In this section, there are limitations and points of concern in this study. First, this study collected samples from online survey in Taiwan. The culture, the lifestyle, values of thinking, and even the OSN interaction etc. in Taiwan may be different from other nations. Therefore, the results may not truly reflect and fit to all SNSs’ users in other countries around the world.
Second, the total sample size was 522 in this study, but there were only 26 participants whose scores of positive emotions are equal to the scores of negative emotions. This sample size was small, it could not be analyzed and estimated the hypotheses, and the size of this sample data were also not enough to test the paths between positive and negative emotions with OSN adoption.
Third, this study was conducted taking the gender and the involvement as the moderating variable, more demography data should be considered in, such as ages, occupations, educational levels, and ethnicity etc., those may derive information to be more valid.
This study provides concepts on the importance of emotions to understand user reactions to the implementation on SNSs. But in this study, it only indicates some insights about the relationships between positive and negative emotions, OSN adoption, and individual benefits.
There are also uncovers several variables, factors, and questions that need to be addressed.
Therefore, future research may focus on those ideas and results to explore and stimulate researches about different emotions and OSN adoption in the SNSs field.
79
RESERENCES
Acquisti, A., & Gross, R. (2006, January). Imagined communities: Awareness, information sharing, and privacy on the Facebook. In Privacy enhancing technologies (pp. 36-58).
Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Bagozzi, R. P., Gopinath, M., & Nyer, P. U. (1999). The role of emotions in marketing.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(2), 184-206.
Barnes, J. A. (1954). Class and committees in a Norwegian island parish.
Beatty, P., Reay, I., Dick, S., & Miller, J. (2011). Consumer trust in e-commerce web sites: a meta-study. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 43(3), 14.
Beaudry, A., & Pinsonneault, A. (2010). The other side of acceptance: studying the direct and indirect effects of emotions on information technology use, MIS quarterly, 34(4), 689-710.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2001). Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation-confirmation model. MIS quarterly, 351-370.
Boyd, D. (2006). Friends, friendsters, and myspace top 8: Writing community into being on social network sites.
Boyd, D., & Heer, J. (2006, January). Profiles as conversation: Networked identity performance on Friendster. In System Sciences, 2006. HICSS'06. Proceedings of the 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on (Vol. 3, pp. 59c-59c). IEEE.
Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. B. (2008). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship.Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 13(1), 210-230.
Brogan, A., & Hevey, D. (2013). Eating styles in the morbidly obese: restraint eating, but not emotional and external eating, predicts dietary behavior. Psychology & Health, 28(6), 714-725.
Brown, S. A., Fuller, R. M., & Vician, C. (2004). Who's afraid of the virtual world? Anxiety and computer-mediated communication. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 5(2), 2.
Cassidy, J. (2006). Me media: How hanging out on the Internet became big business. The New Yorker, 82(13), 50.
Cenfetelli, R. T. (2004, August). Getting in touch with your our feeling towards technology, In Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2004, No. 1, pp. F1-F6). Academy of Management.
Cha, J. (2010). Factors affecting the frequency and amount of social networking site use:
Motivations, perceptions, and privacy concerns. First Monday, 15(12).
Chang, E., Hussain, F., & Dillon, T. (2006). Trust and reputation for service-oriented environments: technologies for building business intelligence and consumer confidence.
Chiu, C. M., Hsu, M. H., & Wang, E. T. (2006). Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual
80
communities: an integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decision support systems, 42(3), 1872-1888.
Cook, K. S., Yamagishi, T., Cheshire, C., Cooper, R., Matsuda, M., & Mashima, R. (2005).
Trust building via risk taking: A cross-societal experiment. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68(2), 121-142.
Crunchies, T. (2009). Internet statistics and numbers.
Dalcher, I., & Shine, J. (2003). Extending the New Technology Acceptance Model to Measure the End User Information Systems Satisfaction in a Mandatory Environment: A Bank's Treasury. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 15(4), 441-455.
Davis, F. D. (1985). A technology acceptance model for empirically testing new end-user information systems: Theory and results.
