedig, 2011). It mainly deals with the interaction between the user and
information, and how they influenced each other irrespective of the type of media through which the
information is brought to the user. In the framework developed in this study the type of media can be
dealt in the affordance perception stage. For example, a user accessing her Facebook account using
a mobile phone perceives a different affordance when she is accessing the same account using PC or
tablet. In both cases the content can be the same. This independent handling of the tool and the
content also make our conceptual framework unique from other similar frameworks.
Interaction of any type can be characterized by specifying the entities involved in the interaction, the
nature of the actions, the genesis of the actions (initiation), the amplitude (intensity) and frequency of
the reciprocity cycles, and the resultant changes in the participating entities (Marchionini, 2008; Sally
J. McMillan, 2006). There are three entities involved in the process of human information interaction:
the user, the system and the content(Toms, 2002). The nature of the actions in the information
interaction are both mental and physical, and the changes as a result of the interaction can be
“differences in mental states of the human and physical or digital states of information objects”
-20-
(Marchionini, 2008). Marchionini (2008) also noted that the interaction may be initiated by any of the
entities involved.
Facilitating user’s experience is the main objective of information interaction (Toms, 2002). User’s
experience in information interaction is influenced by information architecture (IA) , the design of the
interaction (interface), & identity of the system (Kuniavsky, 2003). Information architecture represent
the underlying organizing system/structure of the information that the system trying to convey
(Kuniavsky, 2003). The architecture makes it possible for the users to navigate through the
information and comprehend, and also enable the user to predict what’s going to be happening
around the next corner by showing a pattern. IA also helps in easy identification of information, by
showing categories and cues.
The user interfaces determine how to navigate around the information architecture, and help to make
the user focused on pertinent information. Information system’s Identity is what makes the system
unique, and it is the combination of what a site does , how it looks , what association it evoke , and
how it emphasize certain features over others. The system’s identity influences user’s expectation
about the system. For instance, users’ expectation from a productive system (e.g. EXCEL) is different
from their expectation from a hedonic system (Facebook).
On the conceptual framework developed in this study (Figure 2-1), the Interaction Activity represents
the HII. HII facilitate the users’ experience. The experience facilitated by HII is affected by IA, UI and
the identity of the information system used. The actions involved in HII are both physical and mental.
The user as well as the system can change the digital state of the content (For example updating).
The user uses the interface to effect changes. The system can affect the mental state of the user by
displaying contents in certain ways. Both the content as well as the way the content is presented to
the user can affect the mental state of the user. Usually the IA & UI are designed to represent action
and to display the content in certain ways so that it can facilitate the users’ experience. The identity of
the system also affects the mental state of the user. What the user thinks about the system affect her
expectation and interpretation of the actions and contents she may encountered while interacting with
the system. By facilitating/affecting users’ experience the HII also affect the relationship formation
process.
-21-
The next section discusses about the processes of relationship formation as a result of the interaction
activity.
2.2.3
Relationship Formation
Relationship is built and maintained over a series of interactions (Fournier, 1998). Interaction is a
necessary condition for relationship formation. “Relationships are constituted of a series of repeated
exchange between two parties known to each other: they evolve in response to these interactions and
fluctuation in the contextual environment” (Fournier, 1998).
Analyzing relationship between two persons require understanding the phenomena of interaction
between them. These phenomena of interaction can be verified by analyzing interpersonal patterns of
events between the two persons (Kelley et al., 1983). Events in this sense include incidents of
actions, reactions, emotions and thoughts (Kelley et al., 1983). Therefore, understanding the nature of
events, specifically interpersonal events, is necessary to understand relationships. Since events are
as such crucial to analyze the interaction phenomena and the relationship formation process, we
discuss about events in the subsequent paragraphs.
An event can be described as a segment of time,(Zacks & Tversky, 2001) distinctive action,(Zacks et
al., 2007) or as unit of information (McArthur & Baron, 1983). As a segment of time, an event has a
beginning and an end at a given location. An event can be range from a few second to several hours
(Zac & Tversky, 2001). As a unit of information, events provide perceivers with structured information
that supplements information already available in static format (i.e. show changes in the perceiver
environment) (McArthur & Baron, 1983). As distinctive actions, an event can be considered as points
at which one action is differentiated from another (Zacks et al., 2007).
Events considered as having a distinctive properties not shared by other parts of the behavior stream.
They serve as a boundary or break point between subsequent actions. They considered as a
boundary because a “meaningful change” has occurred in the stream of behavior relative to the
immediately preceding break point, and they suggest to the perceiver a coherent interpretation of the
action (Newtson & Engquist, 1976). Events contain cues that are critical for recognition of an action
(McArthur & Baron, 1983).
-22-
In general an event can be considered as a distinct action (emotion or thought) that occur in a
segment of time, having unique perceptible information and results in a perceptible change. While
observing a person involving in an interaction, what we can notice is a sequence of events. These
sequence of events can be a specific action, emotion, or thought(Kelley et al., 1983) . According to
Kelley (1983), an event in the sequence can be distinguished by its duration (time), the type of
information/stimuli associated with the event, and or by the impact/result of the event. For example,
“Pressing print button” on the user interface can be considered as a single event. This event has
starting and ending time, information and impact associated to it.
Events that can describe relationships should be evaluated in relation to the events of both interacting
parties. That means relationship can be traced by focusing on how the events of one of the interacting
party influence the event sequence of the other party (Kelley et al., 1983). As noted by Kelley (1983),
given two persons, if the event initiated by one of the persons has an impact on the event sequence
of the other person, then we can conclude the presence of a relation among these two persons. For
example, if the action of one person trigger emotion on the other person: the action of the first person
together with the emotion in the second person can be considered as an interpersonal patterns of
events, and serve to notice the presence of relation between the person who do the action and the
person who showed the emotional reaction to the action (Kelley et al., 1983).
Humans makes relation with computer in the same way they establish relationship with other person
(Nass & Moon, 2000). Therefore, gaining information on the phenomenon of human and computer
interaction is critical for understanding and analyzing a relationship between humans and computers.
Similarly, the basic data of the interaction phenomena can be found in the pattern of events among
humans & computers. The interaction patterns of events that may be observed between humans and
computers can also help to describe the relationship between humans and computer systems.
As explained in previous section, the process of information interaction is affected by the user, the
system and the content, and depends on information architecture, interface and the system identity.
Therefore analyzing information interaction needs to identify the event structure and patterns between
the user and the system , and how the pattern of events are affected by the user, the information
architecture, the interface and the identity of the system.
-23-
Based on the discussion about human information interaction,
the change as a result of the
information interaction are differences in mental state of the human and physical/digital state of
information object (Marchionini, 2008). Therefore analyzing the relationship between human and
Information system requires two major tasks. The first one is identifying event patterns among the
user, the System and the Content. Basically the system is represented by the IA, the UI, and the
system identity. We should identify what types of actions can be performed by the user; how this
actions can be constrained or facilitated by the IA & UI and what type of emotions and thoughts are
experienced by the user. At the same time we should also identify the event patterns of the system
(the Application) paralleling and responding to the user action.
Second we should identify how these event patterns make changes on the mental state of the user
and the digital state of information objects. These will help us to understand how the interaction
between the individual and the particular application system turned to a relationship (close
relationship). This will be a major step and a foundation to understand the Information system usage
continuance.
The discussion in this section was based on Figure 2-1, and describes the overall components of the
frame work developed in this study. The next section presents more detail about the framework. The
next section also describes more about the patterns of events in human information interaction and
explains how these event patterns impact the user interaction experience and user-system relation.
-24-
2.3 A Closer Look at the Framework
This section gives more details about the framework developed in this study. The first part describes
how “events” affect user experience in online information interaction. The second part discusses how
interaction events affect the user experience. The third part presents specific events that may occur
during the user interaction with the IT artifact, and explain them as they relate to the framework. This
part specifically describes “Sense Making Processes” and “External Actions” as the major events that
determines the user’s experience in online information interaction.
2.3.1 Events in Online Information Interaction
As explained in the previous sections, information interaction indicates the process that people use
in interacting with the content of an information system (O’Brien & Toms, 2008; Toms, 2002). Users’
perceives
online
interaction
experiences as a sequence of
discrete
events and not as a
continuous flow (McClintock, 1983; Toms, 2002).
Tom (Toms, 2002) identified
basic distinct actions performed by users while they are interacting
with an online information system. These distinct actions can be categorized in to two groups. The
first group includes actions or external events performed by the user on the system. The second
groups include mental events that the user experiences just before and after performing the external
events. According to Toms (2002) the External Events include, “Select Category”, “Note Cues” and
“Read & Extract information”.
The desecrate actions or events in information interaction do not
necessarily performed sequentially. Before performing these external actions users perform a goal
formulation activity, which is a decision to initiate a quest for information. After extracting information
the user will evaluate and integrate the extracted information with previously known facts (Hill, 1999;
Saunders & Jones, 1990; Toms, 2002). Performing a goal formulation activities or integrating
information to the already known facts are considered as an Internal Actions. The sequence of
Internal and External actions occurring during information interaction are contingent upon the
attributes of the user (e.g., motivations, expectations), the system (e.g., usability), and the context with
in which the interaction is performed (O’Brien & Toms, 2008; Wright, McCarthy, & Meekison, 2003).
Even though the actions or events identified by Toms can serve as initial point of analysis, they are
specifically designed based on the pre web2.0 environment when users were limited to performing
only information consumption activities. Nowadays, users are not only mere consumers of information;
-25-
instead they are also producer of information (Hoffman & Novak, 2012a, 2012b; Kaplan & Haenlein,
2010). Specifically in Social Computing, users in addition to consume and produce information they
perform other activities. Recently, Hoffman and Novak (2012) argue that “the fundamental interactivity
of social media allows for four higher-order goals”: Connect, Create, Consume and Control. Therefore
it’s possible to extend the discrete external actions identified by Toms by adding the new actions as a
result of the new media.
Information Interaction reflects the whole experiences that one can have while interacting with an
information system, including meaningful changes that may be occurring after and during the
occurrence of events (Albers, 2008; Toms, 2002). Therefore to understand the impact of the
interaction activity as a whole it is necessary to understand the overall experience of the user
occurring during the interaction. The next section explained about the users’ interaction experiences.
2.3.2
Interaction Experience and Events
User’s experience has been identified as the main factor that determine the quality of user-system
interactions, and has recently became the main focus of research in relation to the hedonic aspects of
interactive products/systems (Hassenzahl, Diefenbach, & Göritz, 2010; Law & van Schaik, 2010; Light,
2004; Parsons & Sedig, 2011; Rafael et al., 2010; Taylor et al., 2012). Recently Taylor et al, (Taylor et
al., 2012) has also noted that understanding experience is the basis for user centered design.
Dewy (cited in Wright et al, 2003) argued that “experience is the irreducible totality of people acting,
sensing, thinking, feeling, and meaning-making in a setting, including their perception and sensation
of their own actions”. As noted by Macarthy & Wright (2003), according to Dewey experience is
constituted by the relationship between self and object, where the self is always already engaged and
comes to every situation with personal interests and ideologies. We have an experience only when
the material experienced runs its course to fulfillment and has its own individualizing quality and selfsufficiency, an emotional unity that gives experience aesthetic quality (Wright, McCarthy, & Meekison,
2003).
Online user experience is defined as “cognitive and affective impressions” (Rose, Hair, & Clark, 2011),
formed as a result of online user and websites interactions (Hair, Rose, & Clark, 2009; Perotti & Hair,
2011; Rose, Hair, & Clark, 2011). In relation to interactive systems, Hassenzahl (2006) describes
-26-
users’ experience as an ongoing reflection on events, and define the events as instances of humanproduct/system interaction (Hassenzahl & Tractinsky, 2006). These events stretch over time, with a
definite beginning and end, and have a temporal dimension; and throughout the event, the user may
ask herself how good or bad she feels at the moment (Hassenzahl & Tractinsky, 2006).
People do not simply engage in experiences as ready-made, they actively construct them through a
process of Sense Making (Wright, McCarthy, & Meekison, 2003). According to Maccarty and Wright
(Mccarthy & Peter Wright, 2004; Wright, McCarthy, & Meekison, 2003), the Sense Making process
has the following stages: Anticipation, Connecting, Interpreting, Reflecting, Appropriating, Recounting.
In this study, we have used
the Sense Making stages outlined by Mccarthy & Wright (2003) to
develop the framework and analyze users’ Information Interaction experiences.
ISs including SCAs cannot grant an experience to the user, however; the system can create the
environment and the circumstances in which users could have an experience. The users’ experiences
occur inside the person through a process of Sense Making. The outcome of the Sense making
process depends on the situation within which the action is performed and the user states of mind
(Reinhard & Dervin, 2012).
External actions (Kaptelinin, 1992) of Information Interaction (Select Category, Read Information,
Create Information and Connect) (Hoffman & Novak, 2012a; Toms, 2002) & the Sense Making steps
(Wright, McCarthy, & Meekison, 2003) are the major components of our framework (As shown in
Figure 2-2.). The events in the Sense Making process are mental processes or Internal Actions
(Kaptelinin, 1992) occurring before, during and after the External events. The External events
represent actions through which the mind bring impact on the environment; while the Sense Making
events represent actions through which the environment affects the user mind (Clark, 2008) . As
shown in Figure 2-2, the Sense Making process and the External events are acted in an integrated
way. It is these actions and their output and outcome that further form the basis for the user-system
relationship.
-27-
Figure 2.2. Sense Making Process
The next subsection explains about the model described in Figure 2-2. The section also discusses
about how the Sense Making process and the External actions influenced each other and determine
the user’s interaction experience and the relation formation process.
-28-
2.3.3
Sense Making Process and External Actions in Information
Interaction
In this section the framework developed in this study is discussed in more detail. We explain how the
Sense Making process and External actions are realized during the interaction processes. We also
described the patterns of events between the user and the system during the interaction. The section
also presents how the interaction experience affects the relationship formation process. The
discussion is based on Figure 2-2 above.
Anticipation
Anticipation is expectation about the occurrence (or nonoccurrence) of a certain event(s) and the
emotional outcomes as a result of the event (Baumeister et al., 2007). Anticipation may involve
pleasure, excitement, and sometimes anxiety in considering some expected or longed-for good event.
Anticipation about interaction activities can be affected by users’ prior knowledge and goals. Users
come to the interaction activities with all sorts of expectations, possibilities and ways of making sense
of the interaction activity (Al-Natour & Benbasat, 2009; Fiore, Wright, & Edwards, 2005; Wright,
McCarthy, & Meekison, 2003) that may affect their anticipation. Users may interact with a certain
system with a specific goal to fulfill certain needs or without any specified goals (Toms, 2002), or just
out of curiosity, or because of a habit (Limayem, Hirt, & Cheung, 2007; Limayem, Hirt, & Chin, 2001).
Having different type of goals may result in different types of anticipations.
Anticipation is not only affected by prior knowledge before the interaction, it can also be affected by
the executions of certain events during the interaction session (i.e. the execution of one event can
affect the user expectation about the next event). The user anticipation about the coming events may
be changed as a result of the previous event
Perceptual Analysis
Perceptual analysis is the stage at which the user is first connecting with the system: where the
situation impacts the sense of the user before even giving meaning to it (Wright, McCarthy, &
Meekison, 2003). Through the perceptual analysis the user exposed to environmental stimuli. Based
on the stimuli the user may start interpretation of the situation and anticipate about the next event;
and then, she may perform any of the events. The user may perform the External actions (events) or
the mental (Internal) events.
-29-
External Actions
External Actions are the basic events/Actions of the information interaction activity. The External
Actions includes “Category Selection,” “Read Information,” “Create Information” and “Connect”. After
perceptual analysis, the first possible activity can be “Category Selection” (Toms, 2002). The user
may select a category based on her previous knowledge and guided by the information architecture
and the user interface (Kuniavsky, 2003). After selecting the category, the user may distinguishes
interesting and relevant information and extracts the relevant details, if nothing is relevant in a
particular section, the user may discard the section and promptly move on (Guthrie, 1988, sited in
Toms, 2002).
In Social Computing, the user is not limited to reading information. The user can also create and
connect information. For example the user may put his comment (create) or indicate her appreciation
by clicking on certain buttons (e.g. Like button in Facebook).During performing any of the external
actions, and before moving to any other action, the Sense Making events are activated as a mental
events (emotion, thought, etc.). These events are performed in reaction to the stimuli in the form of
information from the system.
Before the user extracts the information, she may anticipate about it. Whenever the user selects a
certain category (an event by the user) the system displays the information in that category (an event
by the system). When the user extracts some information (an External event) from the system, the
stimuli from the information initiate the Sense Making process (Subsequent mental events). Then
based on the sense making process, the user again interprets the stimuli and tries to anticipate what
will come next. The cycle will continue like this.
Interpreting
After perceiving what is going on, the user gives meaning to the unfolding experience through
interpreting and appraisal of the situation. By discerning what and how it has happened, what is likely
to happen and how this relates to her needs , hopes and fears and her previous experiences the
user will give meaning to the experience at hand (Mccarthy & Peter Wright, 2004; Wright, McCarthy,
& Meekison, 2003). The user emotional reaction through appraisal of events also plays a significant
role at this stage (Lazarus, 1983). Appraisal is an evaluative process that evaluates the significance of
-30-
a stimulus for one’s personal well-being (Lazarus, 1991). Emotions arise from encounters with an
event that are appraised as having beneficial or harmful consequences for the individual’s concerns
(i.e. major goals, motives, well-being, or other sensitivities) (Desmet & Hekkert, 2007; Frijda, 1994).
Reflection
Interactions are experienced as pleasurable to the extent that they gratify one or more important
needs and are experienced as unpleasant or painful to the extent that they fail to gratify or are
antithetical to important needs (Rusbult & Van Lange, 2003). It is the appraisal and personal
significant of an event, rather than the event itself, which causes the emotion (Smith & Lazarus, 1990).
Because appraisals mediate between event and emotions, different individuals who appraise the
same event in different ways will experience different emotions (Lazarus, 1983).
Reflection involves making judgments about the experience as it unfolds and place a value on it
(Wright, McCarthy, & Meekison, 2003). Users reflect on the experience they have just interpreted.
Causal reflections include questioning on self either satisfied with a sense of progress or movement
towards completion. Emotional reflections include once reflections either getting any sense of
fulfillment or achievement. How does the experience tally with our anticipation and how do we feel
about being in this situation at this time? Are we anxious, bored, or excited (Wright, McCarthy, &
Meekison, 2003)?
Appropriating
As noted by McCarty and Wright (2003), a key part of Sense Making is relating an experience to
previous and future experiences. In appropriating an experience we make it our own. We relate it to
our sense of self, our personal history and our hoped for future. We may change our sense of self as
a consequence of the experience, or we may simply see this experience as ‘just another one of those’.
The degree to which an experience changes our sense of self may also be the extent to which we see
it as something we identify with and want to experience again (Mccarthy & Peter Wright, 2004; Wright,
McCarthy, & Meekison, 2003).
The positive experience users may get from the interaction activity may include need fulfillment and
Pleasure Stimulation (Hassenzahl, Diefenbach, & Göritz, 2010; Partala & Kallinen, 2012). It is the
-31-
satisfaction of the need as a result of the interaction activity that motivates the use to experience the
activity again in the future.
As indicated by McClintock (1983), the interpretation of events in the chain of the interactants involves
more than simple recognition. Perceivers , viewing their own and their partner ‘s behavior , engaged
in additional inferential steps, “they make sense of observed events by attributing them to underlying
plans and intentions of the individual (personal causes) or to the causal influence of priori events in
the interaction steam (relational causes)” (McClintock, 1983). While interacting the agents perceive
and interpret the outcomes of the interaction. Based on their understanding they will assign attributes
to the objects with whom they are interacting (Kelley 1971).
Similarly, while interacting with Information System users will experience satisfaction/ dissatisfaction
and other affects based on the type of emotions aroused as a result of the interaction (Light, 2004;
O’Brien & Toms, 2008). Research has also confirmed that users assign good or bad attributes to ISs
based on their interaction experience with the system (Hung, Chang, & Hwang, 2011; Marakas, 2000;
Martinko, Henry, & Zmud, 1996). By evaluating their emotion as a result of the experience, users will
start attribution processes, and then judge the system as pleasurable or not. Further and repeated
evaluation of these emotion will result in a certain types of relationship (Hassenzahl, Diefenbach, &
Göritz, 2010).
Recounting
The External events (Selecting, Reading, Creating and Connecting) are performed in a situated
interaction. Anticipation and Interpretation of the sense making activities are also occur within the
situated interaction. Reflecting and Appropriating are immediate results of the situated interaction.
Recounting is not necessarily happening during the vicinity of the current interaction activity.
Recounting represents the formation of close relationship. After the user experiencing the situated
interaction, based on the results of the interaction she will start to attribute the result to the system. If
she feels fulfilling about the experience she will start to relate himself with the IT artifact, i.e. creates
an attachment relationship. This can be happen if the same experience is happening again and again.
-32-
The attribution as a result of the interaction result leads to the attribution to the actor of stable
dispositional characteristics (Kelley, 1979; Kelly & Thibaut, 1978). Such attribution has implication for
subsequent interpretation and behavior. Most important is the fact that attributed trait and dispositions
create expectations of disposition-related behavior in the future. In addition to attribution about stable
personality trait of individual members, interpretation of events often lead to inferences about stable
properties of the relationship(McClintock, 1983).
Martinko et al. (Martinko, Henry, & Zmud, 1996) have tried to explain the attribution process of
organizational use of IT. They have used “learned helpless ness” (LH) theory (Abramson et al, 1980)
as a relevant theory to explain IT related attribution in organization. LH refers to passive behavior
resulting from prior exposure to failure despite changes in organizational circumstances or conditions.
Based on this theory they have proposed that anticipated negative outcomes related to IT
characteristics are positively related to expectation of failure, and negatively related to intention to use
the IT. However their suggestion cannot always hold be true for hedonic system. Because, from the
very beginning users of hedonic system expects positive stimulations from the system, and also
possibly experience positive affects by using a hedonic system. Therefore instead of the learned
helplessness theory, it is “learned optimism” (Peterson, 2000) that can best explain the attribution
process in hedonic information systems. Optimism is, “a mode or attitude associated with an
expectation about the social or material future-one which the evaluate regards as socially desirable,
to her advantage or for her pleasure” (Peterson, 2000).
In this section we have tried to describe how the patterns of interaction events between the user and
the system affect the users’ experience in interaction activities and its subsequent impact on the
relationship formation process between the user and the system. As we have tried to show in the
model, there are two sets of event patterns, the first patterns are the actions performed by the user on
the system. This category includes all the External actions. The other category of events includes the
mental processes or the stimuli on the user as a result of the responses of the system. This category
includes all the Sense Making processes. The interplay between the External action and the Sense
Making processes determine the relationship formation processes. According to our premises, it is
this relationship which is formed as a result of the interaction that will determine the continual usage
of an information system by the user.
-33-
2.4 The Process Model
In this study we have also developed a process model of Social Computing Usage Continuance. This
section describes the Social Computing Usage Continuance Model (SCUCM) developed in this study.
Alnatur & Benbasat (2010) have tried to show a process model of user-IT artifact interactions and how
these interactions determine the relationship between the user and the IT artifact. They have
proposed that, “the characteristics of the task in which the artifact is employed, the characteristics of
the user utilizing the artifact, and the characteristics of the artifact itself” as determinants of interaction.
They also indicate that, these three factors will determine “appropriation” and “object based-beliefs.”
Appropriation, which indicates users’ choices of the artifact’s features
within a specific interaction,
determines the artifact’s behaviors in an interaction. Object-based beliefs refer to how the artifact’s
characteristics shown through these behaviors are perceived by users.
Even though, appropriation can explain which features of the technology are used, it cannot explain
what has happened as a result. In using SCAs what matters is not which features of the technology is
selected by the users, but it is what the users experiencing by employing the features, that makes a
difference and an impact on subsequent interactions. Appropriation may be more appropriate to
organizational use of IT-artifacts where there is a specific expected work-outcome. However, in nonorganization areas where most of SCAs usually used, there is no specific expected work outcome and
users evaluate the system mainly based on their experience.
Therefore in our model we use “The User’s Experience” instead of “Appropriation” to explain the effect
of User-IT Artifact interaction (and hence the relationship formation process) in using SCAs. Hence, in
our process model the determinants of interactions are factors contributing to the “User‘s Experience”.
As explained by Forlizzi & Ford (2000), identifying the factor influencing users’ experience should
focus on the components of a user-product interaction, which may include the characteristics of the
design system, context of use,
and users internal state (Forlizzi & Ford, 2000; Hassenzahl &
Tractinsky, 2006). Our model also took these factors in to consideration
As shown in Figure 2.3, the model has three major components: “Design and Contextual Factors”,
“Interaction Activities”, and “Attachment Formation”. Design and Contextual Factors is related to what
-34-
the application affords to the user and the social and individual contexts with in which the interaction
is taking place. Design and contextual factors includes both factors that can be controlled through
design , and factors that are unique to the user (or that are not easily controlled by design) (Verhoef
et al., 2009).
Design and Contextual factors
Content and
action
representati
on
Interaction activities
P1
Attachment
Experiential
qualities
P8
Close
Relationship
P2
Technology
Sprit
P6
P7
P3
Social
factors
P4
Need
fulfillment
P5
Motivated
Behavior
P9
Decision to use
P1
0
continuously
Figure 2.3. The Social Computing Usage Continuance Model (SCUCM)
Design and contextual factors includes, “Content and Action Representation”, “Technology Sprit” and
“Social Factors”. The design and contextual factors influences the actual interaction activities
including the experiential qualities of the interaction activity. Experiential quality indicates the
perception and judgment processes taking place within the user during the interaction activities
(Brooks & Hestnes, 2010; Wechsung et al., 2012). Experiential quality may include feelings such as
enjoyment, engagement, (Lin et al., 2011; O’Brien & Toms, 2008; Turner, 2010) participation (Heeter,
-35-
2000) immersion, and surprise (Helle et al., 2011; Kao, Huang, & Wu, 2008). Different features of
SCAs, influence users’ experiences to different degrees (Heijden, 2004).
While with in the actual interaction activities users may evaluate the fulfillment of their basic
psychological needs as a result of the interaction activities. The user evaluation of the fulfillment of the
basic psychological needs depends on the Social Factors surrounding the interaction activity (Deci &
Ryan, 2000). Users’ perception of need fulfillment influence the users’ perception of Experiential
qualities with in the interaction activity (Hassenzahl, Diefenbach, & Göritz, 2010) . The perception of
the basic need fulfillment also influences the Motivational behaviors of the user (Deci & Ryan, 1987)
towards the interaction activity and the system. The user’s experience and the extent of the
motivational value they may assign to the interaction activity influence the attachment relation that
may be formed between the users and the system. Once the attachment relation is formed the user
will use the system continually; and this decision to use the system continually in turn influences
subsequent interaction activities.
In Usage continuance, different from adoption, the user actual experience is more important than the
users’ perception based on anticipation. For instance , In TAM Perceived Usefulness and Perceived
Ease of Use determines users’ attitude (Davis, 1985). However in SCUCM (the present model) case,
since the user is already involved in performing the behavior, what matters more is the user’s actual
experience as a result of the involvement, than her perception before the experience. If users found
the system is actually (not perceived) useful and easy to use they will have a better experience out of
their involvement. While interacting with the system, what the user actually encounters is the design
features of the system and the surrounding context with in which the interaction is performed. These
design and contextual features are important factors in determining the user experiential qualities.
Attitude in TAM refers to, “ the degree of evaluative affect that an individual associate with using the
target system in his or her job” (Davis, 1985). In SCUCM Motivational behaviors are also evaluative
affects that the user attributes to the system. However in SCUCM, these motivational behaviors
include motivations such as Intrinsic and Extrinsic motivations, which are based on the actual
evaluation of the satisfaction of the basic psychological needs. Motivational behaviors are beliefs
about the situation. Beliefs are generally formed rapidly in response to stimuli. In SCUCM the beliefs
-36-
are formed as a result of the Experiential qualities and the user’s evaluation of the satisfaction of
basic psychological needs.
The remaining part of this section explains the model and formulate prepositions by taking Facebook
as example.
2.4.1 Content and Action Representation
A well designed IS structured in a certain way to be understood by the users and using this structure
the user can be led through a sequence of actions (Dourish, 2001: 56). The system designer cannot
control exactly what content is the user is dealing. However it is possible to control the structure
through which the content is to be delivered. Action representation is one of the ways to control usage
structure (Boehner et al., 2007). The way these actions are represented affect the emotional
involvement of the user in the activity (Laurel, 1993: 112; Rose et al., 2011). As explained by Benkler
and Nissenbaum (Benkler & Nissenbaum, 2006), “people’s attitudes and beliefs are frequently formed
as a consequence of their actual choices and actions”, therefore the way action is represented
affects not only the user’s actions but also affect their attitudes and beliefs.
So the question is how to design and represent actions in the applications, so that users will get the
appropriate (targeted) experience. In relation to this issue, Carbone & Hackel (1994), while discussing
about experience design in business, indicate that, “Engineering an experience begins with the
deliberate setting of a targeted customer perception and results in the successful registration of that
perception in the customer's mind. Systematically designing and orchestrating the signals generated
by products, services, and the environment is the means to that end” (Carbone & Haeckel, 1999).
Cues, Categories, and action sequencing represent action potentials in computer system. Sequencing
is important for developing a memorable experience (Palmer, 2010; Pine & Gilmore, 1998) . Palmer
(2010) sited Chatman (1978) and noted that, “experiences should have a sequence structure with a
story structured in a manner similar to musical pieces”.
Cues play a significant role in user’s experience by focusing the user attention towards a selected
information or information category. Attracting and managing attention are crucial success factors to
SCAs (Webster, 2010, 2011). There are three types of attentions: “Involuntary”, “voluntary” and “post
voluntary” attention (Dormashev, 2010).
-37-
According to Dormashev (2010), involuntary attention of the user can be attracted using cues & sins.
Once the user involuntary attention is attracted to specific category of information, the attention
should be sustained and the user must be kept focused. Cues can only attract the user’s involuntary
attention. To sustain the user attention the user should focus voluntarily. However keeping voluntary
attention is costly to the user (Dormashev, 2010). So before the user removes her attention, there
must be a mechanism to transform the voluntary attention to post voluntary attention. With post
voluntary attention the user can be kept focused without effort. The way actions are sequenced plays
a significant role in transforming the voluntary attention in to post voluntary attention.
Action
sequence can support post voluntary attention by facilitating anticipation and the overall interaction
experience.
Having post voluntary attention is enjoyable and endowed the user with unique
experiences of enjoyment (Dormashev, 2010). Action and content representation also includes the
extent to which messages (contents) in a sequence relate to each other (Pfeil, Zaphiris, & Wilson,
2010; Rafaeli & Sudweeks, 1997).
Every SCA has its own style of Content and Action representations. For instance, (based on our
observation), Facebook has three types of basic contents from the perspective of the user as
described in Figure 2.4. The first one is content produced by the user himself. The user produces her
own content in the form of “Status”, “Profile”, “wall comment” etc. The second type of content is
produced by the system. The system produces various types of contents in the form of “instruction”,
“suggestion”, “help”, etc. The third type of content is the one produced by other users (Friends, friends
of friends etc.). From the perspective of the user, the third type of content includes, “Status of others”,
“Profile of others”, “wall post of others” etc. As shown in Figure 2.4, by representing, manipulating
and combining the basic contents, the system generates various types of contents. Based on the
Information architecture and using the User Interface, users can access these contents. Users can
accesses these contents by interacting with the system through specific actions. The information
architecture together with the user interface represents actions possibilities that the user can do to
access and manipulates contents.
-38-
Basic Contents
A = Self generated Content
B = System Generated Content
C = Content generated by others
Generated or Combine contents
“AB” (2)
•Generated by the system based on the user profile
•Recommendations based on the user friend list
“ABC” (3)
•Recommendation based on the user friends’ activity on
which the user has commenting
•Notices about the user friends and others on which the user
has already showed an interest
•Notices about others who already show interest on the user
generated content (on “A”)
“BC” (4)
•Recommendation to the user based on her friend’s activity
•Notice to the user based on her friend’s and others
activities
Figure 2.4. Content Representation in Facebook
The relationship between Content and Structure has also been dealt with in theatrical performances
(Laural, 1993: 93). In theatrical performance Plot determines the action. A carefully crafted plot can
engage users. Laurel (1993) has showed the similarity between the logic of a dramatic plot and action
representation in human computer interactions. Laurel termed this mechanism as a “flying wedge”
(Laural 1993: 70). Below we will explain how action representation affects users’ experience using the
logic of “flaying wedge” and Facebook as example.
-39-
Figure 2.5. Clues and Categories in Facebook
On the screen shot taken from Facebook (Figure 2-5 Above) (1) indicate three information categories
on Facebook: “Friend Requests”, “Message” and “Notifications”. There are cues indicating the
presence of new information (numbers with red background). Focusing on one of the cues, the user
may anticipate various possibilities and try to guess what it is about. For example a cue indicating
new notification may urge the user to anticipate who is generating the new message and increase her
eagerness to check the source of the notification. She may ask herself questions like, “is the
notification is based on my previous comment?”, “Is it something about me?”. Once the user clicks on
the “Notification” category, she will see what it is about, for instance, it may say, “X has commented
on your photo”. This will also increase her eagerness to go further. At this stage it is not about
possibilities it is about probable; as the user already knows who is commenting, she start to ask a
narrower questions such as, “what did this particular individual is commenting on my photo”. Then by
clicking on the notification link the user will be taken to the actual information. Here the user gets the
actual information. This is what Laural (1993: 70) said as “from Possible to probable to necessity”.
-40-
The way these actions are represented will affect the user experience. The “Flaying wedge” is one
type of action representation among many other ways.
Such types of action representation follow the internal dynamics of experience outlined by Dewy.
Based on Dewy, McCarty and Wright (2006) noted that, “Cumulation, conservation, tension and
anticipation describe the internal dynamics of experience.” They indicate that, “Cumulation refers to
the building up that attends the temporal unfolding of an experience”. In our example the cumulation
is experienced by the continuity of the actions towards fulfillment or to the end. From Selection of
category, choosing a cue, clicking on the link and then finally reaching to the desired information.
“Conservation refers to the tendency to hold on some of what has gone before, be it energy or
meaning”. In our example, for instance the user may conserve meaning while moving from one action
to the next action . “What happened in the past carried in the present?”
“Tension refers to both the opposition of energies with in the experience and between people involved
in the experience”. For example for the user browsing her Facebook account the availability of many
cues may create a tension as to which one to see first. Or the tension can be emanating from either to
respond for a certain comment or not. Anticipation can occur before or after the experience started.
The user may anticipate what she will going to have while visiting her Facebook account. Similarly
while following a certain cue the user may anticipate what will come next.
The above discussion indicates that, Content and action Representation influences the user’s
experience in SCAs.
P1: Content and Action Representation in SCAs influences the Experiential qualities of User’s
interaction with that particular SCA.
2.4.2
User and Technological Context
The contexts within which interaction activities are taking place
affect users’ experiences
(Hassenzahl & Tractinsky, 2006; McArthur & Baron, 1983; Verhoef et al., 2009).
In Human
Information Interaction, context means many things. As indicated by Dorish (Dourish, 2001: 56)
Context can refer to various things: “the task that the system is being used to perform,” “The reason
for which the task are being carried out,” “The settings with in which the work is conducted” or “ other
factors that surround the user and the system”. Higgins et al (Higgins et al., 2010), also noted
-41-
contexts as determinants of peoples’ inclination towards an activity. They also indicate that, similar to
the properties of the activity itself, contextual factors can also affect individual’s interest in doing an
activity again and again. Deci & Ryan (1987) explained that such type of contexts can also be created
by setting external events that can initiate and regulate behavior.
In our model we have considered two types of contexts, “Technology Sprit” and “Social factors”, which
we presume as the most influential factors.
2.4.2.1
Technology Sprit
User’s perception of the property of technology can affect user’s experience. “Users bring to the
moment of interaction their previous feelings and values about the object of interaction” (Forlizzi &
Ford, 2000). This prior knowledge which determine the property of the technology as it is presented
to users is termed as “Technology Sprit” by Pool and Desanctis (Desanctis & Poole, 1994; Markus &
Silver, 2008). Prior knowledge is one of the key factors in users interaction with IT, because it
provides the basis for the user evaluation of incoming information (Rose, Hair, & Clark, 2011). As
indicated by Desancits & Pool (1994), “[Technology] Spirit is the general intent with regard to values
and goals underlying a given set of structural features”. They also noted that , “ the spirit is the
"official line" which the technology presents to people regarding how to act when using the system,
how to interpret its features, and how to fill in gaps in procedure which are not explicitly specified”.
Sprit helps users understand and interpret the meaning of the technology, and it is considered as the
property of the user and the system. As indicated by Desancits and Pool (1994) Technology Sprit is
more concerned with questions like, "What kinds of goals are being promoted by technology?" or
"What kinds of values are being supported?”. So by influencing the users’ perception, Technology
Sprit affects users’ online interaction experience.
P2. The “Technology Sprit” which the user has in relation to a specific SCA can affect the
user’s perception of Experiential qualities during the interaction with that particular SCA.
2.4.2.2
Social factors
Social factors are one of the major motivational determinants that may encounter users while using
SCAs. Social factors
includes “both human and non-human factors encountered in one’s social
-42-
environment , such as comments from another person (human) or instruction on a sign (non-human)”
(Vallerand & Ratelle, 2002). As noted by Deci and Ryan(1987) (Deci & Ryan, 1987), the psychological
meaning the user may give to the Social factor is a critical element in initiating and determining
behaviors. Individuals may interpret the social factors surrounding their activity as encouraging
(autonomy) or preventing towards a particular outcome (controlled).
The Social factors can be encountered in different level: Situational, Contextual and Global (Vallerand
& Ratelle, 2002). Situational factors are those factors that encounter the user in a given interaction
activity at a specific time. For example, the comment a user may receive from an interactive system
can be a situational factor that may have an impact on the interaction activity of the user. As noted by
Vallerand and Ratelle (2002), contextual factors refer to, “recurrent variables that are systematically
encountered in specific life context but not in others”. For example certain functionalities of online
application systematically create certain types of surrounding social factors which the user recognizes
as always there or as the property of the system. Global social factors are those factors whose
impact extends across several life domains. In online interaction such type of factor may include
general factors that may be true for all types of online interactions of the user.
P3: Social factors surrounding the user interaction with SCAs influences the user’s perception
of the Experiential qualities during interaction with that particular SCA.
In addition to influencing the users’ experience social factors also influence users’ perception of basic
psychological needs of the user (Competence, Autonomy and Relatedness). Through influencing
Competence, Autonomy and Relatedness the social factor impact the user motivation (Ryan & Deci,
2000; Vallerand & Ratelle, 2002). More specifically Vallerand and Ratelle (2002) noted that, “The
impact of social factors on motivation is mediated by perception of Competence, Autonomy and
Relatedness”.
P4: Social factors surrounding the user interaction with certain SCAs influences the
perception of basic psychological need fulfillment of the user in relation to the user’s
interaction with that particular SCA
Social contextual factors affect motivation by altering the motivational climates of the interaction
activities (Reinboth & Duda, 2006). In educational system for example, “a performance climate is
-43-
promoted by the teacher’s emphasis on interpersonal competition, public evaluation, and normative
feedback” (Ferrer-Caja & Weiss, 2000). In contrast , a mastery climate is promoted by the teacher’s
emphasizing
on “learning, self-improvement, and participation behavior, such as optimally
challenging tasks and effort” (Ferrer-Caja & Weiss, 2000). In a similar way SCAs can be a critical
agent of enhancing users’ motivation and promoting a particular interaction environment. The System
may create an interaction environment that focuses on interpersonal competition, or just focusing on
participation behavior. Social factors in User-IT interaction can be created by the system deliberately.
For example some SCAs encourage competitions among users by giving feedback and information
on what others are doing.
2.4.3
Need fulfillment, Experiential Qualities and Motivated
Behaviors
Self Determination Theory (SDT) states that human beings have innate tendency to participate in
interesting experiences and they are always striving for the fulfillment of basic psychological need by
involving in a variety of activities (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000). According to SDT, the
basic human needs are the needs for autonomy, control & relatedness. Individuals involving in a
certain activity, recognize the fulfillment of their basic psychological needs by interpreting the situation
surrounding their activity.
Similarly Individuals involving in online interactive experiences are also evaluating their satisfaction
based on the extent of the fulfillment of the basic psychological needs as a result of involving in the
online activities (Tamborini et al., 2010). While the user interacts with the system she may experience
the fulfillment of these basic psychological needs (Hassenzahl, Diefenbach, & Göritz, 2010; Hoffman
& Novak, 2012a; Malhotra, Galletta, & Kirsch, 2008).
If the user recognizes that the interaction activity satisfied her needs, the user will appropriate the
experience and attribute a value on the interaction activity (Hassenzahl, Diefenbach, & Göritz, 2010).
Attribution is a process of assigning an attribute to objects/ situations and result of an Interaction
process. “An attribute …relates an experience to a particular object and establishes it as the cause of
the experience” (Hassenzahl, Diefenbach, & Göritz, 2010). People engage in attributional activity in
their attempts to uncover the direct meaning and broader implications of a partner’s actions,
-44-
developing expectations regarding future behavior and seeking to explain prior behavior. (Weiner,
1985)
Once the user experiences the fulfillment of these needs through interacting with the system, she will
positively attribute the experience; and will be motivated to involve in the interaction activity in the
future. The source of the motivation could be intrinsic or extrinsic to the interaction activity. Intrinsic
motivation (IM) reflects engaging in a task for the pleasure and satisfaction inherent in the activity in
the absence of any external contingency, and is accompanied by a sense of interest, enjoyment,
choice (Deci & Ryan, 1990, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000). As explained by Deci & Ryan (2000), extrinsic
motivation (EM) refers behaviors in which activities are engaged in not for reasons inherent in them,
rather for instrumental reason to attain a goal that is separate from the actual behavior.
From the discussion above, it is possible to recognize that, specific interactive activities of users can
be IM or EM, to the extent that they promote basic psychological needs. For example, a user while
making online interaction using Facebook, she may perceive that her needs for relatedness is
satisfied as a result of the interaction activity and also considered her behavior as autonomous. A
person in such condition may designate her interactive activity as intrinsically motivating, because the
need fulfillment comes directly from the interaction activity. Similarly another user may use Facebook
for reasons other than the direct pleasure she may get from the activity itself; for instance the users
may get the pleasure by anticipating status and recognition from others by using Facebook. In pursuit
of recognition, even though the activity is pleasurable, the user may be under pressure and may have
a feeling of control from her activity. In such type of situation the individual may consider her activity
as extrinsically motivating.
In general basic psychological need fulfillment as a result of the interaction activity determines the
Motivational Behavior of the user.
P5: Users Perception of basic psychological need fulfillment as a result of their interaction
activity with a certain SCA determines the Motivational Behavior of the user towards that
particular SCA.
Partala and Kallinen (2012) (Partala & Kallinen, 2012) noted that psychological needs underlying
general life experience are also relevant in the case of user experience. Hassenzahl and Tractinsky
-45-
(2006) (Hassenzahl & Tractinsky, 2006) also suggested that psychological needs are important
components of user experience. More recently Hassenzahl et al., have confirmed that the fulfillment
of basic psychological needs promotes the users’ experiential satisfaction (Hassenzahl, Diefenbach,
& Göritz, 2010). That means the fulfillment of the basic needs as a result of interaction activities
influences the experiential qualities of the interaction activities.
P6: Users Perception of basic psychological need fulfillment as a result of their interaction
activity with a certain SCA determines the Experiential qualities of the user’s interaction with
that particular SCA
2.4.4 Attachment Formation
Ries et al. (Ries, Clark, & Holmes, 2004) , indicate that if an individual found her interaction with a
partner
as need fulfilling she will develop intimate close relationship with the partner. In human
interaction, the relationship with partners will grow to intimacy level if the partner perceive that her
partner were responsive to her need during the interaction process. Ries et al. (Ries, Clark, & Holmes,
2004) have also indicated, Perceived Partners Responsiveness to the self, (a process by which
individuals come to believe the relationship react supportively to central, core identity features of the
self) contributes to the development of intimacy in close relationship. Need fulfillment is the basis for
relationship formation; people form intimate relationship with others who can assist them towards
need fulfillment, while they evade relationship with individuals that hinder need fulfillment (La Guardia
& Patrick, 2008; Ries, Clark, & Holmes, 2004). After repeated interaction and feelings of need
fulfillment, relationship between the interactants will grow to intimacy level (Ries, Clark, & Holmes,
2004). That is the user makes judgments about the experience and place a value on it. As noted by
Ries et al. (2004), when this phenomena is repeated and after a certain period of time the partners
will develop an attachment relationship.
In relation to usage continuance, the analogy of perceived partner responsiveness and intimacy are
very important concept, because usage continuance is the result of intimate relationship between the
IT-artifact and the user. This intimate relationship can be established, if the user perceives that her
interaction with the IT-artifact is satisfying her needs. By the same analogy, if an individual finds an
online system as need fulfilling, she will be motivated to repeat the experience. After a repeated
interaction the user will develop an attachment relationship with the system. This attachment
-46-
relationship is the psychological fact behind that makes the user to use the system continually. In
general users are inclined to repeat motivating activities, and after repeated interaction they will start
to form close relationship.
P7: Users Motivational behavior towards a particular SCA determines the extent of close
relationship that may be created between the user and that particular SCA.
All interaction will not necessarily lead to close relationship. Only those interactions that have
benefited or make the user interested will be capable to establish close relationship between the
user and the system (Ries, Clark, & Holmes, 2004). That means the interaction should give good
experience to the user and need to be satisfying and interesting.
P8: The Experiential qualities the user experiencing while interacting with a particular SCA
determines the extent of Close Relationship that may be formed between the user and that
particular SCA.
The same will do for information system interaction. If the user found the system as need fulfilling she
will develop intimate relationship with the system. Obviously once an intimate relationship is
established partners will be longing their time of interactions. Similarly if users establish an intimate
relationship with certain applications they may be eager to use the system repeatedly.
P9: Close relationship that may be created between the user and a particular SCA influences
the user’s decision to use that particular SCA continuously.
Relationship is
comprised of a series of causally connected interactions, and includes mental
representations of past interactions (Kelley et al., 1983). Similarly, related to information system,
relationship indicates, the effect of
past repeated interaction with Information system(Al-Natour &
Benbasat, 2009). Therefore every interaction of the user with the system can affect her subsequent
interactions with the same system.
P10: The user decision and action to use a particular SCA can affect her subsequent
interaction with that particular SCA.
-47-
2.5 Discussion and Summery
Identifying the motivating factors for continual usage of SCAs contributes for theory based
development of new SCAs from scratch as well as evaluating and improving existing one (Gregor,
2007; Vassileva, 2012). This study identified factors contributing for the continual usage of SCAs. We
have developed conceptual framework for the study of factors contributing for the continual usage of
Social Computing Applications. The framework developed is based on Relationship and Experiential
perspectives of the Human Information Interaction. To develop the framework we draw on works from
IS and HCI as well as researches from Social Psychology & Philosophy of Technology.
Recently Al-Natour & Benbasat (2009) have developed a conceptual model for the study of user
interaction with IT artifact. Their model describes how relationship formed as a result of interaction
and how the interactions affect future usages of the IT artifact. However the focus of their model was
on organizational (task based) system. In this study our focus was on non-organizational systems
specifically SCAs, in which users participate voluntarily. Alnatur & Benbasat (2010) have also tried to
show a process model of user-IT artifact interactions and how these interactions determine the
relationship between the user and the IT artifact. They have proposed that, “the characteristics of the
task in which the artifact is employed, the characteristics of the user utilizing the artifact, and the
characteristics of the artifact itself” as determinants of interaction. They also indicate that, these three
factors will determine “appropriation” and “object based-beliefs.” Appropriation, which indicates users’
choices of the artifact’s features within a specific interaction, determines the artifact’s behaviors in an
interaction. Object-based beliefs refer to how the artifact’s characteristics shown through these
behaviors are perceived by users.
Even though, appropriation can explain which features of the technology are used, it cannot explain
what has happened as a result. In using SCAs what matters is not which features of the technology is
selected by the users, but it is what the users experiencing by employing the features, that makes a
difference and has an impact on subsequent interactions. Appropriation may be more appropriate to
organizational use of IT-artifacts where there is a specific expected work-outcome. However, in nonorganization areas where most of SCAs are implemented, there is no specific expected work outcome
and the user evaluates the system based on her experience. Therefore in our framework we use “The
User’s Experience” instead of “Appropriation” to explain the effect of user-Artifact interaction (and
-48-
hence the relationship formation process) in SCAs. That means in the framework developed in this
study the determinants of interactions are factors contributing to the “User‘s Experience”.
