Online social anxiety and mobile instant messaging adoption and continuance usage intention: How does it relate to social, technical, and mobility factors?

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research model.

Table 1. Demographical analysis

Categories	Variables	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Age	18–22 years old	62	26.8
	23–30 years old	70	30.3
	31–39 years old	78	33.8
	40 years and older	21	9.1
Gender	Male	118	51.1
	Female	113	48.9
How many times do you use the MIM: LINE daily?	One time	27	11.7
	2–4 times	73	31.6
	5–6 times	45	19.5
	7–9 times	20	8.7
	At least 10 times	66	28.6
How much time do you spend on the MIM: LINE each time?	Less than 5 minutes	53	22.9
	5–10 minutes	73	31.6
	10–15 minutes	34	14.7
	15–20 minutes	32	13.9
	More than 20 minutes	39	16.9

Table 2. Measurement items for each construct

Constructs	Questions	Sources
Perceived subjective norms (PSN)	People important to me think I should use LINE People whose opinions I value would prefer me to use LINE People I look up to expect me to use LINE	(Ku et al., 2013)
Communication control capacity (CCC)	On LINE, I feel I have full control in what I intend to communicate On LINE, I can control communication pace On LINE, I can control the length of communication time On LINE, I can control my own image well On LINE, I can control the use of features at will On LINE, I can control whether to respond to oncoming messages	(Sheer, 2011)
Mobility (MOB)	Using LINE is independent of time Using LINE is independent of place I can use LINE to have meetings instead of attending face-to-face meetings Communicating with someone using LINE is convenient because LINE is usually with me on my phone	(Mallat et al., 2009)
Social anxiety (SA)	How comfortable are you talking with others face to face (on instant messaging) How often do you find yourself getting anxious when you have to talk with someone face to face (on your instant messaging online) How often do you make new friends with someone on the computer	(Pierce, 2009)
Intention to adopt MIM (INT)	I intend to use LINE on a daily basis I intend to use LINE frequently in my daily activities	(Sheer, 2011)
Continuance intention to use MIM (CON)	I plan to keep using LINE in the future I intend to continue using LINE in the future I expect my use of LINE to continue in the future	(Ku et al., 2013)

Table 3. Reliability test results

Variables	Mean	Standard Deviation	AVE	Composite Reliability	Cronbachs Alpha	Communality
CCC	5.1421	1.00428	0.7132	0.9371	0.9193	0.7132
CON	5.2424	1.11291	0.9391	0.9788	0.9676	0.9391
INT	4.8528	1.22651	0.8672	0.9289	0.8484	0.8672
MOB	4.7587	1.22449	0.7387	0.9186	0.8816	0.7387
PSN	4.6840	1.07797	0.8626	0.9496	0.9200	0.8626
SA	3.2468	0.61920	0.8044	0.8915	0.7628	0.8044

Table 4. Construct validity tests: discriminant and convergent analysis

	CCC	CON	INT	MOB	PSN	SA
CCC	0.8445
CON	0.638	0.9691
INT	0.5623	0.7254	0.9312
MOB	0.6498	0.5267	0.609	0.8595
PSN	0.5697	0.5406	0.5554	0.5984	0.9288
SA	−0.2638	−0.2874	−0.2301	−0.1876	−0.1286	0.8969

Table 5. Hypothesis test results

Hypotheses	Beta coefficient	t-test
H1: PSN -> SA	0.048	0.892
H2: PSN -> INT***	0.241	5.199
H3: CCC -> SA***	−0.261	4.999
H4: CCC -> INT***	0.191	4.742
H5 MOB -> SA	−0.047	0.840
H6: MOB -> INT***	0.324	6.569
H7: SA -> INT**	−0.088	2.285
H8: SA -> CON***	−0.403	3.407
H9: INT -> CON***	0.499	6.089
H10: SA * INT -> CON***	0.313	2.845

*p < 0.1; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.001

Figure 2. Graphical form of hypothesis test results. Solid lines: relationships are significant; dotted lines: relationships are insignificant

Ku, Y.-C., Chen, R., & Zhang, H. (2013). Why do users continue using social networking sites? An exploratory study of members in the United States and Taiwan. Information & Management, 50(7), 571–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2013.07.011

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sheer, V. (2011). “Teenagers’ use of msn features, discussion topics, and online friendship development: The impact of media richness and communication control. Communication Quarterly, 59(1), 82–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2010.525702

 Google Scholar

Mallat, N., Rossi, M., Tuunainen, V. K., & Öörni, A. (2009). The impact of use context on mobile services acceptance: The case of mobile ticketing”. Information & Management, 46(3), 190–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2008.11.008

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pierce, T. (2009). Social anxiety and technology: Face-to-face communication versus technological communication among teens. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(6), 1367–1372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2009.06.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar