Social networking sites have transformed interaction and collaboration pattern. Communication and engagement on social networking sites is a social phenomenon that depends on mutual interest and enthusiasm of users. Recognizing the importance of social fabrics of social networking sites, this study aims to identify possibilities of using social networking sites for intentional social action. Using unified theory of acceptance and use of technology, empirical study is conducted on youth to identify determinants and challenges of using social networking sites for intentional social actions. Factor-level study using structural equation modelling showed that effort expectancy, social influence and facilitating condition have significant impact on intentional social action. Implications and scope for future studies are provided for further extension of this study.
AjzenI. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 179–211.
2.
BagozziR. P.DholakiaU. M. (2002). Intentional social action in virtual communities. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 16(2), 2–21.
3.
BagozziR. P.LeeK. H. (2002). Multiple routes for social influence: The role of compliance, internalization and social identity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 65(3), 226–247.
4.
BeardenW. O.CalcichS. E.NetemeyerR.TeelJ. E. (1986). An exploratory investigation of consumer innovativeness and interpersonal influences. Advances in Consumer Research, 13(1), 77–82.
5.
BimberB. (2008). The internet and political fragmentation. In NardulliP. F. (Ed.), Domestic perspectives on contemporary democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press.
6.
BorreroJ. D.YousafzaiS. Y.JavedU.PageK. L. (2014). Intentional social action in internet social movements: Testing the moderating effect of technology readiness and sex on student SNS use. Computers in Human Behavior, 30(1), 39–49.
7.
BrownS. A.VenkateshV. (2005). Model of adoption of technology in households: A baseline model test and extension incorporating household life cycle. MIS Quarterly, 29(3), 399–426.
8.
CastellsM. (2012). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the internet age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
9.
CheungC. M.LeeM. K. (2010). A theoretical model of intentional social action in online social networks. Decision Support Systems, 49(1), 24–30.
10.
CompeauD. R.HigginsC. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a Measure and Initial Test. MIS Quarterly, 19(2), 189–211.
11.
CurtisL.EdwardsC.FraserK. L.GudelskyS.HolmquistJ.ThorntonK.SweetserK. D. (2010). Adoption of social media for public relations by nonprofit organizations. Public Relations Review, 36(1), 90–92.
12.
DavisF. D.BagozziR. P.WarshawP. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1002.
13.
DavisF. D.BagozziR. P.WarshawP. R. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation to use computers in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111–1132.
14.
EipeJ. J.VargheseT.VerananiS. M. (2012). India against corruption movement: An online version of a non-violent mass movement. Quarterly Journal of the Gandhi Peace Foundation, 34(3), 343–353..
15.
EllisonN. B.SteinfieldC.LampeC. (2007). The benefits of Facebook: Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168.
16.
FigueroaM. E.KincaidD. L.RaniM.LewisG. (2002). Communication for social change: An integrated model for measuring the process and its outcomes. Communication for Social Change Working Paper Series 1. New York: Rockefeller Foundation.
17.
FornellC.LarckerD. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
18.
GefenD.StraubD. (2005). A practical guide to factorial validity using PLS-Graph: Tutorial and annotated example. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 16(1), 5.
19.
HairJ. F.TathamR. L.AndersonR. E.BlackW. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
20.
HoyM. G.MilneG. (2010). Gender differences in privacy-related measures for young adult Facebook users. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 10(2), 28–45.
21.
HsuC.LinJ. C. (2008). Acceptance of blog usage: The role of technology acceptance, social influence and knowledge sharing motivation. Information and Management, 45(1), 65–74.
22.
JiangJ.KleinG.CarrC. L. (2002). Measuring information system service quality: SERVQUAL from the other side. MIS Quarterly, 26(2), 183–213.
23.
KwonO.WenY. (2010). An empirical study of the factors affecting social network service use. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 254–263.
24.
LuJ.YuC. S.LiuC. (2009). Mobile data service demographics in urban China. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 50(2), 117–126.
25.
MangoldW. G.FauldsD. J. (2009). SNS: The new hybrid element of the promotion mix. Business Horizons, 52(4), 357–365.
26.
MooreG. C.BenbasatI. (1991). Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Information Systems Research, 2(3), 192–222.
27.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ. Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.
28.
RiceR. E.GrantA.SchmitzJ.TorobinJ. (1990). Individual and network influences on the adoption and perceived outcomes of electronic messaging. Social Networks, 12(1), 27–55.
29.
RogersE. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York: The Free Press.
30.
RolfeB. (2005). Building an electronic repertoire of contention. Social Movement Studies, 4(1), 65–74.
31.
ShenX. L.CheungC. M. K.LeeM. K. O. (2013). Perceived critical mass and collective intention in social media supported small group communication. International Journal of Information Management, 33(5), 707–715.
32.
ShirkyC. (2008). Here comes everybody: How change happens and people come together. New York: Penguin Books.
33.
TaylorS.ToddP. A. (1995). Understanding information technology usage: A test of competing models. Information Systems Research, 6(2), 144–176.
34.
ThompsonR. L.HigginsC. A.HowellJ. M. (1991). Personal computing: Toward a conceptual model of utilization. MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 124–143.
35.
TsaiH. T.BagozziR. P. (2014). Contribution behavior in virtual communities: Cognitive, emotional and social influences. MIS Quarterly, 38(1), 143–163.
36.
VenkateshV.DavisF. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.
37.
VenkateshV.MorrisM. G.DavisG. B.DavisF. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478.
38.
VerhoevenJ. C.HeerweghD.WitK. De (2010). Information and communication technologies in the life of university freshmen: An analysis of change. Computers & Education, 55(1), 53–66.
39.
VermaS. (2013), Effectiveness of social network sites for influencing consumer purchase decisions. International Journal of Business Excellence, 6(5), 624–634.
40.
VollmerC.PrecourtJ. (2008). Always on: Advertising, marketing, and media in an era of consumer control. New York: McGraw-Hill.
41.
WallaceD. W.GieseJ. L.JohnsonJ. L. (2004). Customer retailer loyalty in the context of multiple channel strategies. Journal of Retailing, 80(4), 249–263.
42.
WalshS.WhiteK. (2007). Me, my mobile, and I: The role of self and prototypical identity influences in the prediction of mobile phone behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(10), 2405–2434.
43.
WangH.ChungJ.-E.ParkN.McLaughlinM. L.FulkJ. (2011). Understanding online community participation: A technology acceptance perspective. Communication Research, 39(6), 781–801.