The central assumption of the conceptual framework developed in this study is that, Usage
Continuances depends on the intimate relationship that may be formed between the user and the
system. This intimate relation is the result of the dynamic interaction between the user and the system,
and the Experiential qualities experienced by the user during the interaction activities. The framework
also recognizes the fulfillments of basic psychological needs as the main motivational factor for the
formation of the intimate relationship between the user and the system.
The Experiential quality that the user experiencing during the interaction activity and the basic
psychological need fulfillments as a result of the interaction are the basis for establishing close
relationship between the users and SCAs. Experiential quality indicates the perception and judgment
processes taking place within the user during the interaction activities. Based on our analysis , the
experiential qualities that may be experienced by the user while using SCAs depends on the way
Content and Action are Represented with in the application, the ‘Technology Sprit’ the user has
towards that particular SCA, and the Social Factors surrounding the interaction activity.
Content and action is represented with in SCAs using information architecture and user interfaces.
The way the content and action represented should be engaging and be able to catch the user
attention. Users are more attracted to contents that have relevant to the self. To be attractive the
content should be presented in a way it can be easily understood by the user. In addition to the
contents, a carefully designed action sequence can help to engage the user. A carefully designed
action sequences facilitate the user experiences.
“Technology Spirit” in relation to SCAs is the general intent with regard to values and goals underlying
the structural features of a given SCA. Technological sprit gives the overall guideline to the user on
how to act when using the system. The technological sprit is also the basis for the user to interpret the
features of the application. So given two applications with similar features there interpretation may be
different based on the technological sprit presumed by the user. Users may develop “technological
sprits” about a given application from their own experience or from others through word of mouth. This
-49-
implies that the user knowledge and assumption about the technology will contribute to the user’s
experiential quality while using that particular technology.
Social factors are those human and nonhuman factors the user may encountered while using the
system. In SCA these factor may include, comments from other online friends, feedback from the
system on the performance of the user, or information about the user as compared to other users.
Such type of information may encourage cooperation, competition or a sense of achievements based
on the type of feedback. For example applications like Facebook encourage users to compete for
better status by increasing there number of friend. Facebook encourages such type of activities by
giving feedback and information on the number of friend.
-50-
Chapter 3. Social Network Sites’ Usage Continuance: a Passion
Perspective
3.1
Introduction
Social networking has become one of the mainstream cultures that have recently integrated into the
daily lives of many people (Ofcom, 2008) .).Social Networking Sites (SNS) are defined as “web-based
services that allow individuals to, construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system,
articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and view and traverse their list of
connections and those made by others within the system”
(Boyd & Ellison, 2007). SNS related
activities include updating friends on activities , situations and whereabouts; sharing photos , pictures,
information and archiving events; getting updates on friend’s activities, send private as well as public
messages, presenting once own persona information (Dwyer & Hiltz, 2007).
Even though the root motivation is communication and maintaining relationships, users use SNSs for
a number of purposes (Dwyer & Hiltz, 2007). Recently Papacharissi and Mendelson indicate that
people adopt SNSs for various reasons, including for expressive information sharing, habitual pass
time, relaxing entertainment, companionship, professional advancement, Escape, social interaction,
and new friendships (Papacharissi & Mendelson, 2011). Internet users spent substantial amount of
their online time on SNSs, and many business has integrate their websites to SNSs (Nielsen, 2011).
The proliferation and the significant impact of SNSs on our daily life necessitated the need to
understand the motivational factors behind individuals’ acceptance and continual use of the SNSs.
Acceptance of a particular information system (IS) by users is a vital initial step towards ensuring IS’s
success, however the final success depend on the continued usage of the system by the users
(Bhattacherjee, 2001a; Kim & Malhorta, 2005). Unless they attract and retain users , online
information systems cannot be sustainable (Keen, 2001). Similar to other ISs the ultimate success of
SNSs depends on continued usage rather than initial acceptance. In addition to the success of SNSs,
Usage continuance of SNSs is also fundamental to the survival of social technology-empowered
businesses and organizations (Hu & Kettinger, 2008). Therefore, obtaining a deeper understanding of
continued use of SNSs and the factor contributing to their continual use have a paramount importance.
-51-
SNSs are mainly categorized under hedonic ISs. Hedonic ISs are primarily used for the pleasures
they provide to the user (Heijden, 2004). For instance, SNS users may use and contribute content
without considering specific usage except the pleasure they may gain by doing the activity itself. In
such type of cases usefulness becomes irrelevant since the user does not need to achieve tasks with
information or functions from IT (Wang, 2010). According to Heijden (2004) the main characteristics
of hedonic information system includes: “self-fulfilling rather than instrumental, strongly connected to
leisure activities, focus on the fun-aspect of using information systems and encourage prolonged
rather than productive use.”
Previous studies of technology acceptance assumed that individuals adopt technologies to
accomplish tasks by utilizing certain functions or information from ISs. This idea was the undelaying
assumptions behind previous researches related to IT acceptances (Wang, 2010). However, that
assumption does not necessarily hold in the usage of online Social Networks (Wasko & Faraj, 2005).
Irrespective of previous internet applications and services the main reason for using SNSs is not
solely task based. Recently technology use by itself is recognized as a source of enjoyment; and just
accomplishing a given tasks may be a too narrowed view of what people perform with and gain from
technology (Hassenzahl, 2008). As noted by Hassenzahl (2008) “insight, pleasurable stimulation,
social exchange are the true underlying motives for technology use, [while] feelings and experiences
its true outcomes.”
Besides their hedonic nature SNSs are categorized under Social Computing Applications. Social
computing Application are defined as , “a set of open, web based and user friendly applications that
enables users to network, share data, collaborate and co-produce content” (Ala-mutka et al., 2009).
Social computing is a new trend in which users are active participants in producing and using content.
As indicated by Parameswaran and Whinston (2007), these new trends have required the research
themes in IS, “no longer follow a structured pattern as in the past, where the questions centered
around issues like productivity or return on investment or technology acceptance,” (Parameswaran
and Whinston ,2007) Therefore, studying usage continuance of SNS may also needs a study
approach different from the traditional one.
-52-
This study focuses on identifying the factors contributing the continued use of SNS. Next section
explains about information system usage continuance research and explains the objective of the
present study.
3.1.1
IS usage Continuance Studies and SNSs
Previous studies of IS usage continuance mostly used the Expectation Confirmation Model (ECM)
model developed by Bhattacherjee (Bhattacherjee & Barfar, 2011; Bhattacherjee, 2001a) .This model
focuses on user satisfaction as main causes for usage continuance. According to ECM , a satisfied
user will continue using a system, while the unsatisfied users will decrease/stop using the system or
sought another alternative. The ECM model focuses in general on the transactional accomplishments
of the system. That means, in ECM the main focus was on the transactional effectiveness of the
system such as efficiency of performance, ease of use etc.; and functional satisfaction was the main
construct to determine the continuity of usage.
However, recent researches indicate that, given a lot of choices satisfaction alone cannot keep a user
using a system (Benbasat & DeSanctis, 2001; Clements & Bush, 2011; Keen, 2001; Li, Browne, &
Wetherbe, 2006; Wang, 2010). These studies also confirmed that given the proliferation of many
choices, it is a close relationship that may be formed between the user and the system that can keep
users to use a particular system continually. Given the significance of close relationships between the
user and the system, recently there are various researches both in marketing and IS focusing on the
relationship aspect of usage continuance (Al-Natour & Benbasat, 2009; Albert, Merunka, &
Valetteflorence, 2008; Batra, Ahuvia, & Bagozzi, 2011; Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006; Patwardhan &
Balasubramanian, 2011).
Various usage continuance researches have been done by using ECM to identify factors contributing
to the continual usage of information systems. These researches cover various types of ISs including
online financial services (Bhattacherjee, 2001b, 2001c; Karahanna, Straub, & Chervany, 1999;
Vatanasombut et al., 2008), education and training, (Bhattacherjee & Premkumar, 2004; Chiu, Chiu, &
Chang, 2007; Chiu & Wang, 2008; Lankton, Wilson, & Mao, 2010; Limayem & Cheung, 2008b; Saeed
& Abdinnour-Helm, 2008) work environment (Ahuja & Thatcher, 2005; Kettinger, Park, & Smith,
2009) , Mobile internet and ISP services (Hong, Thong, & Tam, 2006; Spiller, Vlasic, & Yetton, 2007;
Wu & Kuo, 2008) ,and open source (Wu, Gerlach, & Young, 2007).
-53-
The assumption underlying most of these researches is that, if users are functionally satisfied with
the services of the information system they will use the system continually. The focus of these
researches was cognition based behavioral models such as Technology Acceptance Model and
Theory of Planned Behavior, which are more relevant to studies related initial acceptances rather than
continual usages (Bhattacherjee & Barfar, 2011; Kim, Chan, & Chan, 2007). These studies have also
been commented for their unnecessary focuses on intention to continue rather than the actual usage
behavior (Bhattacherjee & Barfar, 2011).
Recently there is also a number of usage continuance studies related to Social Computing
Applications. These studies encompass virtual worlds (Barnes, 2011; Jung, 2011), Social Networking
Sites (Chang & Zhu, 2012; Huang & Lin, 2011; Kim, 2011) blogs and web 2.0 (Chen, Yen, & Hwang,
2012; Lu & Lee, 2011; Shiau & Luo, 2012; Zhao & Lu, 2012). The findings of these recent studies are
summarized in the following table.
Barnes , Stuart J. (2011)
Study Area
virtual world of
Second Life
Kim,Byoungsoo (2011)
SNS/Cyworld
Huanga, Jyun-Wei ;
Chieh-Peng (2011)
Lin,
Jung, Yoonhyuk (2011)
Lu, Hsi-Peng
MingRen(2011)
Shiau,
(2011)
and
Wen-Lung
Lee,
et
al
Social
Networking
Sites
group-level social capital (e.g., environmental prompt cues or social cues) l. Grouplevel social capital includes group-level social interaction, group-level social trust
cues, and group-level social shared codes and language positively influences
arousal; and arousal subsequently induces users to engage in knowledge sharing
and social support behaviors, which, in turn, leads to continuance intention.
Virtual worlds
/Second life
The findings support the argument that the sense of presence and autonomy are
influential in users’ continued use of social virtual worlds.
amateur blogs
Outcome expectancy of financial capital, knowledge capital, and social capital,
perceived usability, social influence, self-disclosure, and information literacy as the
antecedents of continuous blog sharing.
Confirmation, perceived usefulness, flow, challenge, and arousal positively affected
bloggers’ satisfaction with using blogs; perceived usefulness, satisfaction, and flow
also positively influenced bloggers’ intentions to continue using blogs.
Perceived bridging and bonding social capital have different role in building users’
satisfaction and continuance intention: perceived bridging social capital has
remarkable influence on users’ satisfaction and continuance intention, but perceived
bonding social capital has none. Flow experience has influence on users’ satisfaction
but none on continuance intention. In addition, gender has impact on users’
continuance intention.
User satisfaction with Web 2.0 applications significantly affects electronic word-ofmouth, which in turn significantly influences their continuance intention. In addition,
subjective norm, image and critical mass all have a significant impact onto
satisfaction, which in turn has an indirect significant influence on electronic word-ofmouth. Finally, all social factors have a significant direct impact on continuance
intention.
Continuance intention of blog use was predicted collectively by user involvement,
satisfaction and perceived enjoyment. Habit, however, exhibited no strong
relationship with satisfaction and use intention. Users’ satisfaction with blog use was
predicted primarily by perceived enjoyment, followed by users’ confirmation of
Blogs
SNSs
Chang, Ya Ping; Zhu, Dong
Hong (2012)
Chena,
(2012)
Shih-Chih
et
al
Shiau, Wen-Lung & Luo,
Margaret Meiling (2012)
.
Conclusion
continuance intention for the virtual world was driven by perceived usefulness,
enjoyment, and both perspectives of automatic behavior, which together provide
considerable explanatory power for both habit and continuance intention
Continuance intention is influenced by Perceived usefulness, Perceived enjoyment
and Satisfaction
Web2.0
Blogs
-54-
Zhao, Ling;
(2012)
Lu,
Yaobin
Micro bloging
expectation and user involvement. Perceived enjoyment was predicted by users’
involvement and users’ confirmation of expectation. Blogging time significantly
moderates the effect of habit on perceived enjoyment, but not on satisfaction and
continuance intention
perceived interactivity (control, playfulness, connectedness, and responsiveness)
are significantly affected by perceived network size and perceived complementarity.
Among the four dimensions of perceived interactive ity, control, playfulness, and
connectedness are positively related to micro-blogging service users' satisfaction,
which further significantly impacts their continuance intention
Table 3.1. Literatures Related to Usage Continuance of SCAs
Most of the studies summarized above also focusing on continuance intention rather than the actual
usage behavior. Most of the studies also focus on functional satisfaction except few which includes
habit, Social capital, Sense of presence and autonomy as a source of continuance intention. None of
these studies explicitly consider the relationship aspects of continuance. The present study primary
focuses on usage continuance from the relationship perspectives, with the premises that relationship
between the applications and the users is the main factor to ensure usage continuity.
3.1.2 Usage Continuance from a Relationship Perspective
Relationship between users and online applications refers to the use of an online application in a
user’s normal activity or embedding the application within the user’s routine (Li, Browne, & Wetherbe,
2006). Users visit an online application because they know that they can perform or involve in
activities afforded or enabled by the application. Therefore, a relationship between a user and an
online application actually refers to the relationship between the user and the activity enabled by the
online application. Therefore in this easy we will use relationship between SNS application and SNS
activities interchangeably.
Researches in social psychology indicate that individuals are willing to spend time and energy with
others with whom they have a relationship (Kelley et al., 1983; Rusbult & Buunk, 1993). The amount
of time and energy (resource) a user invests and the magnitude of the user’s fondness and attaching
importance to an online activity indicate the extent of relationship between the user and the online
activity.
Relationship formation between two entities depends on the extent of interaction between the two
entities (Kelley et al., 1983). The quality of the
interaction
facilitate the formation of close
relationships between the entities (Kelley et al., 1983; Rusbult & Buunk, 1993; Rusbult & Van Lange,
2003).
-55-
A relationship between non-human entities (Example Computers, applications...) and humans is
established in the same manner with the establishment human to human relationships (Reeves &
Nass, 1996).The quality of interaction between humans and online applications depends on what the
user experiences during the interaction activity. If the user perceives that his experience with the
application as enhancing and pleasurable there will be the possibility of the formation of a close
relationship between the user and the system. Once a close relationship is formed between the user
and the system, the user will possibly continually use the system. This is also true for SNS users.
Once a user forms a close relationship with a particular SNS he will continually use the system. This
research verifies these phenomena.
One of the important factors for relationship formation is the opportunity for self-expansion that a
potential partner provides (Aron, Aron, & Norman, 2007; Mattingly, Mcintyre, & Lewandowski, 2012).
Individuals engage in self-expansion by seeking opportunities to acquire new identities, cultivate new
perspectives, enhance capabilities, and participate in novel experiences. Close relationships are the
primary means of satisfying the needs for self-expansion(Aron & Aron, 1997).
Certain activities can have the potential for enhancing individuals’ need for self-expansion (Aron, Aron,
& Norman, 2007). Participating in such type of activities expands the self by providing information
and experiences (Aron & Aron, 1997). Such self-expanding activities also have the potential to
integrate with the self and valued by the individuals (Seguin-Levesque et al., 2003). Individuals form
close relationship with such self-expanding activities by developing passion towards the activities.
These phenomena of establishing a passionate relationship is explained by the Dualistic Model of
Passion (DMP) (Vallerand et al., 2003)
DMP indicates passion as strong inclination towards a self-defining activity that one likes and finds
important. Research has also indicates that individuals can establish a passionate relationship with
online applications (Seguin-Levesque et al., 2003; Tosun & Lajunen, 2009). All passionate
relationships between individuals and activities may not be important and desirable. There are some
relationship types that can be considered as problematic or undesirable. The DMP accounts both
good and problematic relationships towards activities. This property of the DMP, in addition to
continual usage, can also help to explain pathological/problematic use of online applications.
-56-
Social networking activities have the potential for self-expansion. By involving in SNS activities
individuals can gain information and experiences. SNSs are ideal places for those seeking to acquire
new identities, cultivate new perspectives, improve capabilities and involve in novel and interesting
activities. Therefore people may form close relationship with SNS applications to experience selfexpansion. This close relationship can motivate continual usage of SNSs by individuals. In this study
a research model is developed based on the Dualistic Model of Passion (DMP) to explain usage
continuance of SNS applications from a relationship perspective.
The main objective of this part of the study is to identify relevant psychological factors that can help to
study continual usage of SNS based on DMP from a relationship perspective. The aim of the present
research is to answer the following questions:
1.
What are the psychological factors contributing to the development of relationship
between users and online social network applications?
2.
What are the characteristics of these relationships?
3.
How do these relationships influence intentions to use and continues use of SNSs by
individuals?
-57-
3.1.3 Initial Research Model
To address the objective of the study and to answer the research questions indicated above, a
research model was developed based on SCUCM, a model developed in the first part of this study
(Figure 2.3. ) and the Dualistic Model of Passion (DMP).
As indicated in Figure 2.3, SCUCM has three major components: Design and Contextual Factors
(DCF), Interaction Activities, and Close Relationship. The DCFs influence Interaction Activities and
what happened during the Interaction Activities influences the formation of Close Relationship. DCFs
include Content and Action Representation (CAR), Technology Sprit (TS), and Social Factors.
Interaction Activities includes Experiential Qualities, Need Fulfillment and Motivated Behaviors.
Closed Relationship indicates the formation of attachment relationship between the user and the
system. Once the user established a close relationship with the system she will decide to use the
system continually.
SCUCM indicates that Close relationship is a result of the Experiential Qualities (EQ) the user
experiencing during the interaction activities and the extent of the Motivated Behaviors. Experiential
Qualities includes users’ feelings such as Immersion, Focused attention and Enjoyment etc. Motivated
Behaviors indicates the extent and the type of motivation hold by users towards the activities.
Basically there are two major categories of motivated behaviors: Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic
motivations. The Motivated Behaviors together with the EQ in the interaction activities determines the
extent of Close Relationship that maybe formed between the user and the application system.
EQs are influenced by DCFs, which includes CAR, TS and SFs .CAR indicates how actions and
contents of the application system are organized, arranged and presented to the user. These include
User Interfaces, Information Architecture, Cues, and Sequences etc. The way content and action is
represented will affect the Experiential Qualities the user is experiencing during the interaction
activities. TS also influence EQs. TS includes users’ prior knowledge and attitude towards the
application system.
Both EQs and Need Fulfillment is influenced by the Social Factors surrounding the interaction
activities. A social factor includes Feedback from the system and users of the system. Based on the
-58-
Social Factors (For instance either they promote competition or collaboration), the user may
experience different type of Need Fulfillments. Based on the type of the Social Factor the user may
attribute the system as Autonomy Support or Controlling,
enhancing relationship, or promoting
capability. Need fulfillment in turn influences the type of Motivated Behaviors the user is exhibiting
towards the activity in general.
Based on DMP, we have considered Passion towards SNS activities as an incidence of Close
Relationship between Users and SNSs. We consider Passion because Passion explains the
attachment relationship between human and activities more than Love and Romance which are
common in marketing studies.
In this part of study our focus is mainly on identifying the immediate factors contributing for the
formation of close relationship between the user and the system, and describing the effect of the
close relationship on the continual usage of the system. Therefore in relation to SCUCM (the first part
of the study) the current study is focused on the shaded part of the process model described in Figure
3.1
Design and Contextual
factors
Interaction activities
Attachment
Experiential
qualities
Content and
action
representation
Close
Relationship
Technology
Sprit
Need
fulfillment
Motivated
Behavior
Social factors
Decision to
use
continuously
Figure 3.1. Part of SCUCM Considered in the Present Study
-59-
Therefore by using Passion as close relationship from DMP and Focused Attention, as one of the
Experiential Qualities, and Intrinsic Motivation and Introjected Regulations as a Motivated behavior
we come up with an initial model described in the Figure (Figure 3.2) below. The justification of
selection of the initial constructs and consideration of additional constructs explained in the
subsequent sections.
Focused
Attention
Intrinsic
Motivation
Passion for
SNSs
Interjected
Regulation
Figure 3.2. Initial Research Model
The next section discusses more on the theoretical back ground of the study.
-60-
Usage
Continuance
3.2 Theoretical Background
3.2.1 Passion for Activities
Need is required for an organism’s survival and wellbeing. Life requires that all living organisms act to
attain goals if they are to continue to exist. This is why needs are considered as the fundament
reasons why people act and are essential to the full understanding of motivation(Locke, 1991). People
have psychological as well as physical needs. Deci and Ryan (Deci & Ryan, 2000) proposed a selfdetermination theory (SDT) of needs. SDT assumes that people have innate needs for autonomy,
competence and relatedness. According to this theory people engage in various activities in the hope
of satisfying the basic psychological needs of autonomy (a desire to feel a sense of personal initiative),
competence (a desire to interact effectively with the environment), and relatedness (a desire to feel
connected to significant others).
Based on SDT , Vallerand et al. (Vallerand, 2008; Vallerand et al., 2003) indicate that throughout
their life People do activities for which they are neutral, interested or even uninterested. In due
course, after a certain period of trial and error, most people will develop inclination towards some
activities. According to Vallerand et al, people show preferences, especially for those activities that
are enjoyable and allow the satisfaction of the needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness.
Among these activities, “a limited few activities will be perceived as particularly enjoyable and
important, and to have some resonance with how we see ourselves.”
These activities become
passionate activities (Vallerand, 2008; Vallerand et al., 2003)
Passion for an activity is defined as, “ a strong inclination toward a self-defining activity that one likes
(or even loves), finds important (or highly value), and in which one invests time and energy”
(Vallerand, 2008; Vallerand et al., 2003). Vallerand et al (2003) noted that, “a passionate activity is
differentiated from non-passionate activity based on the value the person put on it.” Values are what
people want or consider beneficial to their welfare (Locke, 1991). According to Locke (1991), “values
are acquired and in consciousness and can be viewed as the link between needs and action.” Since
values motivate actions, “they must be healed, in any given context in hierarchical form so that people
must select among them while confronted with a specific situation.” The dimension of value is
especially important for the concept of passion because it separates passionate activities from other
interesting but unimportant activities toward which people are intrinsically motivated (Forest, 2011;
-61-
Mageau et al., 2009). People can value their activity for autonomous or controlled reasons (Vallerand
et al., 2003). The dualistic model of passion ,suggested by Vallerand & his colloquies (Vallerand et al.,
2003), is based on the self-expansion model (Aron, Aron, & Norman, 2007) . So to make the concept
clear, first we briefly explain the self-expansion model in the next paragraphs.
The self-expansion model indicates that, “ a central human motivation is self-expansion and that one
way people seek such expansion is through close relationships in which each includes the other in the
self,” (Aron, Aron, & Norman, 2007).
According to the self-expansion model both intrinsic and
extrinsic motives that has been described by Deci and Ryan (Deci & Ryan, 2000) can be directed,
ultimately, to self-expansion (Aron, Aron, & Norman, 2007). The Self expansion model has been used
in marketing to explain relationships between customers and brands
as
brand love and brand
attachment (Albert, Merunka, & Valetteflorence, 2008; Batra, Ahuvia, & Bagozzi, 2011; Belk, 1988;
Carroll & Ahuvia, 2006; Morgan-Thomas & Veloutsou, 2011; Patwardhan & Balasubramanian, 2011).
The process of self-expansion is affectively positive, and
rapid self-expansion produces strong
positive affect (Aron, Aron, & Norman, 2007). As noted by Aron & Aron (1997), “because this rapid
expansion is pleasurable, in addition to a desire to be expanded (to possess high levels of potential
efficacy), a key motivator is the desire to experience the process of expanding, to feel oneself
increasing rapidly in potential self-efficacy ,” (Aron, Norman, & Aron, 1998) .
Either an activity has a potential for self-expansion depends on certain qualities of the activity (Aron,
Norman, & Aron, 1998). According to Aron et al (1998), novelty is the key aspect that distinguishes an
activity as self-expanding. “Participating in a novel activity expands the self by providing new
information and experiences.”
