| Literature DB >> 34504978 |
Mahmoud Maqableh1, Hazar Y Hmoud1, Mais Jaradat2, Ra'ed Masa'deh1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to investigate the influence of perceived security, perceived privacy, and satisfaction on Facebook user continuance intention. In addition, the serial multiple mediating effects of trust and satisfaction on the relationship between continuance intention and Facebook determinants are explored. This study also investigates the moderating role of Facebook addiction on the relationship between satisfaction and continuance intention. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: To achieve the study aims, an online survey was conducted among university undergraduate students. Data were collected from 450 voluntary participants. The statistical analysis was performed using SPSS and PROCESS macro models.Entities:
Keywords: Continuance intention; Facebook addiction; IS success model; Moderating role; Serial multiple mediations
Year: 2021 PMID: 34504978 PMCID: PMC8417346 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e07899
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Figure 1Social media stats for Jordan (June 2020–June 2021) [21].
Figure 2Research model.
Prominent articles on continuance intention of social media.
| Authors | Subjects | Key findings |
|---|---|---|
| (Ku et al., 2013) [ | Continuance intention of SNS | Privacy concerns, subjective norms, gratifications, and perceived critical mass, and on SNS users' continuance intention. |
| (Yang and Lin, 2014) [ | Facebook stickiness | Epistemic value and hedonic value had impacts on the stickiness for Facebook. Additionally, with high-trust, social value and hedonic value produced significant impacts on stickiness. |
| (Zhang et al., 2017) [ | Building social media continuance intention | Social interaction mediates the effect of network externalities on the four types of perceived values. Also, social value and hedonic value influence continuance intention. |
| (Naqshbandi et al., 2017) [ | Facebook usage and academic performance | All five dimensions of personality from the big five model predict academic performance. In addition, shyness predicted academic performance positively and loneliness negatively influence students' academic performance |
| (Moqbel and Kock, 2018) [ | Dark side of social networking sites | SNSs has negative consequences on the personal and work environments. Moreover, SNS addiction reduces positive emotions that enhance performance and enhance health. |
| (Hruska and Maresova, 2020) [ | Continuance use intention of social media | Higher educational levels increase the continual use of social media. In addition, continual use of social media improves brand awareness, customer satisfaction, quality, reach, and profit. |
| (Maqableh et al., 2021) [ | Facebook stickiness | Satisfaction influences Facebook users' stickiness. In addition, hedonic value, emotional value, and social value impact Facebook users' satisfaction. |
Questionnaire items.
| Construct | Item # | Measure |
|---|---|---|
| Facebook Addiction [ | FA1 | Using my Facebook site sometimes interfered with other activities. |
| FA2 | I have made unsuccessful attempts to reduce the time I interact with my Facebook site. | |
| FA3 | Arguments have sometimes arisen at home because of the time I spend on my Facebook site. | |
| FA4 | I think that I am addicted to Facebook site. | |
| Continuance Intention [ | CI1 | If could, I will continue using Facebook. |
| CI2 | I will recommend my friends and family members to use Facebook. | |
| CI3 | I will continue using Facebook in the future. | |
| CI4 | My intentions are to continue using Facebook service rather than any alternative. | |
| Satisfaction [ | SA1 | I was very content with Facebook |
| SA2 | I was very pleased with Facebook | |
| SA3 | I felt delighted with Facebook | |
| SA4 | Overall, I was satisfied with Facebook | |
| Perceived Security [ | PS1 | I would feel secure sending sensitive information across the Facebook sites. |
| PS2 | I would feel totally safe providing sensitive information about myself over the Facebook sites. | |
| PS3 | The Facebook sites are a secure means through which to send sensitive information. | |
| PS4 | Overall, the Facebook sites is a safe place to transmit sensitive information. | |
| Perceived Privacy [ | PP1 | I rethink when I post my personal information Facebook sites |
| PP2 | When I use Facebook sites, protecting personal privacy is an important issue | |
| PP3 | When I use Facebook sites, it usually bothers me when other people ask me personal information | |
| PP4 | When I use Facebook sites, I am worried about providing personal information to so many people | |
| Trust [ | TR1 | People on Facebook are trustworthy. |
| TR2 | I trust Facebook information to be true. | |
| TR3 | I usually trust Facebook unless it gives me a reason not to trust it. | |
| TR4 | Overall, Facebook are trustworthy. | |
| TR5 | Facebook do respect and would not abuse my private information and browsing log history. | |
| TR6 | The security guard and mechanism of Facebook are trustworthy. |
Characteristics of the research sample (n = 450).
