1 Introduction

Along the last decade, social network services (SNSs) became popular in nearly all parts of the world. With Boyd and Ellison [3], we define SNSs as Web services allowing users to construct profiles, to connect with other users, and to view other profiles on the service. Due to network effects, we are able to identify exactly one SNS player, which became “standard” on a national information market [16]. For example, in the U.S. the standard SNS nowadays is Facebook, while in Russia and neighboring countries Vkontakte is very popular [1].

Why are SNSs that popular? What drives successful SNSs [13]? In the literature of information services acceptance we bank on well-established models such as the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) [6], the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) [23] and the Information Service Evaluation Model (ISE) [20], which in turn is a modified version of the DeLone/McLean [7] and the Jennex/Olfman [11] model. Some of the models are applied to describe the success of SNSs. Most authors use modified (i.e., enriched) versions of TAM [4, 5, 10, 12–15, 17, 22] or (to a lesser extent) UTAUT [9, 19].

Our theoretical base is the ISE model [20]. We are going to study both, the importance of the dimensions of ISE for the users as well as the correlations between indicators of perceived quality and indicators of acceptance of SNSs. Additionally, we study SNSs across cultures and countries [18, 21]. For two countries (Russia and Germany), we analyze perceived quality and acceptance of SNSs for both, the actual standard and another (known and used) service. Our research questions (RQ) are: Are there differences of the perceived quality values and the acceptance values between the standard SNS and the non-standard SNS (RQ 1)? How do all dimensions of SNSs’ perceived quality and SNSs’ acceptance correlate? Are there differences in the correlation values between the standard and the non-standard (RQ 2)? Our exemplary SNSs are Facebook [8] and Vkontakte [1].

Under what conditions is IT accepted and used? Davis’ empirical surveys [6] lead to two dimensions of perceived quality, namely perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use. In the further development of technology acceptance models, it is shown that additional dimensions join in determining the usage of information systems. On the one hand, there is the trust that users have in a system, and on the other hand, the fun that users experience when using a system [20]. Our literature study yields that all four dimensions of perceived quality (ease of use, usefulness, trust, and fun) were applied in nearly all studies of SNS success.

We consider information acceptance as a concept consisting of the four aspects of adoption, usage, impact and diffusion of an information service [2, 20]. If the “right” person in an appropriate situation meets the “right” service, she or he will adopt this service for the first time. Adoption does not mean use. One can adopt a service and stop to use it or use it only rarely. And one can adopt it and use it permanently. In the case of use it is possible that the user’s information behavior will change. This aspect we will call “impact.” Finally, an information service will diffuse into a society, when many people use it and it has impact on their information behavior. Diffusion is a typical phenomenon of network economics following the principle of “success breeds success.” The more users an information service is able to attract the more the value of the service will increase. More valuable services will attract further users, etc. Other authors call the diffusion dimension “perceived connectedness” [21], “perceived critical mass” [22], “network externalities” [26] or “perceived social capital” [4, 5].

2 Method

The participants of this study were current SNS users in Russia (Moscow) and in Düsseldorf (Germany). Empirical data was collected by a questionnaire and additionally by in-depth qualitative interviews in February and March 2014. Our test persons were students from Lomonosov Moscow State University (N = 54) and students from Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf (N = 27). A total of 81 test persons finished the questionnaire and the interview. All Russian participants had a Vkontakte account and used it frequently; all Russian students had also a Facebook account, but most of them did not use it actively. German students had a Facebook account and used it very actively. They did not have a Vkontakte account. So our test persons were instructed to create it for this study and used it actively about one month. All test persons were familiar with both SNSs. The questionnaire included 50 items. On a scale between 1 (not at all) and 10 (highly applying), every test person had to estimate the importance of an indicator for his/her SNS behavior for both services. Besides the language all questions were identical. We calculated the mean values for the two analyzed standards and the two non-standards as well as additionally the correlations (Pearson, two-sided) for all pairs of dimensions.

3 Results

In Table 1 we see the mean importance values of the studied eight dimensions for the standard SNSs and for the non-standard SNSs. For the both standard SNSs, the values are (more or less) similar. But the differences between the values for the national standard and the non-standard are, for nearly all dimensions, huge.

Table 1. Importance of quality and acceptance dimensions for the standard (Vkontakte/Russia: N = 54; Facebook/Germany: N = 27; Scale: 1 to 10) and the non-standard (Facebook/Russia: N = 54; Vkontakte/Germany: N = 27; Scale: 1 to 10).
Full size table

In Tables 2.1 and 2.2 we present the correlations between the eight dimensions for the standard and for the non-standard SNSs. A very important dimension is the SNS’s use. Use correlates independently from standard or non-standard positively with all other dimensions. Remarkable correlations for the Russian standard (Table 2.1) are between use and trust (+0.54***), use and fun (+0.55***), use and adoption (+0.55***) as well as use and impact (+0.70***). The more the standard SNS in Russia is used, the more it is perceived as trustworthy and funny (and vice versa).

Table 2.1. Russian standard (Vkontakte) vs. Russian non-standard (Facebook) by Russian SNS users (n = 54)
Full size table
Table 2.2. German standard (Facebook) vs. German non-standard (Vkontakte) by German SNS users (n = 27)
Full size table

In Russia, there is a high interdependence between use and impact: the more a user applies an SNS the more his or her information behavior has changed. For the German standard SNS (Table 2.2), use is highly correlated with impact (+0.53**; similar to Russia), but here use is also highly correlated with diffusion (+0.61**). The more diffusion is perceived the more the SNS is used (and—of course—vice versa).

Especially for Germany (standard and non-standard) we observe high correlations of diffusion with fun (standard: +0.68***; non-standard: +0.74***) and with impact (standard: +0.79***; non-standard: +0.59**). For Russian users, the correlations of diffusion (for the standard as well as for the non-standard) are not that high. For some correlations, there are huge differences between the standard and the non-standard SNS. E.g., the correlation value of fun and ease of use is not very high or around zero in Germany (+0.28) and in Russia (+0.02) for the standard, but is moderately high for the non-standard (Germany: +0.57**; Russia: +0.32*). However, for other correlations, there hardly are differences between the national standard and the non-standard, but between the studied countries (Russia versus Germany) as, for example, the mentioned differences of the correlations of diffusion.

4 Discussion

What is new in this study? To our knowledge, this is the first study on social network services (SNSs) which incorporates the difference between a standard service (which is broadly accepted and used in a country or region due to network effects) and the non-standard services (other services, which are thoroughly known, but not or only rarely used in the same country or region). There are clear differences in the mean values of perceived quality and acceptance between the respective information services. While here (RQ 1) is a decisive result, this holds not true for the correlations between the single dimensions (RQ 2). For some correlation values we find remarkable differences between the standard SNS and the non-standard SNS (e.g., fun and ease of use). But for most correlations, we are not able to present such clear differences between the standard and the non-standard SNS. There are also clear similar patterns inside one culture (Russia versus Germany), e.g., all correlations of diffusion—independently from the standard/non-standard dichotomy. Here, obviously the cultural environment plays an important role.