However, arousal is also relevant (Aron, Norman, & Aron,
1998) .Novelty is arousing (Berlyne, 1970) so that through life experience, arousal is likely to be
associated with novelty, and hence with self-expansion. People are motivated to engage in such selfexpanding activities, i.e. activities that give novelty & arousal.
Representations of activities that people like and engage in on a regular basis will be included in the
person’s identity to the extent that they are highly valued (Aron, Aron, & Smollan, 1992;
Csikszentmihalyi, 2002), thereby leading to passions toward these activities (Vallerand et al., 2003).
-62-
3.2.2
Dualistic Model of Passion
According to the Dualistic Model of Passion (DMP), there are two types of passion: Harmonious
Passion (HP) & Obsessive Passion (OP) (Vallerand et al., 2003) . The type of passion towards a
certain activity depends on the way the person internalize the activity (Vallerand et al., 2003). In the
DMP, how an activity is internalized by an individual has explained by the Self-Determination theory.
Self-Determination Theory (Deci et al., 1994; Ryan & Deci, 2000) posits that “people are naturally
inclined to assimilate and integrate external behavioral regulations in order to experience selfdetermination. However, for the internalization process to function optimally, people need to be in
social environments that nurture innate needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness” (Deci et
al., 1994; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Vallerand et al(2003) have explained that HP results from an autonomous internalization of activities
into the person’s identity, which occurs when the individual accept the activity freely as important for
himself without any contingencies attached to it. Contrary to this OP is a result of controlled
internalization of the activity into one’s identity. A controlled internalization originates from intra and/or
interpersonal pressure typically because certain contingencies are attached to the activity (Vallerand,
2008; Vallerand et al., 2003).
Passion for activities have been studied in the context of various activities such as Job, gambling,
romance, sports, internet and online shopping use, and has been verified to result in both positive and
negative psychological and affective outcomes (Ho et al, 2011; Amiot et al., 2006; Wang & Young,
2006, Mageau et al., 2005; Rousseau et al., 2002; Seguin-Levesque et al., 2003). In this study we
identify the contribution of passion for SNSs activities, especially as a cause for the continual usage of
SNSs. The next section explains more about passion for SNSs.
3.2.3
Passion for SNSs
Online communication has been transforming our daily lives by enabling a wide range of social
connections, facilitating interpersonal contact, and fast and affordable access to various information
and services. Because of these myriad & useful features of online communication, we have been
devoting a substantial amount of our daily time.
We devote an enormous amount of time and
passionately involved on those online activities we found interesting and important (Tosun & Lajunen,
2009).
-63-
While studying about passion for the Internet, Seguin-Levesque et al (2003) has indicated that
“individuals who would choose to use the Internet because they enjoy learning new information or
because they want to expand their horizons would, most likely, develop a harmonious passion toward
the Internet.” A person who has a harmonious passion towards the Internet has no problem to
integrate his internet related activities with other relevant activities in his life. However, a person with
an obsessive passion towards the internet would be challenged to make his use of the internet in
harmony with his other life activities. “Individuals with an obsessive passion toward the Internet would
be motivated to use the Internet because of internal pressures and incentives. The development of an
obsessive passion for the Internet would make the activity hard to regulate and difficult to incorporate
with other life activities” (Seguin-Levesque et al., 2003). Actually it is not mainly access to the internet
that is valued by the internet users, it is the activities on the internet like chatting & surfing that are
most important and rewarding the user (Davis, Flett, & Besser, 2002; Meerkerk et al., 2009; Tosun &
Lajunen, 2009)
Various researchers have conducted a research to identify the motivations for using social media
(Lampe, Ellison, & Steinfield, 2008; Papacharissi & Mendelson, 2011; Smock et al., 2011) . It has
been found that people are primarily motivated to use social media to satisfy felt needs.
“Communication behavior, including media selection and use, is goal‐directed, purposive, and
motivated and people take the initiative in selecting and using communication vehicles to satisfy felt
needs or desires” (Papacharissi & Mendelson, 2011). Papacharissi and Mendelson (2011) identified
nine distinct scales of motives for using Facebook: habitual pass time, relaxing entertainment,
expressive information sharing, escapism, cool and new trend, companionship, professional
advancement, social interaction and meeting new people.
According to The Nielsen Company (2011), global consumers spent more and more time hours on
social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. For example, In the U.S., social networks and blogs
reach nearly 80 percent of active U.S. Internet users, and represent the majority of Americans’ time
online. In addition, the overall traffic to social networking sites has grown over the last three
years(Nielsen, 2011).Not only people spent a huge amount of time using SNS, SNS has become part
of the daily activities of many individuals (Ofcom, 2008). There is also evidences that the time spent
-64-
for SNSs interfere with other important tasks that individuals supposed to do instead of spending their
time on the SNS (Kuss & Griffiths, 2011).
From the definition of Passion, it is possible to see that using SNSs has become a passion for a
number of individuals. The passion for SNS can have the qualities of both harmonious and obsessive
passion. Depending on the type of passion, users may engage in SNS activities willfully to enjoy the
SNS activity or in uncontrolled way by developing addiction tendencies towards the activity. For
instance, individuals who like and value their Facebook activities may invest time and energy on their
Facebook activities (For example spending too much time online, searching for information about
friends
without
any specific
purpose,
associating
their
daily life
with
their
face
book
experiences).Social networking sites are very much related to identity. As explained by Boyd and
Ellison (2007) Social networking sites are egocentric sites, i.e. the individual is the focus of attention
(Boyd & Ellison, 2007). This egocentric construction of SNSs may facilitate the engagement and
attracts people to use it in a potentially excessive way (Kuss & Griffiths, 2011; Sussman et al., 2011).
3.2.4
Basic Need fulfillment and SNSs
Self Determination Theory (SDT) states that human binges are striving for the fulfillment of basic
psychological need by involving in a variety of activities (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Deci & Ryan (2000) have indicated the innate tendency of human binges to participate in interesting
experiences and noted that:
..It is part of the adaptive design of the human organism to engage interesting activities, to
exercise capacities, to pursue connectedness in social groups, and to integrate intra-psychic
and interpersonal experiences into a relative unity…. these natural organismic activities and
the integrative propensities that coordinate them require fundamental nutriments—namely,
ambient supports for experiencing competence, relatedness, and autonomy.
According to SDT, the basic human needs are the needs to autonomy, control & relatedness. After
involving in a certain activity individuals may evaluate their involvement in the activity as to the
fulfillment of the need for autonomy, competence and relatedness. Then based on the evaluation they
may attribute a motivational type to the activity.
-65-
Recently, Hoffman & Novak (2012) indicate that the fundamental psychological needs of relatedness,
competence and autonomy play a central role in understanding the impact that social media
technology has on people. They indicate that social media use drive the experience of feeling related.
They also noted that social media may lead to a sense of competence when a consumer feels
effective in the activities she engages in; and also can heighten feelings of autonomy when users feel
that their activities are of their own. As noted by Deci and Ryan (2000), one of the characteristics of
the motivational types depends on their regulatory style; this regulatory style refers to the degree of
individual freedom and thought to participation in the activity, i.e. to the extent that the individual think
that the behavior is based on his own freewill or controlled by an external factor. Based on the type of
regulatory style motivation level activities varies on a continuum of regulatory style starting from
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to amotivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Intrinsic motivation lies at one extreme of the continuum. Next to Intrinsic motivation three types of
extrinsic motivation lies on the continuum, these are, External regulation, introjected, Integrated
continually towards the most autonomous (Deci & Ryan, 1990, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000). The least
autonomous form of extrinsic motivation is external regulation. External regulation reflects reasons for
behaving based on external contingencies alone, such as the avoidance of punishment or receipt of
rewards.
Introjected regulation represents motivation based on internal reinforcements, such as the pursuit of
contingent self-esteem (pride) or avoidance of guilt and shame. Because introjected regulated
reasons for behavioral engagement arise from within the individual, they are considered partially
internalized, less external, and more autonomous than externally regulated reasons (Deci & Ryan,
1990, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000) . Introjected types of
motivations are particularly related to
involvements in SCAs (Hoffman & Novak, 2012a). Many people involve in SCA for partially
internalized reasons such as Pride, status, self-esteem etc.
Identified regulation is defined as reasons for acting based on one’s own values or goals, even though
they may be reinforced by forces that are, strictly speaking, external to the individual. Identified
regulated reasons for acting reflect a more complete form of internalization because they are
endorsed by the self and are therefore more likely to lead to behavioral persistence (Deci & Ryan,
-66-
1990, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Identified regulations are also relevant for SCAs, and many people
involve in SCAs willfully by accepting the behavior as appropriate.
Hoffman & Novak (2012) indicate that users may involve in SNSs for both Intrinsic and Extrinsic
reasons. Users involve in SNS activities for extrinsic reasons where the behavior supports some
instrumental, separable outcome, and they said that, “introjected motivation is appropriate extrinsic
motivations to contrast with intrinsic motivation when examining social media behavior.”
They also
describe that “People who use social media for introjected reasons are strongly motivated by
concerns for self-approval and a desire to appear worthy to themselves”.
As explained above, an obsessive passion is a passion for an activity as a result of a controlled
internalization, while a harmonious passion is passion as a result of an autonomous internalization.
Therefore being an external or controlled internalization introjected motivation can be the cause for an
obsessive passion for SNS activities, while an Intrinsic Motivation is related to a harmonious passion
towards SNS activities.
Introjected motivations are associated with doing an activity for external contingencies reasons. There
are various contingencies associated with the use of SNSs. By engaging in SNS related activities the
user may aspire to get self-esteem, feelings of worth, self-enhancement etc. These external
contingencies could be a source of internal pressure that compels engagement in such activities.
In this study we argue that as any other activities people can develop passion for SNS related
activities; and this passion can be either harmonious or obsessive one. An obsessive passion for SNS
related activities results from a non-autonomous (controlled) internalization. Harmonious passion for
SNS related activities results from an autonomous internalization of the activity by the users.
Irrespective of the type of passion towards the SNS activity, the passionate individual will engage in
the SNS related activities continually.
Therefore we propose that external contingencies i.e.
introjected regulations are related to obsessive passions towards SNS activities, while intrinsic
motivation to SNS activities are related to harmonious passions towards SNS activities. To develop
either of the passions the individual should be engaged and interested in the SNS activities. Once the
user develops a passion towards SNS activities he will continually involve in the SNS related activities.
-67-
The next section presents the hypotheses and the research model of the study.
3.3 Research Model and Hypothesis
As indicated above, similar to any other activities, people can develop Passion for SNS activities. If
the person internalizes the SNS activity intrinsically he will develop harmonious passion. Such type of
person involve in the SNS activity primarily for the pleasure that may be derived from the SNS activity
itself. If the person internalizes the SNS activity in controlled way he will develop Obsessive passion.
Such type of individual involve in SNS activity for the contingencies attached with involving in SNS.
Such type of person cannot control his urge to use the SNS. As explained by Hofman and Novac
(2012), Introjected types of extrinsic motivations are common in SNSs. Hence,
H1: Intrinsic Motivation for SNS activity is positively related with HP for SNS.
H2: Intrinsic Motivation for SNS activity is not positively related with OP for SNS.
H3: Introjected regulation towards SNS activity is positively associated with OP for SNS.
H4: Introjected regulation towards SNS activity is not positively associated with HP for SNS.
According to the self-expansion theory, the presence of focused attention and feeling of enjoyment
give positive stimulation for a person involved in activities, and are necessary for internalizing an
activity. These feelings help to develop passion. Both OP and HP can be developed as a result of the
presence of positive stimulation (resulting from arousal and novelty); and involving in SNS activities is
one source of positive stimulations. Feeling of focused attention facilitate the development of passion
(either OP or HP).To clarify our hypothesis we will explain perceived focused attention some more in
the following paragraph.
Csikszentmihalye (2002) , defined focused attention as, ‘‘centering of attention on a limited stimulus
field’’ (Csikszentmihalyi, 2002). Yuri Dormashev (2010) described
“ directedness and concentration of our mental activity, ”, where
focused attention as
“Directedness” is
selection of an activity and maintenance of that selection once made, while
defined as
“Concentration” is
understood as immersion into the chosen activity and removal, or distraction, from any other activity .
One of the general trait of focused attention is that people want to repeat such an experience once
they have had it (Dormashev, 2010). Hoffman and Novak (Novak & Hoffman, 1996) confirmed
-68-
that Vividness, interactivity, and involvement determine the level of focused attention. Vividness is
related to the representational richness of the Internet environment, such as concurrency (Steuer,
1992), novelty
(Huang, 2003),
attractive ness (Heijden, 2003) and friendliness(Burgoon et al.,
2000).Interactivity is related to the performance characteristics of Internet usage, such as speed and
ease of use (Steuer, 1992). Involvement is defined as the individual’s perception of the relevance of
extrinsic events/objects based on inherent needs, values, and interests (Zaichkowsky, 1985).
In general Focused attention is the result of the user’s interaction experience. As explained above an
activity become engaging if it can capture the attention of the user. Users’ attention is focused to
those activities which they found relevant to the inherent need of the user. Users’ evaluation of
interactive activities will determine either an activity is engaging or not. People develop passion (OP
or HP) towards a certain activity in the first place if the activity is engaging. The activity should not
necessarily be intrinsically motivating to be engaging. Hence,
H5: Feelings of focused attention during SNS activities positively related with HP for SNS
Activities.
H6: Feelings of focused attention during SNS activities positively related with OP for SNS
Activities.
Having HP or OP towards an activity by an individual indicates the presence of close relationship
between the individuals and the activity. However the feeling towards the activity depends on the type
of passion. Harmonious passion is positively associated with positive emotions during activity
engagement, and the absence of negative affect following task engagement, and the absence of
negative emotions when prevented from engaging in the passionate activity (Mageau et al., 2005).
As noted by Mageau et al (2005) , on the other hand, when controlling for harmonious passion,
obsessive passion is positively associated with negative emotions and unrelated to positive emotions
both during and following activity engagement. Obsessive passion is also strongly related to negative
affect when one is prevented from engaging in the activity. Therefore it is apparent to see that
Harmonious passion is related with the feeling of success, while Obsessive passion do not related
with the feeling of success.
-69-
Relationship satisfaction indicates a person’s feeling or behavior with in a relationship (Hendrick,
1988). A person in a relationship measures his/her relationship satisfaction based on the outcomes of
his/her interaction outcome.
“Interaction yields outcome for individuals in the form of rewards and
costs such as pleasure, gratification, distress, pain and embarrassment” (Rusbult & Buunk, 1993). As
noted by Rusbult and Buunk (1993) feelings about relationship are shaped in part by the reward of a
relationship; and this reward of a relationship depends on the ‘pleasure’ and gratification gained by
the person as a consequence of involvement in the interaction. As we argued above passion is a type
of relationship. A person with OP towards SNS activities possibly feel guilty and embarrassment for
his uncontrolled involvement in SNS activities. However, a person with HP for SNS activities can
enjoy and gain pleasure from his involvement in the SNS activities. Therefore, even though both types
of passions can be a cause for the continual involvement of individuals in the SNS activities, the
rewards the individuals may gate from their involvement is different. Such type of feelings affects the
satisfaction as the result of the relationship. And hence,
H7:. HP towards SNS by an individual is positively related to the person’s Relation satisfaction
towards the SNS activity.
H8:
OP towards SNS by an individual is not positively related to the person’s Relation
satisfaction towards the SNS activity.
Studies have found a tendency of addiction towards technology in general and computers in particular
(Kuss & Griffiths, 2011). A pioneer study by Young in 1996 (Young, 2009, 1996) explained about the
notion of Internet addiction for the first time. Even though the discussion of internet addiction was
controversial, recent studies have revealed the problem with more concrete evidences. A study by
Morahan-Martin (Morahan-martin, 2010) on problematic internet use summarized various literatures
and indicates the presence of addiction related to internet use. However, some studies indicate that it
is not access to the Internet that creates a tendency to addiction, it is the rewarding activities like
chatting and gaming online that may make the Internet rewarding and addictive (Davis, Flett, &
Besser, 2002; Meerkerk et al., 2009; Young, 2009). Kuss and Griffith (2011) also indicate that , rather
than becoming addicted to the medium per se, some users may develop an addiction to specific
activities they carry out online (Kuss & Griffiths, 2011). There are also many evidences that indicate
-70-
the presence of addiction tendency related to SNS activities (Kuss & Griffiths, 2011; Lee, Cheung, &
Thadani, 2012). One of the effects of this addiction tendency is that the user feels an urge to be
online and to use the system for longer and longer time and continual use of the system. Studies also
found that OP is positively related to addiction but not HP (Back, Lee, & Stinchfield, 2011; Ratelle et
al., 2004; Tosun & Lajunen, 2009; Wang, Chu, & Health, 2007; Wang et al., 2008). Hence;
H9: HP for SNS is not positively associated with SNS addiction tendency.
H10: OP for SNS is positively related with addiction tendency.
With harmonious passion, the person is in control of the activity. As such, the person can decide
when to and when not to engage in the activity and should even be able to drop out of the activity if
the latter has become permanently negative for the person. Such is not the case with obsessive
passion because the activity has taken control of the person(Vallerand, 2008; Vallerand et al., 2003).
Such rigid persistence can lead the person to persist in the passionate activity even though some
permanent negative consequences are experienced (Mageau et al., 2005; Philippe, Vallerand, &
Lavigne, 2009; Rousseau et al., 2002). HP is related with positive affects. These positive affects
facilitates approach behavior or continued actions (Fredrickson, 1998).
As discussed above, both OP and HP for SNS activities direct the user to involve in the SNS activity.
Hence,
H11: HP for SNS positively associated with SNS Usage Continuance.
H12: OP for SNS is positively associated with SNS Usage Continuance.
As argued above a person with OP for SNS possibly has negative relationship satisfaction, while a
person with HP enjoys positive relationship satisfaction, and both types of passions can also be the
causes for the continual involvements in the SNS activities. It is also clear that individuals with positive
relationship are happy to continue their relationship; however users with problematic relationships
may be indifferent to continue with their relationship. Therefore, it is possible to propose that,
H13: HP for SNS is positively associated with Continual Intention (negatively associated with
discontinual intention).
-71-
H14: OP for SNS is negatively associated with Continual Intention (positively associated
with discontinual intention).
H14A: Addiction Tendency is negatively related with Continual Intention.
H15: Relationship Satisfaction is positively related with Continual Intention.
Relationship is formed over time and behaviors within relationship are determined more of habitually
than consciously driven. Therefore the extent of influence of intention on usage behavior varies
depending on one’s relation (Limayem, Hirt, & Chin, 2001; Ouellette & Wood, 1998). Despite various
studies indicating the impact of intention on behavior, Limayem (et al), have indicated that with the
presence of affective relations, which presupposes habit, intention have no impact on behavior
(Limayem, Hirt, & Cheung, 2007; Limayem, Hirt, & Chin, 2001).
H16: When considering relationship related constructs, Continuance intention have no impact
on Usage Continuance.
The overall research model is depicted in the figure 3.3 below
H11+
Harmonious
Intrinsic
motivation
H1+
Usage
Continuance
H7+
Passion
Relationship
Satisfaction
H 2-
H13+
H9-
H5+
H15+
H16
Focused
Attention
H6+
H8+
H12+
Addiction
Tendency
H4-
H14A-
H10+
Introjected
Regulation
H3+
Passion
H14-
Figure 3.4. Research Model
Continuance
Intention
Obsessive
-72-
3.4 Research Design and methodology
3.4.1 Study population and Sample Data
In this study, the Social Network System
usage continuance was studied by using Facebook as a
study context. Facebook is taken as a case because it is one of the most utilized SNS(Nielsen, 2011;
Wilson, Gosling, & Graham, 2012).
This study used a survey questioner to collect the necessary data. The measurements and the
questions were adopted from existing studies based on literature review. Some modifications were
made to the measurement items to adapt the items to the context of the study. Before collecting the
final data, a pilot study was done to validate the measurements and some items were revised and
refined after the pilot study.
3.4.2 Sampling Procedure
Since the target population of the survey is individual users of Facebook the final data was collected
online from Facebook user. The questioner is prepared in English and available online for one month.
A total of 184 responses were collected and analyzed.
Using online systems for data collection has its own advantage and disadvantage (Brickman Bhutta,
2012; Denissen, Neumann, & van Zalk, 2010). Its advantage includes access to individuals which
cannot be easily accessed by traditional means and the connivance to data collection. Its major
disadvantage is the uncertainty over the validity of data and sampling issues. One of the concerns is
related to the nature of the representativeness of online samples to the general population(Brickman
Bhutta, 2012; Denissen, Neumann, & van Zalk, 2010; Selm & Jankowski, 2006) . In this study an
attempts has made to take the advantage of online sampling while trying to minimize the associated
problems.
The sampling method used in this study was a random sampling specifically a Snowball method,
which is found as an appropriate method while using SNSs for survey (Brickman Bhutta, 2012). The
sampling procedure employed is a sort of unrestricted sampling, i.e. sampling generated by
communicating the availability of a questioner to potential respondents and allowing any one to visit
and complete the online questioner.
-73-
SNS or internet sampling is characterized for its limiting, especially for under representing those who
lack the requisite computer skill and access to the technology (Brickman Bhutta, 2012). Such problem
is highly prevalent when using SNS sampling for studying issues (For example political attitude etc.)
other than the SNS or the internet itself. When the research problem itself is focusing on the Internet
or SNSs, the above stated problem become negligible (Brickman Bhutta, 2012; Selm & Jankowski,
2006). In this regard the present study is highly immune from such problem because it is focusing on
usage of SNSs. The research population of the study is Facebook users, therefore the respondents
constituted a random sample of the relevant population (Facebook users). So we can say that our
sample is collected from the relevant environment where we can recruit respondents from the
intended population.
Facebook is more appropriate for Snowball sampling (Baltar & Brunet, 2012; Brickman Bhutta, 2012).
When a message is post on a certain users wall (Facebook page), the information is visible to the
walls of friends of that user. In addition to this, other users who are not friend to that particular user
can also access the information through other means. Facebook groups can also be used for
Snowball sampling (Baltar & Brunet, 2012; Brickman Bhutta, 2012). Users can join or create various
types of online groups on Facebook. Researchers can collect snowball samples by announcing on the
walls of various Facebook groups.
The online questioner for the present study were designed and hosted on Google Drive .Various
undertakings were made to contact potential respondents. Specifically the following procedure were
used to contact potential respondents:
1. Announce to Facebook Friends (558 friends) using personal account of the researcher. The
announcement includes a request to fill the questioner and a request to Friends to post the
announcement on their respective walls to their Friends (i.e. to access friends of friends)
2. Post the announcement on various Facebook groups and Pages.
The online questioner was configured to receive only completed responses. If a user tries to send
partial responses the system will inform the respondent to complete the remaining question(s),
otherwise the system will not accept the result (this may contribute to less number of responses). The
link to the questioner was active for 30 days.
-74-
In the instruction to respondents we have indicated that only people with Facebook account can
respond the questions. And all the questions except demography related questions were related to
Facebook usage.
As any web survey it is difficult to calculate the response rate, as there is no easy way to know how
many individuals might have seen the survey and declined to participate. In general we have collected
184 responses and all the responses were valid and from Facebook users. Some of the demographic
characteristics of the respondents are indicated in Table 3.2.
Item
Gender
Age
Occupation
Educational Level
Measurement
Male
Female
No. of Respondents
Percentage
144
40
45
97
35
7
1
67
115
110
74
1
67
115
76%
24%
24%
52%
19%
4%
1%
36%
62%
59%
40%
1%
36%
62%
18-25
26-35
36-45
Above 45
High School
Diploma/Degree
Postgraduate
Student
Non student
High School
Diploma/Degree
Postgraduate
Table 3.2 The Demographic Characteristics of Survey Respondents
3.4.3
Survey Instrument and Measurements
The measurements and the questions were adopted from existing studies. “Intrinsic Motivation”
and “Introjected Regulation”: “Intrinsic motivation” and “Introjected Regulation” was measured
2
using the Self-Regulation Scale . The Self-Regulation Questionnaires (SRQ) assesses domainspecific individual differences in the types of motivation or regulation. Since there are no direct
questions designed to measure SNS related activities in the SRQ, we adopt the questions designed
for exercise self-Regulation, which concerns the regulation of exercising regularly. We adopt these
categories of questions because we found some similarity in terms of regularity of exercises and
involving in SNS activities. For example the question “I work out regularly, because working out is
2
http://www.selfdeterminationtheory.org/questionnaires
-75-
important and beneficial for my health and lifestyle.”, adopted in our questionnaire as “ I involve in
Facebook activities regularly, because Facebook activities are important and beneficial for my Social
life”.
