Exploring user perceived beliefs, evaluations, and gratifications in ASM: applying expectancy-value approach for U&G theory on Mastodon instance Liker.social

IF 1.5 Q2 COMMUNICATION Frontiers in Communication Pub Date : 2023-12-11 DOI:10.3389/fcomm.2023.1288614
Kai Hung Liao
{"title":"Exploring user perceived beliefs, evaluations, and gratifications in ASM: applying expectancy-value approach for U&G theory on Mastodon instance Liker.social","authors":"Kai Hung Liao","doi":"10.3389/fcomm.2023.1288614","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aims to explore users' perceived beliefs of the decentralized alternative social media (ASM), selecting one of Mastodon instances, Liker. social, as the unique case of exploratory investigation. The study employs the online exploratory survey method and uses purposive sampling to identify 152 valid users actively engaged in the Liker.social. Based on the expectancy-value approach to uses and gratifications theory, the study identifies two factors within users' subjective perceived beliefs: informative decentralized benefits and descriptive centralized benefits. The study also finds that the “Writing messages” is the most important functionality evaluated by users but gets fewer level of gratifications obtained, representing that there is still room for improvement. Additionally, the study presents four types of users based on their combined perceived beliefs: (1) All-benefit Rejectors, (2) All-benefit Obtainers, (3) Former-benefit Conservatives, and (4) Newer-benefit Seekers. Users (2) and (4) stressed more value on overall functionality and obtained more gratifications than users (1) and (3), so users (2) and (4) are the same statistically, having greater evaluations of importance and gratifications obtained for Liker.social than that of users (1) and (3). It signifies that the different users held varying beliefs about the benefits brought by the decentralized ASM. It was concluded that the casual relationship is valid: users' evaluations of importance, informative decentralized benefits combined with descriptive centralized benefits eventually affect the level of users' gratifications obtained on the decentralized ASM. Therefore, further research is needed to pay greater attention to users' feedback and experiences on the decentralized ASM.","PeriodicalId":31739,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Communication","volume":"204 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Communication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2023.1288614","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aims to explore users' perceived beliefs of the decentralized alternative social media (ASM), selecting one of Mastodon instances, Liker. social, as the unique case of exploratory investigation. The study employs the online exploratory survey method and uses purposive sampling to identify 152 valid users actively engaged in the Liker.social. Based on the expectancy-value approach to uses and gratifications theory, the study identifies two factors within users' subjective perceived beliefs: informative decentralized benefits and descriptive centralized benefits. The study also finds that the “Writing messages” is the most important functionality evaluated by users but gets fewer level of gratifications obtained, representing that there is still room for improvement. Additionally, the study presents four types of users based on their combined perceived beliefs: (1) All-benefit Rejectors, (2) All-benefit Obtainers, (3) Former-benefit Conservatives, and (4) Newer-benefit Seekers. Users (2) and (4) stressed more value on overall functionality and obtained more gratifications than users (1) and (3), so users (2) and (4) are the same statistically, having greater evaluations of importance and gratifications obtained for Liker.social than that of users (1) and (3). It signifies that the different users held varying beliefs about the benefits brought by the decentralized ASM. It was concluded that the casual relationship is valid: users' evaluations of importance, informative decentralized benefits combined with descriptive centralized benefits eventually affect the level of users' gratifications obtained on the decentralized ASM. Therefore, further research is needed to pay greater attention to users' feedback and experiences on the decentralized ASM.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
探索 ASM 中用户感知到的信念、评价和满足:在 Mastodon 实例 Liker.social 中应用期望值-价值方法来研究 U&G 理论
本研究旨在探讨用户对去中心化的另类社交媒体(ASM)的感知信念,选择了 Mastodon 的一个实例 Liker.social 作为探索性调查的独特案例。本研究采用在线探索性调查方法,通过目的性抽样确定了 152 名活跃在 Liker.social 上的有效用户。基于使用和满足理论的期望值方法,研究确定了用户主观感知信念中的两个因素:信息性分散利益和描述性集中利益。研究还发现,"撰写信息 "是用户评价最重要的功能,但获得的满足程度较低,这说明仍有改进的空间。此外,研究还根据用户的综合感知信念提出了四种类型的用户:(1) 所有利益拒绝者,(2) 所有利益获得者,(3) 旧利益保守者,以及 (4) 新利益追求者。与用户(1)和(3)相比,用户(2)和(4)更看重整体功能,获得的满足感也更多,因此在统计上用户(2)和(4)是相同的,对 Liker.social 的重要性和获得的满足感的评价都高于用户(1)和(3)。这表明不同的用户对分散式 ASM 带来的好处持有不同的看法。由此得出结论,这种偶然关系是有效的:用户对分散式利益的重要性、信息性以及集中式利益的描述性的评价最终会影响用户在分散式 ASM 上获得的满足感水平。因此,需要进一步开展研究,更加关注用户对分散式人工智能系统的反馈和体验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
8.30%
发文量
284
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊最新文献
Causal inference of diachronic semantic maps from cross-linguistic synchronic polysemy data I'd rather be a cyborg than a celebrity: Black feminism in the digital music industry Feminist HCI and narratives of design semantics in DIY music hardware Designing understandable, action-oriented, and well-perceived earthquake risk maps—The Swiss case study Topic modeling three decades of climate change news in Denmark
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1