DePaoli, L. C., & Sweeney, D. C. (2000). Further validation of the positive and negative affect schedule. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15(4), 561-568.
Donath, J. (2007). Signals in social supernets. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 13(1), 231-251.
Donelan, H. M., Kear, K., & Ramage, M. (Eds.). (2010). Online communication and collaboration: A reader.
Dutton, W. H., Rogers, E. M., & Jun, S. H. (1987). Diffusion and social impacts of personal computers. Communication Research, 14(2), 219-250.
Dutton, W. H. (Ed.). (2013). The Oxford handbook of internet studies.
Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S., & Passerini, K. (2007). Trust and privacy concern within social networking sites: A comparison of Facebook and MySpace. AMCIS 2007 Proceedings, 339.
Ellison, N., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2006). Spatially bounded online social networks and social capital. International Communication Association, 36(1-37).
Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites.Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143-1168.
Felton, L., & Jowett, S. (2013). “What do coaches do” and “how do they relate”: Their effects on athletes' psychological needs and functioning. Scandinavian journal of medicine &
science in sports, 23(2), e130-e139.
Fono, D., & Raynes-Goldie, K. (2007). AND BEYOND. In Internet Research Annual:
Selected Papers from the Association of Internet Researchers Conferences (Vol. 4, p. 91).
Peter Lang.
Ganley, D., & Lampe, C. (2009). The ties that bind: Social network principles in online communities. Decision Support Systems, 47(3), 266-274.
George, A. (2006, September 18). Living online: The end of privacy? New Scientist, 2569.
Retrieved August 29, 2007 from
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/tech/mg19125691.700-living-online-the-end-of-priv acy.html
81
George, D & Mallery, P. (2013). IBM SPSS Statistics 21 Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference, 13/e. Pearson.
Golbeck, J. (2007). The dynamics of web-based social networks: Membership, relationships, and change. First Monday, 12(11).
Gross, R., & Acquisti, A. (2005, November). Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. In Proceedings of the 2005 ACM workshop on Privacy in the electronic society (pp. 71-80). ACM.
Hanchard, S. (2008). Measuring trust and social networks - Where do we put our trust online?
Retrieved from http://weblogs.hitwise.com/sandra-hanchard/2008/09/measuring trust and social net.html.
Hargittai, E. (2007). Whose space? Differences among users and nonusers of social network sites. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 13(1), 276-297.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hawkins, D., & Mothersbaugh, D. (2009). Consumer behavior building marketing strategy.
Huang, F. (2007). Building social trust: A human-capital approach. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE)/Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft, 552-573.
Hughes, D., Coulson, G., & Walkerdine, J. (2005). Free riding on Gnutella revisited: the bell tolls? Distributed Systems Online, IEEE, 6(6).
Humphreys, E. (2008). Information security management standards: Compliance, governance and risk management. information security technical report, 13(4), 247-255.
Jagatic, T. N., Johnson, N. A., Jakobsson, M., & Menczer, F. (2007). Social phishing.
Communications of the ACM, 50(10), 94-100.
Jeffres, L., & Atkin, D. (1996). Predicting use of technologies for communication and consumer needs. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 40(3), 318-330.
Josang, A., Ismail, R., & Boyd, C. (2007). A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision. Decision support systems, 43(2), 618-644.
Kim, H. W., Chan, H., Chan, Y., & Gupta, S. (2004). Understanding the balanced effects of belief and feeling on information systems continuance.
Kim, Y., Sohn, D., & Choi, S. M. (2011). Cultural difference in motivations for using social network sites: A comparative study of American and Korean college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 365-372.
Kornblum, J., & Marklein, M. B. (2006, March 8). What you say online could haunt you.
USA Today. Retrieved August 29, 2007 from http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/
internetprivacy/2006-03-08-facebook-myspace_x.htm
Koufaris, M. (2002). Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online consumer behavior. Information systems research, 13(2), 205-223.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation.
82
LaRose, R., & Atkin, D. (1988). Satisfaction, demographic, and media environment predictors of cable subscription. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 32(4), 403-413.
Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2007). Social networking websites and teens: An overview.
Lenhart, A. (2009). Adults and social network websites.
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.
Maheswaran, M., Tang, H. C., & Ghunaim, A. (2007, June). Towards a gravity-based trust model for social networking systems. In Distributed Computing Systems Workshops, 2007.
ICDCSW'07. 27th International Conference on (pp. 24-24). IEEE.
Malik, Z., Akbar, I., & Bouguettaya, A. (2009). Web services reputation assessment using a hidden markov model. Service-Oriented Computing, 576-591.
Malik, Z., & Bouguettaya, A. (2009). Reputation bootstrapping for trust establishment among web services. Internet Computing, IEEE, 13(1), 40-47.
Marklein, M. B. (2006). The new learning curve: Technological security. USA Today, 8, 2.
Mazman, S. G., & Usluel, Y. K. (2010). Modeling educational usage of Facebook. Computers
& Education, 55(2), 444-453.
Melvin, G. A., & Molloy, G. N. (2000). Some psychometric properties of the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule among Australian youth. Psychological reports, 86(3c), 1209-1212.
Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. O. (1988). Psychological testing: Principles and applications. Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Nunnally, I. C., & Bernstin, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). NY: McGraw- Hill.
Oliver, E. J., Markland, D., & Hardy, J. (2010). Interpretation of selftalk and postlecture affective states of higher education students: A self determination theory perspective. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 307-323.
Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS.
McGraw-Hill International.
Papacharissi, Z. (2009). The virtual geographies of social networks: a comparative analysis of Facebook, LinkedIn and ASmallWorld. New Media & Society, 11(1-2), 199-220.
Pempek, T. A., Yermolayeva, Y. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2009). College students' social networking experiences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(3), 227-238.
Pfeil, U., Arjan, R., & Zaphiris, P. (2009). Age differences in online social networking–A study of user profiles and the social capital divide among teenagers and older users in MySpace. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(3), 643-654.
Raynes-Goldie, K. (2010). Aliases, creeping, and wall cleaning: Understanding privacy in the age of Facebook. First Monday, 15(1).
83
Rheingold, H., & Weeks, A. (2012). Net smart: How to thrive online.
Roblyer, M. D., McDaniel, M., Webb, M., Herman, J., & Witty, J. V. (2010). Findings on Facebook in higher education: A comparison of college faculty and student uses and perceptions of social networking sites. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(3), 134-140.
Sanchez, X., Moss, S. L., Twist, C., & Karageorghis, C. I. (2014). On the role of lyrics in the music–exercise performance relationship. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 15(1), 132-138.
Sherchan, W., Nepal, S., & Paris, C. (2013). A survey of trust in social networks. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 45(4), 47.
Sherif, M., & Cantril, H. (1947). The psychology of ego-involvements: Social attitudes and identifications.
Shi, N., Lee, M. K., Cheung, C., & Chen, H. (2010, January). The continuance of online social networks: how to keep people using Facebook?. In System Sciences (HICSS), 2010 43rd Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 1-10). IEEE.
Skog, D. (2005). Social interaction in virtual communities: The significance of technology.
International Journal of Web Based Communities, 1(4), 464-474.
Stevens, J. P. (2012). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Routledge.
Szymanski, D. M., & Hise, R. T. (2000). E-satisfaction: an initial examination.Journal of retailing, 76(3), 309-322.
Tabachnick, B.G. & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th). Boston: Pearson Education.
Thompson, E. R. (2007). Development and validation of an internationally reliable short-form of the positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS). Journal of cross-cultural psychology, 38(2), 227-242.
Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. F. (2009). Is There Social Capital in a Social Network Site?: Facebook Use and College Students' Life Satisfaction, Trust, and Participation1. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 14(4), 875-901.
Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information systems research, 11(4), 342-365.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS quarterly, 425-478.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS quarterly, 36(1), 157-178.
