Modelling Facebook usage among university students in Thailand: the role of emotional attachment in an extended technology acceptance model

Interactive Learning Environments

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2016, Pages 745-757

  Teo, Timothy ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MACAU   (Macao)

Author keywords

emotional attachment; Facebook; structural equation modelling; TAM; Thailand; university students

Indexed keywords

EID: 84900380513     PISSN: 10494820     EISSN: 17445191     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10494820.2014.917110     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. J.C.Anderson,, & D.W.Gerbing, (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
2. R.P.Bagozzi,, & Y.Yi, (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94. doi: 10.1007/BF02723327
3. D.M.Boyd,, & N.B.Ellison, (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210–230. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x
4. G.C.Bruner, II, & A.Kumar, (2005). Explaining consumer acceptance of handheld internet devices. Journal of Business Research, 58(5), 553–558. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.08.002
5. B.A.Bumgarner, (2007). You have been poked: The uses and gratifications of Facebook among emerging adults. First Monday, 12(11) [online]. Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2026/1897 doi: 10.5210/fm.v12i11.2026
6. N.Burcher, (2013). Facebook usage statistics by country Dec 2008 – Dec 2011. Retrieved from http://www.nickburcher.com/2012/01/facebook-usage-statistics-by-country.html
7. C.M.K.Cheung,, P.Y.Chiu,, & M.K.O.Lee, (2011). Online social networks: Why do students use Facebook? Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1337–1343. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.028
8. R.Cheung,, & D.Vogel, (2013). Predicting user acceptance of collaborative technologies: An extension of the technology acceptance model for e-learning. Computers and Education, 63, 160–175. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.12.003
9. D.Chung,, & S.G.Chun, (2011). An exploratory study on determining factors for the Smartphone selection decisions. Issues in Information Systems, 12(1), 291–300.
10. B.Crothers, (2011). Apple, Samsung top J.D. Power satisfaction survey. Retrieved from http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-20103501-64/apple-samsung-top-j.d-power-satisfactionsurvey/?tag=mncol;txt
11. F.D.Davis, (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. doi: 10.2307/249008
12. N.E.Ellison,, C.Steinfield,, & C.Lampe, (2007). The benefits of Facebook friends: Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1143–1168. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x
13. Facebook. (2013). Fact sheet. Retrieved from http://newsroom.fb.com/Key-Facts
14. M.Fishbein,, & I.Ajzen, (1975). Belief, attitude, intension and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
15. C.Fornell,, & D.F.Larcker, (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 39–50. doi: 10.2307/3151312
16. Gartner (2011). Gartner survey shows U.S. consumers more likely to purchase Smartphone than other consumer devices in 2011. Retrieved from http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=1550814.
17. X.Gu,, Y.Zhu, & X.Guo, (2013). Meeting the “Digital Natives”: Understanding the acceptance of technology in classrooms. Educational Technology & Society, 16(1), 392–402.
18. J.F.Hair,, W.C.Black,, B.J.Babin,, & R.E.Anderson, (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
19. K.F.Hew, (2011). Students’ and teachers’ use of Facebook. Computers in Human Behaviour, 27, 662–676. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.11.020
20. D.R.Hoelter, (1983). The analysis of covariance structures: Goodness-of-fit indices. Sociological Methods and Research, 11, 325–344. doi: 10.1177/0049124183011003003
21. R.H.Hoyle, (2011). Structural equation modeling for social and personality psychology. London, UK: Sage.
22. L.T.Hu,, & P.M.Bentler, (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
23. H.M.Huang,, S.S.Liaw,, & C.M.Lai, (2013). Exploring learner acceptance of the use of virtual reality in medical education: A case study of desktop and projection-based display systems. Interactive Learning Environments. doi:10.1080/10494820.2013.817436
24. J.Joo,, & Y.Sang, (2013). Exploring Koreans’ smartphone usage: An integrated model of the technology acceptance model and uses and gratifications theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2512–2518. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.06.002
25. M.Kalpidou,, D.Costin,, & J.Morris, (2011). The relationship between Facebook and the well-being of undergraduate college students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14(4), 183–189. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2010.0061
26. A.Keenan,, & A.Shiri, (2009). Sociability and social interaction on social networking websites. Library Review, 58(6), 438–450. doi: 10.1108/00242530910969794
27. R.B.Kline, (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
28. S.Kulviwat,, G.C.Bruner,, A.Kumar,, S.A.Nasco,, T.Clark, (2007). Toward a unified theory of consumer acceptance technology. Psychology and Marketing, 24(12), 1059–1084. doi: 10.1002/mar.20196
29. D.Y.Lee,, & M.R.Lehto, (2013). User acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Computers and Education, 61, 193–208. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.001
30. P.Legris,, J.Ingham,, & P.Collerette, (2003). Why do people use information technology? A critical review of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 40, 191–204. doi: 10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00143-4
