Something for nothing: Understanding purchasing behaviors in social virtual environments

Cyberpsychology and Behavior

Volumn 8, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 538-554

  Chung, Donghun ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AVATAR; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; COMPUTER PREDICTION; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; HYPOTHESIS; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; ONLINE SYSTEM; PEER GROUP; PURCHASING; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL; THEORETICAL MODEL; VIRTUAL REALITY;

ADULT; COMMERCE; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNET; MALE; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 29444454922     PISSN: 10949313     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/cpb.2005.8.538     Document Type: Article

References (75)

1. Morningstar, C., & Farmer, F.R. (1991). The lessons of Lucasfilms habitat. In: Benedikt, M. (ed.), Cyberspace: first steps. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 273-301.
2. Suler, J. (1997). The psychology of avatars and graphical space in multimedia chat communities [On-line]. Available: 〈www.rider.edu/~suler/ psycyber/psyav.html〉.
3. Nowak, K. (2000). The influence of anthropomorphism on mental models of agents and avatars in social virtual environments [Doctoral dissertation]. East Lansing: Michigan State University.
4. Security. (1999). Avatars, 3-D web will take Internet users into another dimentsion. Security 36:9.
5. New Media Age. (2003). MSN integrates avatars into messaging services. New Media Age 2 October.
6. Gaither, C. (2003). There bets online gamers spend for real. Boston Globe 27 October.
7. Takahashi, D. (2003). New virtual world being launched. San Jose Mercury News, 27 October.
8. Baig, E.C. (2003). Fabulous tech-inspired treats for your gift-giving pleasure. USA Today 4 December.
9. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
10. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
11. Chang, M.K. (1998). Predicting unethical behavior: a comparison of the theory of reasoned action on the theory of planned behavior, Journal of Business Ethics 17:1825-1834.
12. Brewer, J., Blake, A.J., Rankin, S.A., et al. (1999). Theory of reasoned action predicts milk consumption in women. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 99:39-44.
13. Park, H.S., Levine, T.R., & Sharkey, W.F. (1998). The theory of reasoned action and self-construals: understanding recycling in Hawaii. Communication Studies 49:196-208.
14. Albarracin, D., Johnson, B.T., Fishbein, M., et al. (2001). Theories of reasoned action and planned behavior as models of condom use: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 127:142-161.
15. Treise, D., & Weigold, M.F. (2001). AIDS public service announcements: effects of fear and repetition on predictors of condom use. Health Marketing Quarterly 18:39-61.
16. Becker, E.A., & Gibson, C.C. (1998). Fishbein and Ajzen's theory of reasoned action: accurate prediction of behavioral intentions for enrolling in distance education courses. Adult Education Quarterly 49:43-62.
17. Chung, D., & Kim, C.H. (2002). The adoption of on-line newspaper in the United States and Korea: a comparison of self-construal and theory of reasoned action. Presented at the 52nd International Communication Association, Seoul, Korea.
18. th annual meeting of the International Communication Association, New York.
19. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.
20. Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in public places. Glencoe: The Free Press.
21. Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 30:526-537.
22. Snyder, M. (ed.). (1979). Self-monitoring processes. New York: Academic Press.
23. Snyder, M., & Monson, T. C. (1975). Persons, situations, and the control of social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 32:637-644.
24. Lippa, R. (1976). Expressive control and the leakage of dispositional introversion-extraversion during role-played teaching. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44:541-559.
25. Snyder, M., & Swann, W. B. (1976). When actions reflect attitudes: the politics of impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 34:1034-1042.
26. Snyder, M., & Copeland, J. (1989). Self-monitoring processes in organizational settings. In: Giacalone, R.A., & Rosenfeld, P. (eds.), Impression management in the organization. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27. Jamieson, D.W., Lydon, J.E., & Zanna, M.P. (1987). Attitude and activity preference similarity: differential bases of interpersonal attraction for low and high self-monitors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 53:1052-1060.
28. Biocca, F. (1997). The cyborg's dilemma: progressive embodiment in virtual environments. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 3.
29. Biocca, F., Nowak, K., & Lauria, R. (1997). Virtual reality. In: Sterling, C.H. (ed.), Focal encyclopedia of electronic media. Boston: Focal Press.
30. Lombard, M., & Ditton, T. (1997). At the heart of it all: the concept of presence. Journal of Compute-Mediated Communication 3.
31. Biocca, F., & Levy, M.R. (1995). Communication in the age of virtual reality. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
32. Heeter, C. (1992). Being there: the subjective experience of presence. Presence 1:262-271.
33. Loomis, J.M. (1992). Distal attribution and presence. Presence 1:113-119.
34. Heeter, C. (1995). Communication research on consumer VR. In: Biocca, F., Levy, M.R. (eds.), Communication in the age of virtual reality. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 191-218.
35. Witmer, B.C., & Singer, MJ. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments: a presence questionnaire. Presence 7:225-240.
36. Noble, G. (1975). Children in front of the small screen. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