Walther, J. B., Van Der Heide, B., Kim, S. Y., Westerman, D., & Tong, S. T. (2008). The role of friends’ appearance and behavior on evaluations of individuals on Facebook: Are we known by the company we keep?. Human Communication Research, 34(1), 28-49.
Wang, S., & Noe, R. A. (2010). Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future
84
research. Human Resource Management Review, 20(2), 115-131.
Wang, Y., & Vassileva, J. (2007, June). A review on trust and reputation for web service selection. In Distributed Computing Systems Workshops, 2007. ICDCSW'07. 27th International Conference on (pp. 25-25). IEEE.
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS quarterly, 35-57.
Waters, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review, 35(2), 102-106.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of personality and social psychology, 54(6), 1063.
Wixom, B. H., & Todd, P. A. (2005). A theoretical integration of user satisfaction and technology acceptance. Information systems research, 16(1), 85-102.
Wong, Y. J., Ho, R. M., Li, P., Shin, M., & Tsai, P. C. (2011). Chinese Singaporeans’ lay beliefs, adherence to Asian values, and subjective well-being.Personality and Individual Differences, 50(6), 822-827.
Yang, S. J., & Chen, I. Y. (2008). A social network-based system for supporting interactive collaboration in knowledge sharing over peer-to-peer network.International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(1), 36-50.
Young, E. (1999). The second annual ernst & young internet shopping study: the digital channel continues to gather steam. New York, 128.
Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1994). The personal involvement inventory: Reduction, revision, and application to advertising. Journal of advertising, 23(4), 59-70.
Zevon, M. A., & Tellegen, A. (1982). The structure of mood change: An idiographic/nomothetic analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(1), 111.
Zhang, Y., & Tanniru, M. (2005, January). An agent-based approach to study virtual learning communities. In System Sciences, 2005. HICSS'05. Proceedings of the 38th Annual Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 11c-11c). IEEE.
Zywica, J., & Danowski, J. (2008). The Faces of Facebookers: Investigating Social Enhancement and Social Compensation Hypotheses; Predicting Facebook™ and Offline Popularity from Sociability and SelfEsteem, and Mapping the Meanings of Popularity with Semantic Networks. Journal of ComputerMediated Communication, 14(1), 1-34.
85
APPENDIXES
Appendix A: Formal Research Questionnaire (in English)
Dear Participants,
This questionnaire is an academic research questionnaire about the effects of using behavior on online social network, thus hoping to understand reasons that affect users’ attitude and adoption on internet, as a suggestion and strategy to the correlated business in the industry.
This questionnaire is collected anonymously for academic research use only, please feel safe to fill it. We really appreciated your help, thank you so much!
National University of Kaohsiung
3. Education: □Elementary School □Junior High □Senior High □College □Graduate □Doctor 4. How many years have you been in online social network: □under 1y □2ys □3ys □4ys
□5ys □6ys □7ys □8ys □9ys □over 10ys
totally not trust 1 2 3 4 5 6
totally trust 5. How confident are you with the people you contact in online social
network (Users, friends, classmates, co-works…etc.)
□ □ □ □ □ □ 6. How confident are you with the contents you contact in online social
network (Information, comments, opinions…etc.)
□ □ □ □ □ □ 7. How confident are you with the privacy security of online social
network
□ □ □ □ □ □
86
Part Two:
The following question is trying to understand your personal emotions. The degree of agreement are divided into 5 level, level 1 means totally not agree, 3 means moderate, 5 means totally agree. Please mark the proper answer with your own knowledge and experience.
