The Role of Social Media in Promoting Special Events: Acceptance of Facebook ‘Events’

  • Cody Morris Paris
  • Woojin Lee
  • Paul Seery

Abstract

This study examines Facebook ‘events’ as a medium for promoting special events to consumers. This study proposes a Social Technology Acceptance Model, an extension of the TAM model, to examine the influence of trust, expected relationships and perceived enjoyment in forming consumer attitudes towards Facebook and consumers intentions to attend an event. Data was collected through an online survey administered through special event organizer’s Facebook ‘Pages’. Findings of the study suggest that users’ trust and expected relationship through Facebook had a significant effect on users’ acceptance of Facebook and their intended offline behaviour to attend the event. Practical and theoretical implications are discussed.

Keywords

Social Capital Web 2.0 Marketing Consumer Behavior 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arbuckle, J.L, (2007). Amos 16.0 User’s Guide, Amos Development Corporation USA.Google Scholar
  2. Bagozzi, R.P. & Yi, Y. (1989). On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models. Journal of Academy Marketing Science. 16, 74–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bentler, P.M. & Bonett, D.G. (1989). Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures. Psychology Bulletin. 88, 588–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Browne, M. & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit, in: K.A. Bollen, J.S. Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.Google Scholar
  5. Chow, W.S. & Chan, L.S. (2008). Social Network Social Trust and Shared Goals in Organizational Knowledge Sharing. Information & Management. 45, 458–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Compete.com (2009). “Social Networks: Facebook Takes Over Top Spot, Twitter Climbs” Retrieved 8/31/2009 from http://blog.compete.com/2009/02/09/facebook-myspacetwitter-social-network/Google Scholar
  7. Dippelreiter, B., Grün, C., Pöttler, M., Seidel, I., Berger, H., Dittenbach, M., et al. (2008). Online tourism communities on the path to web 2.0: An evaluation. Information Technology and Tourism, 10(4), 329–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dong, H. S. (2009). The evaluation of user experience of the virtual world in relation to extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 25(6), 530–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dwyer, C., Hiltz, S., & Passerini, K. (2007). Trust and privacy concern within social networking sites: A comparison of Facebook and Myspace. Proceedings of the Thirteenth American Conference on Information Systems, Keystone, Colorado, August 9–17.Google Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fornell, C.R. & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Structural Equation Models with Unobserved Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research. 18, 39–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 51–90.Google Scholar
  13. Gefen, D. & Straub, D. (2005). A Practical Guide to Factorial Validity Using PLS-Graph: Tutorial and Annotated Example. Communications of AIS. 16(1): 182–217.Google Scholar
  14. Gorringe, H. (2009). New ways to communicate: The development of web 2.0 and social media; paper presented at the UK national farm management conference, oxford, UK, November 2008., 13(8) 587–592.Google Scholar
  15. Gretzel, U., Kang, M & Lee, W.J. (2008). Differences in Consumer-Generated Media Adoption and Use: A Cross-National Perspective. Journal of Hospitality and Leisure Marketing, 17(1–2).Google Scholar
  16. Xiang, Z. & Gretzel, U. (2009). Role of Social Media in Online Travel Information Search. Tourism Management, in press.Google Scholar
  17. Gumpert, D. E. (2007). What entrepreneurs need to know McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Business Week Online.Google Scholar
  18. Hendrickson, A. R., Massey, P. D., & Cronan, T. P. (1993). On the test-retest reliability of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use scales. MIS Quarterly, 17, 227–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hsu. C.L., & Lin, J.C. (2008). Acceptance of blog usage: The role of technology acceptance, social influence and knowledge sharing motivation. Information & Management, 45, 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kelley, H. H. (1979). Personal relationships: Their structure and processes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  21. King, W. R., & He, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 43(6), 740–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kline, R.B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  23. Lai, V.S., & Li, H. (2005). Technology acceptance model for Internet banking: An invariance analysis. Information & Management, 42, 373–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee, Y., Kozar, K., & Kai, L. (2003) The technology acceptance model: Past, present, and future. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 12, 752–780.Google Scholar
  25. Liu, Chang., & Arnett, Kirk. (2000). Exploring the factors associated with Web site success in the context of electronic commerce. Information and Management, 38 (1), pp. 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McGrath, Michael G. (2008). Employing’ social Networking Analysis’ to Influence Tourism Events Decision-Making: A Pilot Study. Centre for Hospitality and Tourism Research.Google Scholar
  27. Morosan, C. & Jeong, M. (2008). Users’ perception of two types of hotel reservation Web sites. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27, 284–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. O’Connor, P. (2008). Online social media and travel — international. Travel & Tourism Analyst, 1–33.Google Scholar
  29. O’Reilly, Tim (2005). “What Is Web 2.0” O’Reilly Network. Retrieved 8/26/2009 from http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.htmlGoogle Scholar
  30. Saade, R. G., & Kira, D. (2006). The emotional state of technology acceptance. Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, 3, 529–539.Google Scholar
  31. Sas, C., Dix, A., Hart, J., & Su, R. (2009) Emotional experience on Facebook site. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 27, 4345–4350Google Scholar
  32. Seyal, A.H., Rahman, M.N. & Rahim, M.M. (2002). Determinants of Academic Use of the Internet: A Structural Equation Model. Behavior and Information Technology. 21(1): 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shih, H.P. (2004). Extended technology acceptance model of Internt Utilization behaviour. Information & Management, 41 (6), 719–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Subrahmanyam, K., Reich, S. M., Waechter, N., & Espinoza, G. (2008). Online and offline social networks: Use of social networking sites by emerging adults. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29(6), 420–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Szajna, B. (1994). Software evaluation and choice: predictive evaluation of the Technology Acceptance Instrument. MIS Quarterly, 18(3), 319–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Todi, Mrinal. (2008) Advertising on Social Networking Website. Wharton Research Scholars Journal Google Scholar
  37. Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. F. (2008) Lessons from Facebook: The Effect of Social Network Sites on College Students’ Social Capital. 9th International Symposium on Online Journalism, 2008 Google Scholar
  38. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Venkatesh, V., Speier, C., & Morris, M.G. (2002). User acceptance enablers in individual decision making about technology: toward an intergrated model. Decision Sciences, 33(2), 297–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Werthern, H., & Stefan, K. (1999) Information technology and tourism: a challenging relationship, Wien, New York: Springer, 1999.Google Scholar
  41. Wikipedia.org (2009). “Web 2.0”. Retrieved 6/31/2009 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_2.0Google Scholar
  42. Wu, I. & Chen, J. (2005). An extension of Trust and TAM model with TPB in the initial adoption of on-line tax: An empirical study. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 62, 784–808.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wu, W. & Li, C. (2006). A contingency approach to incorporate human, emotional, and social influence into a TAM for KM programs. Journal of Information Science, 33(3), 275–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Xiang, Z. & Gretzel, U. (2009). Role of Social Media in Online Travel Information Search. Tourism Management, in press.Google Scholar
  45. Zhang, S., Zhao, J. & Tan, W. (2008). Extending TAM for online learning systems: An intrinsic motivation perspective. Tsinghua Science and Technology, 13(3), 312–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag/Wien 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cody Morris Paris
    • 1
  • Woojin Lee
    • 1
  • Paul Seery
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Community Resources & DevelopmentArizona State UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations