Technology in Society 70 (2022) 102061

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technology in Society
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techsoc

A unified framework for exploring the determinants of online social

networks (OSNs) on institutional investors’ capital market
investment decision
Md Ziaul Haque a, *, Aimin Qian b, Md Rakibul Hoque c, Suraiea Akter Lucky d
a
Department of Management Information Systems, Noakhali Science and Technology University, Noakhali, Bangladesh
b
Business School, University of International Business and Economic, Beijing, China
c
Department of Management Information Systems, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh
d
Department of Agronomy, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, Bangladesh

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Online social networks (OSNs) are effusively emerging information dissemination platforms for capital market
OSNs investors’ as in other settings. The insinuation of OSNs for institutional investors’ investment decisions in the
Capital market capital market cannot be eluded in today’s world. This study aims to determine the factors that influence
Institutional investors
institutional investors’ capital market investing decisions and the level to which each factor influences their
Investment decision
Unified framework
decision. It presents a comprehensive framework that incorporates TAM and valence frameworks while also
analyzing institutional theory, resource-based view, FASB framework, and transaction cost theory. A mixed-
method approach is proposed, consisting of expert interviews and a field survey. An online structured ques­
tionnaire was used to perform a field survey, and 285 data points were obtained from capital market institutional
investors in Bangladesh. The data was analyzed using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). The suggested
comprehensive model outperforms previous models. Proposed factors (e.g., institutional pressure and cost-
benefit dimension), as well as perceived usefulness, are strong predictors of intention to use. Indirect drivers
of intention to use include another hypothesized construct (e.g., situational context) and perceived ease of use.
The decision to engage in the capital market is highly influenced by the intention to use OSNs. It is worth noting
that the predicted relationship between situational context and perceived usefulness, as well as the relationship
between perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, are both highly significant. Stimulatingly, proposed
moderators, namely organizational IS capability, significantly moderates the different relationships of the unified
model. Surprisingly, perceived risk has not to impact on OSNs adoption. Theoretical and practical implications,
as well as other discussions, are also presented.

1. Introduction Institutional investors are progressively turning to OSNs platforms to

inform them about their investment decisions recently [1]. The digita­
Due to the emergence of online social networks (OSNs) as key lized financial environment created by the OSNs platform enables in­
sources of investment allied information, institutional investors rarely vestors to access more online information more efficiently [2]. OSNs
can deny its importance in their capital market investment decision. allow investors to access information at a low cost and high speed [3].

Abbreviations: AGFI, Adjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index; AVE, Average Variance Extracted; BSEC, Bangladesh Securities and Exchange Commission; BTRC,
Bangladesh Telecommunication Regulatory Authority; CBD, Cost Benefit Dimension; CFI, Comparative Fit Index; CR, Composite Reliability; CMB, Common Method
Bias; FASB, Financial Accounting Standard Board; GFI, Goodness-of- Fit Index; ID, Investment Decision; IS, Information Systems; IT, Information Technology; IP,
Institutional Pressure; IU, Intention to Use; OSNs, Online Social Networks; PR, Perceived Risk; PU, Perceived Usefulness; PEU, Perceived Ease of Use; PLS, Partial
Least Squares; SC, Situational Context; RMSEA, Root Mean Square Error Approximation; SEM, Structural Equation Model; TAM, Technology Acceptance model; TLI,
Tucker- Lewis Index; VF, Valence Framework; VIF, Variance Inflation Factors.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: zia10093@yahoo.com (M.Z. Haque), amyqian@uibe.edu.cn (A. Qian), rakibulmisdu@gmail.com (M.R. Hoque), suraieaakter@gmail.com
(S.A. Lucky).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.102061
Received 30 November 2021; Received in revised form 26 June 2022; Accepted 28 June 2022
Available online 3 July 2022
0160-791X/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.Z. Haque et al.
Because of the recent development of OSNs, organizations can better
understand and manage their workers’ internal relationships [4]. Or­
ganizations can communicate information openly to investors and
consumers using social media platforms [5]. Recently, social media have
been transformed into organizational purpose though initially it was
used only for leisure activities [6,7]. Small and medium-sized businesses
use OSNs for communication intensively, which improves the organi­
zation’s performance [8].
With the growth of social media, there is now a faster and more
effective means to disseminate data and information to influence in­
vestment decisions [9]. It increasingly influences the global investment
market and plays a substantive role in determining trading strategy and
stock value [10]. Within the next five years, more than two-thirds of
Fortune Global 500 companies will have embraced the logical use of
online social networks [11,12]. It has rapidly brought into the invest­
ment world under the financial technology boom era. This introduced a
new social-media look to a trading venue, revamped trading interfaces,
and increased consumption and contribution to the business-focused
social media platforms [1].
A recent study from KPMG unveiled that around 70% of businesses
clearly define and integrate their social media presence [10]. Social
media linking with traditional news media becomes an important in­
formation source for institutional investors’ investment processes.
Almost 249 institutional investors (out of 256) utilize social media for
professional purposes, with 80% using it as part of their daily work
routine. Most participants agreed that social media information had an
impact on their investment decisions; 33% said that information from
social media prompted a conversation with their investment consultant;
and approximately 30% of institutional investors said that information
from social media had a direct impact on their investment recommen­
dation or decision [13]. Besides, the decision to allocate billions of
dollars is highly influenced by social media worldwide. Institutional
investors in Asia use more social media than their counterparts in North
America [1]. Institutional investors demonstrate the unparalleled
importance of social media platforms, and it is shown that 75% of
institutional investors make an investment decision on social media
platforms [14].
This indicates the significant role of OSNs on institutional investors
in capital market investment decisions; this paper addresses its
involvement through a unified theoretical framework. Nonetheless,
several recent researchers have attempted to study leveraging Tencent
messaging channels for organizational improvisation [15], social
network impact on organizational communication [16], POSM’s (pro­
fessional online social media) influence on human resource manage­
ment [17], the importance of online social networking tools, particularly
Facebook, for companies [18], corporate adoption of social media [19],
business communication via social media [20], the significance of social
networking sites in social commerce [21] and use of social media for
sustainable SME’s performance [22].
In Addition, many researchers try to explore the use of social media
for sustainable investment [23], investors’ reactions to Facebook’s data
leak news [24], the improvement of investment efficiency due to the
introduction of online social networks [25], the role of social sentiment
in the stock market [26], institutional investors response to the senti­
ment expressed through social media [27], the role of OSNs in
enhancing corporate governance [28], and influence of on the stock
price for disclosure of corporate information on OSNs [29].
To the best of our knowledge, no study has addressed how online
social networks (OSNs) can affect the capital market investment decision
of institutional investors. Hence, this study aims to investigate the
persuasive determinants of OSNs on the adoption among institutional
investors for capital market investment decisions using a unified
framework.
Therefore, this paper will contribute to behavioral finance and social
media knowledge by developing a comprehensive framework incorpo­
rating TAM, valence framework, institutional theory, resource-based
2
Technology in Society 70 (2022) 102061
view, FASB framework, and transaction cost theory and introducing a
new moderator, namely organizational IS capability as well as to poli­
cymaker by identifying influential factors of OSNs. Considering the
theoretical lens, the research questions answered by our study are
developed as follows: What are the key antecedents’ influences on
institutional investors to accept and use the online social network
(OSNs) for their capital market investment decision? Does organiza­
tional IS capability moderates the relationship of different construct in
the proposed model?
In the remainder of the paper: We examine OSNs in organizational
and model integration research in the following part. Then we debate
existing theories’ assertions. Following that, we created a framework
and hypotheses. Then comes the research process, followed by data
analysis. The article then explains the results. After that, the report
concludes with implications for knowledge and policymakers.
2. Literature review on OSNs use by organization and model
integration
Businesses and government organizations connect through social
media [30]. It has a significant impact on the organization in a variety of
areas, such as enhancing value, relationships, and brand equity [31],
incorporating external perceptions to innovate ideas and products [32],
digital advertising and relationship building [33], managing customer
relationships [34] and promoting and selling new products or services
through social commerce [35]. Collaboration and communication effi­
ciency [6] and innovation may be boosted by the widespread usage of
social media in the workplace [36]. On the other hand, many scholars
studied social media and capital markets in different contexts. One
stream (e.g. Refs. [26,37–39], applied different statistical techniques,
textual analysis, and machine language in order to examine the positive
and negative impact on the capital market due to sentiments expressed
over social media. Another stream (e.g. Refs. [19,40,41], identified so­
cial media to improve corporate governance (see Table 1). Besides,
several studies identified the association between online social networks
and investment decisions. Lei and Salazear [52] revealed the significant
influence of the online social network on stock investment decisions.
Nguyen et al. [27] explored sentiment expressed through social media
influences the institutional investors’ investment decisions. Li et al. [53]
uncovered that the investors’ use of social media affects the stock in­
vestment decision. Chen et al. [54] revealed that monetary incentives
and stock opinion on social media affect investment decisions. Ismail
et al. [55] identified the impact of online social media on investment
decisions in Malaysia.
A fundamental gap in the literature is a lack of analysis of institu­
tional investors’ adoption of OSNs for capital market investment de­
cisions. In other words, studies connecting OSNs’ use for capital market
investment decision from institutional investors’ perspective is missing.
Several theories, including the bass diffusion model [56], IS success
model [57], TAM [58], and TPB [59], have emerged in different situa­
tions in order to describe the motivation and usage of novel technolo­
gies. TAM is considered the most prominent IS/IT adoption model
among all models. Venkatesh and Davis [60] argued that TAM is the
most potent model in technology adoption studies. It meets the aca­
demic requirements of being frugal, backed up by data verifiability, and
capable of projecting generalizability to embrace and deploy new
technologies across a wide range of sectors [61].
On the other hand, there are diverse behavioral finance, MIS, and
marketing decision-making theories. The valence framework (VF) for
decision-making is the most influential for institutional investors since
VF deals with product purchase decisions similar to institutional in­
vestors’ financial product purchase decisions. This paper uses a
resource-based view, institutional theory, FASB framework, and trans­
action cost theory and integrates TAM and valence framework.
Earlier research has also integrated different theories to explore
technology usage. Nguyen [62] included strategic orientation factors
M.Z. Haque et al. Technology in Society 70 (2022) 102061

Table 1
Literature review on social media and the stock market.
Study Context Methods/Model Findings Plausible link with research constructs Domain

Blankespoor Communication channel Ordinary Least Square In order to reduce information Twitter helps the organization Corporate
et al. [40] to improve the Method asymmetry, companies use Twitter to disseminate information that is Governance
dissemination of disseminate firm-initiated disclosures. associated with Perceived usefulness.
information
Cwynar et al. Social media content and Survey method with Professionals thought that social media Professionals believed that social media Financial
[42] market return Regression Analysis material might be beneficial in chasing content could help pursue additional Performance
further financial market gains. financial market returns that reflect the
Perceived Usefulness
Guo et al. [43] Investor sentiment used Dynamic Analysis Sentiment data was not always a factor of Investors’ Intention affects the Market
for stock price prediction based on Thermal stock movement; instead, it predicted the Investment Decision Behavior
Optimal path (TOP) stock market when the high involvement
of investors intention.
Hu and Tripathi Comparison of news and Text Mining Stock returns may be predicted by both Using social media reduces the Market
[37] social media platform social media and conventional media organization’s cost compared to behavior
information sentiment. Although conventional media conventional media, but the benefit is
dissemination has a longer-lasting impact, social media more pertinent than conventional
tends to have a more robust and persistent media associated with the Cost-Benefit
impact. Dimension.
Jiao et al. [38] Social Media and news Asset pricing and One month’s social media buzz may Social media buzz changes the stock Market
media’s impact on the information processing significantly impact a stock’s returns and pattern associated with the Perceived Behavior
stock market model trading volume the following month. Risk of investment.
Jung et al. [19] Corporate use of social Website analysis When a company adopts social media to Firms’ ability (Situational Context) to Corporate
media disseminate earnings announcements, the adopt social media increases trade Governance
market reaction, and trade volume rise. volume.
Kamboj et al. Use of social media for Survey Method with It positively affects company performance Social media accelerates the market Financial
[44] firm performance ANOVA test because of social media (financial and performance that is related to performance
market performance). Perceived Usefulness
Kim and Kim Investors’ sentiment Inter-temporal and Determine whether there is a link between Investor sentiment affects prior stock Market
[45] from social media cross-sectional investor sentiment and stock price performance, which may affect Behavior
messages and stock regression analyses. performance. Investment Decision
market return.
Li et al. [26] Social sentiment in stock Tensor-based learning The system offers finance researchers a Social media provides an excellent Market
market algorithm robust technique for understanding the platform to share information related to Behavior
significance of social emotion in stock Perceived Ease of Use.
markets.
Luo et al. [46] Social media and firm Vector autoregressive Social media-based measures outperform Social media measures affect the Financial
equity value models traditional online behavioral Investment Decision performance
measurements as leading predictors of
business equity value.
Paul [47] Effect on Trading Econometric Model Twitter reduces information asymmetry, Twitter is an information-pushing Corporate
behavior resulting in fewer positive returns than platform that increases the Perceived Governance
previously, and when used as a medium of Risk of investment.
dissemination, it increases market
efficiency.
Ruiz et al. [48] Correlation between Statistical and The association between micro blogging Micro blogging affects the Investment Market
micro blogging and stock simulation and traded volume is more significant Decision Behavior
market event than the correlation between micro
blogging and stock price.
Schniederjans Social media usage in IM. Text mining The influence of social media on Organizational management’s capacity Financial
et al. [49] impression management is beneficial to use social media is a factor of Performance
(IM). Situational Context
Yang et al. [50] Financial Community Degree-centric Sentiment collected from Twitter The financial community offers a better Market
Network community detection messages outperforms broad societal environment to share financial Behavior
method sentiment as a predictor of financial information related to perceived ease
markets. of use.
Yong et al. [41] Market reaction to the Forecast Revision Following the previous occurrence, when The regulator (SEC) advised adopting Corporate
regulation of Social Model, Bid-Ask Spread the SEC gave final advice on social media social media that reflects the Governance
media disclosures &Forecast dispersion disclosures, firms actively using Twitter Institutional Pressure
Model for financial reporting had negative
cumulative abnormal returns (CARs).
Zhang et al. Prediction of Stock Textual Analysis Emotional tweets were strongly adversely Emotional tweets affect the Investment Market
[51] market indicators (Twitter) connected with Dow Jones, NASDAQ, and Decision pattern of investors in the Behavior
S&P 500 but considerably positively stock market
correlated with VIX.
Zheludev et al. Social media can lead to Sentiment analysis Social media sentiment predicts future Social Media sentiment affects Market
[39] financial market technique stock market movements within a small Investment Decision Behavior
range in a comprehensive system like
Twitter.

with and Stone et al. [63] integrated IS success model with TAM to
explore the IT usage by firms. Mishra et al. [64] developed an integrative
model based on the resource-based view and TOE to examine the an­
tecedents and consequences of internet use in organizations. They found
unified model has better explanatory power than a single theory.
Integrating TAM and TTF [65] and TAM and TRA [66] could reasonably
anticipate and explain students’ intention in MOOCs and mobile
learning, respectively. Zhao et al. [67] used TAM with the inclusion of
physiological ownership (PO) and found that the integrated model ex­
plains users’ loyalty to use social networks better than the single model.