31. Q.Ma,, & L.Liu, (2004). The technology acceptance model: A meta-analysis of empirical findings. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing, 16(1), 59–72. doi: 10.4018/joeuc.2004010104
32. Y.Malhotra,, & D.F.Galletta, (1999). Extending the technology acceptance model to account for social influence: Theoretical bases and empirical validation. Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA.
33. K.V.Mardia, (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57, 519–530. doi: 10.1093/biomet/57.3.519
34. A.Margaryan,, A.Littlejohn, & G.Vojt, (2011). Are digital natives a myth or reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers & Education, 56(2), 429–440. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.004
35. R.Mason, (2006). Learning technologies for adult continuing education. Studies in Continuing Education, 28(2), 121–133. doi: 10.1080/01580370600751039
36. M.Mauri,, P.Cipresso,, A.Balgera,, M.Villamira, & G.Riva, (2011). Why is Facebook so successful? Psychophysiological measures describe a core flow state while using Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior & Social Networking, 14(12), 723–731. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2010.0377
37. S.G.Mazman,, & Y.K.Usluel, (2010). Modeling educational usage of Facebook. Computers & Education, 55(2), 444–553. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.008
38. A.Nadkarni,, & S.G.Hofmann, (2012). Why do people use Facebook? Personality and Individual Differences, 52(3), 243–249. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2011.11.007
39. N.Park, (2010). Adoption and use of computer-based voice over internet protocol phone service: Toward an integrated model. Journal of Communication, 60(1), 40–72. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01440.x
40. T.Raykov,, & G.A.Marcoulides, (2008). An introduction to applied multivariate analysis. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
41. W.Read,, N.Robertson,, & L.McQuilken, (2011). A novel romance: The technology acceptance model with emotional attachment. Australasian Marketing Journal, 19, 223–229. doi: 10.1016/j.ausmj.2011.07.004
42. M.J.Sanchez-Franco,, A.F.Villarejo-Ramos,, F.A.Martin-Velicia, (2011). Social integration and post-adoption usage of social network sites: An analysis of effects on learning performance. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 256–262. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.03.083
43. M.Scale, (2008). Facebook as a social search engine and the implications for libraries in the twenty-first century. Library Hi Tech, 26(4), 540–556. doi: 10.1108/07378830810920888
44. J.Schepers,, & M.Wetzels, (2007). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model: Investigating subjective norm and moderation effects. Information & Management, 44, 90–103. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2006.10.007
45. R.E.Schumacker,, & R.G.Lomax, (2010). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Routledge.
46. M.J.Sleigh,, A.W.Smith,, & J.Laboe, (2013). Professors’ Facebook content affects students’ perceptions and expectations. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 10(10), 1–8.
47. T.Teo, (2009). Is there an attitude problem? Reconsidering the role of attitude in the TAM. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(6), 1139–1141. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2008.00913.x
48. T.Teo, (2010). Establishing gender structural invariance of Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 19(2), 311–320. doi: 10.3860/taper.v19i2.1599
49. T.Teo, (2011). Considering common method variance in educational technology research. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), E94–E96. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01202.x
50. T.Teo, (2012). Examining the intention to use technology among pre-service teachers: An integration of the technology acceptance model (TAM) and theory of planned behavior (TPB). Interactive Learning Environments, 20(1), 3–18. doi: 10.1080/10494821003714632
51. T.Teo, (2013). An initial development and validation of a digital natives assessment scale (DNAS). Computers and Education, 67, 51–57. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.012
52. T.Teo,, & X.Fan, (2013). Coefficient alpha and beyond: Issues and alternatives for educational research. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(2), 209–213. doi: 10.1007/s40299-013-0075-z
53. T.Teo,, O.F.Ursavas,, & E.Bahcekapili, (2012). An assessment of pre-service teachers’ technology acceptance in Turkey: A structural equation modeling approach. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 21(1), 199–210.
54. T.Teo,, & P.van Schaik, (2012). Understanding the intention to use technology by pre-service teachers: An empirical test of competing theoretical models. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 28, 1–11. doi: 10.1080/10447318.2011.581892
55. M.Thomson,, D.J.MacInnis,, & C.W.Park, (2005). The ties that bind: Measuring the strength of consumers’ emotional attachments to brands. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 15(1), 77–91. doi: 10.1207/s15327663jcp1501_10
56. M.Turner,, B.Kitchenham,, P.Brereton,, S.Charters,, & D.Budgen, (2010). Does the technology acceptance model predict actual use? A systematic literature review. Information & Software Technology, 52(5), 463–479. doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2009.11.005
57. S.Y.Yousafzai,, J.Pallister,, & G.Foxall, (2007). Technology acceptance: A meta-analysis of the TAM – Part 2. Journal of Modelling in Management, 2(3), 251–280. doi: 10.1108/17465660710834453