Advertisement

Examining the Acceptance of WhatsApp Stickers Through Machine Learning Algorithms

  • Rana A. Al-MaroofEmail author
  • Ibrahim Arpaci
  • Mostafa Al-Emran
  • Said A. Salloum
  • Khaled Shaalan
Chapter
  • 9 Downloads
Part of the Studies in Systems, Decision and Control book series (SSDC, volume 295)

Abstract

WhatsApp stickers are gaining popularity among university students due to their pervasiveness, specifically in educational WhatsApp groups. However, the acceptance of stickers by university students is still in short supply. Thus, this research aims to empirically examine the determinants affecting the acceptance of WhatsApp stickers through a proposed theoretical model by integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM) with the uses and gratifications theory (U&G). A questionnaire survey was circulated to collect data from 372 university students who have been engaged in a “Group Talk” in WhatsApp. A novel approach was employed to analyze the hypothesized relationships among the constructs in the research model through the use of machine learning algorithms. The results pointed out that IBk and RandomForest classifiers have performed better than the other classifiers in predicting the actual use of stickers with an accuracy of 78.57%. The research findings are believed to provide future directions for stickers developers to better promote stickers in educational activities.

Keywords

WhatsApp stickers Technology acceptance model Uses and gratifications theory Machine learning algorithms 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This is an extended version of a conference paper published by the International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Systems and Informatics 2019.