3
M.Z. Haque et al.
3. Theoretical backgrounds
3.1. Technology acceptance model (TAM)
Davis [58] introduced TAM as a computer technology use behavior
based on the idea of reasoned action [68]. TAM presents PU and PEU as
the key drivers of user behavioral intention [58]. A meta-analysis study
called TAM “a strong and robust prediction model” [69]; p. 751).
Several other studies (e.g. Refs. [20,70–73], have used and assessed
TAM in OSN adoption. A comprehensive literature assessment on TAM
in the context of online social media [74] established TAM as the most
prevalent technology acceptance model in IT research. Moreover, TAM
is a suitable model to explain SNSs adoption since it can “predict the
adoption of any technology” and add new constructs to its power [75].
This study also considers TAM a possible tool to investigate OSN
adoption by institutional investors in the capital market.
3.2. The valence framework (VF)
Primarily the valence framework (VF) is adapted from the psychol­
ogy and economics literature [76] as a “cognitive-rational” customer
decision-making model. The VF determined that perceived risk (PR) and
perceived benefit (PB) are vital variables of customer decision-making
[77]. A product has positive (perceived benefit) and negative
(perceived risk) qualities, so customers make purchases to maximize net
valence. Kim et al. [78] revealed that perceived benefit (PB), perceived
risk (PR), and purchase intention directed to purchase (decision).
Moreover, by integrating the TRA-based Web trust model and the VF,
Kim et al. [79] proposed that PR and PB directly influence purchase
intention, and consistent with TRA, intention to purchase is theorized as
a direct determinant to purchase (decision). Conceptually and instinc­
tively, the VF is a sophisticated model [77]. The mainstream scholars
used it in the marketing discipline for consumer decision-making.
However, investors’ decision-making is akin to buying financial prod­
ucts (e.g., stock, bonds) instead of tangible goods. Hence, there is a
similarity between their theoretical backgrounds.
3.3. Resource based view (RBV)
According to the Resource-Based View (RBV), firms should surpass
their competitors by exploiting strategic assets and competencies [80].
According to Barney [81]; such resources have four essential charac­
teristics: uncommon, precious, imperfectly imitable, and
non-substitutable. When a company has more valuable and scarce re­
sources, it expects to build and retain a durable competitive advantage.
In IS research [82], IS/IT is considered beneficial but not entirely
imitable resources for an organization that may develop organizational
abilities and eventually leads to higher performance. In this regard
technical resources, IT capabilities, and strategic resources (e.g., social
media) [83] might help establish a justified competitive advantage both
domestically and worldwide [84]. As a result, Bharadwaj [85] advo­
cated IT infrastructure (for example, hardware, software, databases, and
networks) human IT resources, and IT-enabled intangibles [86] as IT
resources. Technical and infrastructure support are crucial in deter­
mining customers’ perceptions of IT adoption and sustained IT usage
[87]. Furthermore, situational context, such as environmental, location,
time, and organizational aspects, significantly impact competitive
advantage. A person’s situational context refers to the circumstances in
which they will use technology before doing so. This is a good illustra­
tion of how technology’s general functions, qualities, and features sub­
stantially influence the adoption and retention of technology in
organizations [88,89]. The researchers are also considering various di­
mensions of the situational context, such as organizational leadership,
culture, environment, and technical training opportunities and in­
frastructures, which are scarce, valuable, imperfectly imitable, and
non-substitutable organizational resources aid in firm efficiency. As a
4
Technology in Society 70 (2022) 102061
result, these resources allow employees to adopt and apply new tech­
nologies, such as online social networks (OSNs).
3.4. Institutional theory
Individual entities adapt to external influences and modify their
decisions over time, resulting in isomorphism in behavior and structure.
Organizations are viewed as specialized institutional environments
[90]. Scott [91] defined the institutional field’s cognitive components as
regulative, normative, and cultural. DiMaggio and Powell [90] defined
isomorphic forces as coercive, mimetic, and normative. The environ­
ment is explained by how individuals in an institutional field might
affect new technology adoption and utilization. The institutional theory
was used to create independent variables in organizations’ IT adoption
and assimilation studies [92]. Though the institutional theory is still new
in information systems research, several studies (e.g. Refs. [93,94], have
used it to investigate IS/IT-related phenomena (e.g., IT innovation,
development and implementation, and adoption and use). Using insti­
tutional theory, Chatterjee et al. [95] examined how institutional forces
impact IT absorption in vast commercial systems. Currie and Guah [96]
put a similar emphasis on institutional theory as an organizational
aspect influencing the NPfIT program. While the institutional theory has
been applied in several IS/IT adoption contexts, its applicability in on­
line social network adoption is new. Institutional forces, such as top
management and absorption abilities, encourage social media integra­
tion, according to Bharati et al. [97]. In this study, institutional in­
vestors’ usage of OSNs for capital market investment decisions was
examined using a variety of institutional pressures [90,91].
3.5. Transaction cost theory and FASB framework
Coase [98] first suggested that Transaction cost economies explain
the importance of transaction subjects instead of other issues [99]. Some
of the reasons for transaction costs were attributed to constrained ra­
tionality, uncertainty/complexity, opportunity, limited transaction
numbers, information impactedness, and the environment. The
cost-benefit aspect of information and its influence on the company is
identified. This concept is also used in IS/IT to assess the influence of IT
on a firm’s financial operations [100]. Transaction cost is an essential
component during the transaction in the market. In order to perform
economic behavior or gain from market-related information, extra cost
and expenditure need to be controlled. This contradictory aspect can be
minimized by applying the Transaction cost theory [98,99].
Financial Accounting Standard Board (FASB) explained that when
the financial information preparers and users benefit from it, they must
consider the associated cost of using and providing that information.
The board recognized numerous costs (e.g., collecting and processing
the information, audit cost, costs of dissemination, costs associated with
the dangers of litigation, and cost of losing competitive advantages).
Costs are usually passed on to information users and consumers of
products and services while also getting advantages. However, the
perceived advantages of such information-sharing must outweigh the
perceived drawbacks.
Gurbaxani and Whang [101] utilized the idea of transaction costs to
show that IT might increase or reduce the size of a company in both
directions. A few IS/IT studies applied transaction cost economics [102],
comparing its application in economics and other related contexts
[103]. Furthermore, scant academic studies are available on investi­
gating TCE and FASB frameworks in online social networking adoption.
Compared to the other technological investment, online social
networking sites require less investment to develop the communication
network within an organization. Most of the time, organizations can use
the network of different service providers, and sometimes, the organi­
zation can develop its social networks. However, each type of social
network requires the cost to get information from OSNs, and the
decision-maker must consider this cost while getting benefits from this.
M.Z. Haque et al.
When the benefit derived from OSNs exceeds the incurring cost, orga­
nizations tend to adopt OSNs for investment decisions in the capital
market.
4. Research model and hypothesis development
4.1. Overview of proposed research model
After reviewing the above-mentioned exhaustive literature followed
by qualitative interviews (see Section 5) with some expert from different
organizations, we identified that institutional theory, resource-based
view, FASB framework, transaction cost theory, and integration of
TAM and valence framework are appropriate in order to develop
research model which will fill up the above-identified research gap for
exploring determinants of OSNs affecting the capital market investment
decision of institutional investors. There are some corresponding con­
structs between TAM and VF. VF’s perceived benefit (PB) and perceived
usefulness (PU) of TAM have the same direction and characteristics. In
this study, the researcher accepted the well-tested PU [104] construct to
represent this concept. The perceived risk of VF has a direct impact on
the purchase decision. In addition, Kim et al. [78] proposed a trust-based
decision-making framework based on VF and empirically tested risk
directly impacts intention to purchase, mediating the purchase (deci­
sion). Accordingly, this study includes institutional investors’ perceived
risk (PR) impacts on intention to use OSNs. The original TAM [58],
including TRA, identifies the intention to accomplish particular
behavior as a direct cause of actual behavior [105]. In contrast to TAM,
VF shows that all determinants directly impact the purchase without a
mediator. Since this study focuses on investors’ decision to purchase/­
sell/hold stock, the researcher included purchase constructs for invest­
ment decision variables from the valence framework and intention to
use construct from TAM as the mediator of investment decision in the
unified model.
TAM needs to include more factors relating to human and societal
views and innovation adoption to explain further the model’s findings
[106]. Therefore, a more comprehensive set of convincing characteris­
tics should add that will significantly predict the adoption of OSNs
among institutional investors for capital market investment decisions.
There is strong empirical support for institutional-based variables, e.g.,
mimetic, normative, and coercive, as predictors of adoption intentions
for inter-organizational technology [92,93,122]). Adopting new tech­
nologies like OSNs depends on the situational context (e.g.,
Fig. 1. Research model.
5
Technology in Society 70 (2022) 102061
environment, location, time, and organizational facilities, including
technical facilities). Besides, Coase [98]; Williamson Williamson [99];
and the FASB framework suggested that transaction costs between or
within the organization should not be zero and during the calculation of
observed benefit-related costs should be considered.
Therefore, this study integrates TAM and valence framework and
examines the institutional theory, resource-based view, FASB frame­
work, and transaction cost theory to develop different pragmatic con­
structs (shown in Fig. 1) to increase the model’s reliability.
Furthermore, studies indicated that firms investing heavily in human
resources, mainly IS department employees, are more likely to adapt and
accept the information technology than others [107]. Besides, Cohen
and Levinthal [108] recognized that firms with a higher level of
educated, trained, and experienced employees in IS department are
more likely to assimilate and absorb new technological knowledge.
Therefore, it is assumed that firms with more employees in the IS
department will differ from those with fewer employees in adopting
OSNs for investment decisions in the capital market. In the next part,
headed “The Moderating Role of Organizational IS Capacity,” the sug­
gested unified model incorporates organizational IS capability as a
moderating variable.
4.2. Hypothesis development
4.2.1. Perceived usefulness (PU) to intention to use (IU)
Perceived usefulness indicates the external benefits users extracted
from the systems’ interaction that improve their job performance [109].
Numerous studies have shown a strong correlation between PU and the
intention to adopt [58,110,111]. This association seems to be robust
across diverse types of IS/IT studies: mobile learning [112], m-health
adoption [113], and e-health adoption [114]. Besides, a considerable
number of studies have been conducted to show the relationship be­
tween PU and intention to use in social networking context [72].
However, scarce studies regarding the adoption of OSNs for capital
market investment decisions are discovered, and the relationship be­
tween PU and intention to the decision is also missing. Along these lines,
we assume that information on OSNs is helpful for investors in deciding
on their capital market investment. Therefore, the subsequent proposi­
tion is formulated.
H1. Perceived usefulness positively influences institutional investors’
intention to use OSNs for a capital market investment decision.
M.Z. Haque et al.
4.2.2. Perceived ease of use (PEU) to intention to use (IU)
PEU denotes the mental effort required to utilize systems when users
evaluate the ease of use based on the outcome of interactions with the
systems rather than the ease of interaction [115,116]. Davis et al. [104]
proposed and justified PEU as a robust antecedent of behavioral inten­
tion in the technology acceptance model (TAM). A significant empirical
finding also unearths that PEU strongly predicts the user intention to
accept information technology in different IS/IT settings, e.g., m-com­
merce adoption [117] and m-health adoption [113]. It has also been
observed that the simplicity of use that users experience while using
social networking sites has a substantial impact on their decision to
utilize them [70]. On the other hand, the relationship between PEU and
intention to the decision is still uncovered due to rare research in this
context. Based on the empirical findings in other contexts, we also as­
sume that perceived ease of use significantly affects institutional in­
vestors’ intention to use OSNs. Therefore, we hypothesize.
H2. Perceived ease of use influences institutional investors’ intention
to use OSNs for capital market investment decisions.
4.2.3. Perceived ease of use (PEU) to perceived usefulness (PU)
Though perceived ease of use is a unique concept, it is connected to
perceived usefulness and influences near-term usefulness. According to
Venkatesh [118]; there is a substantial relationship between perceived
