Advertisement

Between the Profiles: Another such Bias. Technology Acceptance Studies on Social Network Services

  • Katsiaryna S. BaranEmail author
  • Wolfgang G. Stock
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 529)

Abstract

Unfortunately, social science surveys are often confronted with biases. Due to network effects, on network markets, e.g. on markets of Social Network Services (as Facebook), only one company, the “standard,” dominates a local (or even the global) market. Common models of evaluation and acceptance of information systems (as variants of the Technology Acceptance Model, TAM) capture systems’ quality on dimensions of perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, trust, and fun. In an empirical investigation on different user groups, we found that the users were not able to present unbiased quality estimations of “their” standard system and other, non-standard systems. They were captured in their standard, leading to the conception of the “standard-dependent user blindness” (SDUB). So users’ quality statements on information systems on network markets are a highly vulnerable area of surveys.

Keywords

Technology acceptance model (TAM) Social network service (SNS) Survey Bias Standard-dependent user blindness (SDUB) Facebook Vkontakte 

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson, B., Ulvaeus, B.: The winner takes it all/ABBA. Polar Music (1980)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baran, K.S., Fietkiewicz, K.J., Stock, W.G.: Monopolies on social network services (SNS) markets and competition law. In: F. Pehar, C. Schlögl (Eds.), Re:inventing Information Science in the Networked Society. Proceedings of the 14th International Symposium of Information Science, Hülsbusch, Boizenburg, Germany (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baran, K.S., Stock, W.G.: Interdependencies between acceptance and quality perceptions of social network services: the standard-dependent user blindness. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Multi-Conference on Society, Cybernetics and Informatics (IMSCI 2015), 12–15 July 2015, Orlando (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brown, S.A., Venkatesh, V.: Model of adoption of technology in households: a baseline model test and extension incorporating household life cycle. MIS Q. 29(3), 399–426 (2005)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(3), 319–340 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    DeLone, W.H., McLean, E.R.: Information systems success. the quest for the dependent variable. Inf. Syst. Res. 3(1), 60–95 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    DeLone, W.H., McLean, E.R.: The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success. a ten-year update. J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 19(4), 9–30 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fjell, K., Foros, Ø., Steen, F.: The Economics of Social Networks: The Winner Takes it All? Institute for Research in Economics and Business Administration (SNF Working Paper; 42/10), Bergen, Norway (2010)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Furnham, A.: Response bias, social desirability and dissimulation. Personality Individ. Differ. 7(3), 385–400 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jennex, M.E., Olfman, L.: A model of knowledge management success. Int. J. Knowl. Manage. 2(3), 51–68 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Katz, M.L., Shapiro, C.: Systems competition and network effects. J. Econ. Perspect. 8(2), 93–115 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Khveshchanka, S., Suter, L.: Vergleichende Analyse von profilbasierten sozialen Netzwerken aus Russland (Vkontakte), Deutschland (StudiVZ) und den USA (Facebook). Inf. Wiss. Prax. 61(2), 71–76 (2010)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Linde, F., Stock, W.G.: Information Markets A Strategic Guideline for the I-Commerce. De Gruyter Saur, Berlin, New York (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Müller, H., Sedley, A., Ferrall-Nunge, E.: Survey research in HCI. In: Olsen, J., Kellogg, W. (eds.) Ways of Knowing in HCI Research, pp. 229–266. Springer, New York (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Podsakoff, N.P.: Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 63, 539–569 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schumann, L., Stock, W.G.: The Information Service Evaluation (ISE) model. Webology, 11(1), Article 115 (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shapiro, C., Varian, H.R.: Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy. Harvard Business School, Cambridge (1998)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sikorska, O.: Facebook vs. Vkontakte: Kampf der Titanen auf dem russischen Markt (2013). http://allFacebook.de
  19. 19.
    Stern, M.J., Bilgen, I., Dillman, D.A.: The state of survey methodology: challenges, dilemmas, and new frontiers in the era of the tailored design. Field Methods 26(3), 284–301 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Venkatesh, V., Bala, H.: Technology acceptance model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis. Sci. 39(2), 273–315 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D.: A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manage. Sci. 46(2), 186–204 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27(3), 425–478 (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Winkels, M.: The Global Social Network Landscape:A Country-by-Country Guide to Social Network Usage. eMarketer, New York (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information ScienceHeinrich Heine University DüsseldorfDüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations