Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Department of Marketing Management, Takming University of Science and Technology, Taipei, Taiwan
Department of Business Administration, National Taipei University, Taipei, Taiwan
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history:
Received 4 June 2012
Received in revised form 29 July 2013
Accepted 7 August 2014
Available online 19 August 2014
In the context of the exponential increase of information in society, this study examines the relationship
between perceived information accessibility and microblog stickiness. The results indicate an inverted
U-shaped relationship between perceived information accessibility and stickiness. To determine how to
avoid the information overload that can compromise the stickiness of the microblog site, this study
examines the moderating effects of sense of community. The inverted U-shaped relationship becomes
linear as levels of sense of community increase. The results suggest microblog service providers can
increase the sense of community in order to reduce the negative impact of information overload on
stickiness.
2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Perceived information accessibility
Stickiness
Sense of community
1. Introduction
The Internet and the World Wide Web have become a major
source of information and knowledge [1,58,60,62]. These resources
represent a powerful disseminative tool for users to acquire and
share information efciently and easily. The microblog is a new
form of communication that has been enabled by a variety of
online social networking tools (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, Jaiku, and
Pownce) [51]. The term microblog refers to a set of activities in
which users broadcast brief text updates about small events in
their daily lives and work, such as what they are reading, thinking
and experiencing. Because microblog entries are typically posted
via mobile phone text messages and are currently restricted to a
limited number of characters per entry, the messages are brief,
sharp and to the point [12]. Microblogs are used for a wide variety
of social purposes and have rapidly become a popular option for
online social networking. Twitter is the best known microblog [10].
Approximately 65 million tweets were posted each day in the
month of June 2010an astonishing 750 tweets sent per second
among nearly 174 million users worldwide (Twitter, 2010).
The problem of information overload has become widely
recognized [31]. People in todays information society are
bombarded with information regardless of whether they actively
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: alanhsu8399@gmail.com (C.-L. Hsu).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.08.005
0378-7206/ 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
834
information efciently and effectively with less perceived information load than are novice online consumers [24]. A typical
microblog provides a dynamic message platform that requires live
interactions between members to maintain the community
infrastructure and generate new and updated information. When
people are highly involved with the topic being communicated and
are able to process the arguments, they are more likely to be
persuaded. Therefore, the degree to which a user is involved and
has the capacity to process information may inuence both the
users degree of loading perception [90,99] and the extent to which
he or she can provide social or emotional support to other
members [77,80]. Thus, this study discusses the logic behind
effective communication messages that can increase the stickiness
of microblogs without inducing information overload.
Because a microblog is not only an information site but also a
social networking service, this study asserts that social interaction
is the microblog factor most worthy of investigation. However,
surprisingly few studies have examined how social interaction
moderates the relationship between the perceived information
accessibility and stickiness of a microblog. Therefore, this study
adopted the sense of community (consisting of two subfactors:
membership and shared emotional connection) as a moderating
factor.
This study addresses these issues in the literature by examining
(1) the inverted U-shaped curve in the relationship between the
perceived information accessibility and stickiness of a microblog
and (2) the social interaction factor (sense of community) that
moderates this curvilinear linkage between perceived information
accessibility and stickiness.
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. In the next
section, we review some of the literature regarding microblogs,
perceived information accessibility, sense of community and
stickiness. We then present our research model and hypotheses.
The following section describes the methodology used to verify the
hypotheses. The next section includes the analysis and discussion
of the results, followed by the theoretical contributions of this
study and a discussion of the managerial implications. After
describing the limitations of this study and making suggestions for
further research, we present our conclusion.
2. Literature review
2.1. Microblog
A microblog is a form of communication in which users can
describe their current status in short posts distributed in the form
of instant messages (e.g., G-talk, Yahoo!), mobile phones (SMS),
RSS, email or websites [12]. A microblog combines the features of
social networking and mobility to share thoughts and opinions, to
invite discussion, and to tell others about ones life. This form of
communication provides an opportunity for individuals to share
their activities, interact with others, build a reputation and release
pent-up emotionsall in real time. Users are becoming
producers and consumers rather than simply being the audience
[19]. While a traditional blog allows entries of unlimited length,
microblog entries are typically posted via mobile phone text
messages, in which the number of characters is limited. Messages
on microblogs are brief, sharp and to the point. Twitter, which was
launched in 2006, may be the best-known example of a microblog.