ease of use and perceived utility. Chuang et al. [119] found that an in­
crease in ease of use is linked to an increase in usefulness. A significant
number of authors (e.g. Refs. [72,73], also confirmed this relationship in
different OSNs settings. OSNs easiness enhances the decision perfor­
mance of institutional investors, but this proposition has not yet been
explored. Based on the empirical findings of other contexts and our
proposition, we also assume that the OSNs platform’s user-friendliness
will increase institutional investors’ capital market investment de­
cisions. Consequently, the following hypothesis is assumed.
H2a. Perceived ease of use is positively influencing the perceived
usefulness of institutional investors to use OSNs for capital market in­
vestment decision
4.2.4. Institutional pressure (IP) to intention to use (IU)
Symbolic, cognitive, and cultural aspects of an organization’s envi­
ronment are expressed via mimetic pressures [90]. It asserts that orga­
nizations or individuals may begin specific tasks because of their peers,
such as using new technology. It strengthens actors’ shared ideas among
peers [120] and may impact actors’ motivation to participate in orga­
nizational virtual social networks [121].
Coercive or regulatory forces restrain and facilitate conduct, giving
actors more power or rewards [91]. Top management exerts mimetic,
normative, and coercive impacts on ERP assimilation [93] and social
media assimilation [97]. Financial EDI integration is improved by
mimetic, normative, and coercive impacts [92]. Extant research
exploring the relationship of institutional pressure with the intention to
decisions in the capital market is far away. The researchers believe that
institutional pressure (e.g., mimetic, normative, and coercive) motivates
institutional investors to employ OSNs for capital market investment
decisions based on these theoretical urgings. As a result, the following
theory is proposed:
H3. The desire of institutional investors to employ OSNs for capital
market investment is favorably influenced by institutional pressure
(mimetic, normative, and coercive).
4.2.5. Situational context (SC) to intention to use (IU)
The situational context implies the immediate surrounding envi­
ronment before using the technology directly [89]. The term situational
context is indistinct and indicates a diverse set of meanings. Venkatesh
et al. [88] described four variables, e.g., environmental, location,
events, and organizational attributes, as contextual constructs.
6
Technology in Society 70 (2022) 102061
Organizational support, technical assistance, administrative support,
system interactivity and infrastructures, and other resources are critical
to assisting the organization’s actions that affect the adoption of orga­
nizational virtual social networks [122,123]. Moreover, Venkatesh et al.
[111] defined the organizational facilitating condition as “the degree to
which an individual believes that an organizational and technical
infrastructure exists to support the use of the system”. Existing research
(e.g. Ref. [114], discovered similar results in other contexts. Liang et al.
[82] stated that the performance of an organization may be gauged by
looking at its technical and organizational resources in parallel. Rav­
ichandran and Lertwongsatien [124] discovered a link between IT re­
sources and IS competence. From the online social networking
perspective, scare studies explore the association between situational
context and capital market investment decisions from institutional in­
vestors’ perspectives. Considering the previous theoretical lens, we as­
sume that situational context such as environment, location, events, and
organizational attributes positively direct the institutional investors to
adopt the OSNs for their investment decision in the capital market. Af­
terward, the following hypothesis is proposed.
H4. SC (Environment, location, events, and organizational attributes)
positively influences institutional investors’ intention to use OSNs for a
capital market investment decision.
4.2.6. Situational context (SC) to perceived usefulness (PU)
Davis et al. [104] and Szajna [125] showed that many external
variables indirectly impact technology acceptability through perceived
utility. Online features [126], demographic variables [127], and user
perceptions [128] have all been identified as different antecedents of
perceived usefulness that lead to the intention to use social networking
technology. Moreover, a handful of studies asserted that the situational
context, particularly organizational facilitating conditions, directly de­
termines performance expectancy/outcome expectancy/perceived use­
fulness. Munguatosha et al. [123] found a positive relationship between
organization attributes (e.g., technical support) and perceived useful­
ness in socially networked learning adoption in higher education.
Similar associations (e.g., organizational facilitating condition to per­
formance expectancy [129] and facilitation condition to outcome ex­
pectancy [130] were also explored in different IS/IT adoption studies.
Nevertheless, empirical assertion regarding this relationship is still
unexplored.
In this research, we expect that when the situational context (e.g.,
environment, location, events, and organizational attributes) is favor­
able, the responsible investment manager can easily perceive the benefit
of OSNs in making investment decisions in the capital market. There­
fore, we posited-
H4a. SC (Environment, location, events, and organizational attributes)
positively influences institutional investors’ perceived usefulness of
OSNs for capital market investment decisions.
4.2.7. Cost-benefit dimension (CBD) to intention to use (IU)
According to transaction cost economics (TCE), increased trans­
action costs result in higher benefits,.FASB’s conceptual framework of
accounting also implies that cost must be considered while benefiting
from the information. Both finance and marketing literature emphasizes
that money plays a vital role in determining consumers’ perceptions of
value and willingness to purchase [131]. In this study, the perceived
monetary cost must be considered during the acquisition of benefits
from OSNs. In other words, investors must consider the associated cost
in the adoption of OSNs for decision. Some recent studies employed
value-based research methods in which perceived value was quantified
based on trade-offs between perceived advantages and costs [132] and
found as a predictor of intention to use [133]. We believe that the
cost-benefit dimension, as assessed by trade-offs between perceived
benefit and associated cost, will be a crucial predictor in developing
institutional investors’ propensity to employ OSNs for capital market
M.Z. Haque et al.
investment decisions. As a consequence, the following theory is
proposed:
H5. Cost-Benefit dimension is positively influencing the intention of
institutional investors to use OSNs for capital market investment
decision.
4.2.8. Perceived risk (PR) to intention to use (IU)
Perceived risk is defined as the uncertainty in a given situation [134],
probable loss or danger [135], potential loss of private information
online [136], and lack of security in the internet [137]. Krasnova et al.
[138] defined perceived risk as “beliefs about the potential uncertain
negative consequences related to individual self-disclosure on social
networking sites” in a social networking site context. Several scholars (e.
g. Refs. [136,139], have investigated the impact of perceived risk on
online behavior toward internet technology. Earlier studies (e.g. Refs.
[138,140,141], concluded that perceived risk negatively influences the
use of social networking sites. However, this connection is not discov­
ered in institutional investors’ investment decision context. This study
assumes that risk is perceived to be high, and institutional investors may
become hesitant to use OSNs regardless of their benefit assessment.
Consequently, it is posited-
H6. The perceived risk reduces the likelihood of institutional in­
vestors’ intention to use OSNs for capital market investment decisions.
4.2.9. Intention to use (IU) to investment decision (ID)
According to TRA and TAM, IU is an essential precursor of actual
usage (AU) [104]. Several studies (e.g. Refs. [109,142], evaluated
whether IU relates to technology utilization. In the context of social
networking, Rauniar et al. [73] found a correlation between more sig­
nificant social media usage and increased social media use intentions.
Kim et al. [79] created an enhanced valence framework based on TRA
and experimentally confirmed that people’s intentions to use led to
purchase decisions. This study dealt with a financial product purchase
decision. Given past research on the link between intention and action,
we argue that the intention to use (IU) from OSNs directly predicts an
investor’s actual behavior or investment choice (stock purchase/sell/­
hold). Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed-
H7. Institutional Investors’ IU (Intention to use) of OSNs positively
affects the Investment decision (purchase/sell/hold stocks) in the capital
market.
4.3. Moderating role of organizational IS capability
Larger firms show more acceptances of the internet and related in­
frastructures than smaller firms [143]. Because of a lack of education
about technology potential, a lack of trust in transaction security [144],
a lack of technological expertise and uncertainty about its benefits, and a
lack of economies of scale [145], smaller institutions adopt technology
at a slower rate than larger institutions [146]. The size of an organiza­
tion has been shown to positively influence adoption behavior [202].
Larger businesses reported a complete openness to embrace new tech­
nologies [147]. Social media may be used by any organization,
regardless of its size. Larger organizations have the resources and human
resources to monitor usage properly. This means that the effect of social
media use on performance may be more apparent to them than
otherwise.
The size of an organization’s information systems department is a
good indicator of its capacity to handle information technology. In IT
research, more incredible professionalism, more slack resources, more
specialization, and the number of employees are used as a measure in
order to set the organizational IT size [148]. In EDI assimilation [93]
and social media assimilation [97], the IT department’s personnel are
also utilized to measure the IT size. Several studies have stated that
information technology resources may increase critical organizational
7
Technology in Society 70 (2022) 102061
competencies, boosting organizational performance [85,149]. Existing
research has found a significant positive association between business
size and ICT adoption, corroborating by empirical data [150]. However,
no studies proposed/examined the moderating role of organizational IS
capability from institutional investors’ investment decision viewpoint.
Based on a theoretical foundation, we also believe that organizational IS
capability will enhance the relationships of the different constructs with
institutional investors’ intention to use the OSNs in a unified model.
Thus, we are proposing- Hm (1.1–1.6): Organizational IS capability
significantly moderates the relationship between (PU and IU), (PEU and
IU), (IP and IU), (SC and IU), (CBD and IU) and (PR and IU) to adopt
OSNs among the institutional investors for investment decision in the
capital market.
5. Research method
This study employed a mixed technique to investigate the usage of
OSNs in institutional investors’ capital market investment decisions
because it allows for a broader range of conflicting viewpoints [151] and
more robust conclusions based on the findings [30]. Due to comple­
mentary strengths and no overlapping weaknesses [152] and cohesive
and coherent outputs [153], an increasing number of IS and marketing
research researchers are using the mixed-method approach. The
sequential mixed research method was utilized. In a relatively new
topic, expert interviews give insight into the real-world circumstance
lacking in previous research [154]. Before launching the survey, an
expert interview was held to validate the study framework. The
three-pronged strategy (e.g., literature review, expert interviews, and
field survey) provides a reasonable point of view from multiple com­
plementing sources, reducing the study’s bias [155].
5.1. Qualitative study
Interviews are the most widely used approach to collect data in
qualitative methods to capture the opinions and impressions of a specific
research issue and non-numeric data [156]. Chief executive officer or
equivalent personnel responsible for funds of different investment firms
and merchant banks, institutional investors having beneficiary Owner
(BO) account in Bangladesh, were interviewed. The rationale was to
capture a composite view from the practitioner [157]. The interviews
took place in the first and second weeks of January 2019. Each interview
session took 30–60 min. Questionnaires were sent in advance to the
concerned persons through email. Open-ended interviews were also
used as part of this research, which is the most efficient kind of quali­
tative interviewing since so many people are involved in the study. In
addition, the interview approach can be used to compare responses from
various respondents [158]. Table 2 shows the CEO’s demographics and
personal information. It is important to note that all interviews were
based in Dhaka. The main motive of this procedure was to identify the
determinants of OSNs on institutional investors’ investment decisions.
We used data captured through a qualitative technique to identify and
categorize themes/concepts and re-establish the different items used in
this study [159].
The data were transcribed after the interview, followed by process of
unitizing and categorizing to make sense of the data. To create cate­
gories, the constant comparison method was used, which entails
constantly revising, modifying, and amending the category until all new
units can be placed into an appropriate category and the inclusion of
additional units does not expand existing categories or create new ones-
that is, empirical indicators from data are compared for similarities and
differences and grouped accordingly [30]. This is also known as open
coding, and it involves reviewing all of the interview transcripts for
descriptive categories in their entirety. The numerous elements
(Table 3) that drive online social network use and investment decision in
the capital market were determined via the investigation.
The identification of these elements, as previously stated, and a
M.Z. Haque et al. Technology in Society 70 (2022) 102061

