| Literature DB >> 35602706 |
Weigang Ma1,2, Anum Tariq3,4, Muhammad Wasim Ali5, Muhammad Asim Nawaz5,6, Xingqi Wang1.
Abstract
The study's prime objective is to investigate the user discontinuance intention in the shed of the negative disconfirmation of user expectation. The study has derived the theoretical structure from the expectancy disconfirmation theory (EDT) enacted through the stimuli organism response (SOR) framework to study the actual cause and effect relationship of human behavioral response. To investigate the user discontinuance intention behavioral response, a total of 434 correct and complete answers were shortlisted for analysis. To examine the data set, the study has used the modern partial least square method technique or simply SmartPLS service package to run the structural equation modeling (SEM). Moreover, the study has implied the 80/20 rule run the mediating analysis of the SOR framework. The statistical results show that all three stimuli make significant positive disconfirmation of the user beliefs in terms of dissatisfaction and the anxiety that ultimately leads to the discontinuance intention in virtual network users. Further, these results are validated through the six mediating relationships, which partially mediate the relationship between the stimuli and response. Besides all these findings, this study has made some practical and realistic theoretical and practical implications for both researchers and service-providing managers.Entities:
Keywords: China; discontinuance intention; hedonic disconfirmation; information disconfirmation; virtual networking sites
Year: 2022 PMID: 35602706 PMCID: PMC9121128 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.862568
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1The diagram presents the framework based on the SOR paradigm.
Present construct items, factor loading, AVE, Cronbach’s Alpha, CR, R2 and Q2.
| Construct Items | Loading | α | AVE | CR |
|
| |
|
| |||||||
| ID1 | I am often distracted by the excessive amount of information available to me on social networking sites. | 0.804 | 0.834 | 0.601 | 0.883 | ||
| ID2 | I find that I am overwhelmed by the amount of information I have to process on a daily basis on social networking sites. | 0.755 | |||||
| ID3 | There is too much information about my friends on social networking sites, so I find it a burden to handle. | 0.764 | |||||
| ID4 | I find that only a small part of the information on social networking sites is relevant to my needs. | 0.808 | |||||
| ID5 | I find that too much information repels me. | 0.744 | |||||
|
| |||||||
| SD1 | I take too much care of my friends’ wellbeing on social networking sites. | 0.777 | 0.802 | 0.626 | 0.870 | ||
| SD2 | I deal too much with my friends’ problems on social networking sites. | 0.756 | |||||
| SD3 | My sense of being responsible for how much fun my friends have on social networking sites is too strong. | 0.837 | |||||
| SD4 | I am too often caring for my friends on social networking sites. I pay too much attention to the posts of my friends on social networking sites. | 0.793 | |||||
|
| |||||||
| HD1 | To access a range of apps that fulfill the purpose of pleasure | 0.758 | 0.742 | 0.655 | 0.850 | ||
| HD2 | To enjoy playing games online | 0.868 | |||||
| HD3 | To achieve an overall sense of enjoyment | 0.798 | |||||
|
| |||||||
| ANX1 | Using Social networks makes me feeling nervous, anxious, or on the edge. | 0.836 | 0.802 | 0.715 | 0.883 | 0.458 | 0.321 |
| ANX2 | After using Social networks, I am not able to stop or control worrying | 0.859 | |||||
| ANX3 | After using Social networks, I start worrying about too many things. | 0.842 | |||||
|
| |||||||
| DIS1 | I feel dissatisfied with my overall experience using virtual networking sites. | 0.730 | 0.712 | 0.635 | 0.839 | 0.592 | 0.406 |
| DIS2 | I feel displeased about my overall experience using social networking sites. I feel discontented about my overall experience using virtual networking sites. | 0.860 | |||||
| DIS3 | I feel dissatisfied with my overall experience using virtual networking sites. | 0.796 | |||||
|
| |||||||
| DI1 | In the future, I will use virtual networks far less than today. | 0.784 | 0.713 | 0.635 | 0.838 | 0.658 | 0.367 |
| DI2 | I will sometimes take a short break from the virtual network and return later. | 0.732 | |||||
| DI3 | I will deactivate my virtual network account. | 0.868 | |||||
The demographic profile of the respondents.
| Demographic Analysis | |||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
| Male | 260 | 59.94 | |
| Female | 174 | 40.06 | |
| Age | Below 20 | 25 | 5.76 |
| 20–25 | 102 | 23.50 | |
| 25–30 | 153 | 35.25 | |
| 30–35 | 105 | 24.19 | |
| 35 and above | 49 | 11.29 | |
| Occupation | Students | 185 | 42.62 |
| Professional | 115 | 26.49 | |
| Businessman | 80 | 18.43 | |
| Other | 54 | 12.44 | |
| Income | Below 50 thousand | 265 | 61.05 |
| 51–99 thousand | 121 | 27.88 | |
| 100–199 | 40 | 09.21 | |
| 200 + | 8 | 01.84 | |
| Education | Graduation | 183 | 42.16 |
| Masters | 191 | 60.25 | |
| M.phil/Ph.D | 60 | 13.56 | |
n = 434.