Other examples, both active and defunct, include Plurk. Twitter is
similar to an instant messenger that allows users to respond to the
question what are you doing now? Twitter users post short
information updates without a headline or additional information
on their page. Users can follow (i.e., receive feeds from) anyone
else using the service, from friends and family to public gures and
news outlets. Once users choose whom they want to follow,
Twitter provides them with a live news feed of tweets from those
sources. Thus, users receive a constant, real-time stream of news in
short text bites from almost anyone of interest. Users can also send
tweets, which involves instantly delivering messages to their own
followers. All of the messages from a members social network are
listed together in chronological order on the members start page.
The microblog fullls the need for a mode of communication
that is even faster than a blog. By encouraging shorter posts,
microblogs reduce the amount of time and thought that users must
invest to generate contentone of the key factors that distinguishes microblogs from blogs in general [51]. The second
important distinction is the update frequency. On average, a
prolic blogger updates his or her blog once every few days. By
contrast, a microblogger may post several updates within a single
day. The main reasons for microblogging are maintaining contact
with others, raising the visibility of interesting things, gathering
useful information, seeking help and opinions, and releasing
emotional stress [100]. Using Twitter as an example, researchers
have dened four types of user intentions: daily chat, conversation,
information sharing, and news reporting news.
2.1.1. Daily chat
Daily chatting is the most common intention for Twitter users.
The original idea of Twitter was to ask people What are you
doing?; therefore, most Twitter posts pertain to users daily
routines or current activities.
2.1.2. Conversation
The microblog is not a unidirectional information dissemination website; users can interact in two-way conversations on a
microblog. Approximately 12.5% of all posts in our collected data
contain a conversation, and almost 21% of the users in the
collection have used this form of communication.
2.1.3. Sharing information
Users share information with their friends or followers.
Approximately 13% of all posts in the collected data contain a
link that was shared.
2.1.4. Reporting news
Twitter emphasized its news-and-information network strategy in November 2009 by changing its question to users from What
are you doing? to Whats happening? Since then, reporting the
news as it occurs has become an important microblogging activity.
Many people now use Twitter to report the latest news or to
comment on current events. Some users or agents automatically
post updated information, such as weather reports and new stories
from RSS feeds [51].
Scholars have categorized microblogs into three types based on
their purpose: information sharing, information seeking, and
friend-wise relationship building. News is posted from information sources that tend to have a large base of followers; these sources
may be individuals or automated services. Users who rarely post but
who follow others statuses regularly are called information
seekers. Friend-wise relationship is a broad term that includes
relationships with many other users, such as family members, coworkers and strangers. Typically, users are motivated to use a
microblog that has a community with which they have developed a
strong association [51], that helps keep them informed of activities
[73] and that graties their need for contact with others [67].
2.2. Perceived information accessibility
Perceived information accessibility has been a critical factor
affecting information system usage and success [27]. Scholars have
dened perceived information accessibility as a combination of the
835
making and who share certain practices that both dene the
community and are nurtured by it [13]. According to the Dictionary
of Sociology [66], the most common elements that dene a
community are the grouping of people within a singular social
structure and a sense of belonging to that social structure.
Currently, the meaning of the word is changing from its original
geographically specic connotation to a more relationship-specic
meaning. A distinction can be drawn between geographic
communities and relational communities. The former refers to a
neighborhood, town, or region, and the latter involves human
relationships without reference to location (e.g., communities of
interest such as hobby clubs, religious groups or fan clubs). A
virtual community is a set of social relationships forged in
cyberspace through repeated contacts within a specied boundary
[56]. A community is characterized primarily by the relational
interactions or social ties that draw people together. Such a
community does not form quickly. Throughout history, such a
community has been regarded as a community of memory, dened
in part by its past and its memory of the past.
Sense of community is dened as a result of interactions and
deliberations by people united by similar interests and common
goals [96]. Furthermore, a sense of community is dened as the
feeling that group members have: the feeling that members matter
to one another and to the group as well as the shared faith that
members needs will be met through their commitment to be
together [70]. Since at least the 1960s, community researchers
have been interested in exploring this sense of community because
it is believed to have benecial outcomes that do not occur when
this feeling is absent [17].
The current study proposes that when members have a strong
sense of community, they may spend more cognitive effort dealing
with relevant information. Members may become deeply involved
with their community, thereby increasing their information
processing abilities and allowing them to manage a larger number
of messages [90]. Members of online groups can experience a sense
of virtual community, as the cyberspace equivalent of the sense of
community experienced in traditional face-to-face encounters
[16,92]. This sense of virtual community reects the feelings that
individual members have when belonging to an online social
group.