To measure Intrinsic Motivation respondents were asked to rate their reason for participating in
Facebook activities. The reasons for participating includes, “because simply enjoy using Facebook”,
“Because using Facebook is fun and interesting”, “For the pleasure of discovering and mastering new
information”. Those respondents who indicates these choices as there reasons for participating in
Facebook activities and rate them highly were considered as intrinsically motivated towards the
Facebook activities. Intojected regulation is a type of extrinsic motivation. In Extrinsic motivation
people’s behavior is controlled by specific external contingencies. People behave to get tangible
rewards or to evade a threatened punishment. With introjected regulation the contingent
consequences are administered by the individuals to themselves instead of external sources (Deci &
Ryan, 2000) .The typical examples of introjected regulations which are also relevant to SNS activities
includes contingent self-worth (pride) or threats of guilt and shame(Hoffman & Novak, 2012a).
To measure introjected regulation respondents were also asked to rate introjected regulation related
reasons of participations. IR related reasons includes , “Because I would feel bad about myself if I
didn’t
use Facebook”, “Because I’d be afraid of separated from my friends and miss important
information if I do not use Facebook” and “Because I feel pressured to use Facebook”. Respondents
that indicate these reasons by giving high rates are considered as Introjectedly regulated.
Focused Attention: Focused attention is an intense absorption in an activity. Focused attention in
applications/websites is believed to be dependent on the design qualities of the application or
websites (Jennings, 2000). In this study “Focused attention” was measured by adopting a scale
developed by Lin, Gregor and Ewing(Lin, Gregor, & Ewing, 2008). This scale measures how much the
user’s attention is focused while involving in an interactive activity. Respondents were asked to
indicate either they feel a sense of focused attention while they are using Facebook.
Harmonious passion and Obsessive passion: Harmonious Passion (HP) and Obsessive Passion
3
(OB) was measured using the passion scale developed by Valleraned (2003) and his colloquies .
3
http://www.er.uqam.ca/nobel/r26710/LRCS/echelles_en.htm
-76-
This scale assesses the two types of passions for general activities. We adopt the question to make
them in conformity with our need. For example the question which says “This activity is in harmony
with the other activities in my life” is changed in to “Facebook related activities are in harmony with the
other activities in my life”.
Addiction Tendency: The Measure for addiction tendency was adopted from various literatures ,
specifically Lemmens et al (2009), Davis et al (2002) and Morahan (2010) (Davis, Flett, & Besser,
2002; Lee, Cheung, & Thadani, 2012; Lemmens, Valkenburg, & Peter, 2009; Morahan-martin, 2010).
Among other things, the respondents were asked whether they feel addicted to Facebook and how
often they face a problem to control the amount of time they are spending on Facebook.
Relationship Satisfaction: To measure
“Relationship Satisfaction” we have adopted
the
Relationship Assessment Scale (RAS) developed by Hendrick(1988) (Hendrick, 1988). Even though
the scale is developed for assessing, relationship satisfaction in marriage, RAS is a generic
relationship satisfaction measure with potential for much wider application(Hendrick, 1988). Most
importantly as indicated by Reeves Naas (1998), human makes relationship with artifacts in the same
way they make relationship with other humane, therefore it is fair to use the measurements and
concepts of human to human relationship to human to system relationship (Al-Natour & Benbasat,
2009; Nass & Moon, 2000; Reeves & Nass, 1996). To measure relationship satisfaction respondents
were asked to indicate their feelings towards Facebook as compared to other systems (e.g. Email)
they are using and how much they are satisfied with their involvement in Facebook related activities.
Continuance Intention: “Continuance Intention” was measured by questions adopted from a study
by Bhattacherjee (Bhattacherjee, 2001a). Here, users are asked either they want to continue using
Facebook in the future even if there are other options.
Usage: “Usage” was measured both by amount of time the user spent on Facebook activities
(Ellison, Steinfield, & Lampe, 2007; Kim, Kim, & Nam, 2010; Sheldon, Abad, & Hinsch, 2011) and how
often a user perform certain activities using specific Facebook features (Smock et al., 2011). The
amount of usage time was measured by using items indicating how often in general the respondent is
using Facebook and how long on average the respondent is using once logged in. The indicators
-77-
related to performance of certain activities includes, how often the user “Updates Status”,
read
friends “Profile” and “Wall”, write comments etc.
The original questioner used in the study is indicated in Annex I, and the constructs and
measurements items used in the analysis are described in the table below.
-78-
Construct
Code Item code
Intrinsic Motivation IM
Introjected
Regulation
IR
Focused Attention FA
Harmonious
Passion
HP
Obsessive Passion OP
Addiction
Relationship
Satisfaction
Continuance
Intention
Continual Usage
AT
RS
CI
UC
Item
IM1
I use Facebook, because I simply enjoy using Facebook.
IM2
I use Facebook ,because using Facebook is fun and interesting
IM3
I use Facebook, for the pleasure of discovering and mastering new information
IR1
I use Facebook, because I would feel bad about myself if I didn’t use Facebook
IR2
IR3
I use Facebook, because I’d be afraid of separated from my friends and miss
important information if I do not use Facebook
I use Facebook, because I feel pressured to use Facebook
FA1
While using Facebook , I usually engaged deeply
FA2
While using Facebook, my attention is usually focused
FA3
While using Facebook , I am unable to concentrate
HP1
Facebook allows me to live memorable experiences.
HP2
Using Facebook is in harmony with the other activities in my life.
HP3
HP4
The new things that I am discovering with Facebook allow me to appreciate it even
more.
I am proud to tell people I’m on Facebook
HP5
Facebook allows me to live a variety of experiences
OB1
I couldn't live without Facebook
OB2
I am emotionally dependent on using Facebook.
OB3
I have a tough time controlling my need to use Facebook
OB4
I have almost an obsessive feeling for using Facebook.
OB5
AD1
The urge is too strong, I cannot help myself from opening my Facebook
account
I feel guilty about the amount of time I spend on Facebook
AD2
I have tried to stop using Facebook for long periods of time
AD3
I have gone on Facebook for longer time than I had intended
AD4
I felt addicted to Facebook
SA1
How well Facebook meet your expectations
SA2
In general, how satisfied are you with you involvement in Facebook activities
SA3
CI1
How good is your feeling to Facebook as compared to your relation with other
systems, For example as compared to your e-mail system
I want to continue using Facebook
CI2
My intentions are to continue using Facebook rather than any alternative means.
CI3
If I could, I would like to discontinue using Facebook
USstatus
I often change my Facebook status
USredpro
I often read other people's (friends) profiles & wall posts
UScomment
I usually comment/tag on other people’s (friend’s) “ Status” , “photos” or “wall posts”
USphoto
I usually upload photos
VisFrequency
How often do you visit Facebook? (Use Frequency)
TimeSpent
On average, how long do you spend on Facebook once you open your account (in a
given session)?
Table 3.3. Constructs and Measurement Items
-79-
3.5 Data Analysis and Results
The theoretical model and the hypotheses was analyzed and examined using the Partial Least
Squares (PLS) method. PLS is a Structured Equation Modeling (SEM) technique that can analyze
multi-item constructs with direct and indirect paths (Gefen & Straub, 2005). We have used SMART
PLS software version 2.0 M3.
4
Our data analysis utilizes a two-step approach as proposed by Anderson and Gerbing (1988). The
first step involves the analysis of the measurement model, whereas the second step tests the
structural relationships among latent constructs. The aim of the two-step approach is to assess the
reliability and validity of the measures before their application in the full model (Anderson & Gerbing,
1988). It is in the second step where the theoretical model can be tested
3.5.1
The Measurement Model
Measurement model specifies the indicator for each construct and enables the assessment of
construct validity. Construct validity, among other things,
indicates the extent to which a set of
measured variables actually represent the theoretical latent variable (construct) they are designed to
measure (Hair et al., 2006). Construct validity may include Construct Reliability, Convergent validity
and Discriminant validity. These validity measures show some aspects of the goodness of fit of the
measurement model by indicating how well the measurement items relate to the construct. Reliability
tells us whether or not a particular variable appropriately measuring the true underlying construct that
it presumed to measure (Lattin et al., 2003: 183).Convergent validity shown when each measurement
item correlates strongly with its assumed theoretical construct, while discriminant validity is shown
when each measurement item correlates weakly with all other constructs except for the one to which it
is theoretically associated (Gefen & Straub, 2005).
The construct reliability test ensures the internal consistency within a construct. The reliability of the
constructs in this study was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, composite reliability and
Average Variance Extracted (Garver & Mentzer, 1999).
4
: http://www.smartpls.de
-80-
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient is the most commonly used measure of
reliability (Cortina, 1993).
Scales that receives alpha scores 0.7 and above are considered to be reliable. As shown in Table 3.4,
the Cronbach’s alpha for all constructs except US are greater than 0.7. Since coefficient alpha tends
to underestimate scale reliability we need to see other measures before we decide on the overall
reliability (Baumgartner & Homburg, 1996; Shook et al., 2004).
Construct
Addiction
Tendency
Continuance
Intention
Focused
Attention
Harmonious
passion
Intrinsic
motivation
Introjected
Motivation
Obsessive
Passion
Relationship
satisfactions
Usage
continuance
Number
of
original
indicators
4
Number
of
indicators
3
AVE
AD
Composite
Reliability
0.6470
Cronbachs’
Alpha
Communality
0.7283
0.6470
0.7681
0.6875
0.7547
0.8022
0.7998
0.5592
0.6683
0.6027
0.5893
0.5497
0.8944
0.7057
0.6138
0.5580
0.6426
0.5744
0.8453
3
3
CI
0.6875
0.8674
3
2
FA
0.8022
0.8902
5
4
HP
0.5592
0.8620
3
3
IM
0.6027
0.8194
3
3
IR
0.5497
0.7851
5
4
OP
0.7057
0.9227
3
6
3
3
RS
US
0.5580
0.5744
0.7907
0.7997
Table 3.4. Construct Reliability Indicators
Composite reliability is a better choice to measure reliability (Shook et al., 2004). The acceptable
threshold for composite reliability is 0.7. As indicated in Table 3, all the constructs have a composite
reliability greater than 0.7.
Average Variance Extracted (AVE) is also serve us a measure of construct reliability (Garver &
Mentzer, 1999). AVE measures the total amount of variance in the indicator accounted for by the
latent variable. An acceptable reliability value for AVE is 0.5 or greater. As shown in Table 3.4, all the
values for AVE is greater than 0.5.
Convergent validity can be tested by determining whether the items in the scale converge or load
together on a single construct (Garver & Mentzer, 1999).To confirm convergent validity individual
factor loadings should exceeds at least 0.5, and preferably 0.7,(Hair et al., 2006) .As shown in
-81-
Appendix 2, all the loading are greater than 0.7 except HP5 which adds less 0.7. HP5 is excluded
from the measurement.
According to the above discussion, the measurement items in this study can be considered as reliable.
Discriminant Validity
For measuring the discriminant validity of constructs, a cross loading table is used to examine the
correlations among measurement items. A cross loading table needs to indicate that the
measurement items load highly on their theoretically assigned factor and not highly on other factors.
As shown in Appendix 1 all but
AD1 and OP5, loads high on their factor and not highly in other
factors. AD1 loads high on OP while OP5 loads high on AD, therefore both AD1 and OP5 are
excluded from further analysis.
Another approach for establishing discriminant validity is to compare the square root of AVE for each
factor with inter construct correlation associated with that factor (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).As shown in
Table 3.5, the square root of AVE estimated (The bold diagonal values in the table) is greater that the
corresponding inter construct correlation estimate.
AD
CI
FA
AD
0.80
-0.2868
0.1810
CI
FA
HP
IM
IR
OP
RS
US
0.83
0.90
0.1489
HP
IM
IR
OP
RS
US
0.75
-0.1139
0.4680
0.4134
0.3772
0.3379
0.6697
0.1509
0.0063
0.3080
0.3938
0.3304
0.4374
0.2954
0.3181
0.5047
0.4345
0.3100
0.5147
0.4224
0.1449
0.2684
0.1917
0.1531
0.3106
0.3218
0.1805
0.3912
0.78
0.0581
0.74
0.0592
0.4424
0.84
0.75
-0.0401
0.75
0.2586
Table 3.5 AVE and Inter-Construct Correlation
-82-
0.2769
The above discussion indicates that the measurement model in this study satisfies the Reliability and
Validity criteria. Therefore the constructs employed in this study can be used to test the research
model and the hypotheses.
3.5.2
Structural Model
This study has tried to investigate the role of close relationship between users and SNS for the
continual usage of SNSs. The study examined the factors contributing to the formation of close
relationship between users and SNSs, and identifies how this relationship influences the continual use
of SNSs by individuals. The study was done using the Dualistic Model of Passion (DMP) as the main
theoretical back ground. This model gives explanation to the types of passions. According to DMP,
passion is an important relationship between individuals and activities. There are two types of passion:
harmonious passion and obsessive passions. The result in this study confirmed that DMP developed
in the field of Social Psychology can be used to explain usage continuance in IS. The result has
showed (Result Shown in Table 3.6) that passion towards SNSs activities contribute to the continual
usage of SNSs.
Hypothesis
Path
β (Path coefficient)
Standard Deviation
Standard Error
t Statistics
Hypothesis supported
H1
IM -> HP
0.5657
0.0476
0.0476
11.8796
Y
H2
IM -> OP
0.1366
0.0603
0.0603
2.2661
N
H3
IR -> OP
0.3025
0.0767
0.0767
3.9461
Y
H4
IR -> HP
0.1468
0.0571
0.0571
2.5726
N
H5
FA -> HP
0.1635
0.0544
0.0544
3.0039
Y
H6
FA -> OP
0.2971
0.0782
0.0782
3.8005
Y
H7
HP -> RS
0.4679
0.0552
0.0552
8.4799
Y
H8
OP -> RS
0.1387
0.0766
0.0766
1.8109
N
H9
HP -> AD
-0.2709
0.0728
0.0728
3.7214
Y
H10
OP -> AD
0.4856
0.0652
0.0652
7.4436
Y
H11
HP -> US
0.2238
0.0747
0.0747
2.9951
Y
H12
OP -> US
0.3255
0.0588
0.0588
5.5374
Y
H13
HP -> CI
0.4539
0.0707
0.0707
6.4178
Y
H14
OP -> CI
-0.0454
0.0860
0.0860
0.5277
N
H14A
AD -> CI
-0.2122
0.0786
0.0786
2.7014
Y
H15
CI -> US
0.0217
0.0741
0.0741
0.2923
Y
Table 3.6. Result of the Structural Test
-83-
Even though both Harmonious and Obsessive passions contribute to continual usage of SNSs (UC),
only Harmonious passion is positively related to Continuance Intention (CI). The study also found that
Obsessive passion is related to problematic use of SNSs (AT). Figure 3.4 presents the result of the
PLS analysis
0.224*
*
0.566*
IM
HP
(0.492)
0.468**
0.
13
7*
**
-
0.454*
UC
0.
2
7*
0.164*
*
0.
13
9
0.
14
7*
**
0.022
0.2
89
9*
*
FA
0.
29
7*
(0.204)
RS
(0.265)
0.
32
6*
AT
(0.233)
-0.212**
0.486*
IR
0.302*
CI
OP
(0.334)
(0.311)
-0.045
*= p<0.001, **= p<0.01, ***= P<0.05, no asterisk = insignificant bracketed number in the circle = R
Figure 3.5. Structural Model-Path Coefficients and R
2
2
As indicated in hypothesis1 and 3, both IM and FA have positive and significance influence (IM:
β=0.566, p<0.001; FA: β=0.163, p<0.01) on HP, while IR and FA positively and significantly influence
-84-
(IR: β=0.302, p<0.001; FA:
β=0.297, p<0.001) OP. However contrary to hypothesis 2 and 4 IM also
related (IM: β=0.137, p<0.05) to OP, and IR also related (IR: β=0.147, p<0.05) to HP. However the
contributions of IM and IR to HP and OP have a big difference. IM contributes more to HP than OP,
whereas IR contributes more to OP than HP. Similarly the contribution of IM to OP is smaller than the
contribution of IR to OP and vice versa. Based on this analysis it may be possible to say that, both IM
and IR contribute to the formation of harmonious passion towards SNS activities, although the
contribution of IM dominates the contribution of IR. Similarly it may also possible to infer that, the
presence of higher level of introjectd type of regulation than intrinsic motivation leads to the formation
of obsessive type of passion. So what matter to the type of passion to be formed towards SNS
activities depends on the amount of the type of motivation perceived by the user in relation to the SNS
activities. That means if the user perceive his interaction environment more of IM than IR he would
possibly develop harmonious type of passion, and the reverse also true.
The impact of HP and OP on Relationship Satisfaction (RS) were also checked and found that HP is
positively and significantly (HP: β=0.467, p<0.001) related with RS, while the relation between OP and
RS is insignificant (OP: β=0.139, t=1.810). These support hypotheses 7 and 8, which indicate that HP
is positively related to RS but not OP. The result may also indicate that an individual with harmonious
passion towards SNSs activity is possibly a satisfied user of SNSs. Usually individuals satisfied with
their relationship do not regret about their relationship and have a positive attitude towards their
partner. Relationship satisfaction is one of the guarantees to continue a relationship. In the result
indicated above the coefficient of the path from OP to RS is insignificant and the value is very small as
compared with the path between HP and RS.
Based on hypothesis 9 and 10, we have also examined the impact of HP and OP on Addiction
tendency (AD), and found that HP has a negative significant relation (HP: β=-0.271, p<0.001) with AD,
while OP relate positively and significantly (OP: β=0.486, p<0.001) with AD. That means both
hypotheses are supported. The result may be a good indication for the reasons for problematic use of
SNSs. Obsessive passion which is the result of introjected regulation is also positively related with
Addiction Ttendency. Addiction tendency is indicator of problematic attachment. Therefore by
implication we may conclude that introjected regulations related with SNS activities are related with
addiction tendencies towards SNSs activities. In general the result confirm that people that have
-85-
harmonious passion for Facebook activities will have a positive attachment relationship, while people
with obsessive passion possibly developed problematic attachment
towards Facebook or have
problematic attachment.
The impact of HP and OP on Intention to continue (CI) was also examined. In hypothesis 14, we have
indicated a negative relation between OP and CI. Even though the relation is found negative we didn’t
get significance relation between OP and CI; therefore, instead we check relationship between AD
and CI. The result shows that, HP is positively and significantly influence (HP: β=0.454, p<0.001) CI,
while the impact of AD (AD: β=-0.212, p<0.01) on CI is negative and significance.
Continuance intention indicates the persons intention either to continue or to stop the activity in the
future. The result might shows that individuals with harmonies passion usually want to continue with
their involvement, while individuals with addiction tendency (i.e. a person with obsessive passion) may
want to terminate their involvement if they could.
Finally we check the effect of HP and OP on usage continuance as per hypothesis 11 and 12. We
found that both HP and OP positively and significantly (HP: β=0.224, p<0.01; OP: β=0.326, p<0.001 )
influence usage continuance. This shows that both positive and problematic relationships can be a
cause for continual usage of SNSs. The reason for positive relation between “Usage” and HP must be
the pleasure that the user may get from involving in the activity. However the reason for the positive
relation between usage and OP might be the compulsive force which urges the user to involve in the
activity.
-86-
3.6 Discussion and Summary
The sustainability of an online social network system depends on the continual usage by the users.
As discussed above both HP & OP influence usage continuance. However it is only HP that has
positive relation with continual intention. This shows that sustainability of usage continuance can be
granted through developing HP or Positive attachments, but not by OP. Therefore site owners should
design mechanisms that can facilitate the development of positive attachments between the user and
the websites. Even if Addiction tendency has positively related with Usage continuance, it is
negatively related with Continuance intention. This indicates that the user may be stop using the
system if he gets a remedy, a substitution or any other way to stop his addiction tendency. Therefore
trying to hook users by addicting them is not only unethical, but it is also unsustainable practice.
Passion is a type of close relation between individuals and activities. In our study we have confirmed
the presence of passion for SNS activities. As has been mentioned by Vallerand et al (2003) about
the presence of two types of passions, this study also indicates the presence of both harmonious and
obsessive passions towards SNS activities. IM towards SNS activities and FA during SNS activities
contribute for the development of Harmonious passion towards SNS activities. Similarly, IR related to
SNS activities and FA during SNS activities are related to obsessive passion. These indicate that
people involving in SNS activities in a self-determined manner are associated with Harmonious
passion, while people using SNS for the sake of contingent benefits related more with obsessive
passions. This result is in line with previous studies of passion which indicate that harmonious passion
would originate when an interesting activities are internalized in a self-determined way, whereas
obsessive passion would originate when an interesting activities are internalized in a non-selfdetermined manner(Seguin-Levesque et al., 2003; Vallerand et al., 2003).
FA is dependent on the design characteristics of the system. IM and IR are dependent on the social
context factors surrounding the interaction activities. This implies that close relationship between
users and SNS activities is the result of the design characteristics of the system and the social
contextual factors surrounding the interaction activities. IM an IR are dependent on individual’s
perception of the social factors surrounding the interaction environment. Therefore, it is possible to
say that in addition to design and social factors, individual differences contribute for relationship
formation between the users and the SNSs.
-87-
Studies on passion indicate that individuals with harmonious passion have positive and satisfying
relation with their passionate activity, whereas obsessive passion does not have such relationship
(Mageau & Vallerand, 2007; Vallerand et al., 2003) . Similar with these studies, the result of the
present study indicates people with harmonious passion to SNS activities has positive and satisfied
relationship with the SNS application they are using whereas OP towards SNS activities do not show
a satisfying relationship between the user and the SNS application.
Studies have showed that
individuals unsatisfied with their relationship are indifferent to their relationship. Such individuals
potentially can abandon their relationship or decrease their involvement unless there are other
mechanisms that can stick to their partners(Rusbult & Buunk, 1993) . This implies that SNS site
owners should strive to establish a harmonious passion between users and SNS activities, by availing
appropriate design characteristics and surrounding social contextual factors.
Studies also indicate that HP and OP leads to different levels of quality of interpersonal relationship in
the activity (Philippe, Vallerand, & Houlfort, 2010). In relation to SNS activities , this indicate that in
addition to the user’s relation with the SNS application, HP and OP affect the user’s relation with
other users participating in the SNS activity. HP is positively related to positive emotions during task
engagement whereas OP is related with negative emotional experiences during and after activity
involvement (Mageau & Vallerand, 2007; Vallerand et al., 2003). Positive emotions lead to positive
interpersonal relations while negative emotions leads to poor interpersonal relationships (Fredrickson,
1998; Philippe, Vallerand, & Lavigne, 2009). This implies that the effect HP and OP towards SNS
activities is not limited to the relationship between the individual user and the SNS application; it
would also affect the user’s relationship with other users, which is crucial to SNS related activities as a
whole.
Researches have been confirmed the presence of addiction tendencies towards SNS activities ; and
categorized these tendencies as problematic use of SNSs (Kuss & Griffiths, 2011).In this study we
have tried to identify how relationship type affect addiction tendencies towards SNS activities. Similar
to other studies related to passion and addiction(Back, Lee, & Stinchfield, 2011; Ratelle et al., 2004;
Rousseau et al., 2002) , we found that obsessive passion towards SNS is related to addiction
tendencies while Harmonies passion is related negatively with addiction tendency. By implication, this
might indicate that, introjected regulation related to SNS activities are the sources of addiction
-88-
tendency. Because Introjected regulation are related to addiction tendency through obsessive passion.
Therefore future studies focusing on problematic use of SNSs should focus on these facts.
One of the important findings of this study is the influence of relationship type on Usage continuance
and Continuance Intention. Different from other studies we found that the possibility of negative or no
relation between usage continuance and continuance intention. Specifically we found that, there are
users who want to discontinue their involvement (Discontinuance intention or negative continuance
intention), albeit they use the system continually.
Both HP and OP towards SNS activities are positively related with usage continuance. That means
whatever the relationship type, once a relationship is established the user possibly use the SNS
application continually. As indicated above people with OP do not have a satisfying relationship with
the SNS activity. Therefore the reason for their continual involvement might come from the over
controlling power of the activity, i.e. they use the system continually not because they are willing to
do so, however they are using the system continually because of the urge or the impulsive force of
the addiction tendency that forced to use the system.
