4.7 Article

Investigating user switching intention for mobile instant messaging application: Taking WeChat as an example

期刊

COMPUTERS IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR
卷 64, 期 -, 页码 206-216

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.054

关键词

Post adoptive IT use; User switching intention; Migration theory; Mobile instant messaging; WeChat

资金

  1. National Science Foundation in China [71403119, 71390521, 71473114]
  2. Ministry of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences Council in China [13YJC870033]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Post adoptive IT use is an important research topic in information systems field, mainly including sustained behaviours and switching behaviours. While there are a great number of studies on users' continuance intentions for diversified IT, users' IT switching behaviours are less studied. This research attempts to identify the features of users IT switching behaviours. We introduce a migration theory from social network perspective to explore the intrinsic and extrinsic factors influencing users' switching intention in the context of mobile instant messaging (MIM) application. In particular, we develop a model that examines the role of networks, deprivations and trusts on MIM users' switching intentions to WeChat in China. A survey research method is utilized to test this model and hypotheses. We found that functional deprivation, monetary deprivation and personal innovativeness could positively influence users' switching intentions. Networks of obligation was found to have no significantly direct influence on switching intentions, but fully mediated by functional and monetary deprivations. However, trust transferred from MIMs provider has no significant effect on switching intentions. The findings are believed to theoretically contribute to further understand users' IT switching behaviours and yield some practical implications for designers and managers in MIM providers and their products propaganda. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据