1 2 3 4 5
1 I perceive that I am generally upset about my daily life.
2 I perceive that I am generally upset about my work or study.
3 Overall, I perceive that I generally feel upset.
4 I perceive that I am generally hostile to people or things in my daily life.
5 I perceive that I am generally hostile to people or things in my working or studying time.
6 Overall, I perceive that I generally feel hostile.
7 I perceive that I am generally alert in my daily life.
8 I perceive that I am generally alert in my working or studying time.
9 Overall, I perceive that I am generally on alert.
10 I perceive that I am generally ashamed of myself in my daily life.
11 I perceive that I am generally ashamed of myself in my working or studying time.
12 Overall, I perceive that I generally feel ashamed.
13 I perceive that I am generally inspired by my daily life.
14 I perceive that I am generally inspired by my work or study.
15 Overall, I perceive that I generally feel inspired.
16 I perceive that I am generally nervous in my daily life.
17 I perceive that I am generally nervous in my working or studying time.
18 Overall, I perceive that I am generally a nervous person.
19 I perceive that I am generally determined to do things in my daily life.
20 I perceive that I am generally determined to do things in my working or studying time.
21 Overall, I perceive that I am generally a determined person.
22 I perceive that I am generally attentive in my daily life.
23 I perceive that I am generally attentive in my working or studying time.
24 Overall, I perceive that I am generally attentive.
25 I perceive that I generally feel afraid in my daily life.
26 I perceive that I generally feel afraid in my working or studying time.
27 Overall, I perceive that I generally feel afraid.
28 I perceive that I am generally active in my daily life.
29 I perceive that I am generally active in my working or studying time.
30 Overall, I perceive that I am generally an active person.
87
Part Three:
The following question is trying to understand your using conditions on Online Social Network. The degree of agreement are divided into 5 level, level 1 means totally not agree, 3 means moderate, 5 means totally agree. Please mark the proper answer with your own knowledge and experience.
1 2 3 4 5
1 I use online social network to share things of my daily life.
(Thinking, feeling, daily things, activities…etc.)
2 I use online social network to help my work/study. (Discussion, contact, seeking and sharing information… etc.)
3 Overall, I am generally a user of online social network.
Part Four:
The following question is trying to understand the personal performances after using Online Social Network. The degree of agreement are divided into 5 level, level 1 means totally not agree, 3 means moderate, 5 means totally agree. Please mark the proper answer with your own knowledge and experience.
1 2 3 4 5
1 I maintain good relationship with users in online social network.
2 I develop new relationship with users in online social network.
3 Overall, I have good relationship with users in online social network.
4 For my daily life, I feel information/knowledge helpful in online social network.
5 For my work/study, I feel information/knowledge helpful in online social network.
6 Overall, I feel information/knowledge beneficial in online social network.
7 For my daily life, I am satisfied with the use of online social network.
8 For my work/study, I am satisfied with the use of online social network.
9 Overall, I am satisfied with the use of online social network.
Please provide us with your comment or suggestion about this research and questionnaire.
___________________________________________________________________________
This is the end of this questionnaire. Thank you for your cooperation!
If you need the result of this research, please provide us your email: ____________________
88
Appendix B: Formal Research Questionnaire (in Chinese)
親愛的先生、小姐您好:
本問卷是探討情緒對於社會網絡行為及個人效益影響之學術性研究問卷，研究目的 是為社群網絡找出情緒效益與其相關解決方案，研究發現及研究建議將提供更多資訊以 作為創新研發的參考。
本問卷為不具名回答且屬學術研究使用，絕對不會對外公開，請安心填寫。各選項 皆為單選題，作答時間約五分鐘。再次誠摯感謝您在百忙之中抽空填答，謝謝您!
國立高雄大學 指導教授: 吳建興博士、趙建雄博士 研究生: 蔡宜潔 聯絡信箱: joytsaiyj@gmail.com
第一部分: 基本資料
1. 請問您的性別: □男 □女 2. 請問您的年齡: _____ 歲
3. 請問您的教育程度: □國小 □國中 □高中職 □專科/大學 □研究所 □博士 4. 請問您使用線上社群已有多久時間: □1 年以下 □2 年 □3 年 □4 年 □5 年
□6 年 □7 年 □8 年 □9 年 □10 年以上
非常
不信任 1 2 3 4 5 6
非常 信任 7. 您對於線上社群裡所接觸的人之信賴程度(使用者、好
友、同學、同事等)
□ □ □ □ □ □
8. 您對於線上社群裡所接觸的內容之信賴程度(分享資
8. 您對於線上社群裡所接觸的內容之信賴程度(分享資