Individuals with problematic relationship (obsessive passion), even though they do not stop using the
system, they are not inclined to continue their involvement, i.e. they have negative continuance
intention. That means if they get opportunities ,for example substitutes, they will possibly stop using
the system. This indicates that usage continuance as a result of problematic relationship is not
sustainable. Therefore site owners should strive to make the relationship between the user and the
system a positive one. One way to make such positive relationship is by reducing contextual factors
that facilitate excessive competition between users and encourage cooperation among users. From
observation, this is may be because of similar factor we usually observe addiction tendencies in
expressive social computings (e.g. Facebook) than in collaborative social computing (e.g. Wikis and
Blogs).
The result in this research is based on a data collected from a limited number of users of Facebook. It
may be difficult to generalize the results. However the results in this study can be a starting point for a
comprehensive large scale research.
-89-
3.7 Implication for Theory and Practice
3.7.1
Implication for Theory
This study has presented conceptual development and an empirical validation of the continual usage
of SNSs. The present study contributes to the literature in several ways. First, the study makes a
theoretical contribution by developing a research model based on the dualistic model of passion. Most
existing researches of usage continuance depend on existing theories such as theory of reasoned
action (TRA), the theory of planned behavior (TPB), or TAM (Bhattacherjee & Barfar, 2011; Li,
Browne, & Wetherbe, 2006). The present study, instead of just extending and depending upon these
existing theories, tries to use a newer model and concept which emphasizes the relational perspective
of usage continuance. The relational view was found to be a plausible approach for investigating
online behavior (Li, Browne, & Wetherbe, 2006).The study findings also contribute to the literature on
passion for activities by providing empirical support for the application of dualistic model of passion in
relation to SNS activities. Passion for activities was found to be significant in explaining individuals’
behaviors related to SNS usage.
3.7.2 Implication for Practice
The findings of this research have also important implication for businesses that provide SNS related
services. Businesses should understand that continual usage behaviors by itself do not guarantee
further sustainable usage. Businesses should know the reasons for users using their site continually.
Obsessive type of relationships are not sustainable, therefore businesses should strive to make the
relation between their web sites and users a harmonious one.
The type of relation users may have with SNS related activities determine user’s satisfaction with the
service and their intention to continually use the service. This study has indicated that both social
contextual factors and website design factors can determine the type of relation between the user and
the SNS activities. Therefore designers should give equal emphasis for both factors.
The study also has implication for those entities who are concerned with the pathological use of SNSs.
They should know that people can continually use SNSs for both positive and pathological reasons;
and amount of usage time may not explain the type of relation. This study may help them to see
alternate ways of investigating pathological use of SNSs.
-90-
In summary, this study has provided new theoretical and practical findings concerning the continual
usage of SNSs. The study lays a new foundation for researches in the area.
3.8 Study limitation and Future Direction
The present study is the first one to investigate passion for SNSs. The study has also tried to show
how passion for SNSs is developing. However, the antecedent factors of passion for SNSs deserve
further investigation. Future studies may include other environmental and personal factor which can
moderate the effects of the antecedents on the formation of passion.
Despite its important aspect to explain continuance behavior the model has an important limitation.
Passion is developed after some time, and it take some time to develop passion. Due to this fact the
model may not strongly explain behaviors at the early stage of usage.
In addition to affecting the relation between the individual and the activity passion towards activities
can also affect the relation between individuals participating in the same activity. This aspect of the
model is not included in the present study. However relations among users are one of the most
important aspects of the SNS business. Therefore future studies should consider the effect of passion
for SNS on the users’ relation with other users. The model could also be tested in other types of SCAs.
It is possible to study how users’ passionate relations with other types of SCAs affect usage
continuance behavior, and how the same phenomena affect relation among users of a particular SCA.
In the present study, the relation between Passion and addiction tendency shows anecdotal indication
for how a pathological usage of SNSs is prevailed. Further studies should investigate this aspect of
passion for SNSs by extending the model.
Finally, the model in this study was validated using a limited number of users and by taking Facebook
as a case. Further validation of the model may be necessary by considering various SNS altogether
and by including large size data.
-91-
Chapter 4. Conclusion
Research on adoption and use of social computing have gain much attention because of the wide
spread use of social computing like Social Networking Sites and blogs. Although various studies have
been done to investigate the factors contributed to the continual usage of social computing in general,
most of these studies have been using static and utilitarian based models like Technology
Acceptance Model (TAM) & Theory of Planned behavior (TPB). Most of the previous researches
related to usage continuance focused on transactional satisfaction with the assumption that if the user
gets satisfied with a certain system s/he will continually use the system. However given the
proliferation of various information systems satisfaction alone cannot keep users to use the system
continually. Recent studies in IS and marketing has found that, given various alternative and
proliferation of online information systems, users’ persistence of using a particular online system is
determined by the users’ relation with the system. Taking this issue in to consideration, in this study
attempts has made to identify the factors contributing for the continual usage of SCAs from a
relationship and experiential perspectives.
This study has tried to answer the research question by designing two successive studies. The first
study was focused on developing an overall framework to study usage continuance of SCAs. In the
first study a framework for studying usage continuance of SCAs from relationship perspectives has
been developed. The framework was developed based on various literatures. In the second study a
research model was formulated using the framework developed in the first study and validated by
empirical data. The second study was focusing on identifying factors contributing for the continual
usage of SNSs. The research model was validated by survey data collected from Facebook users.
The empirical study has supported most of the hypothesis and the prepositions in the initial framework.
However, the results of the study have some limitations because of small number of data. The
analysis was done using 184 responses collected online from users of Facebook. We have used PLS
based Structural Equation Modeling techniques to analyze the data. This technique is proofed to be
appropriate for studies with small number of data. Therefore some of the limitation of the data has
been addressed by selecting appropriate techniques to analyze the data.
-92-
The framework developed in the first study in general indicates that Close Relationship established
between a particular SCA and a user contributes for the continual usage of the application by the user.
A Close Relationship between users and SCAs is established as a result of repeated interaction
activities between the user and the SCA. This Close Relationship is a consequence of the
Experiential Qualities (EQ) the user experiencing during the interaction activities and the extent of the
Motivated Behaviors exhibited by the users towards the interaction activities. EQ includes users’
feelings such as Immersion, Focused Attention and Enjoyment etc. Motivated Behaviors indicates the
extent and the type of motivation hold by users towards his/her interaction activities with a particular
SCA. Basically there are two major categories of motivated behaviors: Intrinsic motivation and
Extrinsic motivations. The Motivated Behaviors together with the EQ in the interaction activities
determines the extent of Close Relationship that maybe formed between the user and the application
system.
According to the framework, EQs are influenced by Design and Contextual Factors (DCFs) of the
SCA. DCFs include Content and Action Representation (CAR), Technology Sprit (TS) and Social
Factors (SF). CAR indicates how actions and contents are organized and presented to the user with
in the application; which includes User Interfaces and Information Architecture of the application
system. The way content and action is represented affects the Experiential Qualities the user is
experiencing during the interaction activities. Using SCAs users may perform various actions, the
major one includes, Select, Read, Create and Connect information. The way users perform these
activities depends on the user interface and the information architecture of the specific SCA the user
is using. The way users perform these actions and get the responses as a result of their actions can
determine the qualities of users’ experience, i.e. EQ.
TS indicates users’ prior knowledge and attitude towards a particular SCA. When users interact with
SCAs they come with their own expectation and prior knowledge about the system and the overall
interaction activity. In relation to SCAs Technology Sprit provides how to act when using a given SCA,
how to interpret its features and specify behaviors that are appropriate in the context of that specific
SCAs. For example a user may consider a specific SCA as a “Social Communication” tool or a
Collaboration System. Users may also considered specific procedures as appropriate procedures to
follow when using specific SCAs. By setting such types of prior knowledge “Technology Sprit” can
-93-
affect the user anticipation and interpretation of events related to the system. Therefore when
performing certain actions (Select, Read, Create and Connect), on or using SCAs, “Technology Sprit”
influences users’ anticipation and perception, and hence the user’s experience during the interaction.
The SFs surrounding the interaction activities are also among the DCFs that influences the user
interaction activity. SFs in relation to SCAs include, human and nonhuman factors that users may
encounter while using a specific SCAs. For example while using Facebook; the user may get
comments and feedbacks from other users or information pertaining to the status of other user from
the application system. Such types of information may encourage competition or facilitate
collaborations among users. The extent to which the application encourage such type of behaviors
will determine the type of motivation the user will going to exhibit towards the interaction activity in
general. Based on the types of the surrounding Social Factors, the user may ascribe intrinsic or
extrinsic motivation towards the Interaction activity. For instance if the user perceive the surrounding
social factor as competitive, he may develop extrinsic motivations towards the activity, while if he
perceive the surrounding environment as
encouraging collaboration he may developed intrinsic
motivation.
According to the framework the presence of “Experiential Qualities” and “Motivated Behaviors”
influences the establishment of Close Relationship between users and SCAs. That means if a user
repeatedly experience certain levels and types of experiential qualities during his/her interaction with
a particular SCA and developing motivations towards the interaction activities, after a certain time the
user most probably will develop a Close Relationship with the SCA. Once a Closed Relationship is
established between the user and the SCA, the user will tend to use the application continually.
This means a particular user may exhibit different type of “Experiential Qualities” and “Motivated
Behaviors” depending on the ‘Design and Contextual Factors’ of the respective applications, and
hence develop different type of relation with each of the applications. For example a user using
Wikipedia and Facebook encounters different Design and Contextual Factors in respect to each of the
applications. The user interface and the information architecture of Wikipedia and Facebook are
different. The TS related to features of Wikipedia mostly related with ‘Contribution’ and is not selfcentered. However the TS associated with Facebook is mainly related with ‘Social communication’
-94-
and ‘self-centered’. The social factor surrounding Wikipedia is mainly a type of ‘collaboration’; while
the Social Factor surrounding Facebook can be more of “Competition”. According to our frame work
the EQs the user is experiencing while using these applications and the ‘Motivated Behaviors’ the
user may exhibiting towards these applications can be unique depending on the design and
contextual factors surrounding the two applications. The difference in the EQs and Motivated
Behaviors will subsequently result in different types of Close Relationships. However whatever the
type of close relationship established it will be a cause for continual usage of the SCAs system by the
user.
The research model in the second study is designed based on the framework developed in the first
study. The second study has tried to identify how Close Relationship between users and SNSs
influences the continual usage of SNSs by the user. The study also tries to identify factors
contributing for the formation of a close relationship between users and SNSs. The second study also
tries to validate the prepositions developed in the first part.
In the second study “Passion
towards SNSs Activities” has been taken to epitomize Close
Relationships between users and SNSs. Passion towards SNSs activity is defined as a strong
inclination toward SNSs related activities. Passionate individuals to SNS would like SNS related
activities, and also considered SNS activities as important and willing to invest time and energy on
SNS related activities.
The research model in the second study generally hypothesized that, Motivated Behaviors towards
SNSs together with Experiential Qualities experienced by the user during interaction with SNSs
influences the establishment of Close Relationship between users and the SNSs related activities. To
represent motivated behaviors we have considered Intrinsic Motivation and Introjected Regulation
towards SNS activities. We have also considered Focused Attention during SNS activities to
represent the “Experiential Qualities” the user is experiencing during the interaction activity.
The result of the second study has proved our assumption on the framework which states that
“Experiential Qualities” and “Motivated Behaviors” positively influence the formation of close
relationship. In addition to this our data has proved a positive relation between Close Relationship
-95-
(Passion) and Continual Usage Behavior. This validates our proposition in the framework which
indicates that “Close Relationship” influences the “Decision to use the system continually”.
In the second study we have also found that the type of Close Relationship depends on the source of
the relationship (i.e. the type of the motivated behavior). In this study the concept of “Passion” was
taken from the Dualistic Model of Passion developed in the field of Social Psychology. The Dualistic
model of passion indicates that there are two types of passions: Harmonious and Obsessive Passion.
According to our study, both Harmonious and Obsessive Passion towards SNS activities are
positively influenced by “Intrinsic Motivation” (IM), “Introjected Regulation” (IR) and “Focused Attention”
(FA). However the type of passion depends on the amount of “Intrinsic Motivation” and “Introjected
Regulation”.
Based on the framework in the first part and the data analysis in the second part we have found the
following relations between the type of closed relationship (Harmonious Passion (HP) and Obsessive
Passion (OP)) , Experiential Qualities (Focused attention, Immersion etc. ) and Motivated Behaviors
(Intrinsic motivation and Introjected regulation/extrinsic motivation)
FA
HP
IM
IM
OP
OP
IR
Figure 4.1. Relationship Between Passion (HP & OP) and IM , IR and FA
-96-
When we keep “IR” and “FA” constant and increase IM we will get more of “HP”; while keeping IM and
FA constant and increasing IR we will get more of OP. From this observation we can conclude that ,
SCAs that promote IM will result in HP type of relationship as compared to SCAs that promote IR type
of behaviors. Similarly, SCAs that promote IR related behaviors will result in more of OP type of
relationship as compared to SCAs that promote IM related behaviors. SCAs may have some elements
IM and IR altogether; however the difference is coming from which type of motivational behavior is
primarily promoted or dominates the other.
This type of relationship can be explained by looking at existing SCAs. IM related behaviors include
collaborations and cooperation; SCAs that promote IM focus on such type of IM related behaviors.
Wikipedia can be taken as an example of an SCA that promote IM related behavior. In Wikipedia the
typical activity is contribution. By contributing for Wikipedia there are no visible contingent benefits to
the contributors. Contributors contribute because they feel that contribution by itself is enjoyable.
Therefore according to our analysis the type of relationship that a user of Wikipedia forms with the
Wikipedia application is most probably a Harmonious type of relationship. Different from collaborative
sites, people going to gaming sites for competition, here the enjoyment is gained more from the
competition which is a sort of extrinsic motivation. In such instances users may develop Obsessive
type of relationships.
There are also SCAs, which exhibit both IM and IR depending on the user’s appropriation of the
application system. For example particular user of Facebook can use the system more for IM related
reasons (Ex Collaboration, Knowledge sharing) or for IR related reasons (Ex. Competition for status
and recognition). Based on our analysis, the type of relationship the user is establishing with the
application depends on the type of motivated behavior the user is primarily exhibiting towards that
application.
We conclude that the user continual usage of SCAs in general is determined by the close relationship
that may be formed by the user and the system. This close relationship is the result of repeated
interactions activities. The experiential qualities that the user experiencing during the interaction
activity and
the extent and type of motivation towards the interaction activities determines the
possibilities of the formation of closed relationship between the user and the SCA. Experiential
-97-
qualities and the extent of motivated behaviors are results of the design and contextual factors related
to the application system and the interaction activities. Therefore in general we can conclude that by
manipulating and improving the design and contextual factors it is possible to improve the continual
usage of SCAs by the user, which subsequently improve the sustainability and impact of the SCAs.
-98-
References
[1]
Ahuja, M.K., and J.B. Thatcher. 2005. “Moving Beyond Intentions and Toward The Theory of
Trying: Effects of Work Environment and Gender on Post-Adoption Information Technology
Use.” MIS Quarterly 29(3):427–459.
[2]
Al-Natour, Sameh, and Izak Benbasat. 2009. “The Adoption and Use of IT Artifacts : A New
Interaction-Centric Model for the Study of User- Artifact Relationships.” Journal of the
Association for Information Systems 10(9):661–685.
[3]
Ala-mutka, Authors Kirsti et al. 2009. The Impact of Social Computing on the EU Information
Society and Economy. European Commission Joint Research Centre, Institute for
Prospective Technologies.
[4]
Albers, Michael J. 2008. “Human-information interaction.” in Proceedings of the 26th annual
ACM international conference on Design of communication - SIGDOC ’08. Lisboa. Portugal:
[5]
Albert, N, D Merunka, and P Valetteflorence. 2008. “When Consumers love their Brands:
Exploring the Concept and its Dimensions.” Journal of Business Research 61(10):1062–
1075.
[6]
Anderson, James C., and David W. Gerbing. 1988. “Structural Equation Modeling in
Practice : A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach.”
Psychological Bulletin
103(3):411–423.
[7]
Aron, A., and E. N. Aron. 1997. “Self-expansion Motivation and Including Other in the Self.”
Pp. 251–270 in Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, Research and Interventions,
edited by S. Duck. London: Wiley.
[8]
Aron, A., C. Norman. and E. N. Aron. 1998. “The Self-expansion Model and Motivation.”
Representative Research in Social Psychology, 22:1–3.
[9]
Aron, Arthur, Elaine N. Aron, and Christina Norman. 2007. “Self-expansion Model of
Motivation and Cognition in Close Relationships and Beyond.” in Blackwell Handbook of
Social Psychology: Interpersonal Processes.
-99-
[10]
Aron, Arthur, Elaine N. Aron, and Danny Smollan. 1992. “Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale
and the Structure of Interpersonal Closeness.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
63(4):596–612.
[11]
Back, Ki-Joon, Choong-Ki Lee, and Randy Stinchfield. 2011. “Gambling Motivation and
Passion: a Comparison Study of Recreational and Pathological Gamblers.” Journal of
Gambling Studies 27(3):355–70.
[12]
Baltar, Fabiola, and Ignasi Brunet. 2012. “Social Research 2.0: Virtual Snowball Sampling
Method Using Facebook.” Internet Research 22(1):57–74.
[13]
Bargas-avila, Javier A, and Kasper Hornbæk. 2011. “Old Wine in New Bottles or Novel
Challenges ? A Critical Analysis of Empirical Studies of User Experience.” Pp. 2689–2698 in
CHI 2011.
[14]
Barnes, Stuart J. 2011. “Understanding Use Continuance in Virtual Worlds: Empirical Test of
a Research model.” Information & Management 48(8):313–319.
[15]
Batra, Rajeev, Aaron Ahuvia, and Richard P. Bagozzi. 2011. “Brand Love.” Journal of
Marketing 1–70.
[16]
Baumeister, Roy F., Kathleen D Vohs, C Nathan DeWall, and Liqing Zhang. 2007. “How
emotion shapes behavior: feedback, anticipation, and reflection, rather than direct
causation.” Personality and social psychology review: 11(2):167–203.
[17]
Baumgartner, Hans, and Christian Homburg. 1996. “Marketing Applications of structural
equation modeling in marketing and consumer research : A review.” International Journal of
Research in Marketing 13:139–161.
[18]
Beaudry, By Anne, and Alain Pinsonneault. 2010. “The Other Side of Acceptance : Studying
the Direct and Indirect Effects of Emotion on Information Technology Use.” MIS Quarterly
34(4):689–710.
[19]
Belk, Russell W. 1988. “Possessions and the Extended Self.” Journal of Consumer
Research Inc. 15(2):139–168.
[20]
Benbasat, I., and G DeSanctis. 2001. “Communication challenges: A Value Network
Perspective.” Pp. 144–162 in Information Technology and the Future Enterprise: New
Models for Managers, edited by G.W. Dickson and G. DeSanctis. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
-100-
[21]
Benkler, Yochai, and Helen Nissenbaum. 2006. “Commons-based Peer Production and
Virtue.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 14(4):394–419.
[22]
Berlyne, D E. 1970. “Novelty, Complexity and Hedonic Value.” Perception & Psychophysics
8:279–286.
[23]
Bhattacherjee, Anol. 2001a. “Understanding Information System Continuance: An
Expectation Confirmation Model.” MIS Quarterly 25(3):351–370.
[24]
Bhattacherjee, Anol. 2001b. “Understanding Information Systems Continuance: An
Expectation-Confirmation Model.” Management Information Systems 25(3):351–370.
[25]
Bhattacherjee, Anol, and Arash Barfar. 2011. “Information Technology Continuance
Research : Current State and Future Directions.” Asia Pacific Journal of Information
Systems 21(2).
[26]
Bhattacherjee, Anol, and G. Premkumar. 2004. “Understanding Changes in Belief and
Attitude Towards Information Technology Usage: A Theoretical Model and Longitudinal
Test.” MIS Quarterly 28(2):229–254.
[27]
Bhattacherjee, Anol. 2001c. “An Empirical Analysis of the Antecedents of Electronic
Commerce Service Continuance.” Decision Support Systems 32(2):201–214.
[28]
Bianchi, Marina. 2003. “A Questioning Economist : Tibor Scitovsky ’ s Attempt to Bring Joy
into Economics.” Journal of Economic Psychology 24:391–407.
[29]
Boehner, K., R Depaula, P Dourish, and P Sengers. 2007. “How Emotion is Made and
Measured.” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 65(4):275–291.
[30]
Van Boven, Leaf, and Thomas Gilovich. 2003. “To do or to have? That is the Question.”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85(6):1193–202.
[31]
Boyd, Danah M., and Nicole B. Ellison. 2007. “Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and
Scholarship.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13(1):210–230.
[32]
Brickman Bhutta, C. 2012. “Not by the Book: Facebook as a Sampling Frame.” Sociological
Methods & Research 41(1):57–88.
[33]
Brooks, Peter, and Bjørn Hestnes. 2010. “User Measures of Quality of Experience: Why
Being Objective and Quantitative Is Important.” IEEE Network 24(April):8–13.
[34]
Bucy, Erik P., and Chen-Chao Tao. 2007. “The Mediated Moderation Model of Interactivity.”
Media Psychology 9(3):647–672.
-101-
[35]
Burgoon, Judee K et al. 2000. “Testing the Interactivity Model : Communication Processes ,
Partner Assessments , and the Quality of Collaborative Work.” Journal of Management
Information Systems 16(3):33–56.
[36]
Carbone, Lewis P, and Stephan H Haeckel. 1999. “Engineering Customer Experiences.”
Marketing Management 1–10.
[37]
Carroll, Barbara A., and Aaron C. Ahuvia. 2006. “Some Antecedents and Outcomes of
Brand love.” Marketing Letters 17(2):79–89.
[38]
Chang, Hsia-Ching, and Chen-Ya Wang. 2011. “No Cue, No Clue? Understanding
Information Interaction in Social Bookmarking Services.” Pp. 867–872 in Eighth International
Conference on Information Technology: New Generations. IEEE
[39]
Chang, Ya Ping, and Dong Hong Zhu. 2012. “The Role of Perceived Social Capital and Flow
Experience in Building Users’ Continuance Intention to Social Networking Sites in China.”
Computers in Human Behavior 28(3):995–1001.
[40]
Chemero, Anthony. 2003. “An Outline of a Theory of Affordances.” Ecological Psychology
15(2).
[41]
Chen, Shih-Chih, David C. Yen, and Mark I. Hwang. 2012. “Factors Influencing the
Continuance Intention to the Usage of Web 2.0: An Empirical Study.” Computers in Human
Behavior 28(3):933–941.
[42]
Chiu, C.M., C.S. Chiu, and H.C. Chang. 2007. “Examining the Integrated Influence of
Fairness and Quality on Learners’ Satisfaction and Web-based Learning Continuance
Intention.” Information Systems Journal 17(3):271–287.
[43]
Chiu, Chao-Min, and Eric T.G. Wang. 2008. “Understanding Web-based Learning
Continuance Intention: The Role of Subjective Task Value.” Information & Management
45(3):194–201.
[44]
Clark, Andy. 2008. Surprising the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension. New
York: Oxford University Press.
[45]
Clements, Jeffrey A, and Ashley A Bush. 2011. “Habitual IS Use and Continuance.” Pp. 51–
55 in Proceedings of the Southern Association for Information Systems Conference. Atlanta,.
[46]
Cortina, Jose M. 1993. “What is Coefficient Alpha? An Examination of Theory and
Applications.” Journal of Applied Psycholgy 78(1):98–104.
-102-
[47]
Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 2002. Flow-classic-work-on-how-to-achieve. USA: Harper & Row
[48]
Cyr, Dianne. 2007. “The Role of Social Presence in Establishing Loyalty in e-Service
Environments.” Interacting with Computers 22:43–56.
[49]
David, Paul a., and Joseph S. Shapiro. 2008. “Community-Based Production of OpenSource Software: What do We Know about the Developers who Participate?” Information
Economics and Policy 20(4):364–398.
[50]
Davis, Fred D. 1985. “A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New EndUser Information System : Theory and Results.” Ph.D Dissertation at MIT
[51]
Davis, Richard A., Gordon L Flett, and Avi Besser. 2002. “Validation of a New Scale for
Measuring Problematic Internet Use: Implications for Pre-employment Screening.” Cyber
Psychology & Behavior  5(4):331–45.