As a construct, the sense of virtual community is complex and
still lacks an established conceptualization. Membership and
shared emotional connection are the community factors most
commonly mentioned in studies discussing the sense of virtual
community [16,17,34,56]. From one perspective, membership
includes self-reinforcing aspect boundaries (knowledge of who is
within the community), emotional safety (boundaries that provide
protection for intimacy), personal investment (to become a
valuable member), the sense of belonging, identication with
other group members, and a common symbol system [85].
Membership includes the sense that one has invested part of
himself/herself to become a member and therefore has the right to
belong [6].
From a different perspective, the shared emotional connection
is derived from a shared community history, shared events,
positive interactions, and identication with the community. The
more frequently people interact, the more likely they are to form
close relationships, which subsequently leads to stronger bonds
[70]. According to the theory of planned behavior and the theory of
reasoned action, if individuals believe that others who are
important to them (e.g., part of their virtual community) want
them to perform a given behavior, then they will be more likely to
perform that behavior. Thus, the sense of virtual community can be
regarded as a major source of social inuence that clearly affect
users behavioral intentions. Therefore, the current study proposes
that the sense of community (membership and shared emotional
836
837
H2. Membership positively moderates the inverted U-shaped relationship between perceived information accessibility and stickiness.
Shared emotional connection (SEC) is the second sub-factor of the
sense of community that is expected to moderate the nonlinear
relationship between perceived information accessibility and
stickiness. An SEC is partially based on mutual history. The
interactions of members in mutual and specic events may
develop or restrict the strength of ones relationship in a
community [70]. A shared emotional connection refers to the
bonds developed over time through positive interactions with
other community members. More interaction amongst the
members of a group increase the likelihood that members will
become close [48]. For example, the community can discuss a topic
on the microblog or hold a member activity on the site, such as
voting, competitions or games. If members experience such a
process positively, then their relationships may become stronger,
which facilitates cohesion. By contrast, if interactions are
ambiguous or argumentative, then group cohesiveness will be
restricted [26,44]. Furthermore, the more important the mutual
event is to those involved, the greater the community bond is [70].
This study argues that when members have a mutual history,
they are more able to expend the cognitive effort needed to process
messages or information. As previously noted, microbloggers share
thoughts and opinions and invite discussion, primarily based on
their daily routines or current activities. The greater the information availability as a function of such variables as message
repetition, the greater the ability of message recipients to
thoughtfully consider issue-relevant information and become
more deeply committed to the community. Therefore, mutual
history is likely to provide members with a greater ability to absorb
messages or information that is repeated regularly. An important
part of sustaining this relationship with a group is investment in
online interactions. A deeply shared emotional connection
generated by mutual history is likely to provide members with
more incentive and capacity to remain in the community.
Therefore, stickiness from shared events may mitigate the negative
effects associated with higher levels of perceived information
accessibility. By contrast, people interacting in ambiguous or
argumentative events may become increasingly reluctant to
respond to messages or to share messages with others, and they
may even abandon a community for this reason.
H3. Shared emotional connection positively moderates the
inverted U-shaped relationship between perceived information
accessibility and stickiness.
4. Research methodology
4.1. Data collection and sampling plan
The data used in this research were collected via an online
sampling survey hosted at my3q.com (http://www.my3q.com).
The respondents were Taiwanese users who had followed or
become fans of the microblog webpage of a corporation (e.g., Plurk,
Twitter, Facebook). To encourage participation, the respondents
were offered the opportunity to win a lottery-based prize (7Eleven icash). The respondents were asked to evaluate the items in
the questionnaire based on their usage behavior on the microblog
that they frequented most. Thus, the rst question asked the
respondents to indicate which microblog they tend to use the
most. All items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale anchored
by 7 = strongly agree and 1 = strongly disagree. A total of 562
respondents completed the questionnaire. Of these responses, 26
were considered invalid (too many answers were missing, or the
838
Table 1
The characteristics of the respondents.
