Academic researchers’ behavioural intention to use academic social networking sites: A case of Malaysian research universities

Abstract

This study seeks to validate a comprehensive model of academic researchers’ intention in the context of academic social networking sites (ASNSs). It uses the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model with constructs of perceived security, perceived privacy, trust, attitude towards technology, and communication benefits as well as age, gender and experience as moderator variables. The survey results supported the positive relationships between the factors in the model, except effort expectancy, which had no significant effect on behavioural intention. However, the results of three moderator variables demonstrated that they had no significant effect on the adoption of ASNSs. The finding of this research will provide directions for ASNSs providers to support them in developing effective ASNSs for academic researchers.

Understanding consumer adoption of mobile payment in India: Extending Meta-UTAUT model with personal innovativeness, anxiety, trust, and grievance redressal

“…Meanwhile, behavioural intention, the most often used proxy variable for use behaviour, emerged as the second strongest predictor with path value for BIUB (0.231***). Only a handful of studies (e.g., Escobar-Rodrguez et al, 2014;Salahshour Rad et al, 2019;Sivathanu, 2019) on technology and digital adoption have examined the influence of behavioural intention on use behaviour. As Indian consumers are habitual users of cash as it is a part of Indian culture (Sivathanu, 2019), the high degree of consumers' positive intent to use m-payment as a tool to pay for services, would likely incline towards actual use of such technology for their day-to-day use.…”

The Influence of Information System Success and Technology Acceptance Model on Social Media Factors in Education

“…The validity of the items was confirmed by the construction elements used in previous studies. The study questionnaire consists of items and factor loading, which are as follows: perceived usefulness (PU), five items were adapted from [49,82]; perceived ease of use (PEOU), five items were adapted from [48,49], perceived technology fit (PET), five items were adapted from [81]; information quality (IQ), with five items from [33,48]; system quality (SQ), with five items from [83]; behavioral intention to use (BI), five items were adapted from [84,85]; academic performance (AP), five items were adapted from [36,86]; students' satisfaction (SS), five items were adapted from [56]; actual social media use (ASMU), five items were adapted from [66,87], for a total of 45 items (see Table 2).…”

The Use of Academic Social Networking Sites in Scholarly Communication: Scoping Review

“…These studies have also shown that academic, personal, professional, and technological factors decide the involvement of users in ASNs. Salahshour et al (2019) found that trust, gender, experience, and age affected the intention to use ASNs, whereas effort expectancy did not influence behavioral intention. Jordan (2019b) pointed out that users' perceptions about the platforms are linked with their need for maintaining personal learning network, promoting the professional self, seeking and promoting publications, and advancing careers.…”

“…Some studies dealing with cross-cutting topics are assigned to multiple themes. (Agarwal et al, 2016;Ali, Wolski, & Richardson, 2017;Allahar, 2017;Asmi, 2018;Asmi & Margam, 2018;Baro, Tralagba, & Ebiagbe, 2018;Bhardwaj, 2017;Calvi & Cassella, 2013;Camilleri, 2017;Conole & Alevizou, 2010;D'Alessandro et al, 2020;Deng, Tong, & Fu, 2018;González-Solar, 2018;Goodwin et al, 2014;Gorska et al, 2020;Greifeneder et al, 2018;Gruzd, Staves, & Wilk, 2012;Hoffmann et al, 2016;Jeng et al, 2017;Jordan, 2019b;Kapidzic, 2020;Koranteng & Wiafe, 2019;Laakso, Lindman, Shen, Nyman, & Björk, 2017;Manca, 2018;Martín, Orduna, & Delgado, 2018;Meishar-Tal & Pieterse, 2017;Ortega, 2017;Ortega, 2016;Ostermaier-Grabow & Linek, 2019;Li et al, 2018;Ponte & Simon, 2011;Radford, Kitzie, Mikitish, Floegel, Radford, & Connaway, 2018;Salahshour et al, 2016;Salahshour, Nilashi, Mohamed Dahlan, & Ibrahim, 2019;Singson & Amees, 2017;Vasquez et al, 2015;Williams & Woodacre, 2016;Yim & Shin, 2013;Ali & Richardson, 2018;…”