[52]
Deci, E L, and R M Ryan. 1987. “The Support of Autonomy and the Control of Behavior.”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53(6):1024–37.
[53]
Deci, Edward L, and Richard M Ryan. 2000. “The ‘ What ’ and ‘ Why ’ of Goal Pursuits :
Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior.” Psychological Inquiry 11(4):227–
268.
[54]
Deci, Edward L., Haleh Eghrari, Brian C. Patrick, and Dean R. Leone. 1994. “Facilitating
Internalization: The Self-Determination Theory Perspective.” Journal of Personality 62(1).
[55]
Deci, Edward L., and Richard M. Ryan. 1990. “A Motivational Approach to self: Integration in
Personality.” Pp. 238–288 in Nebraska Symposium on Motivation. Nebraska.
[56]
Denissen, J. J., L. Neumann, and M. van Zalk. 2010. “How the Internet is changing the
Implementation of Traditional Research Methods, People’s Daily Lives, and the Way in
Which Developmental Scientists Conduct Research.” International Journal of Behavioral
Development 34(6):564–575.
[57]
Desanctis, Gerardine, and Marshall Scott Poole. 1994. “Capturing The Complexity in
Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory.” Organization Science
5(2):1047–7039.
[58]
Desmet, Pieter, and Paul Hekkert. 2007. “Framework of Product Experience.” International
Journal of Design 1(1):57–66.
-103-
[59]
Dormashev, Yuri. 2010. “Flow Experience Explained on the Grounds of an Activity Approach
to Attention.” Pp. 287–334 in Effortless Attention : A New Perspective in Cognitive Science
of Attention and Action, edited by Bruya Brain. The MIT Press.
[60]
Dourish, Paul. 2001. Where the Action IS: The Foundation of Embodied Interaction. The
MIT Press.
[61]
Dwyer, Catherine, and Starr Roxanne Hiltz. 2007. “Trust and Privacy Concern Within Social
Networking Sites : A Comparison of Facebook and MySpace” , in Proceeding of the
Thirteenth American Conference in Information System. Colorado.
[62]
Ellison, Nicole B., Charles Steinfield, and Cliff Lampe. 2007. “The Benefits of Facebook
‘Friends:’ Social Capital and College Students’ Use of Online Social Network Sites.” Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication 12(4):1143–1168.
[63]
Farzan, Rosta, Laura a. Dabbish, Robert E. Kraut, and Tom Postmes. 2011. “Increasing
Commitment to Online Communities by Designing for Social Presence.” P. 321 in
Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on Computer supported cooperative work CSCW ’11. New York,
[64]
Ferrer-Caja, Emillio, and Maureen R. Weiss. 2000. “Predictors of Intrinsic Motivation Among
Adolescent Students in Physical Education.” Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport
71(3):267–279.
[65]
Fiore, Salvatore, Peter Wright, and Alistair Edwards. 2005. “A Pragmatist Aesthetics
Approach to the Design of a Technological Artifact.” Proceedings of the 4th Decennial
Conference on Critical computing Between Sense and Sensibility. Denmark.
[66]
Forest, Jacques. 2011. “‘ Work is My Passion ’: The Different Affective , Behavioral , and
Cognitive Consequences of Harmonious and Obsessive Passion Toward Work.” Canadian
Journal of Administrative Sciences 40(August 2010):27–40.
[67]
Forlizzi, Jodi, and Shannon Ford. 2000. “The Building Blocks of Experience : An Early
Framework for Interaction Designers.” Pp. 419–423 in DIS ’00. Brooklyn, New York.
[68]
Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker. 1981. “Evaluating Structural Equation Models with
Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error.” Journal of Marketing Research 18(1):39–
50.
-104-
[69]
Fournier, Susan. 1998. “Consumers and Their Brands : Developing Relationship Theory in
Consumer Research.” Journal of Consumer Research 24(4):343–353.
[70]
Fredrickson, Barbara L. 1998. “What Good Are Positive Emotions?” Review of General
Psychology 2(3):300–319.
[71]
Frijda, N.H. 1994. “Emotions are Functional, Most of the Time.” Pp. 197–202 in The nature
of Emotions: Fundamental Questions, edited by R. Davison P. Ekman. New York: Oxford
University Press.
[72]
Garver, Michael S, and John T Mentzer. 1999. “Logistics Research Methods : Employing
Structural Equation Modeling.” Journal of business Logistics 20(1):33–57.
[73]
Gefen, David, and Detmar Straub. 2005. “A Practical Guide To Factorial Validity Using PLSGraph: Tutorial And Annotated Example.” Communications of the ACM 16:91–109.
[74]
Gershon, Nahom. 1995. “Human Information Interaction.” in Proceedings of the Fourth
International World Wide Web Conference. Boston, Massachusetts.
[75]
Grange, Camille, and Izak Benbasat. 2011. “A Guiding Framework for Developing Theories:
Investigating the Design Drivers of IT Use and Value.” in JAIS Theory Development
Workshop. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, vol. 11.
[76]
Gregor, Shirley. 2007. “The Anatomy of a Design Theory.” Journal of the Association for
Information System 8(5):312–335.
[77]
La Guardia, Jennifer G., and Heather Patrick. 2008. “Self-determination Theory as a
Fundamental
Theory
of
Close
Relationships.”
Canadian
Psychology/Psychologie
Canadienne 49(3):201–209.
[78]
Guinea, Ana Ortiz de, and M Lynne Markus. 2009. “Why Breaking the Habit of a Lifetime ?
Rethinking the Roles of Intention, Habit, and Emotion in Continuing Information Technology
Use.” MIS Quarterly 33(3):433–444.
[79]
Hair, Joseph F., William C. Black, Barry J. Babin, Rolph E. Anderson, and Ronald L. Tatham.
2006. Multivariate Data Analysis. 6th ed. Pearson.
[80]
Hair, Neil, Susan Rose, and Moira Clark. 2009. “Using Qualitative Repertory Grid
Techniques to Explore Perceptions of Business-to-Business Online Customer Experience.”
Journal of Customer Behavior 8(1):51–65.
-105-
[81]
Hassenzahl, Marc. 2008. “User Experience ( UX ): Towards an Experiential Perspective on
Product Quality.” in IHM “08 Proceedings of the 20th international conference on
Association Francophone d”Interaction Homme-Machine, ACM, New York,USA, 2008, S.
11-15.
[82]
Hassenzahl, Marc, Sarah Diefenbach, and Anja Göritz. 2010. “Needs, Affect, and Interactive
Products – Facets of User Experience.” Interacting with Computers 22(5):353–362.
Hassenzahl, Marc, and Noam Tractinsky. 2006. “User experience - a Research Agenda.”
Behavior & Information Technology 25(2):91–97.
[83]
Heeter, Carrie. 2000. “Interactivity in the Context of Designed Experiences.” Journal of
Interactive Advertising 1(1):4–15.
[84]
Heijden, Hans Van der. 2003. “Factors influencing the Usage of Websites: the Case of a
Generic Portal in The Netherlands.” Information & Management 40(6):541–549.
[85]
Heijden, Hans Van der. 2004. “User Acceptance of Hedonic Information Systems.”
Management Information Systems 28(4):695–704.
[86]
Helle, Merja et al. 2011. “A Theoretical Model of Media Experience and Research Methods
for Studying It.” Media 1(74):1–75.
[87]
Hendrick, Susan S. 1988. “A Generic Measure of Relationship Satisfaction.” Journal of
Marriage and Family 50(1):93–98.
[88]
Higgins, E. Tory, Scott Spiegel, Josph Cesario, and Thane Pittman. 2010. “Increasing or
Decreasing Interest in Activities: The Role of Regulatory Fit.” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 98(4):559–572.
[89]
Hill, Janette R. 1999. “A Conceptual Framework for Understanding Information Seeking in
Open-Ended Information Systems.” Educational Technology Research and Development
47(1):1042–1629.
[90]
Hoffman, Donna L, and Thomas P Novak. 2012a. “Need Satisfaction From Interacting with
People Versus Content: The Roles of Motivational Orientation and Identification with Social
Media Groups.” SSN Working Paper Series http://ssrn.com/abstract=1990005.
[91]
Hoffman, Donna L, and Thomas P Novak. 2012b. “Why Do People Use Social Media?
Empirical Findings and a New Theoretical Framework for Social Media Goal Pursuit.” SSN
Working Paper Series http://ssrn.com/abstract=1989586.
-106-
[92]
Holbrook, Morris B, and C Hirschman. 1982. “The Experiential Aspects of Consumption :
Consumer Fantasies Feeling and Fun.” Journal of Consumer Research 9:132–140.
[93]
Hong, S.J., J.Y.L. Thong, and K.Y. Tam. 2006. “Understanding Continued Information
Technology Usage Behavior: A Comparison of Three Models in the Context of Mobile Internet.” Decision Support Systems 42(3):1819–1834.
[94]
Hong, Soongeun, Jeoungkun Kim, and Heeseok Lee. 2008. “Antecedents of UseContinuance in Information Systems: Toward an Integrative View.” Journal of Computer
Information Systems Spring 2008.
[95]
Hu, Tao, and William J Kettinger. 2008. “Why People Continue to Use Social Networking
Services : Developing a Comprehensive Model.” ICIS 2008 Proceedings. Paper 89.
[96]
Huang, Jyun-Wei, and Chieh-Peng Lin. 2011. “To Stick or not to Stick: The Social Response
Theory in the Development of Continuance Intention from Organizational Cross-Level
Perspective.” Computers in Human Behavior 27(5):1963–1973.
[97]
Huang, Ming-Hui. 2003. “Designing Website Attributes to Induce Experiential Encounters.”
Computers in Human Behavior 19(4):425–442.
[98]
Hung, Ming-Chien, I.-Chiu Chang, and Hsin-Ginn Hwang. 2011. “Exploring Academic
Teachers’ Continuance Toward the Web-based Learning System: The Role of Causal
Attributions.” Computers & Education 57(2):1530–1543.
[99]
Jennings, Morgan. 2000. “Theory and Models for Creating Engaging and Immersive eCommerce Websites.” Pp. 77–85 in SIGCPR200. Evanston Illinois.
[100]
Jung, Yoonhyuk. 2011. “Understanding the Role of Sense of Presence and Perceived
Autonomy in Users’ Continued Use of Social Virtual Worlds.” Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication 16(4):492–510.
[101]
Kannengiesser, Udo, and John S Gero. 2012. “A Process Framework of Affordances in
Design.” Design Issues 28(1).
[102]
Kao, Yie-Fang, Li-Shia Huang, and Cheng-Hsien Wu. 2008. “Effects of Theatrical Elements
on Experiential Quality and Loyalty Intentions for Theme Parks.” Asia Pacific Journal of
Tourism Research 13(2):163–174.
-107-
[103]
Kao, Y.F., Huang, L.S., and Yang, M.H. 2007. “Effects of Experiential Elements on
Experiential Satisfaction and Loyalty Intentions: a Case Study of the Super Basketball
League in Taiwan.” International Journal of Revenue Management 1(1):79–96.
[104]
Kaplan, Andreas M., and Michael Haenlein. 2010. “Users of the World, Unite! The
Challenges and Opportunities of Social Media.” Business Horizons 53(1):59–68.
[105]
Kaptelinin, Victor. 1992. “Computer-Mediated Activity: Functional Organs in Social and
Developmental Contexts.” Pp. 45–68 in Context and Consciousness edited by Bonnie A
Nardi. MIT.
[106]
Karahanna, E., D.W. Straub, and N.L. Chervany. 1999. “Information Technology Adoption
across Time: A Cross-Sectional Comparison of Pre-Adoption and Post-Adoption Belief.” MIS
Quarterly 2(3):183–213.
[107]
Keen, P.G.W. 2001. “Relationships: The Electronic Commerce Imperative.” Pp. 163–185 in
Information Technology and the Future Enterprise: New Models for Managers. Edited by
G.W. Dickson and G. DeSanctis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
[108]
Kelley, Harold H et al. 1983. “Analyzing Close Relationship.” Pp. 20–67 in Close
Relationship, edited by Judith Wilson. New York.
[109]
Kettinger, W.J., S.H.S. Park, and J. Smith. 2009. “Understanding the Consequences of
Information Systems Service Quality on IS Sevice Reuse.” Information and Management
46(6):335–341.
[110]
Kim, Byoungsoo. 2011. “Understanding Antecedents of Continuance Intention in Social
Networking Services.” Cyber psychology 14(4):199–205.
[111]
Kim, Hee-Woong, Hock Chuan Chan, and Yee Pia Chan. 2007. “A Balanced Thinking
Feelings Model of Information Systems Continuance.” International Journal of HumanComputer Studies 65(6):511–525.
[112]
Kim, Jang Hyun, Min-Sun Kim, and Yoonjae Nam. 2010. “An Analysis of Self-Construal,
Motivations, Facebook Use, and User Satisfaction.” International Journal of HumanComputer Interaction 26(11-12):1077–1099.
[113]
Kim, Sung S, and Naresh K. Malhorta. 2005. “Management Model An Integrative View
Underlying IS Use : of Continued of Four Mechanisms Phenomena Post-Adoption.”
Management Science 51(5):741–755.
-108-
[114]
Kim, Sung S., Naresh K. Malhotra, and Sridhar Narasimhan. 2005. “Research Note, Two
Competing Perspectives on Automatic Use: A Theoretical and Empirical Comparison.”
Information Systems Research 16(4):418–432.
[115]
Kuniavsky, Mike. 2003. Observing the User Experience: A Practitioner’s Guide to User
Research. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
[116]
Kuss, Daria J, and Mark D Griffiths. 2011. “Online Social Networking and Addiction: a
Review of the Psychological Literature.” International Journal of Environmental Research
and Public Health 8(9):3528–52.
[117]
Lai, Linda S. L., and Efraim Turban. 2008. “Groups Formation and Operations in the Web
2.0 Environment and Social Networks.” Group Decision and Negotiation 17(5):387–402.
[118]
Lampe, Cliff, Nicole B Ellison, and Charles Steinfield. 2008. “Changes in Use and
Perception of Facebook.” Pp. 721–730 in Computer Supported Cooperative Work’08. San
Diago.
[119]
Lankton, N.K., E.V. Wilson, and E. Mao. 2010. “Antecedents and Determinants of
Information Technology Habit.” Information and Management 47(5/6):300–307.
[120]
Lattin, James M., J. Douglas Caroll, and E. Green Paul. 2003. Analyzing Multivariate Data.
Pacific Grove, CA: Thomson.
[121]
Laurel, Brenda. 1993. Computer as Theatre. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley.
[122]
Law, Effie L.-C., and Paul van Schaik. 2010. “Modeling User Experience – An Agenda for
Research and Practice.” Interacting with Computers 22(5):313–322.
[123]
Lee, Zach W.Y., Christy M.K. Cheung, and Dimple R. Thadani. 2012. “An Investigation into
the Problematic Use of Facebook.” 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences 1768–1776.
[124]
Lemmens, Jeroen S., Patti M. Valkenburg, and Jochen Peter. 2009. “Development and
Validation of a Game Addiction Scale for Adolescents.” Media Psychology 12(1):77–95.
[125]
Li, Dahui, Glenn Browne, and James Wetherbe. 2006. “Why Do Internet Users Stick with a
Specific Web Site? A Relationship Perspective.” International Journal of Electronic
Commerce 10(4):105–141.
[126]
Light, A. 2004. “Designing to Persuade: the use of Emotion in Networked Media.” Interacting
with Computers 16(4):729–738.
-109-
[127]
Limayem, M., and C.M.K. Cheung. 2008a. “Understanding Information Systems
Continuance: The Case of Internet-Based Learning Technologies.” Information and
Management 45(4):227–232.
[128]
Limayem, Moez, Sabine Gabriele Hirt, and Christy M K Cheung. 2007. “How Habit Limits
the Predictive Power of Intention: The Case of Information Systems Continuance.” MIS
Quarterly 31(4):705–737.
[129]
Limayem, Moez, Sabine Gabriele Hirt, and Wynne W Chin. 2001. “Intention does not Always
Matter: The Contingent Role of Habit on IT Usage Behavior.” Pp. 274–286 in Global CoOperation in the New Millennium The 9th European Conference on Information Systems.
Bled, Slovenia.
[130]
Lin, Aleck C H, Shirley Gregor, Olga Vasilyeva, and Jessica C.C. Huang. 2011. “Leveraging
the Web Enjoyment Experience For Informal Online Learning: A Field Study.” Pp. 1–12 in
ECIS 2011 Proceedings. Paper 136.
[131]
Lin, Aleck, Shirley Gregor, and Michael Ewing. 2008. “Developing a Scale to Measure the
Enjoyment of Web Experiences.” Journal of Interactive Marketing 22(4):40–57.
[132]
Locke, Edwin A. 1991. “The Motivation Sequence, the Motivation Hub, and the Motivation
Core.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50(2):288–299.
[133]
Lowry, Paul Benjamin, Nicholas C. Romano, Jeffrey L. Jenkins, and Randy W. Guthrie.
2009. “The CMC Interactivity Model: How Interactivity Enhances Communication Quality
and Process Satisfaction in Lean-Media Groups.” Journal of Management Information
Systems 26(1):155–196.
[134]
Lu, Hsi-Peng, and Ming-Ren Lee. 2011. “Experience Differences and Continuance Iintention
of Blog Sharing.” Behavior & Information Technology (June):1–15.
[135]
Mageau, Genevieve a., Robert J. Vallerand, Franclois L. Rousseau, Catherine F. Ratelle,
and Pierre J. Provencher. 2005. “Passion and Gambling: Investigating the Divergent
Affective and Cognitive Consequences of Gambling.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology
35(1):100–118.
[136]
Mageau, Geneviève a et al. 2009. “On the Development of Harmonious and Obsessive
Passion: the Role of Autonomy Support, Activity Specialization, and Identification with the
Activity.” Journal of personality 77(3):601–46.
-110-
[137]
Mageau, Geneviève a., and Robert J. Vallerand. 2007. “The Moderating Effect of Passion
on the Relation Between Activity Engagement and Positive Affect.” Motivation and Emotion
31(4):312–321.
[138]
Malhotra, Yogesh, Dennis F. Galletta, and Laurie J. Kirsch. 2008. “How Endogenous
Motivations Influence User Intentions: Beyond the Dichotomy of Extrinsic and Intrinsic User
Motivations.” Journal of Management Information Systems 25(1):267–300.
[139]
Marakas, G. 2000. “A Theoretical Model of Differential Social Attributions Toward
Computing Technology: when the Metaphor Becomes the Model.” International Journal of
Human-Computer Studies 52(4):719–750.
[140]
Marchionini, Gary. 2008. “Human–Information Interaction Research and Development.”
Library & Information Science Research 30(3):165–174.
[141]
Markus, M Lynne, and Mark S. Silver. 2008. “A Foundation for the Study of IT Effects : A
New Look at DeSanctis and Poole ’ s Concepts of Structural Features and Spirit.” Journal of
the Association for Information Systems 9(10):609–632.
[142]
Martinko, Mark J, John W Henry, and Robert W Zmud. 1996. “An Attributional Explanation
of Individual Resistance to the Introduction of Information Technologies in the Workplace.”
Behavior & Information Technology 15(5):313–330.
[143]
Mattingly, Brent A., Kevin P. Mcintyre, and Gary W. Lewandowski. 2012. “Approach
Motivation and the Expansion of Self in Close Relationships.” Personal Relationships
19(1):113–127.
[144]
McArthur, Leslie Z., and Reuben M. Baron. 1983. “Toward an Ecological Theory of Social
Perception.” Psychological Review 90(3):215–238.
[145]
McClintock, Evie. 1983. “Interaction.” in Close Relationship, edited by Judith Wilson. USA:
W. H. Freeman and Company.
[146]
McCarthy, John, and Peter Wright. 2004. Technology as Experience. MIT. Cambridge, MA:
MIT.
[147]
Mechant, Peter, and Tom Evens. 2009. “Interaction Possibilities on Web 2 . 0 , Websites as
a Framework for Cluster Analysis.” Pp. 290 – 299 in COST 298 - The Good, the Bad and the
Challenging. Copenhagen ; Denmark.
-111-
[148]
Meerkerk, G-J, R J J M Van Den Eijnden, A Vermulst, and H F L Garretsen. 2009. “The
Compulsive Internet Use Scale (CIUS): Some Psychometric Properties.” Cyber psychology
& Behavior  12(1):1–6.
[149]
Mollen, Anne, and Hugh Wilson. 2010. “Engagement, Telepresence and Interactivity in
Online Consumer Experience: Reconciling Scholastic and Managerial Perspectives.”
Journal of Business Research 63(9-10):919–925. Retrieved July 28, 2011 .
[150]
Morahan-martin, Janet. 2010. “Internet Abuse : Emerging Trends and Lingering Questions.”
Pp. 32–69 in Psychological aspects of Cyberspace. Theory, research and applications (pp.
32–69). Press, vol. 2008, edited by A. Barak. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
[151]
Morgan, Robert M., and Shelby D. Hunt. 1994. “The Commitment-Trust Theory of
Relationship Marketing.” Journal of Marketing 58(3):20–38.
[152]
Morgan-Thomas, Anna, and Cleopatra Veloutsou. 2011. “Beyond Technology Acceptance:
Brand Relationships and Online Brand Experience.” Journal of Business Research.
[153]
Nambisan, Satish, and Priya Nambisan. 2008. “How to Profit From a Better ‘ Virtual
Customer Environment ’.” MITSloan Management Review 49(3):52–61.
[154]
Nardi, Bonnie A. 1993. “Action Models , and Distributed Cognition.” Pp. 69–102 in Context
and Consciousness edited by Bonnie A Nardi.
[155]
Nass, Clifford, and Youngme Moon. 2000. “Machines and Mindlessness: Social Responses
to Computers.” Journal of Social Issues 56(1):81–103.
[156]
Newtson, Darren, and Gretchen Engquist. 1976. “The Perceptual Organization of Ongoing
Behavior.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 12(5):436–450.
[157]
Nielsen. 2011. “State of the Media: The Social Media Report Q3 2011.” Retrieved
(http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/social/).
[158]
Norman, Donald A. 1999. “Affordance, Convention and Design.” Interactions, ACM Press
6(3):38–42.
[159]
Novak, Thomas P, and Donna L Hoffman. 1996. “Marketing in Hypermedia Environment
Foundations.” Journal of Marketing 60(3):50–68.
[160]
Ofcom. 2008. Social Networking: A Quantitative and Qualitative Research Report into
Attitudes, Behaviors and use. Office of Communication, UK.
-112-
[161]
Oliver, Richard L. 1980. “A Cognitive Model for the Antece- dents and Consequences of
Satisfaction.” Journal of Marketing 17(4):460–469.
[162]
Oliver, Richard L., Roland T. Rust, and Sajeev Varki. 1997. “Customer Delight : Foundations,
Findings, and Managerial Insight.” Journal of Retailing 73(3):311–336.
[163]
Ouellette, Judith A., and Wendy Wood. 1998. “Habit and Intention in Everyday Life: The
Multiple Processes by which Past Behavior Predicts Future Behavior.” Psychological
Bulletin 124(1):54–74.
[164]
O’Brien, Heather L, and Elaine G Toms. 2008. “What is User Engagement ? A Conceptual
Framework for Defining User Engagement with Technology.” Journal of the American
Society for Information Science 59(6):938–955.
[165]
Palmer, Adrian. 2010. “Customer Experience Management: a Critical Review of an
Emerging Idea.” Journal of Services Marketing 24(3):196–208.
[166]
Papacharissi, Zizi, and Andrew Mendelson. 2008. “Toward a New(er) Sociability: Uses,
Gratifications, and Social Capital on Facebook.” Paper Presented at the Internet Research
Conference. Copenhagen, Denmark
[167]
Parameswaran, Manoj, and Andrew B Whinston. 2007. “Research Issues in Social
Computing.” Journal of the Association for Information System 8(6):336–350.
[168]
Parsons, Paul, and Kamran Sedig. 2011. “Human-Information Interaction : An Emerging
Focus for Educational Cognitive Tools.” Pp. 245–251 in Education in a Technology World:
Communicating Current and Emerging Research and Technological Effort, edited by A.
Mendez-Vilas. FORMATEX2011.
[169]
Partala, Timo, and Aleksi Kallinen. 2012. “Understanding the Most Satisfying and
Unsatisfying User Experiences: Emotions, Psychological Needs, and Context.” Interacting
with Computers 24(1):25–34.