Table 2
Demographic of interviewees.
Serial No. Job Title Organization type Organization Size

1 Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Merchant Bank Medium**

2 Head of Corporate Research Merchant Bank Small*
3 Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Merchant Bank Medium**
4 Chief Operating Officer (COO) Merchant Bank Medium**
5 Head of HR Merchant Bank Medium**
6 Managing Director Merchant Bank Medium**
7 Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Merchant Bank Medium**
8 Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Merchant Bank Medium**
9 Assistant Manager Merchant Bank Medium**
10 Assistant General Manager Merchant Bank Large***
11 Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Merchant Bank Small*
12 Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Merchant Bank Small*
13 Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Merchant Bank Medium**
14 Managing Director Merchant Bank Medium**
15 Head of Discretionary Fund Merchant Bank Large***a
a
***Large refers to service organization having more than 100 employees and assets worth more than BDT 150 million. **Medium refers to organization having
employees between 50 and 100 and assets worth between BDT10-150 million. *Small refers to organization having employees less than 50 and assets worth than BDT
10 million.
Source: https://bdnews24.com/business/2011/06/20/bangladesh-bank-redefines-sme accessed on 01/06/2019.

Table 3
Themes and Antecedents from qualitative studies.
Themes Antecedents

Antecedents’ influence on Online social networks
(OSNs)
OSNs’ impact on Investment Decisions
Risk Factors of Using OSNs
Usefulness, System easiness, Institutional pressure, leadership, organizational resources, organizational, technological training,
and cost-benefit of OSNs
Organization considers OSNs information to purchase, sale and hold of financial product in the capital market.
Spreading rumors over OSNs platform, threats come from an anonymous source, unverified information, and misguiding
information.

thorough assessment of the literature determine the relevant theories
and models that may be utilized to conduct the quantitative study.
5.2. Quantitative study
5.2.1. Instrument development
This study’s items were all taken from earlier research. The items
were reconstructed to fit the circumstances of this research connected to
institutional investors’ adoption of OSNs for capital market investment
decisions. Davis [58] and Rauniar et al. [73] provided three measures
for measuring PU (perceived usefulness). PEU (Perceived ease of use)
was assessed using three measures developed by Davis [58] and van der
Heijden [110]. Five questions from Bharati et al. [97] and Liang et al.
[93] were used to measure institutional pressure (IP). Four measures
from Venkatesh et al. [88] and Shaw et al. [89] were used to assess the
situational context (SC). Four elements retrieved from Setterstrom et al.
[132] and Kim et al. [160] were used to calculate the cost-benefit
dimension. Three items from Malhotra et al. [136] and Dwivedi et al.
[161] were used to assess perceived risk. Three questions from Davis
et al. [104] and Venkatesh et al. [162] were used to assess intention to
use. Three questions were used to assess investment decisions, adapted
in part from Kim et al. [78,79]. Finally, one item from Liang et al. was
used to assess organizational IS capability (2007). Appendix A contains
information on the literature sources and measuring items used for each
component. After developing the questionnaire, two academic re­
searchers and two CEO from merchant banks knowledgeable in their
respective fields were requested to check the questionnaires to ensure
academic and practical clarity. The questionnaire was then finalized by
including the changes made during the pre-test and pilot tests. Part A
and Part B make up the bulk of the survey. Part A includes questions
concerning the internet, social media use, and the organization’s profile.
Part B contains questions for each of the study model’s components. The
constructs items were scored from 1 to 7, with the options ranging from
“strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” using Likert scale.
5.2.2. Data collection
In this study, a positivist method was more justifiable for analyzing
the adoption of OSNs [163]. We chose institutional investors of capital
market investors in Bangladesh as the study settings to test our sug­
gested unified research methodology and hypothesis since OSNs are an
emerging technology in Bangladesh, and investors have experienced a
meteoric increase [164]. A web-based cross-sectional survey is per­
formed using a nonprobability sampling technique, namely convenience
sampling among institutional investors in Bangladesh. Because of its low
cost, it has been extensively employed in many IS studies [165].
Furthermore, many IS studies employed convenience sampling [113,
161]. A Google form was used to create a questionnaire to collect data
more simply. The Bangladesh Securities and Exchange Commission
(BSEC) provided the e-mail addresses of 982 active institutional in­
vestors. An e-mail invitation detailing the objective of the research
included a URL link to a web-based survey questionnaire. The re­
spondents were guaranteed confidentiality and that the aggregate report
would be provided when the research was completed. The question­
naires required around 10–12 min to complete. E-mail was sent five
times to all institutional investors’ e-mail addresses collected from BSEC.
First-round was sent in the third week of January and received a
response around 90 respondents. The other four rounds were sent from
28 January to 28 February 2019. After that, we got 290 responses, and
five responses were discarded due to some missing information. Finally,
285 questionnaires were subjected to further analysis, which was more
than 20 times the number of items assessed by the research and
appropriate for SEM [166].
5.2.3. Data analysis
For exploratory analysis, Partial Least Squares based SEM is appro­
priate, whereas covariance-based SEM provides better results for
confirmation of the theory [167]. On the other hand, Amaro et al. [168]
contrasted covariance-based SEM with variance-based SEM. They
concluded that both methodologies provide comparable results under
the same assumptions. Furthermore, Goodhue et al. [169] argued that

8
M.Z. Haque et al. Technology in Society 70 (2022) 102061

researchers could use any statistical technique to achieve the reliability Table 5
and validity of the measurement model and build the structural model Measurement model.
while ensuring model appropriateness. As a result, we used statistical Constructs Indicators Loading Cronbach’s CR AVE
analysis methods such as the Partial Least Squares (PLS)/variance-based Alpha
method and the covariance-based method of Structural Equation Cost Benefit CB1 0.742 0.826 0.882 0.652
Modeling to experimentally examine and corroborate the proposed Dimension CB2 0.805
unified model and the relationships between the postulated components CB3 0.817
(SEM).To check the fitness of the unified model, SmartPLS generates CB4 0.861
Investment ID1 0.842 0.805 0.884 0.717
significantly fewer indices than CB-based AMOS [170]. To overcome Decision ID2 0.835
this limitation and check other requirements (e.g., CMB, partial ID3 0.862
moderating effect), the study used SPSS 21.0 and AMOS 20.0 versions to Institutional IP1 0.804 0.868 0.910 0.716
explore outcomes. The excel sheet was generated from Google form data Pressure IP3 0.849
IP4 0.877
and imported into SmartPLS 3.0, SPSS, and AMOS graphics software for
IP5 0.851
statistical analysis. Intention to Use IU1 0.846 0.774 0.869 0.689
IU2 0.853
6. Analysis and results IU3 0.789
Perceived ease of PEU1 0.868 0.700 0.830 0.624
use PEU2 0.859
6.1. Organizations profile PEU3 0.718
Perceived Risk PR1 0.877 0.751 0.840 0.637
Most respondent organizations (83%) have up to 100 employees PR2 0.770
(National industrial policy of Bangladesh, 2010). Around 15% of the PR3 0.741
Perceived PU2 0.899 0.799 0.908 0.832
firms are medium, and 2% are from large categories that participated in Usefulness PU3 0.925
the study. This happened because the majority of the large organizations Situational Context SC1 0.756 0.759 0.862 0.676
form their subsidiary that is fully responsible for the investment capital SC2 0.818
market. In terms of firm age, around 92% of enterprises were founded SC3 0.887
during the last ten years. This occurred because most firms formed their Legend: AVE = Average Variance Extracted; CR=Composite Reliability.
subsidiary/merchant bank after BSEC legislation a few years ago.
Approximately 62% of respondents had less than or equal to 5 years of shows significant internal reliability as the values exceed the cutoff
capital market investment dealing experience, followed by professionals value of 0.70. We used two standards recommended by Fornell and
with six to ten years of experience (32%) and professionals with more Larker [174] to test convergent validity. First, the value of each item
than ten years of experience (5%). The majority of the respondents loading should be ≥ 0.70, and second, the AVE value should surpass
(43%) use Facebook, and (35%) use a smartphone to make an invest­ 0.50. We checked all factor loadings of our measurement model and
ment decisions in the capital market in Bangladesh (see Table 4). Data found the value of PU1 = 0.502, SC4 = 0.651, and IP2 = 0.509. So the
analysis used all the demographic factors as a control variable. study dropped these three items due to values less than 0.70 [173,174].
After deleting three items, Table 4 shows that all item loadings were
6.2. Measurement model substantial and more than 0.70, and AVE values were also surpassed by
0.50 [173,174]. As a result, the investigation corroborates the suggested
The research used SmartPLS 3.0 to verify the measurement model. measurement model’s convergent validity.
We used the two-step statistical analysis approach by Anderson and Furthermore, the study utilized two tests to determine discriminant
Gerbings [171] to test the measurement model in SEM. First, the mea­ validity: (1) the value of correlations among constructs should be within
sures’ validity and reliability should be checked before examining the the suggested range of less than 0.85; (2) the value of correlations of
hypothesis [172]. In addition, the measurement model’s internal reli­ each constructs with other latent constructs should be exceeded by the
ability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity are evaluated square root of AVE in the measurement model [174,175]. The mea­
[173]. When Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability value is ≥ 0.70, surement model result in Table 6 shows that all constructs fulfill both
there is adequate internal consistency and internal reliability [167]. requirements, and the discriminant validity of the data is also
Cronbach’s alpha scores ranged from 0.700 to 0.868, while composite established.
reliability values ranged from 0.830 to 0.910 in Table 5. The outcome

Table 4
Demographic analysis.
Variables Description Frequency Percentage Variables Description Frequency Percentage

Age of the Firms Less than 1 year 2 1% Online Social Networks platforms Facebook 270 43%
1–5 years 60 21% used YouTube 170 27%
6–10 years 199 70% LinkedIn 79 12%
11–15 years 16 6% Google+ 68 11%
More than 15 years 8 3% Pinterest 0 0%
No. of Years dealing investment Less than 1 years 76 27% All 4 1%
activities 1–5 years 101 35% Other 44 7%
6–10 years 92 32% Hardware used to access OSNs Smartphone 235 35%
11–15 years 11 4% Laptop 195 29%
More than 15 Years 5 2% Desktop 205 31%
No. of employees of firm Less than 30 115 40% Tablet 16 2%
31–100 122 43% All 12 2%
101–170 32 11% Other 2 0%
171–240 4 1%
241–300 5 2%
More than 300 7 2%

9
M.Z. Haque et al. Technology in Society 70 (2022) 102061

Table 6
Correlation matrix, Square root of AVE and VIF.
VIF CBD ID IP IU PEU PR PU SC

CBD 2.906 0.807

ID 2.821 0.532 0.847
IP 2.058 0.340 0.490 0.846
IU 2.569 0.491 0.644 0.758 0.830
PEU 2.001 0.348 0.652 0.568 0.548 0.790
PR 1.239 0.390 − 0.085 0.230 0.260 0.092 0.798
PU 3.259 0.631 0.663 0.636 0.680 0.673 0.186 0.912
SC 2.179 0.698 0.441 0.437 0.466 0.267 0.300 0.500 0.822

Note: square root of AVE on diagonals in bold.

6.3. Common method bias (CMB) and non response bias estimations recommender’s categorization. They grouped goodness of fit indices
into three types: absolute fit measurements, incremental fit measures,
Common method bias is dangerous when data is collected from the and parsimonious adjusted measures. We used four indexes to test the
same respondents on predictor and outcome variables using a survey absolute fit measure of our model: i. χ2 (Chi-Square) over df (degree of
approach [176]. We used two tests to validate common method bias freedom) ii. RMSEA ii. GFI and iv. AGFI. The result generated from
(CMB) estimations: I. Harman’s single-factor test [176] and (ii) variance AMOS software indicated the value 1.781, 0.052, 0.901, and 0.865 for
inflation factors (VIF) [177]. First, using SPSS 21.00 version, we checked χ2/df, RMSEA, GFI, and AGFI, respectively, which implies the proposed
Harmon’s single factors test to assess the probability of CMB. Podsakoff unified model fit the absolute measures fitness criteria (see Table 7).
et al. [176] suggested that there may be unfavorable CMB when one We employed NFI (Normed Fit Index), CFI (Comparative Fit Index),
item emerged from unrotated exploratory factor analysis and one gen­ IFI (Incremental Fit Index), RFI (Relative Fit Index), and TLI to test the
eral item explains more than 50% variance among the constructs. We incremental fit measures (Tucker-Lewis Index). Model fit summary
performed an unrotated principal component analysis (PCA) and un­ shows the value 0.908, 0.957, 0.957, 0.904 and 0.951 for NFI, IFI, CFI,
veiled six distinct factors that explain 75.02% of the total variance of the RFI and TLI, respectively (see Table 7). Finally, parsimonious adjusted
present study. Here more than one item is disclosed to explain the measures were checked through PCFI (Parsimony Comparative Fit
variance, and the first item (largest) could elucidate a maximum 36.35% Index), PNFI (Parsimonious Normed Fit Index), and PGFI (Parsimonious
variance that is less than 50% (the variances explained range from 0.238 Goodness of Fit Index). AMOS produced summary shows values of
to 36.35%). Second, according to Kock [177]; “when all VIFs values are 0.759, 0.720, and 0.660 for PCFI, PNFI, and PGFI, respectively (see
equal to or lower than 3.3 from a full collinearity test, then the research Table 7). The absolute, incremental, and parsimonious fit results indi­
model will be treated as free from CMB”. According to Table 6, all cate that our structural model considerably demonstrates the link be­
components have a variance inflation factor (VIF) of less than 3.30. tween diverse components [173]. As a result, we may proceed to scan
These two tests provide evidence that the model is free from CMB. the structural model’s path coefficient.
We also assessed the response bias and compared the response of the
first 50 with the responses of the last 50. The independent sample t-test 6.4.2. Hypotheses results
demonstrates that all constructs’ significance (p-value) value is more With the intention of checking the hypothesized relationships among
than 0.05 when comparing early and late respondents’ responses to all different constructs, the study used SmartPLS 3.0. Fig. 2 shows all path
constructs in this study. coefficients of the structural model. This study examined possible mul­
ticollinearity problems in the data set through SmartPLS. Structural
6.4. Structural model multicollinearity may have in the reflective or formative model when
the coefficients of inner VIF or structural VIF would be greater than 4.0
6.4.1. Assessment of research model fitness or 5.0 preferably [170]. The inner VIF values ranged from 1.238 to
We tested the fitness of our unified model using estimate indices 3.259 (see Table 6), specifying multicollinearity was no issue in this
generated by the AMOS 20.0 version and followed Hooper et al. [178] research. Hypothesis testing result implies that we cannot reject hy­
pothesis (1) because of having value (at p < 0.01, β = 0.208, t = 2.637).
Table 7 It indicates that the PU of institutional investors has a positive sway on
Model fit summary. their IU (intention to use OSNs). Institutional pressure shows statisti­
cally positive effect on IU of OSNs (at p < 0.001, β = 0.541, t = 10.358).
Model fit statistics Chi-Square = 423.848
So H3 is also supported. We accepted hypothesis (5) since cost-benefit
d.f = 238
dimension shows significant positive impact on IU of OSNs (at p <
p value = 0.000 0.05, β = 0.144, t = 1.971). It indicates that institutional pressure and
Model value Recommended Sources cost-benefit consideration of institutional investors positively influenced
value their IU (intention to use) of OSNs.
Absolute fit measures Normed chi-square 1.0–3.0 [179] On the other hand, PEU has no significant positive effect on insti­
= 1.781 tutional investors’ intention to use OSNs because it is statistically
RMSEA = 0.052 ≤0.06: good fit [180] insignificant (at p < 0.05, β = 0.049, t = 0.872). Thus H3 is not sup­
GFI = 0.901 [180]
≥0.90
ported. It implies that the user-friendliness of OSNs is not a significant
AGFI = 0.865 ≥0.80 [181]
antecedent to adopt this system among institutional investors. Inter­
Incremental fit measures NFI = 0.908 ≥0.90 [180] estingly, though PEU does not directly influence IU, it indirectly affects
IFI = 0.957 [180]
IU through PU as (H2a) was strongly supported due to a significant value
≥0.90
CFI = 0.957 ≥0.90 [180]
RFI = 0.904 ≥0.90 [180] (at p < 0.001, β = 0.573, t = 14.179). It signifies that systems’ easiness
TLI = 0.951 ≥0.95 [180] enhances the usefulness of OSNs use.
Parsimonious adjusted PCFI = 0.759 ≥0.50 [180] In addition, SC has not impact on IU as H4 has statistically insig­
measures PNFI = 0.720 ≥0.50 [180] nificant value (at p < 0.05, β = − 0.000, t = 0.000). Thus H4 is not
PGFI = 0.660 ≥0.50 [180] accepted. It implies that institutional investors are not more concerned

10
M.Z. Haque et al. Technology in Society 70 (2022) 102061

Fig. 2. Validated Research Model.

Table 8 Table 9
Structural model. Moderating effect of Organizational IS Capability.
Hypothesis Construct’s Std. t-statistics P- Decision Hypothesis Path Std. T- P- Comments
Relationship Beta value Beta statistics value

H1 PU -> IU 0.208 2.637** 0.009 Supported Hm1.1 PU* Org. IS .157 1.082 .280 Not
H2 PEU -> IU 0.049 0.872 0.384 Not Capability-> IU Moderated
supported Hm1.2 PEU* Org. IS .625 3.107 .002 Moderated
H2a PEU -> PU 0.573 14.1789*** 0.000 Supported Capability-> IU
H3 IP -> IU 0.541 10.358*** 0.000 Supported Hm1.3 IP* Org. IS .598 3.536 .000 Moderated
H4 SC -> IU − 0.000 0.000 1.000 Not Capability-> IU
Supported Hm1.4 SC* Org. IS .710 3.594 .000 Moderated
H4a SC -> PU 0.354 8.106*** 0.000 Supported Capability-> IU
H5 CBD -> IU 0.144 1.971* 0.049 Supported Hm1.5 CBD* Org. IS .340 1.745 .082 Not
H6 PR -> IU 0.035 0.645 0.519 Not Capability-> IU Moderated
Supported Hm1.6 PR* Org. IS − 1.363 − 4.097 .000 Moderated
H7 IU -> ID 0.644 17.421*** 0.000 Supported Capability-> IU

Legend: p:significance: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. Legend: p:significance: **p < 0.05.

about the organizational context of OSNs. Fascinatingly, new path from strong substantive effect. The outcome also validated the model’s pre­
SC to PU (H4a) is strongly accepted because it has statistically signifi­ dictive significance.
cant value (at p < 0.001, β = 0.354, t = 8.106). The most emerging
outcome from this data is that PR has a shallow positive effect on
institutional investors’ IU of OSNs for investment decisions (at p < 0.05, 6.5. Moderation effect of organizational IS capability
β = 0.035, t = 0.645). Therefore, we cannot support H6. It implies that
the risk factor of OSNs is not so much important to institutional investors We employed SPSS 21.0 to check the moderation effect of organi­
for investment decisions. zational IS capability through the interaction effect. We examine the
Finally, institutional investors’ intention to use OSNs has a strong main influence of a predictor variable on the outcome variable, followed
positive impact on their investment decision in the capital market by the interaction of the predictor and a moderating variable. The study
because of its significant value (p < 0.001, β = 0.644, t = 17.421), and executed this process separately for PU, PEU, IP, CBD, SC, and PR
therefore, we support H7. It implies that the intention to use ONSs because organizational IS moderates their relationships with IU differ­
platforms drive intuitional investors to make capital market investment ently. The study explored that organizational IS capability moderates
decision (see Table 8). the relationship of PEU, IP, and SC with IU positively and PR with IU
Furthermore, Chin [182]; Höck, and Ringle [183] consider findings negatively. In contrast, the relationships of PU and CBD with IU are not
above the threshold level of “0.67,” “0.33,” and “0.19′′ to be “substan­ moderated by organizational IS capability (see Table 9).
tial,” “moderate,” and “weak,” respectively. The unified model explains Additionally, the study conducted a multi-group analysis using the
65.80% variance in IU, 56.2% in PU, and 41.4% in capital market in­ PLS-MGA method [175] to comprehend the adoption of online social
vestment decisions of institutional OSNs users in Bangladesh. This im­
plies that our research moderately explains the variances. We also Table 10
looked at effect size (f2) to see if the research model was substantially Multiple-group Analysis.
influencing. Cohen [184] recommended that “0.02,” “0.15′′ , and “0.35′′ Regression Std. Beta Std. Beta t-Values t-Values
reflect “little,” “mid,” and “large” effect sizes, respectively. So far, our path (HIGP_Iscap) (LOWGP_Iscap) (HIGP_Iscap) (LOWGP_Iscap)
model indicates that desire to utilize (f2 = 0.482), investment choice (f2 CBD -> IU − 0.116 0.260 1.410 3.909***
= 0.707), and perceived usefulness (f2 = 0.829) have substantial effect IP -> IU 0.579 0.512 6.213*** 8.394***
sizes. Furthermore, Cohen’s [184] statistical measures were utilized in PEU -> IU 0.071 − 0.083 0.970 1.009
PR -> IU − 0.102 0.072 1.277 1.417
the study to investigate the substantive effect of the research model.
PU -> IU 0.304 0.282 2.59** 2.911***
According to the model, investment decisions had a medium substantial SC -> IU 0.182 − 0.112 1.561 1.65*
effect (Q2 = 0.273), but IU (Q2 = 0.421) and PU (Q2 = 0.442) had a
Legend: p:significance: *p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01.

11
M.Z. Haque et al.
networks (OSNs) among institutional investors for investment decisions
in the capital market. The collected data were separated into two groups
based on organizational IS capability measured by the number of em­
ployees in IS department.
High groups consist of firms with more than five employees in the IS
department, whereas the low group has less than five employees in the
IS department. In respect of the cost-benefit dimension (CBD) and
situational context (SC), the low group exposed more significant factors
than the high group (see Table 10). It is indicated that the firms with
fewer IS department employees are more concerned about the cost of
receiving the benefit. They are also concerned about the different
organizational facilities than the high group. Though there is a statistical
similarity between the high and low groups in case of institutional
pressure and perceived usefulness of OSNs, the low group is more con­
cerned about this than the high group. Moreover, high and low groups
exhibited similarity in risk and perceived ease of use though the result is
statistically insignificant. The difference between both groups is
observed because of their cost-benefit aspect, institutional pressure, and
facilitating situations.
7. Discussions
This study’s results intensely supported Fig. 1’s unified research
model. The empirical analysis supports 66.67% directional linkage
among different latent variables proposed through the hypothesis. It
seems that the proposed integrated model can adequately explain a
substantial proportion of variation, with an R2 of 65.8% for intention to
use and an R2 of 41.4% for investment decisions in the capital market of
institutional investors utilizing the OSNs platform. The IU construct
explains a relatively high percentage compared with preceding research
in IT/IS acceptance, including Buabeng-Andoh [66] with R2 23%, Gao
and Bai [185] with R2 57.9%, and Yi et al. [186] with R2 57%. Numerous
intuitive upshots could be extracted from our unified research model as
follows. The construct IU is the most powerful predictor for investment
decision relative to the other constructs that imply institutional in­
vestors’ investment decision in the capital market is highly affected by
their intention to use OSNs. This outcome is consistent with other social
networking research conducted in diverse contexts (e.g. [73],
The study first included the institutional pressure, cost-benefit
dimension, and situational context as direct determinants of OSNs
adoption in the capital market investment decision. According to the
findings, institutional pressure and the cost-benefit dimension appear to
be the most significant antecedents of IU of OSNs. These indicate various
types of institutional pressure (e.g., mimetic, normative, and coercive)
that reflect environmental factors and perceived cost-benefit consider­
ations, advancing the acceptance of emerging information dissemina­
tion technology platforms such as OSNs by different institutional
investors. There have been few discoveries since these constructs were
initially presented in OSN adoption research. These findings are com­
parable to those described in other circumstances by Bharati et al. [97];
Teo et al. [92]; Setterstrom et al. [132]; Cocosi and Igonor (2015), and
Hong et al. [133].
On the other hand, the newly introduced situational context did not
directly affect the intention to use OSNs but showed an indirect effect.
This indicates that environmental attributes, event (time), location at­
tributes, and organizational attributes did not directly influence the
investment decision. This result contradicts the findings of Carmichael
et al. [187].
More interestingly, the proposed new path from situational context
to perceived usefulness is enormously significant. The empirical result
implies that different situational attributes are helpful for institutional
investors to make an investment decision. This conclusion is somewhat
similar to findings investigated by Urumsah et al. [130] and Schaper and
Pervan [129] in different IS/IT adoption contexts. According to our
findings, PU appears to be the second most crucial element influencing
OSN intention to use. This result is concurrent with the finding of
12
Technology in Society 70 (2022) 102061
Ben-Mansour [188] and Davis [58]. However, this result is contradic­
tory to Moqbel [116]. This result echoes the realistic dimension of OSN
adoption among institutional investors. They are interested in using it
because they consider it valid and fulfill their service needs.
On the other hand, PEU had little influence on institutional investors’
intention to use OSNs. It implies that the user-friendliness of OSNs is not
a significant concern for institutional investors when they use these
platforms’ information for a capital market investment decision. This
finding is consistent with Moqbel [116].
Interestingly, PEU indirectly affects the organizational intention to
use the OSNs through PU. This indicates that the friendliness of OSNs
helps the decision-maker benefit from the systems. When such a benefit
is achieved, it will motivate users to accept the systems. These findings
are similar to Ben-Mansour [188] and Taylor and Todd [189]. Another
intriguing conclusion of the research is that institutional investors’
intention to adopt OSNs was unaffected by perceived risk. Sometimes,
fake and rumor news is spread through different social media platforms.
If such information is not verified correctly, the investment may face an
unwanted situation. This finding contradicts the outcome reported by
Matikiti et al. [190]. However, this finding is consistent with Ernst’s
[140] and Herrero et al. [191].
Furthermore, the interaction effect revealed that organizational IS
capability perfectly moderated the relationship between institutional
pressure and IU, situational context and IU, perceived risk and IU, and
perceived ease of use and IU. Moreover, the multi-group analysis also
found that the cost-benefit dimension significantly affected the low-
group organization adopting OSN. This finding is somewhat concur­
rent with Zhu et al. [146]; where they found that the economics of scale
is a factor in adopting the technology in the organization. In terms of
situational context, organizational IS capacity created a difference be­
tween the high and low groups. In some aspects, this result is unfailing to
Awa et al. [192]. The study revealed that small organizations exhibit
more institutional pressure, perceived usefulness, and ease of use than
large organizations when making investment decisions using OSNs. The
extent of OSNs adoption decisions varied in the different organizations
depending on the organizational IS capability. Subsequently, it is indi­
cated that organizational IS capability substantially moderates the re­
lationships of the different constructs with IU.
8. Limitations and future research
The study empirically tested the proposed unified model using cross-
sectional data collected from capital market institutional investors.
Future studies are encouraged to conduct longitudinal or experimental
studies based on temporal data to measure the model’s performance. We
used a non-random sampling approach through the representation of the
survey sample was ensured in terms of organizational size and other
factors. The non-random sampling could limit the generalization of the
empirical result. Future studies can be conducted based on random
sampling. The proposed unified model showed that a well-established
construct, namely PEU of TAM, PR of valence framework, and new
construct situational context, had no direct impact on the IU though the
PEU and SC had an indirect effect through PU. Future research would
create and validate appropriate scales for these components and reva­
lidate the study’s presented model with additional measures. The sam­
ple was collected from only one developing country like Bangladesh.
The sample could be collected from more than one developing or
developed country due to a new dimension of research that will provide
broader generalizability. Finally, while the variance (65.8%) of inten­
tion to use and (41.4%) of investment decision explained by the unified
model is comparatively more significant than other IS/IT adoption
models, to provide an inclusive understanding of OSNs adoption in
capital market context further work could find and check additional
borderline conditions of the unified model.
M.Z. Haque et al.
9. Implications
9.1. Theoretical implications
Because the subject issue has received little attention so far, the study
has a plethora of relevant theoretical advances. A large number of
studies have analyzed, altered, and reproduced the TAM and determined
it to be the best model for explaining the desire to utilize information
technology [73,188]. The proposed research is an exceptional study that
developed a unified model for an organizational decision regarding the
adoption of an online social network platform for their capital market
investment decision. It combines and validates two models from the
disciplines of information technology (TAM) and consumer behavior
(Valence framework). This will enrich the knowledge of behavioral
finance and IS. This study rigorously reviewed the institutional theory
and used institutional pressures as a direct determinant of organiza­
tional OSNs adoption intention. Empirical findings of this construct will
enrich the application of institutional theory in technology adoption,
particularly capital market investment decision context. The study also
reviewed the resource-based view, used the resources as organizational
attributes (e.g., situational context), and found that attributes indirectly
affect the intention to use the OSNs platform. It also examined the
transaction cost theory and one concept of the FASB framework (e.g.,
cost-benefit aspect) and developed a construct, namely the cost-benefit
dimension, and empirically found significant in IS context. This will
introduce new constructs in behavioral finance, social media, and IS
literature by triangulating accounting, IS, finance, and social media. The
bulk of the research looked at how people utilize social media on a
personal level. This study mainly focused on the organizational
perspective and developed a model used in the capital market invest­
ment context. It included a new moderator (e.g., organizational IS
capability) in a unified model to bring value to behavioral finance, social
media, and information systems literature. Finally, this study showed
and empirically tested a new direction between two explanatory vari­
ables: situational context and perceived usefulness. Considering this
interrelationship will allow other researchers a deeper understanding of
the theoretical model application in the technology context.
9.2. Practical implications
Because research is scarce in this area, the empirical findings of this
study have important practical implications. The study’s empirical
findings will help the decision-maker of different organizations about
the importance of OSNs as information dissemination platforms for
capital market investment. The organization can make more strategies
to absorb this emerging platform in their organization. Since the insti­
tutional investors comprise a major part of the investment, this study
will help firms integrate this platform for disseminating information
about their company and other capital market data. These initiatives
will improve the corporate governance performance of the organization.
This study will help the organization comprehend the importance of
different institutional pressures, cost-benefit considerations, and orga­
nizational attributes during adopting information technology (e.g.,
OSNs) for capital market investment decisions. It will help the
Appendix A. Summary of measurement items
Constructs Corresponding Items
Perceived Usefulness PU1: SNSs services enable organizations acquire more information about the capital market.
(PU) PU2: Using the SNSs services will enhance organizational Investment decision effectiveness.
PU3: Over all SNSs services are useful for organizational investment decision
13
Technology in Society 70 (2022) 102061
regulatory authorities of the financial market (e.g., BSEC and BTRC)
formalize their policy regarding using OSNs for investment purposes.
This result will encourage OSNs service providers to devise a plan to
increase their platforms’ usage to publish their own content and user-
generated information connected to stock market investment. Finally,
this study will help the institutional investors when they decide based on
information from OSNs by considering different constructs examined in
this research.
10. Conclusions
This study developed the unified model by integrating TAM and
valence framework and reviewing institutional theory, resource-based
view, transaction cost theory, and conceptual framework of account­
ing to unearth the adoption of online social networks (OSNs) for capital
market investment decisions among the institutional investors. The
unified model performs perfectly to explain the adoption status of
institutional investors in developing countries’ perspectives. Six hy­
potheses of this model significantly performed positive relationships.
Therefore, it is evident from the empirical results that the perceived
usefulness of TAM, institutional pressure from institution theory, and
cost-benefit dimension from transaction cost theory and conceptual
framework of accounting directly impacted institutional investors’
intention to use OSNs in their capital market investment decision. PEU
from TAM and situational context from a resource-based view indirectly
affect the investors’ intention to use.
Moreover, PR from the valence framework is considered one of the
momentous issues in adopting OSNs; interestingly, this study identified
that PR has no direct impact on the IU of OSNs for investment purposes.
The study emphasizes the need for a uniform paradigm in establishing
OSNs among capital market investors. Finally, social media, behavioral
finance, and MIS literature will be enriched from this study, and firms
and regulatory authorities can formulate a strategy based on empirical
findings.
Author statement
Category 1
Conception and design of study: Haque, M.Z, Qian A; acquisition of
data: Haque, M.Z. Lucky S.A; analysis and/or interpretation of data:
Haque M.Z., Hoque, M.R.
Category 2
Drafting the manuscript: Haque, M.Z., Hoque, M,R. Lucky S.A;
revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content:
Haque, M.Z., Hoque, M,R., Qian A. Lucky S.A.
Category 3
We are approving the revised version of the manuscript for publi­
cation in the Journal of “Technology in Society”: Dr. Md. Ziaul Haque,
Dr. Aimin Qian, Dr. Md. Rakibul Hoque, Suraiea Akter Lucky.
Sources
Davis [58]; Rauniar et al. [73]
(continued on next page)
M.Z. Haque et al. Technology in Society 70 (2022) 102061

(continued )
Constructs Corresponding Items Sources

Perceived Ease of Use
(PEU)
Institutional Pressure (IP)
Situational Context (SC)
Cost Benefit Decision
(CBD)
Perceived Risk (PR)
Intention to Use (ITU)
Investment Decision (ID)
Organizational IS
capability
PEU1:The Interaction with the SNSs is clear and understandable Davis [58]; van der Heijden [110]
PEU2: SNSs services are useful to do what organization want to do
PEU3: Interaction with the SNSs for investment purpose does not require a lot of mental effort
IP1: Important competitors believe that SNS technologies are beneficial for investment decisions. Bharati et al. [97]; Liang et al. [93]
IP2: Competitors whose opinions we regard believe that SNS technologies are advantageous for investment
decisions.
IP3: The government’s support of information technology impacts our company’s use of social networking sites.
IP4: Our company is required by the industry association to deploy SNS technology.
IP5: Due to industry competition, our company must employ SNS technology.
SC1: The organization has the resources required to invest in SNSs services. Venkatesh et al. [88]; Shaw et al.
SC2: Organizational leadership is in favor of investing in SNS technology. [89]
SC3: Organizational culture and environmental factors (such as location, temperature, and light) are beneficial
for the adoption of SNSs.
SC4: On a regular basis, the organization provides personnel with possibilities for technological training.
CBD1: The fee (cost) that organization has to pay for the use of SNSs is reasonable. Setterstrom et al. [132]; Kim et al.
CBD2: Compared to the fee (cost) organization need to pay, the use of SNSs offers value for the money. [160],
CBD3: Compared to the effort organization need to put in, the use of SNSs is beneficial.
CBD4: Overall, the use of SNSs delivers good value to organization.
PR1: Using the SNSs there may be threats to organization investment privacy. Malhotra et al. [136]; Dwivedi et al.
PR2: SNSs are not safe environments for exchanging investment information with others [161],
PR3: Using the SNSs there could be negative consequences for organizational investment decision.
ITU1. The organization intends to leverage SNSs services for investing in the future. Davis et al. [104]; Venkatesh et al.
ITU2 will constantly strive to leverage SNSs services in investment decisions. [162]
ITU3. Organizations want to employ SNSs services in capital market investments on a regular basis.
ID1. Organization considers SNSs information during purchase of financial products in capital market Partly adapted from Kim et al. [78,
ID2. Organization thinks SNSs services when it wants to sale financial products in capital market 79]
ID3. Organization is using SNSs information for holding financial products in its investment portfolio
OIC: Number of employees in IT department Liang et al. [93]

References [15] W. Du, Derek), J. Wu, S. Liu, R.A. Hackney, Effective organizational
improvisation in information systems development: insights from the Tencent
messaging system development, Inf. Manag. 56 (4) (2019) 614–624, https://doi.
[1] D. Connel, Institutional Investing in the Digital Age:How Social Media Informs
org/10.1016/j.im.2018.10.003.
and Shapes the Investing Process, Greenwich Associates 2015 Social Media and
[16] T. Stanko, J.A. Sena, Exploring the impact of social networking on
Investing Study, 2015, pp. 1–8.
communication in organizations, J. Comput. Inf. Syst. (2017) 1–10, https://doi.
[2] E. Dure, Social media’s influence on the investing community, Avaialble at, https
org/10.1080/08874417.2017.1365667.
://www.chase.com/personal/investments/learning-and-insights/article/social-
[17] N. Ruparel, A. Dhir, A. Tandon, P. Kaur, J.U. Islam, The influence of online
medias-influence-on-the-investing-community, 2021. (Accessed 30 April 2022).
professional social media in human resource management: a systematic literature
[3] C. Biancotti, P. Ciocca, Financial markets and social media: lessons from
review, Technol. Soc. 63 (2020), 101335, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
information security, cyber policy initiative, Available at: https://carnegieendo
techsoc.2020.101335.
wment.org/2021/11/02/financial-markets-and-social-media-lessons-from-info
[18] P. A Pereira Correia, I. García Medina, Z. Fabiola González Romo, R. S Contreras-
rmation-security-pub-85686, 2021. (Accessed 9 May 2022).
Espinosa, The importance of Facebook as an online social networking tool for
[4] D. Schlagwein, M. Hu, How and why organisations use social media: five use
companies, Int. J. Account. Inf. Manag. 22 (4) (2014) 295–320, https://doi.org/
types and their relation to absorptive capacity, J. Inf. Technol. 32 (2) (2017)
10.1108/IJAIM-08-2013-0050.
194–209, https://doi.org/10.1057/jit.2016.7.
[19] M.J. Jung, J.P. Naughton, A. Tahoun, C. Wang, Corporate use of social media,
[5] L.W. Lundmark, C. Oh, J.C. Verhaal, A little Birdie told me: social media,
Account. Rev. 93 (4) (2018) 225–252, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2588081.
organizational legitimacy, and underpricing in initial public offerings, Inf. Syst.
[20] R. El-Haddadeh, V. Weerakkody, J. Peng, Social networking services adoption in
Front (2016) 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-016-9654-x.
corporate communication: the case of China, J. Enterprise Inf. Manag. 25 (6)
[6] S.J. Andriole, Business impact of web 2.0 technologies, Commun. ACM 53 (12)
(2012) 559–575, https://doi.org/10.1108/17410391211272838.
(2010) 67–79.
[21] S.-H. Liao, R. Widowati, Y.-C. Hsieh, Investigating online social media users’
[7] P.M. Leonardi, M. Huysman, C. Steinfield, Enterprise Social Media: definition,
behaviors for social commerce recommendations, Technol. Soc. 66 (2021),
history and prospects for the study of social technologies in organizations,
101655, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101655.
J. Computer-Mediated Commun. 19 (1) (2013) 1–19.
[22] P.S. Borah, S. Iqbal, S. Akhtar, Linking social media usage and SME’s sustainable
[8] S.A. Qalati, L.W. Yuan, M.A.S. Khan, F. Anwar, A mediated model on the
performance: the role of digital leadership and innovation capabilities, Technol.
adoption of social media and SMEs’ performance in developing countries,
Soc. 68 (2022), 101900, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101900.
Technol. Soc. 64 (2021), 101513, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[23] N. Kristijono, H. Supratikno, R. Pramono, N. Sudibjo, A. Purwanto, Social media
techsoc.2020.101513.
data explication to support study on leadership style for sustainable investing, Int.
[9] D. Aggarwal, Social media is seeking to influence your investing behaviour: will
J. Control Automat. 13 (4) (2020) 33.
you follow the herd? The Economic Times Market, Available at: https://economic
[24] N. Foecking, M. Wang, T.L.D. Huynh, How do investors react to the data breaches
times.indiatimes.com/markets/stocks/news/social-media-is-seeking-to-in
news? Empirical evidence from Facebook Inc. During the years 2016–2019,
fluence-your-investing-behaviour, 2021. (Accessed 30 April 2022).
Technol. Soc. 67 (2021), 101717, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[10] L.R. Humphries, The Power of Social Media: Influencing Trading and the Markets,
techsoc.2021.101717.
2019 available at: https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0212/the
[25] X. Yang, D. Cao, P. Andrikopoulos, Z. Yang, T. Bass, Online social networks,
-power-of-social-media-influencing-trading-and-the-markets.aspx. (Accessed 14
media supervision and investment efficiency: an empirical examination of
July 2019).
Chinese listed firms, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 154 (2020), 119969, https://
[11] N.G. Barnes, A.M. Lescault, J. Andonian, Social Media Surge by the 2012 Fortune
doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119969.
500, Report, 2012.
[26] Q. Li, J. Wang, F. Wang, P. Li, L. Liu, Y. Chen, The role of social sentiment in stock
[12] D. Schlagwein, P. Prasarnphanich, Social media around the GLOBE, J. Organ.
markets: a view from joint effects of multiple information sources, Multimed.
Comput. Electron. Commer. 24 (2–3) (2014) 122–137.
Tool. Appl. 76 (10) (2017) 12315–12345, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-016-
[13] Greenwich Associates, Social media influencing investment decisions at global
3643-4.
institutions, available at: https://www.greenwich.com/press-release/social-
[27] H. Nguyen, R. Calantone, R. Krishnan, Influence of social media emotional word
media-influencing-investment-decisions-global-institutions#, 2019. (Accessed 26
of mouth on institutional investors’ decisions and firm value, Manag. Sci. 66 (2)
July 2019).
(2020) 887–910, https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2018.3226.
[14] M. Manson, Digital Investor Survey, 2020. Avaialble at, https://www.brunswi
[28] E. Blankespoor, Firm communication and investor response: a framework and
ckgroup.com/digital-investor-survey-coronavirus-i15556/. (Accessed 30 April
discussion integrating social media, Acc. Organ. Soc. 68–69 (2018) 80–87.
2022).

14
M.Z. Haque et al.
[29] P. Rosati, P. Deeney, M. Cummins, L. van der Werff, T. Lynn, Social media and
stock price reaction to data breach announcements: evidence from US listed
companies, Res. Int. Bus. Finance 9 (7) (2018) 1–12.
[30] F. Parveen, Impact of social media usage on organizations, in: PACIS 2012
Proceedings. Paper 192, 2012. http://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2012/192.12.
[31] A.J. Kim, E. Ko, Do social media marketing activities enhance customer equity?
An empirical study for luxury fashion brand, J. Bus. Res. (2011), https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.014.0.
[32] D. Kiron, D. Palmer, A.N. Phillips, N. Kruschwitz, What managers really think
about social business, MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 53 (4) (2012) 51–60.
[33] B. Solis, Engage!, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2010.
[34] N. Michaelidou, N.T. Siamagka, G. Christodoulides, Usage, barriers, and
measurement of social media marketing: an exploratory investigation of small
and medium B2B brands, Ind. Market. Manag. 40 (7) (2011) 1153–1159.
[35] J. Mueller, K. Hutter, J. Fueller, K. Matzler, Virtual worlds as knowledge
management platform – a practice-perspective, Inf. Syst. J. 21 (6) (2011)
479–501.
[36] C. Standing, S. Kiniti, How can organizations use wikis for innovation?
Technovation 31 (7) (2011) 287–295.
[37] T. Hu, A. Tripathi, The effect of social and news media sentiments on financial
markets, SSRN Electron. J. (2016), https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2964054.
[38] P. Jiao, A. Veiga, A. Walther, Social media, news media and the stock market,
Economic Behavior & Organization. J. 176 (C) (2020) 63–90, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jebo.2020.03.002.
[39] I. Zheludev, R. Smith, T. Aste, When can social media lead financial markets? Sci.
Rep. 4 (1) (2015) https://doi.org/10.1038/srep04213.
[40] E. Blankespoor, G.S. Miller, H.D. White, The role of dissemination in market
liquidity: evidence from firms’ use of twitter, Account. Rev. 89 (1) (2014)
79–112, https://doi.org/10.2308/accr-50576.
[41] A.A. Yong, C.T. Keung, Y.T. Mak, The U.S. Market reaction to regulation of social
media disclosures, Int. J. Bus. 22 (2) (2017) 85–110.
[42] A. Cwynar, W. Cwynar, R. Pater, Can social media content increase financial
market returns? Survey results from Poland, Organizacija 50 (2) (2017) 97–111,
https://doi.org/10.1515/orga-2017-0007.
[43] Kun Guo, Yi Sun, Xin Qian, Can investor sentiment Be used to predict the stock
price? Dynamic analysis based on China stock market, Phys. Stat. Mech. Appl.
469 (2017) 390–396, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2016.11.114.
[44] S. Kamboj, V. Kumar, Z. Rahman, Social media usage and firm performance: the
mediating role of social capital, Soc. Netw. Anal. Min. 7 (1) (2017), https://doi.
org/10.1007/s13278-017-0468-8.
[45] S.-H. Kim, D. Kim, Investor sentiment from internet message postings and the
predictability of stock returns, J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 107 (2014) 708–729,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2014.04.015.
[46] X. Luo, J. Zhang, W. Duan, Social media and firm equity value, Inf. Syst. Res. 24
(1) (2013) 146–163, https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1120.0462.
[47] T. Paul, The Effect of Social Media on Trading Behavior: Evidence from Twitter,
vol. 131, Wharton Research Scholars, 2015. http://repository.upenn.edu/whar
ton_research_scholars/131.
[48] E.J. Ruiz, V. Hristidis, C. Castillo, A. Gionis, A. Jaimes, Correlating financial time
series with micro-blogging activity, in: Proceedings of the Fifth ACM
International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining - WSDM’ 12, 2012,
p. 513, https://doi.org/10.1145/2124295.2124358.
[49] D. Schniederjans, E.S. Cao, M. Schniederjans, Enhancing financial performance
with social media: an impression management perspective, Decis. Support Syst.
55 (4) (2013) 911–918, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.12.027.
[50] S.Y. Yang, S.Y.K. Mo, X. Zhu, An empirical study of the financial community
network on Twitter, in: 2014 IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence for
Financial Engineering & Economics (CIFEr), 2014, pp. 55–62, https://doi.org/
10.1109/CIFEr.2014.6924054.
[51] X. Zhang, H. Fuehres, P.A. Gloor, Predicting Stock Market Indicators through
Twitter “I hope it is not as bad as I fear”, Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 26 (2011) 55–62,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.562.
[52] S. Lei, L. Ramos Salazar, Use of social networks in stock investment, Int. J. Bank
Market. 40 (1) (2022) 110–127, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-04-2021-0158.
[53] D. Li, Y. Wang, A. Madden, Y. Ding, J. Tang, G.G. Sun, N. Zhang, E. Zhou,
Analyzing stock market trends using social media user moods and social
influence, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 70 (9) (2019) 1000–1013, https://doi.org/
10.1002/asi.24173.
[54] H. Chen, Y.J. Hu, S. Huang, Monetary incentive and stock opinions on social
media, J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 36 (2) (2019) 391–417, https://doi.org/10.1080/
07421222.2019.1598686.
[55] S. Ismail, R.K. Nair, R. Sham, S.N. Wahab, Impacts of online social media on
investment decision in Malaysia, Indian J. Public Health Res. Dev. 9 (11) (2018)
1241, https://doi.org/10.5958/0976-5506.2018.01627.3.
[56] F.M. Bass, A new product growth model for consumer durables, Manag. Sci. 15
(1969) 215–227.
[57] W.H. DeLone, E.R. McLean, Information systems success: the quest for the
dependent variable, Inf. Syst. Res. 3 (1992) 60–95, https://doi.org/10.1287/
isre.3.1.60.
[58] F.D. Davis, Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology, MIS Q. 13 (1989) 319–340, https://doi.org/10.2307/
249008.
[59] I. Ajzen, The theory of planned behavior, Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50
(1991) 179–211.
[60] V. Venkatesh, F.D. Davis, A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance
model: four longitudinal field studies, Manag. Sci. 46 (2) (2000) 186–204.
15
Technology in Society 70 (2022) 102061
[61] B. Hoof, J. Groot, S. Jonge, Situational influence on the use of communication
technologies: a meta-analysis, J. Bus. Commun. 42 (1) (2005).
[62] T.D. Nguyen, Factors affecting the utilization of the internet by internationalizing
firms in transition markets: evidence from Vietnam, Market. Intell. Plann. 25 (4)
(2007) 360–376.
[63] R.W. Stone, J.D. Good, L.B. Eveleth, The impact of information technology on
individual and firm marketing performance, Behav. Inf. Technol. 26 (6) (2007)
465–482.
[64] A.N. Mishra, P. Konana, A. Barua, Antecedents and consequences of internet use
in procurement: an empirical investigation of U.S. Manufacturing firms, Inf. Syst.
Res. 18 (1) (2007) 103–122.
[65] B. Wu, X. Chen, Continuance intention to use MOOCs: integrating the technology
acceptance model (TAM) and task technology fit (TTF) model, Comput. Hum.
Behav. 67 (2017) 221–232, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.10.028.
[66] C. Buabeng-Andoh, Predicting students’ intention to adopt mobile learning: a
combination of theory of reasoned action and technology acceptance model,
J. Res. Innovat. Teach. Learn. 11 (2) (2018) 178–191, https://doi.org/10.1108/
JRIT-03-2017-0004.
[67] Q. Zhao, C.-D. Chen, J.-L. Wang, The effects of psychological ownership and TAM
on social media loyalty: an integrated model, Telematics Inf. 33 (4) (2016)
959–972, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2016.02.007.
[68] M. Fishbein, I. Ajzen, Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior an Introduction to
Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, 1975.
[69] W.R. King, J. He, A meta-analysis of the technology acceptance model, Inf.
Manag. 43 (6) (2006) 740–755, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2006.05.003.
[70] G. Choi, H. Chung, Elaborating the technology acceptance model with social
pressure and social benefits for social networking sites (SNSs), Proc. Am. Soc. Inf.
Sci. Technol. 49 (2012) 1–3.
[71] C.P.H. Ernst, J. Pfeiffer, F. Rothlauf, Hedonic and utilitarian motivations of social
network site adoption, in: Working paper in Information Systems and Business
Administration, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, 2013.
[72] M. Lane, P. Coleman, Technology ease of use through social networking media,
J. Technol. Res. 3 (2012) 1–12.
[73] R. Rauniar, G. Rawski, J. Yang, B. Johnson, Technology acceptance model (TAM)
and social media usage: an empirical study on Facebook, J. Enterprise Inf. Manag.
27 (2014) 6–30, https://doi.org/10.1108/JEIM-04-2012-0011.
[74] B.W. Wirtz, V. Göttel, Technology acceptance in social media: review, synthesis
and directions for future empirical research, J. Electron. Commer. Res. 17 (2016)
97–115.
[75] C. Lorenzo-Romero, E. Constantinides, M.D.C. Alarc_on-del-Amo, Consumer
adoption of social networking sites: implications for theory and practice, J. Res.
Indian Med. 5 (2011) 170–188.
[76] N.R. Goodwin, Economic Meanings of Trust and Responsibility, The University of
Michigan Press, AnnArbor, MI, 1996.
[77] J.P. Peter, Sr. L.X. Tarpey, A comparative analysis of three consumer decision
strategies, J. Consum. Res. 2 (1975) 29, https://doi.org/10.1086/208613.
[78] D.J. Kim, D.L. Ferrin, H.R. Rao, A trust-based consumer decision-making model in
electronic commerce: the role of trust, perceived risk, and their antecedents,
Decis. Support Syst. 44 (2008) 544–564, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
dss.2007.07.001.
[79] D.J. Kim, D.L. Ferrin, H.R. Rao, Trust and satisfaction, two stepping stones for
successful E-commerce relationships: a longitudinal exploration, Inf. Syst. Res. 20
(2009) 237–257, https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.1080.0188.
[80] G.T. Hult, D.J. Ketchen, S.F. Slater, A longitudinal study of the learning climate
and cycle time in supply chains, J. Bus. Ind. Market. 17 (4) (2002) 302–323.
[81] J.B. Barney, Looking inside for competitive advantage, Acad. Manag. Exec. l9 (4)
(1991) 49–61.
[82] T. Liang, J. You, C. Liu, A resource-based perspective on information technology
and firm performance: a meta analysis, Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 110 (8) (2010)
1138–1158, https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571011077807.
[83] R. Bocconcelli, M. Cioppi, A. Pagano, Social media as a resource in SMEs’ sales
process, J. Bus. Ind. Market. 32 (5) (2017) 693–709, https://doi.org/10.1108/
JBIM-11-2014-0244.
[84] D.A. Filipescu, S. Prashantham, A. Rialp, J. Rialp, Technological innovation and
exports: unpacking their reciprocal causality, J. Int. Market. 21 (1) (2013) 2338.
[85] A.S. Bharadwaj, A resource based perspective on information technology
capability and firm performance: an empirical investigation, MIS Q. 24 (1) (2000)
169–196.
[86] B. Lewis, T. Byrd, Development of a measure for the information technology
infrastructure construct, Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 12 (2) (2003) 94–108.
[87] A. Bhattacherjee, N. Hikmet, Reconceptualizing organizational support and its
effect on information technology usage: evidence from the Health care sector,
J. Comput. Inf. Syst. 48 (4) (2008) 69–76.
[88] V. Venkatesh, J. Thong, X. Xu, Unified theory of acceptance and use of
technology: a synthesis and the road ahead, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. Online 17 (5)
(2016) 328–376, https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00428.
[89] H. Shaw, D.A. Ellis, F.V. Ziegler, The Technology Integration Model (TIM).
Predicting the continued use of technology, Comput. Hum. Behav. 83 (2018)
204–214, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.02.001.
[90] P. DiMaggio, W.W. Powell, The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields, Am. Socio. Rev. 8 (2) (1983)
147–160.
[91] W.R. Scott, Institutions and Organizations: Ideas, Interests and Identities, fourth
ed., Sage Pub, 2014.
M.Z. Haque et al.
[92] Wei Teo, Benbasat, Predicting intention to adopt interorganizational linkages: an
institutional perspective, MIS Q. 27 (1) (2003) 19, https://doi.org/10.2307/
30036518.
[93] Saraf Liang, Hu, Xue, Assimilation of enterprise systems: the effect of institutional
pressures and the mediating role of top management, MIS Q. 31 (1) (2007) 59,
https://doi.org/10.2307/25148781.
[94] N. Saraf, H. Liang, Y. Xue, Q. Hu, How does organizational capacity matter in the
assimilation of enterprise information systems? Inf. Syst. J. (2012) 1–23.
[95] D. Chatterjee, R. Grewal, V. Sambamurthy, Shaping up for E-commerce:
institution enablers of the organizational assimilation of web technologies, MIS Q.
26 (2) (2002) 65–89.
[96] W.L. Currie, M.W. Guah, Conflicting institutional logics: a national programme
for IT in the organisational field of healthcare, J. Inf. Technol. 22 (3) (2007)
235–247, https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000102.
[97] P. Bharati, C. Zhang, A. Chaudhury, Social media assimilation in firms:
investigating the roles of absorptive capacity and institutional pressures, Inf. Syst.
Front 16 (2) (2014) 257–272, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-013-9433-x.
[98] R.H. Coase, The Nature of the firm.(16), 1937, pp. 386–405.
[99] O.E. Williamson, Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications,
The Free Press, New York, NY, 1975.
[100] M. Islamoglu, J. Liebenau, Information technology, transaction costs and
governance structures: integrating an institutional approach, J. Inf. Technol. 22
(3) (2007) 275–283, https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000107.
[101] V. Gurbaxani, S. Whang, The impact of information systems on organizations and
markets, Commun. ACM 34 (1) (1991) 59–73.
[102] L.Y. Wu, K.Y. Chen, P.Y. Chen, S.-L. Cheng, Perceived value, transaction cost, and
repurchase-intention in online shopping: a relational exchange perspective,
J. Bus. Res. 67 (1) (2014) 2768–2776.
[103] C.O. Schneider, P. Bremen, P. Schönsleben, R. Alard, Transaction cost economics
in global sourcing: assessing regional differences and implications for
performance, Int. J. Prod. Econ. 141 (1) (2013) 243–254.
[104] F.D. Davis, R.P. Bagozzi, P.R. Warshaw, User acceptance of computer technology:
a comparison of two theoretical models, Manag. Sci. 35 (1989) 982–1003.
[105] J. Moon, Y. Kim, Extending the TAM for a worldwide context, Inf. Manag. 38
(2001) 217–230.
[106] P. Legris, J. Ingham, P. Collerette, Why do people use information technology? A
critical review of the technology acceptance model, Inf. Manag. 40 (3) (2003)
191–204, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(01)00143-4.
[107] H. Hollenstein, M. Woerter, Inter-and intra-firm diffusion of technology: the
example of E-commerce: an analysis based on Swiss firm-level data, Res. Pol. 37
(3) (2008) 245–564.
[108] W.M. Cohen, D.A. Levinthal, Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning
and innovation, Adm. Sci. Q. 35 (1990) 128–152.
[109] J. Lu, C. Yu, C. Liu, J. Yao, Technology acceptance model for wireless internet,
Internet Re-search: Electr. Network. Appl. Pol. 13 (3) (2003) 206–222.
[110] H. Van der Heijden, User acceptance of hedonic information systems, MIS Q. 28
(2004) 695–704, https://doi.org/10.2307/25148660.
[111] V. Venkatesh, M.G. Morris, G.B. Davis, F.D. Davis, User acceptance of information
technology: toward a unified view, MIS Q. 27 (2003) 425–478, https://doi.org/
