4.4 Article

Examining the technology acceptance model in the adoption of social networks

期刊

JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN INTERACTIVE MARKETING
卷 5, 期 2-3, 页码 116-129

出版社

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/17505931111187767

关键词

Consumer behaviour; Social networks; Social networking sites; Technology acceptance model; Attitudes; Beliefs

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to provide an understanding of the process of new technology adoption, notably social networks (SN), relying on a specific model, the technology acceptance model (TAM). Design/methodology/approach - The study applies a quantitative methodological approach by using a survey method. The data are collected from a sample of 150 university students. In order to test the proposed relationships, structural equation modelling was employed. Findings - The results of this empirical study demonstrate that SN are relatively easy to use, as respondents quickly become skillful at using these technologies, finding them quite flexible to interact with. In terms of their attitudes, respondents find SN fun to use and enjoy using them. Perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness impact on attitude towards SN. Attitude, in turn, impacts on behavioral intention to use SN. Thus, the authors confirm the explanatory power of TAM in the adoption of SN. Research limitations/implications - The study focuses on the parsimonious TAM model and its applicability to SN adoption. Another drawback pertains to the size of the sample. Practical implications - A lot remains to be done to maximise the use of SN within a firm's context. For instance, a specific brand could target a specific group of users on Facebook and those potential customers who want to find detailed information about their products as services could be directed to the firm's official web site. Originality/value - The relevance of this study is set against a lack of consistent, detailed research on the factors influencing the adoption of SNs.

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

4.4
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