[170]
Patwardhan, Hemant, and Siva K. Balasubramanian. 2011. “Brand Romance: a
Complementary Approach to Explain Emotional Attachment Toward Brands.” Journal of
Product & Brand Management 20(4):297–308.
[171]
Paul Resnick, and Robert Kraut. 2012. Evidence-based Social Design: Mining the Social
Sciences to Build Online Communities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
-113-
[172]
Perotti, Victor, and Neil Hair. 2011. “User Experience in Online Social Networks : A
Qualitative Analysis of Key Activities and Associated Features.” Pp. 1–10 in Proceedings of
the 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.
[173]
Peterson, Christopher. 2000. “The Future of Optimism.” American Psychologist 55(1):44–55.
[174]
Pfeil, Ulrike, Panayiotis Zaphiris, and Stephanie Wilson. 2010. “The Role of MessageSequences in the Sustainability of an Online Support Community for Older People.” Journal
of Computer-Mediated Communication 15(2):336–363.
[175]
Philippe, Frederick L, Robert J. Vallerand, and Nathalie Houlfort. 2010. “Passion and
Interpersonal Relationship.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 98(6):917–932.
[176]
Philippe, Frederick L., Robert J. Vallerand, and Geneviève L. Lavigne. 2009. “Passion Does
Make a Difference in People’s Lives: A Look at Well-Being in Passionate and NonPassionate Individuals.” Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being 1(1):3–22.
[177]
Pine, B. Joseph, and James H. Gilmore. 1998. The Experience Economy: Work is Theatre
and Every Business a Stage. Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.
[178]
Rafael, E, Vesna , Cara Wrigley, Rafael Gomez, and Vesna Popovic. 2010. “The Evaluation
of Qualitative Methods Selection in the Field of Design and Emotion.” in 7th International
Conference on Design and Emotion, October, 2010.
[179]
Rafaeli, S., and F. Sudweeks. 1997. “Networked Interaction.” Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication 2(4).
[180]
Rasmussen, Soley. 2010. “Social Computing : Inviting Multiple Ways of Evaluating Worth.”
Working Papers on Information Systems 10(7).
[181]
Ratelle, Catherine F, Robert J Vallerand, Geneviève a Mageau, François L Rousseau, and
Pierre Provencher. 2004. “When Passion Leads to Problematic Outcomes: a Look at
Gambling.” Journal of Gambling Studies 20(2):105–19.
[182]
Rau, P., Q Gao, and Y Ding. 2008. “Relationship Between the Level of Intimacy and Lurking
in Online Social Network Services.” Computers in Human Behavior 24(6):2757–2770.
[183]
Reeves, Byron, and Clifford Nass. 1996. The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers,
Television, and New Media Like Real people and Place. CSLI Publications.
-114-
[184]
Reinboth, Michael, and Joan L. Duda. 2006. “Perceived Motivational Climate, Need
Satisfaction and Indices of Well-being in Team Sports: A Longitudinal Perspective.”
Psychology of Sport and Exercise 7(3):269–286.
[185]
Reinhard, C. D., and B. Dervin. 2012. “Comparing Situated Sense-making Processes in
Virtual Worlds: Application of Dervin’s Sense-Making Methodology to Media Reception
Situations.” Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media
Technologies 18(1):27–48.
[186]
Ren, Yuqing, F., Maxwell Harper, and John Riedl. 2012. “Building Member Attachment in
Online Communities : Applying Theories of Group Identity and Interpersonal Bonds.” MIS
Quarterly 36(3).
[187]
Ries, Harry T., Margarat S. Clark, and John G. Holmes. 2004. “Perceived Partner
Responsiveness as an Organizing Construct in the Study of Intimacy and Closeness.” Pp.
201–228 in Handbook of Closeness & Intimacy. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
[188]
Rose, Susan, Neil Hair, and Moira Clark. 2011. “Online Customer Experience: A Review of
the Business-to-Consumer Online Purchase Context.” International Journal of Management
Reviews 13(1):24–39.
[189]
Rousseau, François L, Robert J Vallerand, Catherine F Ratelle, Geneviève a Mageau, and
Pierre J Provencher. 2002. “Passion and Gambling: on the Validation of the Gambling
Passion Scale (GPS).” Journal of gambling studies 18(1):45–66.
[190]
Rusbult, C. E., and B. P. Buunk. 1993. “Commitment Processes in Close Relationships: An
Interdependence Analysis.” Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 10(2):175–204.
[191]
Rusbult, Caryl E, and Paul a M Van Lange. 2003. “Interdependence, Interaction, and
Relationships.” Annual review of psychology 54:351–75.
[192]
Ryan, Rm, and El Deci. 2000. “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and
New Directions.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 25(1):54–67.
[193]
Saeed, K.A., and S. Abdinnour-Helm. 2008. “Examining the Effects of Information System
Characteristics and Perceived Usefulness on Post Adoption Usage of Information Systems.”
Information and Management 45(6):376–386.
-115-
[194]
Sally J. McMillan. 2006. “Exploring Models of Interactivity From Multiple Research
Tradation :Users, Documents, and Systems.” Pp. 205–229 in the Handbook of New Media
(pp. 205-229). Sage, 2006., edited by L. Lievrouw and S. Livingstone. Sage.
[195]
Saunders, Carol, and Jack William Jones. 1990. “Temporal Sequences Information
Acquisition for Decision Making : on Source and Medium Focus.” The Academy of
Management Review 15(1):29–46.
[196]
Seguin-Levesque, Chantal et al. 2003. “Harmonious and Obsessive Passion for the Internet:
Their Associations with the Couple’s Relationship.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology
33(1):197–221.
[197]
Selm, Martine, and Nicholas W. Jankowski. 2006. “Conducting Online Surveys.” Quality &
Quantity 40(3):435–456.
[198]
Sheldon, Kennon M, Neetu Abad, and Christian Hinsch. 2011. “A Two Process View of
Facebook Use and Relatedness Need-Satisfaction: Disconnection Drives Use, and
Connection Rewards .” Journal of personality and social psychology 100(4):766–75.
[199]
Shepard, Roger N. 1984. “Ecological Constraints on Internal Representation: Resonant
Kinematics of Perceiving, Imagining, Thinking, and Dreaming.” Psychological Review 91(4).
[200]
Shiau, Wen-Lung, and Margaret Meiling Luo. 2012. “Continuance Intention of Blog Users:
the Impact of Perceived Enjoyment, Habit, User Involvement and Blogging Time.” Behavior
& Information Technology (June):1–14.
[201]
Shiau, Wen-lung, Li-chun Huang, and Chia-hui Shih. 2011. “Understanding Continuance
Intention of Blog Users : A Perspective of Flow and Expectation Confirmation Theory.”
Journal of Convergence Information Technology 6(4):306–317.
[202]
Shneiderman, Ben, Jennifer Preece, and Peter Pirolli. 2011. “Realizing the Value of Social
Media Requires Innovative Computing Research.” Communications of the ACM 54(9):34.
[203]
Shook, Christopher L., David J. Ketchen, G. Tomas M. Hult, and K. Michele Kacmar. 2004.
“An Assessment of the Use of Structural Equation Modeling in Strategic Management
Research.” Strategic Management Journal 25(4):397–404.
[204]
Smock, Andrew D., Nicole B. Ellison, Cliff Lampe, and Donghee Yvette Wohn. 2011.
“Facebook as a Toolkit: A Uses and Gratification Approach to Unbundling Feature Use.”
Computers in Human Behavior.
-116-
[205]
Spiller, J., A. Vlasic, and P. Yetton. 2007. “Post- Adoption Behavior of Users of Internet
Service Providers.” Information and Management 44(6):513–523.
[206]
Steuer, Jonathan. 1992. “Defining Virtual Reality: Dimensions Determining Telepresence.”
Journal of Communication 42(4):73–93.
[207]
Sussman, Steve et al. 2011. “A Framework for the Specificity of Addictions.” International
Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 8(8):3399–415.
[208]
Tamborini, Ron, Nicholas David Bowman, Allison Eden, Matthew Grizzard, and Ashley
Organ. 2010. “Defining Media Enjoyment as the Satisfaction of Intrinsic Needs.” Journal of
Communication 60(4):758–777.
[209]
Taylor, Alex S et al. 2012. “Social Theory as a Thinking Tool for Empathic Design.” Design
Issues 28(1).
[210]
Toms, Elaine G. 2002. “Information Interaction: Providing a Framework for Information
Architecture.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
53(10):855–862.
[211]
Tosun, Leman Pinar, and Timo Lajunen. 2009. “Why Do Young Adults Develop a Passion
for Internet Activities? The Associations Among Personality, Revealing ‘“ True Self ”’ on the
Internet , and Passion for the Internet.” Cyber Psychology & Behavior
[212]
Turner, Phil. 2010. “The Anatomy of Engagement.” Pp. 59–66 in ECCE 2010 Conference,,
vol. 44. Delft, The Netherlands.
[213]
Vallerand, Robert J et al. 2003. “Les passions de l’ame: on Obsessive and Harmonious
Passion.” Journal of personality and social psychology 85(4):756–67.
[214]
Vallerand, Robert J. 2008. “On the Psychology of Passion: In Search of what Makes
People’s Lives Most Worth Living.” Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne 49(1):1–
13.
[215]
Vallerand, Robert J., and Catherine F. Ratelle. 2002. “Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: A
Hirarchical Model.” Pp. 37–63 in Handbook of Self Determination Research: Blackwell
[216]
Vassileva, Julita. 2012. “Motivating Participation in Social Computing Applications: a User
Modeling Perspective.” User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction 22(1-2):177–201.
-117-
[217]
Vatanasombut, Banphot, Magid Igbaria, Antonis C. Stylianou, and Waymond Rodgers. 2008.
“Information Systems Continuance Intention of Web-based Applications Customers: The
Case of Online Banking.” Information & Management 45(7):419–428.
[218]
Venkatesh, Viswanath, James Y. L. Thong, and Xin Xu. 2012. “Consumer Acceptance and
Use of Information Technology : Extending the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of
Technology.” MIS Quarterly 36(1):157–178.
[219]
Verhoef, Peter C. et al. 2009. “Customer Experience Creation: Determinants, Dynamics and
Management Strategies.” Journal of Retailing 85(1):31–41.
[220]
Vyas, Dhaval, and Cristina M Chisalita. 2006. “Affordance in Interaction.” in Proceedings of
the 13th European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics: Trust and Control in Complex
Socio- Technical Systems (New York: ACMPress, 2006), 92-9.
[221]
Wang, Chee, Keng John, Angeline Khoo, Woon Chia Liu, and Shanti Divaharan. 2008.
“Passion and Intrinsic Motivation in Digital Gaming.” Cyber psychology & Behavior 11(1):39–
45.
[222]
Wang, Chih-chien, and Yi-shiu Chu . 2007. “Harmonious Passion and Obsessive Passion in
Playing Online Games." Social Behavior and Personality 35(7):997–1006.
[223]
Wang, Fei-yue, Daniel Zeng, et al. 2007. “Social Computing : From Social Informatics to
Social Intelligence.” IEEE Intelligent Systems (December 2006):79–83.
[224]
Wang, Xuequn. 2010. “Beyond Adoption Intention : Online Communities and Member
Motivation to Contribute Longitudinally.” in Proceedings of JAIS Theory Development
Workshop . Sprouts Working Papers on Information Systems, 10(77), vol. 10.
[225]
Wasko, Molly McLure, and Samer Faraj. 2005. “Why Should I Share ? Examining Social and
Knowledge Capital Contribution in Electronic of Practice Networks.” Management
Information Systems 29(1):35–57.
[226]
Webster, James G. 2010. “User Information Regimes : How Social Media Shape Patterns of
Consumptions.” Northwestern University Law Review 104(2):593–612.
[227]
Webster, James G. 2011. “The Duality of Media: A Structurational Theory of Public
Attention.” Communication Theory 21(1):43–66.
-118-
[228]
Wechsung, Ina, Klaus-Peter Engelbrecht, Christine Kühnel, Sebastian Möller, and Benjamin
Weiss. 2012. “Measuring the Quality of Service and Quality of Experience of Multimodal
Human–Machine Interaction.” Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces 6(1-2):73–85.
[229]
Weiner, B. 1985. “An Attributional Theory of Achievement, Motivation and Emotion.”
Psychological Review 92(4):548–73.
[230]
Wilson, R. E., S. D. Gosling, and L. T. Graham. 2012. “A Review of Facebook Research in
the Social Sciences.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 7(3):203–220.
[231]
Wright, Peter, John McCarthy, and Lisa Meekison. 2003. “Making Sense of Experience.” in
Funology—From Usability to Enjoyment, edited by M.A. Blythe et al. : Kluwer Academic.
[232]
Wu, C.G., J.H. Gerlach, and C.E. Young. 2007. “An Empirical Analysis of Open Source
Software
Developers’
Motivations
and
Continuance
Intentions.”
Information
and
Management 44(3):253–262.
[233]
Wu, M.C., and F.Y. Kuo. 2008. “An Empirical Investigation of Habitual Usage and Past
Usage on Technology Acceptance Evaluations and Continuance Intention.” SIGMIS
Database 39(4):48–73.
[234]
Young, Kimberly. 2009. “Internet Addiction : Diagnosis and Treatment Considerations.”
Contemporary Psychotherapy 39:241–246.
[235]
Young, Kimberly S. 1996. “Pathological Internet Use: A Case That Breaks the Stereotype.”
Psychological Reports 79(3):899–902.
[236]
Zac, Jeffrey M. Zacks, and Barbara Tversky. 2001. “Event Structure in Perception and
Conception.” Psychological Bulletin 127(1):3–21.
[237]
Zacks, Jeffrey M, Nicole K Speer, Khena M Swallow, Todd S Braver, and Jeremy R
Reynolds. 2007. “Event Perception: A Mind/Brain Perspective.” Psychological Assessment
133(2):273–293.
[238]
Zaichkowsky, Judith Lynne. 1985. “Measuring the Involvement Construct.” Journal of
Consumer Research 12(3):341–352.
[239]
Zhao, Ling, and Yaobin Lu. 2012. “Enhancing perceived Interactivity Through Network
Externalities: An Empirical Study on Micro-blogging Service Satisfaction and Continuance
Intention.” Decision Support Systems in press.
-119-
Summary in Korea
소셜 컴퓨팅 지속 사용에 관한 연구: 경험적 관점을 중심으로
최근 소셜 네트워크 서비스(SNS)와 블로그 등 소셜 컴퓨팅 서비스의 확장으로 인해
소셜 컴퓨팅 서비스의 수용과 사용에 관한 연구가 주목 받고 있다. 소셜 컴퓨팅에 대한 대부
분의 기존 연구들은 기술 수용 모델(Technology Acceptance Model)과 계획 행동에 관한 이
론(Theory of Planned Behavior)을 바탕으로, 특정시스템에 대한 사용자 만족도를 연구하였
다. 그러나, 소셜 컴퓨팅의 지속적인 사용은 사용자 만족도에만 기인하지 않는다. 다양한 온
라인 정보 시스템이 존재하는 상황 하에서 사용자의 특정 시스템 사용은 시스템과 사용자의
관계에 의해 결정된다. 본 논문은 사용자와 소셜 컴퓨팅 시스템의 관계라는 관점에서 소셜
컴퓨팅의 지속 사용에 대한 연구하였다. 본 연구는 다음과 같은 두 가지 하위 연구들로 구성
된다.
첫 번째 연구에서는 소셜 컴퓨팅의 지속적인 사용에 관해 사용자의 경험과 시스템과
의 관계를 바탕으로 연구 프레임워크를 제시한다. 이 프레임워크는 정보 시스템, 사회 심리
학, 그리고 기술 철학에 관련된 다양한 문헌조사를 기반으로 개발되었고, 사용자와 컴퓨터
사이의 상호작용의 관점에서 관계와 경험에 관련된 개념을 다룬다. 또한, 이것은 소셜 컴퓨
팅의 지속적인 사용에 영향을 미치는 요인들을 제시해 주며, 다양한 내적 외적 요인들의 상
호작용을 보여준다. 본 연구에서 개발된 프레임워크는 일반적으로 정보시스템의 지속적인
사용에 영향을 미치는 요인들과 특정 시스템의 특성에 따른 사용 요인들을 조사하는데 도움
을 준다. 또한, 정보시스템에서 사용자 경험 정도의 역할에 대한 연구의 실마리를 제공해 줄
것이다.
두 번째 연구는 첫 번째 연구를 바탕으로 사용자와 SNS 활동 사이의 밀접한 관계
(Close Relationship)가 지속적인 사용에 어떻게 영향을 미치는지를 연구한다. 또한, 이 관계
가 지속적인 사용에 영향을 미치는 요인들인지를 개별적으로 조사한다. 본 연구는 ‘Dualistic
Model of Passion (DMP)’를 주요 이론적 배경으로 열정(passion)의 종류에 따른 다양한 설
명을 제공한다. 본 연구에서는 “조화로운 열정”과 “강박관념의 열정” 등 두 가지 종류의 열정
을 구분하여 모형화하였다. 연구 결과는 SNS 활동에 대한 열정이 지속적인 사용에 영향을
유의한 영향을 미친다는 것을 보여주고 있으며, 비록 두 가지 열정 모두 영향을 주지만 그
중에서도 조화로운 열정만이 지속적인 사용 의도에 긍정적인 영향을 준다는 것을 보여준다.
또한, 강박관념의 열정은 SNS 사용시 문제로 작용할 수 있다는 점도 제시되었다. 본 연구는
Facebook을 대상으로 진행됐다. 본 연구는 다른 소셜 컴퓨팅 응용에 관한 연구에 적용 될
수 있을 것이며, 본 연구의 결과는 SNS 중독 성향의 문제에 대한 근거를 제시해 주는데 그
의의가 있다 하겠다.
-120-
Appendix 1. Questionnaire
This research is about the factors contributing to the continual usage of Social Network Sites. Using
this survey questionnaire we are planning to collect data pertaining to users' attitudes and
experiences towards Facebook activities. We will be grateful if you would take part in this survey.
Participation in this survey is voluntary and information provided will be used only for the purpose of
this study and will be treated in the strictest of confidence. We thank you in advance for giving us your
valuable time to answer the questionnaire. You can direct any enquires concerning this survey
through this e-mail: [email protected] Give your answer for each question by marking (clicking) on
the answer of your choice. Please scroll down to move to the remaining questions & click the "Submit"
button when you finish answering all the questions. Note: You can answer the questions only if you
are a user of Facebook.
* Required
1. What is your gender? *
Male
2. Occupation
Student
Female
Non Student
3. Your educational level
Primary School
Secondary High School
Collage/University level education (Diploma /First Degree
Post Graduate
4. Which of the following categories includes your age?
Below 18 years
36-45 years
18-25 years
26-35 years
Above 45 years
5. Which device do you most often use when you access your Facebook account? * (you can select
more than one)
Mobile /Smart Phone
Laptop
Personal Computer (Home/School or office computer)
I am not sure
6. How long have you been using Facebook? *
Less than 6 months
2 years – 3 years
6 months - 1 year
More than 3 years
-121-
1 year - 2 years
7. How many Facebook friends do you have? *
Less than 50 friends
50-150 friends
301-500 friends
501- 700 friends
151-300 friends
More than 700 friends
8. How often do you visit Facebook? *
Less than once in a month
Several times a month
Once a week
Several time a week
Every day
Several times a day
9. On average, how long do you spend on Facebook once you open your account (in a given session)?
*
Less than 10 minutes
10-30 minutes
31minutes - 1 hour
1- 2 hours
2-3 hours
More than 3 hours
10. The following statements are questions regarding how often you perform certain activities on
Facebook. Please indicate how often you do each of these activities by selecting the options given for
each question. *
Very
Never
Rarely
Occasionally Frequently
Frequently
How often do you update your
Facebook status?
Do you read other people's
(friends) profiles & wall posts?
Do you Comment/tag on other
people’s (friend’s) “ Status,”
“photos” or “wall posts”?
How often do you upload
photos and/or create links?
-122-
11. The following list of items indicates your reason for using Facebook, please indicate your
agreement/disagreement by selecting the choices given for each sentence *
Strongly
Strongly
Disagree
Neither
Agree
Disagree
Agree
I use Facebook, because I simply
enjoy using Facebook.
I use Facebook , because Facebook
activities are important and beneficial
for my Social life
I use Facebook , because I would feel
bad about myself if I didn’t use
Facebook
I use Facebook , because using
Facebook is fun and interesting
I use Facebook , because my
Facebook friends like me better when I
am regularly using Facebook
I use Facebook , because I am afraid
of being separated from my friends
and miss important information if I do
not use Facebook
I use Facebook , because using
Facebook helps to improve my image
I use Facebook , because it is
personally important to me to use
Facebook
I use Facebook , because I feel
pressured to use Facebook
I use Facebook , because I strongly
value being active in sharing
information
I use Facebook , because discovering
and mastering new information is
pleasurable
I use Facebook , because I want
others to see me as active in online
activities
-123-
12. The following lists refer to your experience and feelings towards Facebook. Please indicate how
much you agree or disagree by rating each statement below. (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3
= Uncertain, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree ) *
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Uncertain
Agree
Strongly
Agree
I like Facebook
Facebook allows me to enjoy my life more
Using Facebook is in harmony with the
other activities in my life
The new things that I am discovering with
Facebook allow me to appreciate Facebook
even more
I am proud to tell people I’m on Facebook
I couldn't live without Facebook
I am emotionally dependent on using
Facebook
I have a tough time controlling my need to
use Facebook
I have almost an obsessive feeling for using
Facebook
The urge is too strong, I cannot help myself
from opening my Facebook account
I felt addicted to Facebook
13. The following lists refer to problems related to the amount of time spent on using Facebook.
Please indicate either you agree or not by selecting one of the given ratings. (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2
= Disagree, 3 = Uncertain, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree ) *
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Uncertain
Agree
Strongly
Agree
I feel guilty about the amount of time I
spend on Facebook
I have tried to stop using Facebook for long
periods of time
I have gone on Facebook for longer period
of time than I had intended
14. The following statements refer to what you are usually feeling while using Facebook. Please
indicate whether you agree or not by selecting one of the given ratings. (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 =
Disagree, 3 = Uncertain, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree ) *
-124-
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Uncertain
Agree
While using Facebook , I usually engaged
deeply
While using Facebook, my attention is
usually focused
While using Facebook , I am unable to
concentrate
15. How good is your feeling to Facebook as compared to your relation with other systems? For
example as compared to your relation with your e-mail. *
I have a great feeling for Facebook as compared to other systems I am using
I have a somewhat better feeling for Facebook as compared to other systems I am using
I do not have any special feeling for Facebook as compared to other systems I am using
I have less feeling for Facebook as compared to other systems I am using
I am uncertain
16. In general, how satisfied are you with your involvement in Facebook activities? *
Not satisfied
Some what
Very little
Uncertain
To a great extent
17. How well does Facebook meet your expectations? *
It has never meet my expectation
Somewhat
Very little
To a great Extent
-125-
Uncertain
Strongly
Agree
18. The following statements refer to your intention to use Facebook in the future. Please indicate
whether you agree or not to the statements given. (1=Strongly Disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= Undecided,
4= Agree, 5= Strongly agree ) *
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Undecided Agree
I want to continue
using Facebook
My intentions are to
continue using
Facebook rather than
any alternative means.
If I could, I would like
to discontinue using
Facebook
-126-
Strongly agree
Appendix 2.Cross Loading Table
AD
CI
FA
HP
IM
IR
OP
RS
US
AD2
0.8788
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
AD3
0.8042
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
AD4
0.7218
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
CI1
0.0000
0.9125
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
CI12
0.0000
0.8405
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
CID3I
0.0000
0.7230
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
FA1
0.0000
0.0000
0.8798
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
FA2
0.0000
0.0000
0.9113
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
HP1
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.7982
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
HP2
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.8296
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
HP3
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.7881
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
HP4
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.7849
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
IM1
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.7972
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
IM2
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.8120
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
IM3
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.7163
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
IR1
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.8082
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
IR2
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.7602
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
IR3
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.8005
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
OP1
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.7863
0.0000
0.0000
OP2
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.8977
0.0000
0.0000
OP3
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.8591
0.0000
0.0000
OP4
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.8842
0.0000
0.0000
SA1
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.7654
0.0000
SA2
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.6994
0.0000
SA3
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.7729
0.0000
Uscomrnt
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.6945
Usstatus
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.7788
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.7529
VisFrequency
-127-