Predicting the determinants of users' Intentions for using youtube to share video: Moderating gender effects

Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 141-152

  Yang, Chyan ^a   Hsu, Yi Chun ^a   Tan, Suyanti ^a  

^a NATIONAL CHIAO TUNG UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN RELATION; INTERNET; MALE; MOTIVATION; QUESTIONNAIRE; SEX DIFFERENCE; STATISTICAL MODEL; VIDEORECORDING;

ADULT; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTERNET; INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS; MALE; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MOTIVATION; QUESTIONNAIRES; SEX FACTORS; VIDEO RECORDING;

EID: 77951126565     PISSN: 21522715     EISSN: 21522723     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2009.0105     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Garrison W. Video streaming into the mainstream. Journal of Audiovisual Media in Medicine 2001; 24:174-178
2. YouTube. (2008) YouTube fact sheet. http:==youtube.com=t= fact-sheet (accessed Nov. 1, 2009
3. Sorkin AR. Dot-com boom echoed in deal to buy YouTube. New York Times Oct. 10, 2006, A1
4. Alexa.com. (2008) Website traffic comparisons. www.alexa .com (accessed Nov. 1, 2009
5. Gefen D, Karahanna E, Straub DW. Trust and TAM in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Quarterly 2003; 27: 51-90
6. Hu PJ, Chau PYK, Sheng ORL, Tam KY. Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine technology. Journal of Management Information Systems 1999; 16:91-112
7. Moon JW, Kim YG. Extending the TAM for a World- Wide-Web context. Information & Management 2001; 38: 217-230
8. Teo TSH, Lim VKG, Lai RYC. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in internet usage. Omega 1999; 27:25-37
9. Wang CC, Hsu Y, Fang W. Acceptance of technology with network externalities: an empirical study of internet instant messaging services. Journal of Information Technology Theory & Application 2004; 6:15-28
10. Zhang X, Prybutok V. Factors contributing to purchase intentions on the internet. Journal of Internet Commerce 2003; 2:3-18
11. Agarwal R, Karahanna E. Time flies when you're having fun: cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly 2000; 24:665-692
12. Davis FD, Bagozzi RP, Warshaw PR. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science 1989; 35:982-1003
13. Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly 1989; 13:319-340
14. Fishbein M, Ajzen I. (1975) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Boston: Addison-Wesley
15. Mathieson K. Predicting user intentions: comparing the technology acceptance model with the theory of planned behavior. Information Systems Research 1991; 2:173-191
16. Chau PYK, Hu PJH. Information technology acceptance by individual professionals: a model comparison approach. Decision Sciences 2001; 32:699-719
17. Crespo Á H, Rodŕguez IARDB. Explaining B2C e-commerce acceptance: an integrative model based on the framework by Gatignon and Robertson. Interacting with Computers 2008; 20:212-224
18. Zimbardo P, Leippe M. (1991) The psychology of attitude change and social influence. New York: McGraw-Hill
19. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes 1991; 50:179-211
20. Chang M, Cheung W. Determinants of the intention to use Internet=WWW at work: a confirmatory study. Information & Management 2001; 39:1-14
21. Liker J, Sindi A. User acceptance of expert systems: a test of the theory of reasoned action. Journal of Engineering & Technology Management 1997; 14:147-173
22. Song J, Kim Y. Social influence process in the acceptance of a virtual community service. Information Systems Frontiers 2006; 8:241-252
23. Grandon E, Alshare K, Kwun O. Factors influencing student intention to adopt online classes: a cross-cultural study. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges 2005; 20:46-56
24. Nysveen H, Pedersen P, Thorbjornsen H. Explaining intention to use mobile chat services: moderating effects of gender. Journal of Consumer Marketing 2005; 22:247-256
25. Hsu CL, Lu HP. Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM with social influences and flow experience. Information & Management 2004; 41:853-868
26. Hsu MH, Chiu CM. Predicting electronic service continuance with a decomposed theory of planned behaviour. Behaviour & Information Technology 2004; 23:359-373
27. Bhattacherjee A. Acceptance of e-commerce services: the case of electronic brokerages. Systems, Man & Cybernetics, Part A, IEEE Transactions 2000; 30:411-420
28. Taylor S, Todd PA. Understanding information technology usage: a test of competing models. Information Systems Research 1995; 6:144-176
29. Taylor S, Todd PA. Assessing IT usage: the role of prior experience. MIS Quarterly 1995; 19:561-570
30. Venkatesh V, Davis FD. A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Management Science 2000; 46:186-204
31. Rawlings M, Barry C, Skouteris H, Rawlings D. (2006) Heinemann psychology one. 2nd ed. Port Melbourne, Victoria: Heinemann
32. Premkumar G, Ramamurthy K, Liu HN. Internet messaging: an examination of the impact of attitudinal, normative, and control belief systems. Information & Management 2008; 45:451-457
33. Rogers EM. (1983) Diffusion of innovations, New York: Free Press