| Measure | Items | Frequency | Percentage% |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 144 | 32 |
| Female | 306 | 68 | |
| Total | 450 | 100 | |
| Age | 17–19 | 66 | 14.7 |
| 20–23 | 347 | 77.1 | |
| 23 and above | 37 | 8.2 | |
| Total | 450 | 100 | |
| Academic Level (Year) | First | 20 | 4.4 |
| Second | 129 | 28.7 | |
| Third | 141 | 31.3 | |
| Fourth | 129 | 28.7 | |
| Fifth and above | 31 | 6.9 | |
| Total | 450 | 100 | |
| Students spend on Social Networking activities daily (Hour) | Less than 1 | 46 | 10.2 |
| 1–3 | 180 | 40 | |
| 4–6 | 159 | 35.3 | |
| More than 6 | 65 | 14.4 | |
| Total | 450 | 100 | |
| Weeks of Using Facebook Sites | Less than 10 weeks | 43 | 9.6 |
| 10–29 weeks | 134 | 29.8 | |
| 30–50 weeks | 137 | 30.4 | |
| More than 50 weeks | 136 | 30.2 | |
| Total | 450 | 100 |
Validity and reliability.
| Variables | Standardized Factor Loading | Estimate | S.E. | C.R. | P | AVE | CR | Cronbach-α |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trust | 0.500 | 0.765 | 0.763 | |||||
| Trust 4 | .639 | 1.000 | ||||||
| Trust 3 | .654 | 1.102 | .105 | 10.532 | <0.001 | |||
| Trust 2 | .727 | 1.147 | .103 | 11.175 | <0.001 | |||
| Trust 1 | .659 | 1.027 | .097 | 10.576 | <0.001 | |||
| Privacy | 0.500 | 0.767 | 0.765 | |||||
| Privacy 1 | .726 | 1.000 | ||||||
| Privacy 2 | .748 | 1.002 | .080 | 12.518 | <0.001 | |||
| Privacy 3 | .642 | .805 | .071 | 11.384 | <0.001 | |||
| Privacy 4 | .565 | .739 | .073 | 10.195 | <0.001 | |||
| Security | 0.640 | 0.877 | 0.875 | |||||
| Security 1 | .806 | 1.000 | ||||||
| Security 2 | .862 | 1.066 | .054 | 19.875 | <0.001 | |||
| Security 3 | .837 | 1.058 | .055 | 19.293 | <0.001 | |||
| Security 4 | .691 | .880 | .058 | 15.283 | <0.001 | |||
| Satisfaction | 0.626 | 0.855 | 0.851 | |||||
| Satisfaction 1 | .800 | 1.000 | ||||||
| Satisfaction 2 | .812 | 1.027 | .056 | 18.459 | <0.001 | |||
| Satisfaction 3 | .810 | 1.006 | .055 | 18.416 | <0.001 | |||
| Satisfaction 4 | .657 | .843 | .059 | 14.305 | <0.001 | Removed | ||
| Continuous Intention | 0.603 | 0.828 | 0.824 | |||||
| Continuous Intention 1 | .850 | 1.000 | ||||||
| Continuous Intention 2 | .704 | .858 | .054 | 16.027 | <0.001 | |||
| Continuous Intention 3 | .761 | .877 | .050 | 17.686 | <0.001 | |||
| Continuous Intention 4 | .630 | .734 | .053 | 13.943 | <0.001 | Removed | ||
| Model fit indices: GFI = 0.901, CFI = 0.926, IFI = 0.926, RMSEA = 0.057, CMIN/df = 2.409 | ||||||||
AVE values for both satisfaction and continuous intentions were calculated with the exclusion of the removed items. The original AVE values were (0.597 and 0.549).
∗Although the AVE is less than 0.5, according to Fornell & Larcker (1981, p.46), AVE is more conservative criteria than C.R. Accordingly, if the C.R. is higher than 0.7, an AVE less than 0.5 can be accepted.
Correlations and descriptive statistics.
| Variable | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Mean | SD | Skewness | Kurtosis | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Continuance Intention | 3.5068 | .84496 | -.699 | .446 | |||||
| 2 | Satisfaction | 0.747 | 3.3206 | 0.7951 | -.601 | .535 | ||||
| 3 | Perceived Security | 0.155 | 0.149 | 2.172 | 0.8764 | 0.218 | -0.828 | |||
| 4 | Privacy Concern | 0.356 | 0.399 | -0.101 | 3.385 | 0.7946 | -0.722 | 0.188 | ||
| 5 | Trust | 0.266 | 0.312 | 0.447 | -.029 | 1.849 | 0.5632 | 0.209 | -0.091 |
Bold Italic diagonal values represent the square root of the AVE values.
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Figure 3Standardized loadings for the path analysis.
Regression weights (H1 to H8).
| Hypothesis | Estimate | S.E. | C.R. | P | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.75 | 0.06 | 12.597 | <0.001 | Sig. | |
| 0.379 | 0.087 | 4.345 | <0.001 | Sig. | |
| 0.064 | 0.054 | 1.193 | 0.233 | Insig. | |
| 0.053 | 0.043 | 1.222 | 0.222 | Insig. | |
| 0.355 | 0.055 | 6.409 | <0.001 | Sig. | |
| 0.114 | 0.052 | 2.179 | 0.029 | Sig. | |
| 0.307 | 0.042 | 7.228 | <0.001 | Sig. | |
| 0.012 | 0.041 | 0.286 | 0.775 | Insig. |
Mediation analysis (H9 and H10).
| Total effect | Direct effect | Indirect effect | Result | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.198 (p = 0.006 < 0.05) | 0.197 (p = 0.004 < 0.05) | 0.002 (p = 0.989 > 0.05) | The mediation path is insignificant | |
| 0.156 (p = 0.014 < 0.05) | 0.043 (p = 0.506 > 0.05) | 0.113 (p = 0.007 < 0.05) | The mediation path is significant (Full mediation) |
Figure 4Mediation path H9.
Figure 5Mediation path H10.
Moderation analysis (H11).
| Independent | Effect | S.E. | LLCI | ULCI | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Z score-Addiction | 0.0508 | 0.0306 | -.0106 | .1086 | |
| Z score-Satisfaction | 0.7685 | 0.0302 | .7102 | .8287 | |
| Interaction term | -0.0932 | 0.0184 | -.1307 | -.0586 | Significant moderation |
| Conditional effects of the focal predictor at values of the moderator | |||||
| Level of moderator | Effect of Sat → Cont. Int. | S.E. | t | p | (ULCI, LLCI) |
| (-1SD) | 0.9156 | 0.0345 | 26.554 | 0.000 | (0.8479, 0.9834) |
| (Mean) | 0.8167 | 0.0324 | 25.1844 | 0.000 | (0.7529, 0.8804) |
| (+1 SD) | 0.7177 | 0.0447 | 16.0683 | 0.000 | (0.6299, 0.8054) |
| Dependent: Z score-Continuous intention | |||||
| The analysis was bootstrapped 5000 | |||||
Figure 6Moderating effect of addiction on the relation between satisfaction (X-axis) and continuance intention (Y-axis).