References

  1. 1.
    Al-Qaysi, N., Mohamad-Nordin, N., Al-Emran, M., Al-Sharafi, M.A.: Understanding the differences in students’ attitudes towards social media use: a case study from Oman. In: 2019 IEEE Student Conference on Research and Development (SCOReD), pp. 176–179 (2019)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al-Qaysi, N., Mohamad-Nordin, N., Al-Emran, M.: What leads to social learning? Students’ attitudes towards using social media applications in Omani higher education. Educ. Inf. Technol. (2019)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Al-Qaysi, N., Mohamad-Nordin, N., Al-Emran, M.: An empirical investigation of students’ attitudes towards the use of social media in omani higher education. In: International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Systems and Informatics, pp. 350–359 (2019)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mhamdi, C., Al-Emran, M., Salloum, S.A.: Text mining and analytics: a case study from news channels posts on Facebook, 40 (2018)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Salloum, S.A., Al-Emran, M., Abdallah, S., Shaalan, K.: Analyzing the arab gulf newspapers using text mining techniques. In: International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Systems and Informatics, pp. 396–405 (2017)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lin, T.C., Fang, D., Hsueh, S.Y., Lai, M.C.: Drivers of participation in Facebook long-term care groups: applying the use and gratification theory, social identification theory, and the modulating role of group diversity. Health Inf. J. (2019)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V.: Co-creation experiences: the next practice in value creation. J. Interact. Mark. (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jussila, I., Tarkiainen, A., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J.F.: Individual psychological ownership: concepts, evidence, and implications for research in marketing. J. Mark. Theory Pract. (2015)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pierce, J.L., Kostova, T., Dirks, K.T.: Toward a theory of psychological ownership in organizations. Acad. Manag. Rev. (2001)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhou, R., Hentschel, J., Kumar, N.: Goodbye text, hello emoji: mobile communication on wechat in China. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 748–759 (2017)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lee, J.Y., Hong, N., Kim, S., Oh, J., Lee, J.: Smiley face: why we use emoticon stickers in mobile messaging. In: Proceedings of the 18th international conference on human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services adjunct, pp. 760–766 (2016)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ernungtyas, N.F., Sarwono, B., Eriyanto, E., Irwansyah, I.: Mobile applications: integrated user acceptance model. Adv. Sci. Lett. 23(11), 10573–10576 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Acheampong, P., Zhiwen, L., Boateng, F., Boadu, A.B., Acheampong, A.A.: Determinants of behavioral intentions of ’Generation-Y’adoption and use of computer-mediated communication tools in Ghana. Br. J. Interdiscip. Res. 8(1), 34–47 (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ozboluk, T., Kurtoglu, R.: Üniversite Öğrencilerinin Emoji Kullanımları ve Emoji Kullanan Markalara Karşı Tutumları Üzerine Bir Araştırma. Bus. Econ. Res. J. (2018)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ghobadi, S., Taki, S.: Effects of telegram stickers on english vocabulary learning: focus on iranian EFL learners. Res. English Lang. Pedagog. (2018)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Van De Bogart, W., Wichadee, S.: Exploring students’ intention to use LINE for academic purposes based on technology acceptance model. Int. Rev. Res. Open Distance Learn. (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shao, C., Kwon, K.H.: Clicks intended: An integrated model for nuanced social feedback system uses on Facebook. Telemat, Informatics (2019)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sutton, S., Lawson, S.: A provocation for rethinking and democratising emoji design. In: DIS 2017 Companion—Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (2017)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Feng, Y., Qiu, M., Li, Y., Yang, H.: Cross-culture business communication by Emoji in GMS (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stark, L., Crawford, K.: The conservatism of emoji: work, affect, and communication. Soc. Media Soc. (2015)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ledbuska, L. (214) Emjoi, emoji, what for art thou? Harlot (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zhao, Q., Der Chen, C., Wang, J.L.: The effects of psychological ownership and TAM on social media loyalty: an integrated model. Telemat. Info. 33(4), 959–972 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R.: User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manage. Sci. 35(8), 982–1003 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(3), 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Al-Maroof, R.A.S., Al-Emran, M.: Students acceptance of Google classroom: An exploratory study using PLS-SEM approach. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. 13(6), 112–123 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Salloum, S.A., Alhamad, A.Q.M., Al-Emran, M., Monem, A.A., Shaalan, K.: Exploring students’ acceptance of e-learning through the development of a comprehensive technology acceptance model. IEEE Access 7, 128445–128462 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Al-Emran, M., Teo, T.: Do knowledge acquisition and knowledge sharing really affect e-learning adoption? An empirical study. Educ. Inf. Technol. (2019)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Salloum, S.A., Al-Emran, M., Habes, M., Alghizzawi, M., Ghani, M.A., Shaalan, K.: Understanding the impact of social media practices on e-learning systems acceptance. In: International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Systems and Informatics, pp. 360–369 (2019)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Al-Emran, M., Arpaci, I., Salloum, S.A.: An empirical examination of continuous intention to use m-learning: an integrated model. Educ. Inf. Technol. (2020)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Salloum, S.A., Al-Emran, M.: Factors affecting the adoption of E-payment systems by university students: extending the TAM with trust. Int. J. Electron. Bus. 14(4), 371–390 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Alshurideh, M., Salloum, S.A., Al Kurdi, B., Al-Emran, M.: Factors affecting the social networks acceptance: an empirical study using PLS-SEM approach. In: 8th International Conference on Software and Computer Applications, pp. 414–418 (2019)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mezhuyev, V., Al-Emran, M., Fatehah, M., Hong, N.C.: Factors affecting the metamodelling acceptance: a case study from software development companies in Malaysia. IEEE Access 6, 49476–49485 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mezhuyev, V., Al-Emran, M., Ismail, M.A., Benedicenti, L., Chandran, D.A.: The acceptance of search-based software engineering techniques: an empirical evaluation using the technology acceptance model. IEEE Access (2019)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Al-Qaysi, N., Mohamad-Nordin, N., Al-Emran, M.: A systematic review of social media acceptance from the perspective of educational and information systems theories and models. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 57(8), 2085–2109 (2020)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Samani, M.C., Guri, C.J.: Revisiting uses and gratification theory: a study on visitors to Annah Rais Homestay. J. Komun. Malaysian J. Commun. (2019)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hossain, M.A., Kim, M., Jahan, N.: Can ‘liking’ behavior lead to usage intention on facebook? Uses and gratification theory perspective. Sustain (2019)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Li, X., Chen, W., Popiel, P.: What happens on Facebook stays on Facebook? the implications of Facebook interaction for perceived, receiving, and giving social support. Comput. Human Behav. (2015)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Aburub, F., Alnawas, I.: A new integrated model to explore factors that influence adoption of mobile learning in higher education: an empirical investigation. Educ. Inf. Technol. 1–14 (2019)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Al-Emran, M., Mezhuyev, V., Kamaludin, A.: PLS-SEM in information systems research: a comprehensive methodological reference. In: 4th International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Systems and Informatics (AISI 2018), pp. 644–653 (2018)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gan, C.: Understanding WeChat users’ liking behavior: an empirical study in China. Comput. Human Behav. 68, 30–39 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sundar, S.S., Limperos, A.M.: Uses and grats 2.0: New gratifications for new media. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 57(4), 504–525 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C., Lampe, C.: The benefits of facebook ‘friends:’ social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. J. Comput. Commun. 12(4), 1143–1168 (2007)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Lee, S.-Y., Hansen, S.S., Lee, J.K.: What makes us click ‘like’ on Facebook? Examining psychological, technological, and motivational factors on virtual endorsement. Comput. Commun. 73, 332–341 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Arpaci, I.: A hybrid modeling approach for predicting the educational use of mobile cloud computing services in higher education. Comput. Human Behav. 90, 181–187 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Arpaci, I.: What drives students’ online self-disclosure behavior on social media? A hybrid SEM and artificial intelligence approach. Int. J. Mob. Commun. (2020)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Frank et al.: Weka-A machine learning workbench for data mining. In: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery Handbook (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rana A. Al-Maroof
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ibrahim Arpaci
    • 2
  • Mostafa Al-Emran
    • 3
  • Said A. Salloum
    • 4
  • Khaled Shaalan
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of English LanguageAl Buraimi University CollegeAl BuraimiOman
  2. 2.Department of Computer Education and Instructional TechnologyTokat Gaziosmanpasa UniversityTokatTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Information TechnologyAl Buraimi University CollegeAl BuraimiOman
  4. 4.Research Institute of Sciences and EngineeringUniversity of SharjahSharjahUAE
  5. 5.Faculty of Engineering and ITThe British University in DubaiDubaiUAE

Personalised recommendations