Characteristic
Sample
Percentage (%)
Gender
Male
Female
103
433
19
81
Age
Under 19
1925 years old
2630 years old
3135 years old
More than 35 years old
15
373
101
13
0
3
69
25
3
0
Education
Master
Bachelor
Senior high school
Junior high school
Elementary
140
376
19
1
0
26
70
4
0
0
8
12
19
56
5
1
2
18
76
3
8
12
92
386
4
Perceived information
accessibility
1
2
3
4
Mean
SD
1.00
0.68
0.59
0.35
5.08
0.81
Membership
SEC
Stickiness
1.00
0.84
0.48
4.89
0.99
1.00
0.43
4.75
0.91
1.00
4.57
1.04
839
Table 3
Results of regression analyses for stickiness (moderator: sense of community).
Variable
PIA
M
SEC
PIA M
PIA SEC
PIA2
PIA2 M
PIA2 SEC
R2
Adj2
F-change
Model 1
0.02 (0.48)
0.35 (5.02)***
0.12 (1.91)*
0.21
0.21
46.58***
Model 2
0.01
0.34
0.02
0.13
0.15
(0.08)
(5.07)***
(0.30)
(2.07)*
(2.26)*
0.30
0.30
30.45***
Model 3
0.02
0.36
0.01
0.18
0.16
0.08
Model 4
( 0.33)
(5.32)***
(0.20)
(2.74)**
(2.35)**
( 2.28)*
0.31
0.30
5.18*
0.13
0.24
0.02
0.25
0.06
0.11
0.12
Model 5
*
( 2.04)
(3.03)**
( 2.59)*
(2.71)**
( 0.75)
( 3.21)***
(3.72)***
0.35
0.34
29.31***
0.16
0.33
0.11
0.26
0.01
0.13
VIF
***
( 3.15)
(5.09)***
( 1.70)*
(4.00)***
( 0.21)
( 3.88)*
0.18 (6.69)***
0.37
0.36
44.79***
2.08
3.62
2.80
4.68
4.60
1.75
2.52
3.11
Note: PIA, perceived information accessibility; M, membership; SEC, shared emotional connection.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01.
***
p < 0.001.
840
Fig. 3. Moderating effect of membership on the curvilinear relationship between information accessibility and stickiness.
6. Theoretical contributions
841
Fig. 4. Moderating effect of SEC on the curvilinear relationship between information accessibility and stickiness.
7. Managerial implications
Our empirical nding regarding the relationship of perceptions
of information accessibility to microblog stickiness has strategic
implications for both microblog service providers and companies.
842
843
Appendix A
Measure and source
SFLa
t-Value
0.88
0.88
0.64
0.58
0.55
0.85
0.90
0.87
0.83
0.84
0.80
0.77
0.75
0.62
0.77
0.86
22.16
24.11
15.40
13.71
12.92
23.33
25.44
24.12
22.27
22.62
20.97
20.07
19.19
14.88
14.91
23.21
0.83
0.66
22.07
16.10
Model t indices: NFI = 0.91, NNFI = 0.93, CFI = 0.94, IFI = 0.94
Information accessibility
Cronbachs a = 0.84
CR = 0.84 [91]
Stickiness
Cronbachs a = 0.86
CR = 0.87 [62]
References
[1] D. Abfalter, M.E. Zaglia, J. Mueller, Sense of virtual community: a follow up on its
measurement, Comput. Hum. Behav. 28 (2), 2012, pp. 400404.
[3] L.S. Aiken, S.G. West, Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions,
Sage Publications, Newberry Park, CA, 1991.
[5] J.C. Anderson, D. Gerbing, Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach, Psychol. Bull. 103 (3), 1988, pp. 411423.
[6] E. Aronson, J. Mills, The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group, J.
Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 59 (2), 1959, pp. 177181.
[7] B.E. Ashforth, F. Mael, Social identity theory and the organization, Acad. Manage.
Rev. 14 (1), 1989, pp. 2039.
[8] R.P. Bagozzi, Y. Yi, On the evaluation of structural equation models, J. Acad.
Market. Sci. 16 (1), 1988, pp. 7494.
[9] R.P. Bagozzi, Y. Yi, L.W. Phillips, Assessing construct validity in organizational
research, Adm. Sci. Q. 36 (3), 1991, pp. 421458.
[10] S.J. Barnes, Modeling use continuance behavior in microblogging services: the
case of twitter, J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 51 (4), 2011, pp. 110.
[11] D. Bawden, C. Holtham, N. Courtney, Perspectives on information overload, Aslib
Proc. 51 (8), 1999, pp. 249255.