37. Zillman, D. (1994). mechanisms of emotional involvement with drama. Poetics 23:33-51.
38. Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster.
39. Reid, E.M. (1996). Text-based virtual realities: identity and the cyborg body. In: Ludlow, P. (ed.), High noon on the electronic frontier. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 327-345.
40. Hunter, J.E., & Lim, T.S. (1987). LIMSAT. [Unpublished manuscript].
41. Osgood, C.E., Suci, G.J., & Tannenbaum, P.H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
42. Briggs, S.R., Cheek, J.M., & Buss, A.H. (1980). Analysis of the self-monitoring scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 38:679-686.
43. Dillard, J.P., & Hunter, J.E. (1989). One the use and interpretation of the emotional empathy scale, the self-consciousness scales, and the self-monitoring scale. Communication Research Reports 16:104-129.
44. Gabrenya, W.K., & Arkin, R.M. (1980). Self-monitoring scale: factor structure and correlates. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 6:13-22.
45. Gangestad, S., & Snyder, M. (1985). To carve nature at it joints: on the existence of discrete classes in personality. Psychological Review 92:317-349.
46. Lennox, R.D., & Wolfe, R.N. (1984). Revision of the self-monitoring scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46:1349-1364.
47. Li, F., & Zhang, Y. (1998). Measuring self-monitoring ability and propensity: a two-dimensional Chinese scale. Journal of Social Psychology 138:758-765.
48. McCroskey, J., Richmond, V., & Daly, J. (1975). The development of a measure of perceived harmony in international communication. Human Communication Research 1:323-332.
49. Hunter, J.E., & Gerbing, D.W. (1982). Unidimensional measurement, second order factor analysis, and causal models. Research in Organizational Behavior 4:267-320.
50. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: international differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
51. Hofstede, G. (1983). Dimensions of national cultures in fifty countires and three regions. In: Deregowski, J., & Pzuirawiec, S., Annis, R. (eds.), Explications in cross-cultural psychology. Lisse, the Netherlands: Swetz & Seitlinger, pp. 335-355.
52. Hui, G.H. (1988). Measurement of individualism-collectivism: a study of cross-cultural researchers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 17:225-248.
53. Triandis, H.C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. San Francisco, CA: Westview Press.
54. Triandis, H.C., McCusker, C., & Hui, C.H. (1990). Multimethods probes of individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59:1006-1020.
55. Park, H.S., & Levine, T.R. (1999). The theory of reasoned action and self-construal: evidence from three cultures. Communication Monographs 66:199-218.
56. Park, H.S. (2000). Relationships among attitudes and subjective norms: testing the theory of reasoned action across cultures. Communication Studies 51:162-175.
57. Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 13:319-340.
58. Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., & Warshaw, P.R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology, a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science 35:982-1003.
59. Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanisms in human agency. American Psychologist 37:122-147.
60. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
61. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F.D. (1996). A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: development and test. Decision Sciences 27:451-480.
62. th Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, New York.
63. Lee, Y-K. (2001). Factors affecting learner behavioral intentions to adopt web-based learning technology in adult and higher education [Doctoral dissertation]. Vermillion: University of South Dakota.
64. Glassberg, B.C. (2000). Individual use of Web technology: a reconceptualization and empirical test of the technology acceptance model [Doctoral dissertation]. Columbia: University of South Carolina.
65. Agarwal, R., Sambamurthy, V., & Stair, R.M. (2000). Research report: the evolving relationship between general and specific computer self-efficacy-an empirical assessment. Information Systems Research 11: 418-430.
66. McFarland, D. J. (1999). The particularization of computer-efficacy and its influence on the technology acceptance model: a field study [Doctoral dissertation]. Philadephia: Drexel University.
67. Igbaria, M., & Iivari, J. (1995). The effects of self-efficacy on computer usage. Omega 23:587-605.
68. Gao, Y. (2002). Linking information content, presentation attributes, and system design features with consumer attitudes in hypermedia commercial presentations [Doctoral dissertation]. New York: City University of New York.
69. Lynch, T.G. (2002). Administrative workgroup computing at the University of Delaware: a study of users' self-described skill levels in relation to the perceived ease of use, the perceived usefulness, and the perceived effectiveness of computer workgroup software applications [Report]. Newark: University of Delaware.
70. Rashed, J.M. (2001). Perception antecedents and their impact on user acceptance of information technology [Doctoral dissertation]. Washington, DC: George Washington University.
71. Riemenschneider, C.K. (1997). Understanding IT adaptation/acquisition in small business: a comparison of three models [Doctoral dissertation]. Arlington: University of Texas.
72. Park, J. (2002). A study on adolescents' using mobile telephone focusing on their subcultural characteristics [Master's thesis]. Seoul: Seoul National University.
73. Reis, H.T., & Judd, C.M. (2000). Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
74. Mathieson, K. (1991). Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research 2:173-191.
75. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F.D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science 46: 186-204.