10.2307/30036540.
[112] Y. Bao, T. Xiong, Z. Hu, M. Kibelloh, Exploring gender differences on general and
specific computer self-efficacy in mobile learning adoption, J. Educ. Comput. Res.
49 (2013) 111–132.
[113] M.R. Hoque, An empirical study of mHealth adoption in a developing country: the
moderating effect of gender concern, BMC Med. Inf. Decis. Making 16 (2016),
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-016-0289-0.
[114] R. Hoque, G. Sorwar, Understanding factors influencing the adoption of mHealth
by the elderly: an extension of the UTAUT model, Int. J. Med. Inf. 101 (2017)
75–84, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.02.002.
[115] F. Davis, User acceptance of information technology: system characteristics, user
perceptions and behaviour impacts, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud. 38 (1993) 475–487.
[116] M. Moqbel, Explaining user acceptance of social networking: employees’
perspective, Available at: www.swdsi.org/swdsi2012/proceedings_2012/papers/
Papers/PA143.pdf, 2012.
[117] T. Chi, Understanding Chinese consumer adoption of apparel mobile commerce:
an extended TAM approach, J. Retailing Consum. Serv. 44 (2018) 274–284.
[118] V. Venkatesh, Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic
motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model, Inf. Syst. Res. 11
(2000) 342–365, https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872.
[119] T. Chuang, K. Nakatani, D. Zhou, An exploratory study of the extent of
information technology adoption in SMEs: an application of upper echelon
theory, J. Enterprise Inf. Manag. 22 (1/2) (2009) 183–196.
[120] C. Hsu, Y.T. Lin, T. Wang, A legitimacy challenge of a cross-cultural
interorganizational information system, Eur. J. Inf. Syst. (2014) 1–17.
[121] D.H. Zhu, Y.P. Chang, Understanding motivations for continuance intention of
online communities in China: a comparison of active users of social networking
sites and virtual communities, Inf. Dev. 30 (2) (2014) 172–180.
[122] N. Hoppen, D. Bobsin, Institutional Pressures for the Adoption of Organizational
Virtual Social Networks. 12. How Social Media Shape the Institutional Invesotrs
Decision Process, 2015.
[123] M.G. Munguatosha, B.P. Muyinda, T.J. Lubega, A social networked learning
adoption model for higher education institutions in developing countries, Horizon
19 (4) (2011) 307–320, https://doi.org/10.1108/10748121111179439.
[124] T. Ravichandran, C. Lertwongsatien, Effect of information systems resources and
capabilities on firm performance: a resource-based perspective, J. Manag. Inf.
Syst. 21 (4) (2005) 237–276.
16
Technology in Society 70 (2022) 102061
[125] B. Szajna, Empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model,
Manag. Sci. 42 (1) (1996) 85–92.
[126] H.F. Lin, The role of online and offline features in sustaining virtual communities:
an empirical study, Internet Res. 17 (2) (2007) 119–138.
[127] R. Lennon, R.W. Renfro, J.M. Curran, Exploring relationships between
demographic variables and social networking use, J. Manag. Market. Res. 11
(2012) 1–16.
[128] W.L. Shiau, P.Y. Chau, Understanding blog continuance: a model comparison
approach, Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 112 (4) (2012) 663–682.
[129] L.K. Schaper, G.P. Pervan, ICT and OTs: a model of information and
communication technology acceptance and utilisation by occupational therapists,
Int. J. Med. Inf. 76 (2007) S212–S221, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijmedinf.2006.05.028.
[130] D. Urumsah, M. Quaddus, J. Galbreath, An Investigation into the Factors
Influencing Consumers to Use E-Services of Indonesian Airlines: the Role of
Motivation, 2011, p. 12.
[131] G.B. Voss, A. Parasuraman, D. Grewal, The roles of price, performance, and
expectations in determining satisfaction in service exchanges, J. Market. 62 (4)
(1998) 46–61.
[132] A.J. Setterstrom, J.M. Pearson, R.A. Orwig, Web-enabled wireless technology: an
exploratory study of adoption and continued use intentions, Behav. Inf. Technol.
32 (11) (2013) 1139–1154, https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2012.708785.
[133] J.C. Hong, P.-H. Lin, P.C. Hsieh, The effect of consumer innovativeness on
perceived value and continuance intention to use smartwatch, Comput. Hum.
Behav. 67 (2017) 264e272, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.001.
[134] R.C. Mayer, J.H. Davis, F.D. Schoorman, An integrative model of organizational
trust, Acad. Manag. Rev. 20 (1995) 709–734.
[135] S. Cunningham, The major dimensions of perceived risk, in: D. Cox (Ed.), Risk
Taking and Information Handling in Consumer Behavior, Harvard Business
School, Boston, 1967, pp. 82–108.
[136] N.K. Malhotra, S.S. Kim, J. Agarwal, Internet users’ information privacy concerns
(IUIPC): the construct, the scale, and a causal model, Inf. Syst. Res. 15 (2004)
336–355.
[137] J. Wang, R. Chen, T. Herath, H.R. Rao, Visual e-mail authentification services: an
investigation of the effects on e-mail use, Decis. Support Syst. 48 (2009) 92–102.
[138] H. Krasnova, S. Spiekermann, K. Koroleva, T. Hildebrand, Online social networks:
why we disclose, J. Inf. Technol. 25 (2010) 109–125, https://doi.org/10.1057/
jit.2010.6.
[139] Q. Xie, W. Song, X. Peng, M. Shabbir, Predictors for e-government adoption:
integrating TAM, TPB, trust and perceived risk, Electron. Libr. 35 (1) (2017)
2–20, https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-08-2015-0141.
[140] C.P.H. Ernst, Risk Hurts Fun: the Influence of Perceived Privacy Risk on Social
Network Site Use, Twentieth Americas Conference on Information Systems,
Savannah, 2014, 2014.
[141] D.J.C. Brosdahl, M. Almous, Riskperception and internet shopping: comparing
United States and Saudi arabian consumers, J. Manag. Market Res. 11 (2) (2016)
1–17.
[142] A.J. Ducey, M.D. Coovert, Predicting Tablet Computer Use: an Extended
Technology Acceptance Model for Physicians, Health Policy and Technology,
2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlpt.2016.03.010 (2016).
[143] OECD, Local Access Pricing and E-Commerce: an Update on the Statistics,
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, 2000.
[144] A. Papazafeiropoulou, A. Pouloudl, G. Doukidis, A framework for best practices in
electronic commerce awareness creation, Bus. Process Manag. J. 8 (3) (2002)
233–244.
[145] D. Gengatharen, C. Standing, A framework to assess the factors affecting success
or failure of the implementation of government-supported regional e-
marketplaces for SMEs, Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 14 (2005) 417–433.
[146] K. Zhu, K. Kraemer, S. Xu, Electronic business adoption by European firms: a
cross-country assessment of the facilitators and inhibitors, Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 12
(2003) 251–268.
[147] P. Papastathopoulou, G.J. Avlonitis, Classifying enterprises on the basis of WWW
use: a behavioral approach, Internet Res. 19 (3) (2009) 332–347.
[148] R. Fichman, The role of aggregation in the measurement of IT-related
organizational innovations, MIS Q. 25 (4) (2001) 401–429.
[149] E. Alvarez-Suescun, Testing resource-based propositions about IS sourcing
decisions, Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 107 (6) (2007) 762–779.
[150] A. Ben Khalifa, Determinants of information and communication technologies
adoption by Tunisian firms, J. Innovat. Econ. 20 (2) (2016) 151, https://doi.org/
10.3917/jie.020.0151.
[151] J.L. Schulenberg, Analysing police decision-making: assessing the application of a
mixed- method/mixed-model research design, Int. J. Soc. Res. Methodol. 10 (2)
(2007) 99–119.
[152] C. Teddlie, A. Tashakkori, Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed
methods in the social and behavioral sciences, in: A. Tashakkori, C. Teddlie (Eds.),
Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, Sage, Thousand
Oaks, CA, 2003, pp. 3–50.
[153] J. Hohental, Integrating qualitative and quantitative methods in research on
international entrepreneurship, J. Int. Enterpren. 4 (4) (2006) 175–190.
[154] S. Spiggle, Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research,
J. Consum. Res. 21 (1994) 491–503.
[155] C. Chanopas, D. Krairit, D.B. Khang, Managing information technology
infrastructure: a new flexibleframework, Manag. Res. News 29 (10) (2006)
632–651.
[156] R.K. Yin, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, third ed., Sage Publication,
Thousand Oaks, California, 2003.
M.Z. Haque et al.
[157] V. Bhatiasevi, D. Krairit, Acceptance of open source software amongst Thai users:
an integrated model approach, Inf. Dev. 29 (4) (2013) 349–366, https://doi.org/
10.1177/0266666912465880.
[158] M.Q. Patton, Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods, second ed., Sage,
Newbury Park, CA, 1990.
[159] M. Schreier, Qualitative Content Analysis in Practice, SAGE Publications, London,
2012.
[160] H.-W. Kim, H.C. Chan, S. Gupta, Value-based adoption of mobile internet: an
empirical investigation, Decis. Support Syst. 43 (1) (2007) 111–126, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.009.
[161] Y.K. Dwivedi, N.P. Rana, M. Janssen, B. Lal, M.D. Williams, M. Clement, An
empirical validation of a unified model of electronic government adoption
(UMEGA), Govern. Inf. Q. 34 (2017) 211–230, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
giq.2017.03.001.
[162] V. Venkatesh, J.Y.L. Thong, X. Xu, Consumer acceptance and use of information
Technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology,
MIS Q. 36 (2012) 157–178.
[163] A.S. Lee, Integrating positivist and interpretive approaches to organizational
research, Organ. Sci. 2 (4) (1991) 342–365.
[164] S.R. Shams, Social media trends usages in Bangladesh, available a, https://dai
lyasianage.com/news/46958/social-media-trends-usages-in-bangladesh, 2017.
(Accessed 17 October 2018).
[165] U.C. Eze, M.H. Goh, H.Y. Ling, C.H. Lee, Intention to use e-government services in
Malaysia: perspective of individual users, in: Informatics Engineering and
Information Science, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2011, pp. 512–526.
[166] J.T. Roscoe, in: John T. Roscoe (Ed.), Fundamental Research Statistics for the
Behavioral Sciences, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, NY, 1975.
[167] J. Hair Jr., G.T.M. F Hult, C. Ringle, M. Sarstedt, A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), second ed. ed., Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, 2017.
[168] S. Amaro, J.L. Abrantes, C. Seabra, Comparing CB-SEM and PLS-SEM results: an
empirical example, in: Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on Partial
Least Squares Path Modeling - the Conference for PLS Users. Presented at the 2nd
International Symposium on Partial Least Squares Path Modeling - the Conference
for PLS Users, Seville, Spain, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3990/2.357.
[169] D.L. Goodhue, W. Lewis, R. Thompson, Comparing PLS to regression and lisrel: a
response to marcoulides, Chin, and saunders, MIS Q. 36 (3) (2012) 703–716.
[170] G.D. Garson, Partial Least Squares: Regression & Structural Equation Models,
Statistical Associates Publishers, Asheboro, NC, 2016.
[171] J.C. Anderson, D.W. Gerbing, Structural equation modeling in practice: a review
and recommended two-step approach, Psychol. Bull. 103 (1988) 11–23.
[172] R.P. Bagozzi, Y. Yi, S. Singh, On the use of structural equation models in
experimental designs: two extensions, Int. J. Res. Market. 8 (2) (1991) 125–140.
[173] J.F. Hair Jr., G.T.M. Hult, C. Ringle, M. Sarstedt, A Primer on Partial LeastSquares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), SAGE Publications, Incorporated, 2013.
[174] C. Fornell, D.F. Larcker, Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error, J. Market. Res. 18 (1) (1981) 39–50, https://
doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104.
[175] J. Henseler, C.M. Ringle, R.R. Sinkovics, The use of partial least squares path
modeling in international marketing, Adv. Int. Market. 20 (2009) 277, 1.
17
Technology in Society 70 (2022) 102061
[176] P.M. Podsakoff, S.B. MacKenzie, J.-Y. Lee, N.P. Podsakoff, Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies, J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (2003) 879–903.
[177] N. Kock, Common method bias in PLS-SEM: a full collinearity assessment
approach, Int. J. e-Collaboration 11 (4) (2015) 1–10, https://doi.org/10.4018/
ijec.2015100101.
[178] D. Hooper, J. Coughlan, M. Mullen, Structural equation modelling: guidelines for
determining model fit, Electr. J. Bus. Res. Methods 4 (2008) 53–60.
[179] D. Gefen, D.W. Straub, M. Boudreau, Structural equation modeling techniques
and regression: guidelines for research practice, Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 4 (7)
(2000) 2–76.
[180] L.T. Hu, P.M. Bentler, Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Struct. Equ. Model.: A
Multidiscip. J. 6 (1) (1999) 1–55, https://doi.org/10.1080/
107055199095401188.
[181] R.C. MacCallum, S. Hong, Power analysis in covariance structure modeling using
GFI and AGFI, Multivariate Behav. Res. 32 (1997) 193–210.
[182] W.W. Chin, The partial least squares approach for structural equation modeling,
in: G.A. Macoulides (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research, Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 1998, pp. 295–336.
[183] M. Höck, C. Ringle, Strategic Networks in the Software Industry: an Empirical
Analysis of the Value Continuum, IFSAM VIIIth World Congress, Berlin, 2006,
2006Retrieved 2/22/2009 from, http://www.ibl-unihh.de/IFSAM06.pdf.
[184] J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, Lawrence
Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 1988.
[185] L. Gao, X. Bai, An empirical study on continuance intention of mobile social
networking services: integrating the IS success model, network externalities and
flow theory, Asia Pac. J. Market. Logist. 26 (2) (2014) 168–189, https://doi.org/
10.1108/APJML-07-2013-0086.
[186] M.Y. Yi, J.D. Jackson, J.S. Park, J.C. Probst, Understanding information
technology acceptance by individual professionals: toward an integrative view,
Inf. Manag. 43 (2006) 350–363.
[187] F. Carmichael, D. Palacios-Marques, I. Gil-Pechuan, How to create information
management capabilities through web 2.0, Serv. Ind. J. 31 (10) (2011)
1613–1625, https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2010.485635.
[188] K. Ben Mansour, An analysis of business’ acceptance of internet banking: an
integration of e-trust to the TAM, J. Bus. Ind. Market. 31 (8) (2016) 982–994,
https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-10-2016-271.
[189] S. Taylor, P.A. Todd, Understanding infor mation technology usage: a test of com
peting models, Inf. Syst. Res. 6 (1995) 144–176.
[190] R. Matikiti, M. Roberts-Lombard, M. Mpinganjira, Drivers of the use of social
networking sites for travel arrangements in South Africa: test of the social
exchange theory, J. Glob. Bus. Technol. 12 (2) (2016) 17.
[191] Á. Herrero, H. San Martín, M. del M. Garcia-De los Salmones, Explaining the
adoption of social networks sites for sharing user-generated content: a revision of
the UTAUT2, Comput. Hum. Behav. 71 (2017) 209–217, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.007.
[192] H. Awa, O. Ukoha, B. Emecheta, Integrating TAM and TOE Frameworks and
Expanding Their Characteristic Constructs for E-Commerce Adoption by SMEs,
2012, pp. 571–588, https://doi.org/10.28945/1676.
[202] E.M. Rogers. Diffusion of innovations, The Free Press, New York, 1995.