[12] C. Beaumont, Tweet, tweet, here comes Twitter, Telegraph 12 (April), 2008, p. 21.
http://re8ux2yp4z.scholar.serialssolutions.com/?sid=google&auinit=G&aulast=Akehurst&atitle=User+generated+content:+the+use+of+blogs+for+tourism+organisations+and+tourism+consumers&id=doi:10.1007/s11628-008-00542&title=Service+business&volume=3&issue=1&date=2009&spage=51.
[13] R. Bellah, R. Madsen, W. Sullivan, A. Swidler, S. Tipton, Habits of the Heart:
Individualism and Commitment in American Life, Harper & Row, New York, 1985.
[14] M. Bergami, R.P. Bagozzi, Self-categorization, affective commitment and group
self-esteem as distinct aspects of social identity in the organization, Br. J. Soc.
Psychol. 39 (4), 2000, pp. 555577.
[15] J.R. Bettman, An Information Processing Theory of Consumer Choice, AddisonWesley, MA, 1979.
[16] A.L. Blanchard, Testing a model of sense of virtual community, Comput. Hum.
Behav. 24 (5), 2008, pp. 21072123.
[17] A.L. Blanchard, M.L. Markus, The experienced sense of a virtual community:
characteristics and processes, Adv. Inf. Syst. 35 (1), 2004, pp. 6579.
[19] D.C. Brabham, Moving the crowd at iStockphoto: the composition of the crowd
and motivations for participation in a crowd sourcing application, First Monday
13 (6), 2008, pp. 122.
[20] S.J. Brock, Selling alliances: issues and insights, Ind. Market. Manage. 26 (2), 1997,
pp. 146161.
[21] E.J. Burge, Learning in computer conferenced contexts: the learners, J. Distance
Educ. 9 (1), 1994, pp. 1943.
[23] M.K. Chang, W. Cheung, Determinants of the intention to use Internet/WWW at
work: a conrmatory study, Inf. Manage. 39 (1), 2001, pp. 114.
[24] C.Y. Chen, R.A. Shang, C.Y. Kao, The effects of information overload on consumers
subjective state towards buying decision in the Internet shopping environment,
Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 8 (1), 2009, pp. 4858.
[25] W.M. Cohen, D.A. Levinthal, Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning
and innovation, Admin. Sci. Q. 35 (1), 1990, pp. 128152.
[26] S.W. Cook, Motives in conceptual analysis of attitude related behavior, in: W.J.
Arnold, D. Levine (Eds.), in: Proceedings of the Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE, 1970.
[27] M.J. Culnan, The dimensions of accessibility to online information: implications
for implementing ofce information systems, ACM Trans. Off. Inf. Syst. 2 (2), 1984,
pp. 141150.
[29] E. Demers, B. Lev, Rude awakening: Internet shakeout in 2000, Rev. Account. Stud.
6 (23), 2001, pp. 331359.
[30] U.M. Dholakiaa, R.P. Bagozzia, L.K. Pearob, A social inuence model of consumer
participation in network- and small-group-based virtual communities, Int. J. Res.
Market. 21 (3), 2004, pp. 241263.
[31] A. Edmunds, A. Morris, The problem of information overload in business organisations: a review of the literature, Int. J. Inf. Manage. 20 (1), 2000, pp. 1728.
[32] M. Efron, Information search and retrieval in microblogs, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci.
Technol. 62 (6), 2011, pp. 9961008.
[34] H.K. Ellonen, M. Kosonen, K. Henttonen, The development of a sense of virtual
community, J. Web Based Commun. 3 (1), 2007, pp. 114130.
[35] M.J. Eppler, J. Mengis, The concept of Information overload: a review of literature
from organization science, accounting, marketing, MIS, and related disciplines,
Inf. Soc. 20 (5), 2004, pp. 325344.
[36] J. Feather, In the Information Society: A Study of Continuity and Change, Library
Association, London, 1998.
[38] A. Fornell, D.F. Larcker, Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error, J. Market. Res. 18 (1), 1981, pp. 3950.
[39] J.F. Fournier, Information overload and technology education, in: Proceedings of
the Seventh International Conference of the Society for Information Technology
and Teacher Education, Phoenix, AZ, 1996.
[40] R.J. Friedrich, In defense of multiplicative terms in multiple regression equations,
Am. J. Pol. Sci. 26 (4), 1982, pp. 797833.
