Abstract
This study explores users’ continuance intention in online social networks by synthesizing Bhattacherjee’s IS continuance theory with flow theory, social capital theory, and the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) to consider the special hedonic, social and utilitarian factors in the online social network environment. The integrated model was empirically tested with 320 online social network users in China. The results indicated that continuance intention was explained substantially by all hypothesized antecedents including perceived enjoyment, perceived usefulness, usage satisfaction, effort expectancy, social influence, tie strength, shared norms and trust. Based on the research findings, we offer discussions of both theoretical and practical implications.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baker, R. K., & White, K. M. (2010). Predicting adolescents’ use of social networking sites from an extended theory of planned behaviour perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1591–1597.
Benbasat, I., & Zmud, R. W. (2003). The identity crisis within the is discipline: defining and communicating the discipline’s core properties. MIS Quarterly, 27(2), 183–194.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001a). Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation-confirmation model. MIS Quarterly, 25(3), 351–370.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001b). An empirical analysis of the antecedents of electronic commerce service continuance. Decision Support Systems, 32(2), 201–214.
Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.
Butler, B. S. (2001). Membership size, communication activity, and sustainability: a resource-based model of online social structures. Information Systems Research, 12(4), 346–362.
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1977). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003.
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111–1132.
Deng, Z., Lu, Y., Wei, K. K., & Zhang, J. (2010). Understanding customer satisfaction and loyalty: an empirical study of mobile instant messages in china. International Journal of Information Management, 30(4), 289–300.
Dinev, T., & Hart, P. (2006). An extended privacy calculus model for e-commerce transactions. Information Systems Research, 17(1), 61–80.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and tam in online shopping: an integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 51–90.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
He, W., Qiao, Q., & Wei, K.-K. (2009). Social relationship and its role in knowledge management systems usage. Information & Management, 46(3), 175–180.
Helliwell, J. F., & Putnam, R. D. (2004). The social context of well-being. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 359(1449), 1435–1446.
Hu, T., & Kettinger, W. J. (2008). Why people continue to use social networking services: Developing a comprehensive model. Twenty Ninth International Conference on Information Systems, Paris, 1–11.
Kang, Y., & Lee, H. (2010). Understanding the role of an it artifact in online service continuance: an extended perspective of user satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 353–364.
Kim, B. (2011). Understanding antecedents of continuance intention in social-networking services. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 14(4), 199–205.
Kwon, O., & Wen, Y. (2010). An empirical study of the factors affecting social network service use. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 254–263.
Levin, D. Z., & Cross, R. (2004). The strength of weak ties you can trust: the mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science, 50(11), 1477–1490.
Liao, C., Palvia, P., & Lin, H. N. (2010). Stage antecedents of consumer online buying behavior. Electronic Markets, 20(1), 53–65.
Limayem, M., & Cheung, C. M. K. (2008). Understanding information systems continuance: the case of internet-based learning technologies. Information & Management, 45(4), 227–232.
Lin, C. P., & Bhattacherjee, A. (2008). Learning online social support: an investigation of network information technology based on utaut. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 11(3), 268–272.
Lin, K.-Y., & Lu, H.-P. (2011). Why people use social networking sites: an empirical study integrating network externalities and motivation theory. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(3), 1152–1161.
Loebbecke, C., Powell, P., & Weiss, T. (2010). Repeated use of online auctions: investigating individual seller motivations. Electronic Markets, 20(2), 105–117.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.
Mcknight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: an integrative typology. Information Systems Research, 13(3), 334–359.
Mishra, A. K. (1996). Organizational responses to crisis: The centrality of trust. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 261–287). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of management review, 23(2), 242–266.
Nielsen Company, Inc. (2009). Global faces and networked places: a Nielsen report on social networking’s new global footprint. New York: The Nielsen Company [http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/newswire/2009/social-networking-new-global-footprint.html].
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, R. L. (1981). Measurement and evaluation of satisfaction processes in retail settings. Journal of Retailing, 57(3), 25–48.
Powell, J. (2009). 33 million people in the room: How to create, influence, and run a successful business with social networking. New Jersey: FT Press.
Putnam, R. D., Leonardi, R., & Nanetti, R. Y. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Reagans, R., & Mcevily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: the effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240–267.
Sharp, H., Rogers, Y., & Preece, J. (2007). Interaction design: Beyond human computer interaction. England: John Wiley & Sons.
