MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W268181257

Uncovering the Motives for the Continuous Use of Social Virtual Worlds

2010· article· en· W268181257 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matti Mäntymäki, Jani Merikivi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Association for Information Systems · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicTechnology Adoption and User Behaviour
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTheory of planned behaviorSocial worldsSocial psychologyMetaversePsychologyContext (archaeology)Control (management)Norm (philosophy)Computer scienceSociologyVirtual realityHuman–computer interactionPolitical scienceArtificial intelligenceSocial scienceGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social virtual worlds (SVWs) have become increasingly important environments for social interaction, especially for the younger generations. For SVWs to be economically sustainable, attracting new users and retaining the existing ones existing users is a paramount issue. This calls for understanding of the reasons why people engage in social virtual worlds. This study investigates the motives for continuously engagement in SVWs and develops a research model grounded on the decomposed theory of planned behavior. The model is empirically tested with a data collected from Canadian active Habbo goers using PLS. Surprisingly, perceived behavioral control and subjective norm were found more important determinants of continuous use intention than attitude. The results indicated that hedonic motives were the main determinant of attitude. However, altogether only 21.9 % of attitude was explained by utilitarian, hedonic and social outcomes. As a result, the study revealed that rather relying on generic items in measuring attitude and the beliefs regarding the utilitarian and social outcomes, the characteristics of SVW context should be reflected in the operationalisations of the constructs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.447
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Association for Information SystemsSame topicTechnology Adoption and User BehaviourFrench-language works237,207