[42] M.-L. Grise, R.B. Gallupe, Information overload: addressing the productivity
paradox in face-to-face electronic meetings, JMIS 16 (3), 2000, pp. 157186.
[43] J.F. Hair Jr., W.C. Black, B.J. Babin, R. Anderson, Multivariate Data Analysis, Pearson
Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 2009.
[44] R.L. Hamblin, Group integration during a crisis, Hum. Relat. 11 (1), 1958, pp. 6776.
[45] L. Harasim, Teaching and learning on-line: issues in computer-mediated graduate
courses, Can. J. Educ. Commun. 16 (2), 1987, pp. 117135.
[48] F.M. Hsu, T.Y. Chen, S. Wang, The role of customer values in accepting information
technologies in the public information service sector, Serv. Ind. J. 30 (7), 2010, pp.
10971111.
[49] W.M. Hur, J. Park, M. Kim, The role of commitment on the customer benets
loyalty relationship in mobile service industry, Serv. Ind. J. 30 (14), 2010, pp.
22392309.
[50] J. Jacoby, D.E. Speller, C.A. Kohn, Brand choice behavior as a function of information load, J. Market. Res. 11 (1), 1974, pp. 6369.
[51] A. Java, X. Song, T. Finin, B. Tseng, Why we twitter: understanding microblogging
usage and communities, in: Proceedings of the 9th WebKDD and 1st SNA-KDD
2007 Workshop on Web Mining and Social Network Analysis, San Jose, CA, 2007.
[52] Q. Jones, G. Ravid, S. Rafaeli, Information overload and the message dynamics of
online interaction spaces: a theoretical model and empirical exploration, Inf. Syst.
Res. 15 (2), 2004, pp. 194210.
[53] K.L. Keller, R. Staelin, Effects of quality and quantity of information on decision
effectiveness, J. Consum. Res. 14 (2), 1987, pp. 200213.
[55] E. Klapp, Overload and Boredom: Essays on the Quality of Life in the Information
Society, Greenwood Press, Connecticut, 1986.
[56] J. Koh, Y.G. Kim, Sense of virtual community: a conceptual framework and
empirical validation, Int. J. Electron. Commerce 8 (2), 2003, pp. 7593.
[57] A.S. Krishen, R.L. Raschke, P. Kachroo, A feedback control approach to maintain
consumer information load in online shopping environments, Inf. Manage. 48 (8),
2011, pp. 344352.
[58] D. Li, G.J. Browne, J.C. Wetherbe, Why do Internet users stick with a specic web site? A
relationship perspective Int. J. Electron. Commerce 10 (4), 2006, pp. 105141.
[59] H.F. Lin, Determinants of successful virtual communities: contributions from
system characteristics and social factors, Inf. Manage. 45 (5), 2008, pp. 522527.
844
[60] J.C.C. Lin, H. Lu, Towards an understanding of the behavioral intention to use a
web site, Int. J. Inf. Manage. 20 (3), 2000, pp. 197208.
[61] G. Lippert, R. Wilder, Add stickiness to your site with an intuitive and userfriendly interface, Inside the Internet, 2001, December.
[62] Z. Liu, J. Xu, Study of online stickiness: its antecedents and effect on repurchase
intention, 2010 International Conference on E-Business, E-Management and ELearning, 2010116120.
[63] N.K. Malhotra, Information load and consumer decision making, J. Consum. Res. 8
(4), 1982, pp. 419430.
[64] R.S. Mano, G.S. Mesch, E-mail characteristics, work performance and distress,
Comput. Hum. Behav. 26 (1), 2010, pp. 6169.
[65] J.G. March, H.A. Simon, Organizations, John Wiley, New York, 1958.
[66] G. Marshall, A Dictionary of Sociology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1998.
[67] C. Masullo, Tweet this: a uses and gratications perspective on how active Twitter
use graties a need to connect with others, Comput. Hum. Behav. 27 (2), 2011, pp.
755762.
[68] W.J. McGuire, Some internal psychological factors inuencing consumer choice, J.
Consum. Res. 2 (3), 1976, pp. 302319.
[69] V. McKinney, K. Yoon, F.M. Zahedi, The measurement of web-customer satisfaction: an expectation and disconrmation approach, Inf. Syst. Res. 13 (3), 2002, pp.
296315.
[70] D.W. McMillan, D.M. Chavis, Sense of community: a denition and theory, J.
Community Psychol. 14 (1), 1986, pp. 623.
