Categorizing Young Facebook Users Based On Their Differential Preference of Social Media Heuristics: A Q-Methodology Approach

IF 2.4 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE Pacific Asia Journal of the Association for Information Systems Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.17705/1PAIS.13103
D. Dang, L. Nguyen, A. Hoang, S. Pittayachawan, Mohammadreza Akbari, M. Nkhoma
{"title":"Categorizing Young Facebook Users Based On Their Differential Preference of Social Media Heuristics: A Q-Methodology Approach","authors":"D. Dang, L. Nguyen, A. Hoang, S. Pittayachawan, Mohammadreza Akbari, M. Nkhoma","doi":"10.17705/1PAIS.13103","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background: Social media have become an integral part of our modern society by providing platforms for users to create and exchange news, ideas, and information. The increasing use of social media has raised concerns about the reliability of the shared information, particularly information that is generated from anonymous users. Though prior studies have confirmed the important roles of heuristics and cues in the users’ evaluation of trustworthy information, there has been no research–to our knowledge–that categorized Facebook users based on their approaches to evaluating information credibility. Method: We employed Q-methodology to extract insights from 55 young Vietnamese users and to categorize them into different groups based on the distinct sets of heuristics that they used to evaluate the trustworthiness of online information on Facebook. Results: We identified four distinct types of young Facebook user groups that emerged based on their evaluation of online information trustworthiness. When evaluating online information trustworthiness on Facebook, these user groups assigned priorities differently to the characteristics of the online content, its original source, and the sharers or aggregators. We named these groups: (1) the balanced analyst, (2) the critical analyst, (3) the source analyst, and (4) the social network analyst. Conclusion: The findings offer insights that contribute to information processing literature. Moreover, marketing practitioners who aim to disseminate information effectively on social networks should take these user groups’ perspectives into consideration.","PeriodicalId":43480,"journal":{"name":"Pacific Asia Journal of the Association for Information Systems","volume":"23 1","pages":"3"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pacific Asia Journal of the Association for Information Systems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17705/1PAIS.13103","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract Background: Social media have become an integral part of our modern society by providing platforms for users to create and exchange news, ideas, and information. The increasing use of social media has raised concerns about the reliability of the shared information, particularly information that is generated from anonymous users. Though prior studies have confirmed the important roles of heuristics and cues in the users’ evaluation of trustworthy information, there has been no research–to our knowledge–that categorized Facebook users based on their approaches to evaluating information credibility. Method: We employed Q-methodology to extract insights from 55 young Vietnamese users and to categorize them into different groups based on the distinct sets of heuristics that they used to evaluate the trustworthiness of online information on Facebook. Results: We identified four distinct types of young Facebook user groups that emerged based on their evaluation of online information trustworthiness. When evaluating online information trustworthiness on Facebook, these user groups assigned priorities differently to the characteristics of the online content, its original source, and the sharers or aggregators. We named these groups: (1) the balanced analyst, (2) the critical analyst, (3) the source analyst, and (4) the social network analyst. Conclusion: The findings offer insights that contribute to information processing literature. Moreover, marketing practitioners who aim to disseminate information effectively on social networks should take these user groups’ perspectives into consideration.
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
基于社交媒体启发式的不同偏好对年轻Facebook用户进行分类:q -方法论方法
背景:社交媒体为用户提供了创造和交流新闻、思想和信息的平台,已经成为我们现代社会不可或缺的一部分。社交媒体的日益普及引发了人们对共享信息可靠性的担忧,尤其是那些来自匿名用户的信息。虽然先前的研究已经证实了启发式和线索在用户评估可信信息中的重要作用,但据我们所知,还没有研究根据他们评估信息可信度的方法对Facebook用户进行分类。方法:我们采用q -方法论从55名年轻的越南用户中提取见解,并根据他们用于评估Facebook在线信息可信度的不同启发式集将他们分类为不同的组。结果:根据对在线信息可信度的评估,我们确定了四种不同类型的年轻Facebook用户群体。在评估Facebook上的在线信息可信度时,这些用户组对在线内容的特征、原始来源以及分享者或聚合者的优先级分配不同。我们将这些群体命名为:(1)平衡分析师,(2)关键分析师,(3)来源分析师,(4)社会网络分析师。结论:这些发现为信息处理文献提供了见解。此外,想要在社交网络上有效传播信息的营销从业者应该考虑到这些用户群体的观点。
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
4.10
自引率
33.30%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Influence of Campaign Presentation Cues on Crowdfunding Performance – Reviewing the Empirical Reward-Based Crowdfunding Literature Getting Around to It: How Design Science Researchers Set Future Work Agendas Beyond Digital Data and Information Technology: Conceptualizing Data-Driven Culture Digital Nudge Stacking and Backfiring: Understanding Sustainable E-Commerce Purchase Decisions Improvisational and Dynamic Capabilities as Drivers of Business Model Innovation: An Enterprise Architecture Perspective
×
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