The discriminant validity.
| ID | SD | HD | ANX | DIS | DI | |
| Informational disconfirmation (ID) |
| |||||
| Social disconfirmation (SD) | 0.762 |
| ||||
| Hedonic disconfirmation (HD) | 0.631 | 0.621 |
| |||
| Anxiety (ANX) | 0.623 | 0.619 | 0.536 |
| ||
| Dissatisfaction (DIS) | 0.730 | 0.717 | 0.622 | 0.551 |
| |
| Discontinuance intention (DI) | 0.739 | 0.716 | 0.620 | 0.711 | 0.718 |
|
HTMT ratio in bold less than 1 is acceptable criterion (
Presents the HTMT criterion.
| Items/Constructs | ANX | DI | DIS | HD | ID | SD |
| ANX |
| |||||
| DI | 0.731 |
| ||||
| DIS | 0.634 | 0.772 |
| |||
| HD | 0.762 | 0.852 | 0.775 |
| ||
| ID | 0.757 | 0.817 | 0.746 | 0.730 |
| |
| SD | 0.760 | 0.700 | 0.782 | 0.729 | 0.708 |
|
HTMT ratio in bold less than 1 is acceptable criterion (
Presents the values of VIF.
| S. No. | Items | VIF | S.No. | Items | VIF |
| 1 | ANX1 | 1.746 |
| ID1 | 1.820 |
| 2 | ANX2 | 1.866 |
| ID2 | 1.883 |
| 3 | ANX3 | 1.612 |
| ID3 | 1.912 |
| 4 | DI1 |
|
| ID4 |
|
| 5 | DI2 | 1.412 |
| ID5 | 1.772 |
| 6 | DI3 | 1.662 |
| SD1 | 1.506 |
| 7 | DIS1 | 1.319 |
| SD2 | 1.617 |
| 8 | DIS2 | 1.630 |
| SD3 | 1.822 |
| 9 | DIS3 | 1.413 |
| SD4 | 1.634 |
| 10 | HD1 | 1.445 | |||
| 11 | HD2 | 1.503 | |||
| 12 | HD3 | 1.478 |
The minimum and maximum values are highlighted and underlined.
FIGURE 2Presents the path coefficients of the structural model.
Path analysis.
| S.No. | Hyp. | Relation | Sample Mean (M) | Standard deviation (STDEV) | Outcome | ||
| 1 | H1a | ID ->ANX | 0.345 | 0.053 | 6.508 | 0.000 | Supported |
| 2 | H1b | ID ->DIS | 0.478 | 0.056 | 8.485 | 0.000 | Supported |
| 3 | H2a | SD ->ANX | 0.300 | 0.046 | 6.522 | 0.000 | Supported |
| 4 | H2b | SD ->DIS | 0.264 | 0.052 | 5.086 | 0.000 | Supported |
| 5 | H3a | HD ->ANX | 0.130 | 0.038 | 3.404 | 0.001 | Supported |
| 6 | H3b | HD ->DIS | 0.130 | 0.043 | 2.985 | 0.003 | Supported |
| 7 | H4 | ANX ->DI | 0.452 | 0.059 | 7.714 | 0.000 | Supported |
| 8 | H5 | DIS ->DI | 0.469 | 0.058 | 8.082 | 0.000 | Supported |
ANX, anxiety; DI, discontinuance intention; DIS, dissatisfaction; HD, hedonic disconfirmation; ID, informational disconfirmation; SD, social disconfirmation; Hyp, hypothesis.
Mediation analysis.
| Mediation analysis (SOR framework) | |||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
| H1c | ID->ANX->DI | 0.380 | 0.156 | 0.345 | 0.156/0.345 × 100 = 45.21% | Partial mediation | Supported |
| H1d | ID->DIS->DI | 0.380 | 0.224 | 0.478 | 0.224/0.478 × 100 = 46.86% | Partial mediation | Supported |
| H2c | SD->ANX->DI | 0.259 | 0.136 | 0.300 | 0.136/0.300 × 100 = 45.33% | Partial mediation | Supported |
| H2d | SD->DIS->DI | 0.259 | 0.124 | 0.264 | 0.124/0.264 × 100 = 46.96% | Partial mediation | Supported |
| H3c | HD->ANX->DI | 0.120 | 0.059 | 0.130 | 0.059/0.130 × 100 = 45.38% | Partial mediation | Supported |
| H3d | HD->DIS->DI | 0.120 | 0.061 | 0.130 | 0.061/0.130 × 100 = 46.92% | Partial mediation | Supported |
ID, information disconfirmation; ANX, anxiety; DI, discontinuance intention; SD, social disconfirmation; HD, hedonic disconfirmation; DIS, dissatisfaction; Hyp, hypothesis.