Shi, N., Lee, M., Cheung, C., & Chen, H., (2010). The continuance of online social networks: How to keep people using facebook? 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii IEEE Computer Society, 1–10.
Sledgianowski, D., & Kulviwat, S. (2009). Using social network sites: the effects of playfulness, critical mass and trust in a hedonic context. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 49(4), 74–83.
Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: the role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464–476.
van Der Heijden, H. (2004). User acceptance of hedonic information systems. Management Information Systems Quarterly, 28(4), 695–704.
Vassileva, J. (2012). Motivating participation in social computing applications: a user modeling perspective. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 22(1–2), 177–201.
Venkatesh, V., & Bala, H. (2008). Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decision Sciences, 39(2), 273–315.
Venkatesh, V., & Brown, S. A. (2001). A longitudinal investigation of personal computers in homes: adoption determinants and emerging challenges. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 71–102.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
Acknowledgment
This research is supported in part by a Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education (20123326120005), Qianjiang talent Grant in Zhejiang Province (QJC1202013), the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2011M500105, 2012T50560). This study is based upon work funded in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (71102003/71002092) and the Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China (Y7100626). In addition, this paper is sponsored by Zhejiang Industrial Development Policy Research Center and Zhejiang Provincial Key Research Base––Standardization and Intellectual Property Management (SIPM3230), and it is supported in part by the Contemporary Business and Trade Research Center of Zhejiang Gongshang University which is a Key Research Institute of Social Sciences and Humanities of the Ministry of Education.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Responsible Editor: Hans-Dieter Zimmermann
Appendix
Appendix
Continuance intention (CI)
-
1.
I intend to continue using online social network sites rather than discontinue use.
-
2.
My intentions are to continue using online social network sites than use any alternative means.
-
3.
If I could, I would like to discontinue my use of online social network sites (reverse coded).
Usage satisfaction (US)
How do you feel about your over experience with online social network sites use?
-
1.
Very dissatisfied/Very satisfied
-
2.
Very displeased/Very pleased
-
3.
Very frustrated/Very contented
-
4.
Absolutely terrible/Absolutely delighted
Perceived usefulness (PU)
-
1.
Using online social network sites improves my efficiency in sharing information and connecting with others.
-
2.
Using online social network sites enables me acquire more information or meet more people.
-
3.
The online social network sites are a useful service for communication.
-
4.
The online social network sites are a useful service for interaction of members.
Perceived enjoyment (PE)
-
1.
Using online social network sites provides me with a lot of enjoyment.
-
2.
I have fun using online social network sites.
-
3.
Using online social network sites provides me with pleasure.
Effort expectancy (EE)
-
1.
My interaction with the online social network sites is clear and understandable.
-
2.
It is easy for me to become skillful at using the online social network sites.
-
3.
I find the online social network sites easy to use.
-
4.
Learning to operate the online social network sites is easy for me.
Social influence (SI)
-
1.
People who influence my behavior think that I should use the online social network sites.
-
2.
People who are important to me think that I should use the online social network sites.
-
3.
People whose opinions I value prefer me to use the online social network sites.
-
4.
People I look up to expect me to use the online social network sites.
Trust (T)
-
1.
Online social network sites are safe environments in which to exchange information with others.
-
2.
Online social network sites are reliable environments in which to conduct their activities.
-
3.
Online social network sites handle personal information submitted by users in a competent fashion.
Shared norm (SN)
-
1.
Online social network sites users I know share the same ambitions and vision with me.
-
2.
Users I know in online social network sites are enthusiastic about pursuing the collective goal.
-
3.
There is a norm of openness to conflicting views in the online social network sites.
Tie strength (TS)
-
1.
How close is your relationship with each user in online social network sites? (1 = distant; 4 = somewhat close; 7 = very close)
-
2.
How often do you communicate with each other in online social network sites? (1 = once every 3 months or less; 2 = once every 2nd month; 3 = once a month; 4 = twice a month; 5 = once a week; 6 = twice a week; 7 = daily)
-
3.
To what extent do you typically interact with each person? (1 = to no extent; 4 = to some extent; 7 = to a very great extent)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sun, Y., Liu, L., Peng, X. et al. Understanding Chinese users’ continuance intention toward online social networks: an integrative theoretical model. Electron Markets 24, 57–66 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-013-0131-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-013-0131-9
Keywords
- Online social network
- Continuance intention
- IS continuance theory
- Flow theory
- UTAUT
- Social capital theory