[71] J.P. Meyer, D.J. Stanley, L. Herscovitch, L. Topolnytsky, Affective, continuance, and
normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents,
correlates, and consequences, J. Vocat. Behav. 61 (1), 2002, pp. 2052.
[72] N. Miller, G. Maruyama, R.J. Beaber, K. Valone, Speed of speech and persuasion, J.
Pers. Soc. Psychol. 34 (4), 1976, pp. 615624.
[73] E. Mischaud, Twitter: expressions of the whole self. An investigation into user
appropriation of a web-based communications platform, Msc in Politics and
Communication, London School of Economics and Political Science, 2007.
[74] A. Newell, H.A. Simon, Human Problem Solving, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ, 1972.
[75] D.H. Park, S. Kim, The effects of consumer knowledge on message processing of
electronic word-of-mouth via online consumer reviews, Electron. Commer. Res.
Appl. 7 (4), 2008, pp. 399410.
[76] R. Petty, J. Cacioppo, Attitudes and Persuasion: Classic and Contemporary
Approaches, Brown, Dubuque, IA, 1981.
[77] J. Preece, Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability,
Wiley, Chichester, 2000.
[78] S. Rafaeli, R.J. LaRose, Electronic bulletin boards and public-goods: explanations
of collaborative mass-media, Commun. Res. 28 (2), 1993, pp. 277297.
[79] F.F. Reichheld, P. Schefter, E-loyalty: your secret weapon on the web, Harv. Bus.
Rev. 78, 2000, pp. 105113.
[80] Y. Ren, R. Kraut, S. Kiesler, Applying common identity and bond theory to design of
online communities, Organ. Stud. 28 (3), 2007, pp. 377408.
[83] E.M. Rogers, R. Agarwala-Rogers, Organizational communication, in: G.L. Hanneman, W.J. McEwen (Eds.), Communication Behaviour, Addision-Wesley, Reading,
MA, 1975, pp. 218236.
[84] S. Rosen, Stick website is key to success, Commun. World 18 (3), 2001, pp. 3536.
[85] M.S. Rosenbaum, A.L. Ostrom, R. Kuntze, Loyalty programs and a sense of
community, J. Serv. Market. 19 (4), 2005, pp. 222233.
[86] H.M. Schroder, M.J. Driver, S. Steufert, Human Information Processing, Holt
Rinehart & Winston, New York, 1967.
[87] D. Shenk, Data smog: surviving the information glut, Technol. Rev. 100 (4), 1997,
pp. 1826.
[89] R. Soucek, K. Moser, Coping with information overload in email communication:
evaluation of a training intervention, Comput. Hum. Behav. 26 (6), 2010, pp.
14581466.
[90] W.K. Tan, T.H. Chen, The usage of online tourist information sources in tourist
information search: an exploratory study, Serv. Ind. J. 32 (3), 2012, pp. 451476.
[91] H.H. Teo, H.H. Chan, K.K. Wei, Z. Zhang, Evaluating information accessibility and
community adaptively features for sustaining virtual learning communities, Int. J.
Hum.-Comput. Stud. 59 (5), 2003, pp. 671697.
[92] L. Tonteri, M. Kosonen, H.K. Ellonen, A. Tarkiainen, Antecedents of an experienced
sense of virtual community, Comput. Hum. Behav. 27 (6), 2011, pp. 22152223.
[93] A. Tversky, D. Kahneman, Extension versus intuitive reasoning: the conjunction
fallacy in probability judgment, Psychol. Rev. 90 (4), 1983, pp. 293315.
[94] M. Valtersson, Virtual Communities, (Master thesis), Umed University, Sweden,
1996.
[96] J. Westheimer, J. Kahne, Building school communities: an experience-based
model, Phi Delta Kappan 75 (4), 1993, pp. 324328.
[99] Y. Yi, T. Gong, An integrated model of customer social exchange relationship: the
moderating role of customer experience, Serv. Ind. J. 29 (11), 2009, pp. 15131528.
[100] D. Zhao, M.B. Rosson, How and why people Twitter: the role that micro-blogging
plays in informal communication at work, GROUP 09: Proceedings of the ACM
2009 International Conference on Supporting Group Work, New York, NY, USA,
2009, pp. 243252.
[101] C. Zott, R. Amit, J. Donlevy, Strategies for value creation in e-commerce: best
practice in Europe, Eur. Manage. J. 18 (5), 2000, pp. 463475.