34. Rogers EM. (1995) Diffusion of innovations, New York: Free Press
35. Putrevu S. Exploring the origins and information processing differences between men and women: Implications for advertisers. Academy of Marketing Science Review 2001; 10:1-14
36. Darley W, Smith R. Gender differences in information processing strategies: an empirical test of the selectivity model in advertising response. Journal of Advertising 1995; 24: 41-65
37. Moutinho L, Goode M. Gender effects to the formation of overall product satisfaction: a multivariate approach. Journal of International Consumer Marketing 1995; 8:71-91
38. Bendall-Lyon D, Powers T. The impact of gender differences on change in satisfaction over time. Journal of Consumer Marketing 2002; 19:12-23
39. Yang C, Wu CC. Gender and Internet consumers' decisionmaking. Cyber Psychology & Behavior 2007; 10:86-91
40. Gefen D, Straub D. Gender differences in the perception and use of e-mail: an extension to the technology acceptance model. MIS Quarterly 1997; 21:389-400
41. Venkatesh V, Morris MG. Why don't men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior. MIS Quarterly 2000; 24:115-139
42. Hsu CL, Lin JCC. Acceptance of blog usage: the roles of technology acceptance, social influence and knowledge sharing motivation. Information & Management 2008; 45:65-74
43. Jackson CM, Chow S, Leitch RA. Toward an understanding of the behavioral intention to use an information system. Decision Sciences 1997; 28:357-389
44. O'Reilly T. (2005) What is Web 2.0-design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. www .oreillynet.com=pub=a=oreilly=tim=news= 2005=09=30=whatis- web-20.html (accessed Nov. 1, 2009
45. Liebowitz SJ, Margolis SE. Network externality: an uncommon tragedy. Journal of Economic Perspectives 1994; 8: 133-150
46. Katz ML, Shapiro C. Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. American Economic Review 1985; 75:424-440
47. Herr PM, Kardes FR, Kim J. Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute information on persuasion: an accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of Consumer Research 1991; 17:454-462
48. Holak S. Determinants of innovative durables adoption: an empirical study with implications for early product screening. Journal of Product Innovation Management 1988; 5: 50-69
49. Agarwal R, Prasad J. The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies. Decision Sciences 1997; 28:557-582 (Pubitemid 128000880)
50. Brancheau J, Wetherbe J. The adoption of spreadsheet software: testing innovation diffusion theory in the context of end-user computing. Information Systems Research 1990; 1: 115-143
51. Wangenheim F, Bayon T. The effect of word of mouth on service switching. European Journal of Marketing 2003; 38: 1173-1185
52. Friedkin NE. (1998) A structural theory of social influence. New York: Cambridge University Press
53. Karahanna E, Straub DW, Chervany NL. Information technology adoption across time: a cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs. MIS Quarterly 1999; 23:183-213
54. Leung L, Wei R. Seeking news via the pager: an expectancyvalue study. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 1999; 43:299-315
55. Lee Y. An empirical investigation into factors influencing the adoption of an e-learning system. Online Information Review 2006; 30:517-541
56. Song J, Wladen E. How consumer perceptions of network size and social interactions influence the intention to adopt peer-to-peer technologies. International Journal of E-Business Research 2007; 3:49-66
57. Hsu MH, Chiu CM. Internet self-efficacy and electronic service acceptance. Decision Support Systems 2004; 38:369-381
58. Arbuckle JL. (2006) AMOS user guide 7.0. Spring House, PA: Amos Development Corporation
59. Byrne BM. (2001) Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
60. Hair J, Anderson RE, Tatham RL, et al. (1992) Multivariate data analysis with reading. New York: Macmillan
61. Bagozzi R, Yi Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 1988; 16:74-94
62. Fornell C, Larcker D. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 1981; 18:39-50
63. Kline R. (2005) Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford
64. Anderson J, Gerbing D. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin 1988; 103:411-423
65. Bagozzi R, Phillips L. Representing and testing organizational theories. Administrative Science Quarterly 1982; 27: 459-489
66. Joreskog KG, Sorbom D. (1993) LISREL 8 structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
67. Bentler P, Bonett D. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin 1980; 88:588-606
68. Hu L, Bentler P. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 1999; 6:1-55
69. Alwin D, Hauser R. The decomposition of effects in path analysis. American Sociological Review 1975; 40:37-47
70. Chin WW. (1998) The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In Marcoulides G, ed. Modern methods for business research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 295-336
71. Tan J. (2007) YouTube will be the best: Steve Chen. Taipei- Times. http:==www.taipeitimes.com=News=biz=archives= 2007=06=12=2003364937 (accessed Nov. 1, 2009
72. YouTube. (2007) The YouTube Partner program: cash in your creativity. http:==www.youtube.com=partners (accessed Nov. 1, 2009