User Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction: Bipolar versus Unipolar Conceptualizations

References

• Bala H, Labonté-LeMoyne E, Léger P-M. Neural correlates of technological ambivalence: a research proposal. In Information Systems and Neuroscience: Gmunden Retreat on NeuroIS. Springer, Cham; 2017. [accessed 2018 Jan 5]. p. 83–89. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-41402-7_11.
   Google Scholar
• Qahri-Saremi H, Turel O. Ambivalence and coping responses in post-adoptive information systems use. J Manag Inf Syst. 2020;37(3):820–48. doi:10.1080/07421222.2020.1790193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stein M-K, Newell S, Wagner EL, Galliers RD. Coping with information technology: mixed emotions, vacillation, and nonconforming use patterns. Mis Q. 2015;39(2):367–92. doi:10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.2.05.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franque FB, Oliveira T, Tam C, Santini FDO. A meta-analysis of the quantitative studies in continuance intention to use an information system. Internet Res. 2021;31(1):123–58. [Internet]. 2022 Feb 3. doi:10.1108/INTR-03-2019-0103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhattacherjee A. Understanding information systems continuance: an expectation-confirmation model. Mis Q. 2001;25(3):351–70. doi:10.2307/3250921.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhattacherjee A. An empirical analysis of the antecedents of electronic commerce service continuance. Decis Support Syst. 2001;32(2):201–14. doi:10.1016/S0167-9236(01)00111-7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venkatesh V, Thong JYL, Chan FKY, Hu P-H, Brown SA. Extending the two-stage information systems continuance model: incorporating UTAUT predictors and the role of context. Inf Syst J. 2011;21(6):527–55. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2011.00373.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yan M, Filieri R, Gorton M. Continuance intention of online technologies: a systematic literature review. Int J Inf Manag. 2021;58:102315. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102315.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hong S, Kim J, Lee H. Antecedents of use-continuance in information systems: toward an inegrative view. J Comput Inf Syst. 2008;48(3):61–73. doi:10.1080/08874417.2008.11646022.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aydınlıyurt ET, Taşkın N, Scahill S, Toker A. Continuance intention in gamified mobile applications: a study of behavioral inhibition and activation systems. Int J Inf Manag. 2021;61:102414. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102414.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huang Q, Chen X, Ou CX, Davison RM, Hua Z. Understanding buyers’ loyalty to a C2C platform: the roles of social capital, satisfaction and perceived effectiveness of e-commerce institutional mechanisms. Inf Syst J. 2017;27(1):91–119. doi:10.1111/isj.12079.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xie Y, Zhao S, Zhou P, Liang C. Understanding continued use intention of AI assistants. J Comput Inf Syst. 2023;1–14. doi:10.1080/08874417.2023.2167134.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Claybaugh CC, Haried P, Chen Y, Chen L. ERP Vendor satisfaction: from communication and IT capability perspectives. J Comput Inf Syst. 2021;61(1):64–75. doi:10.1080/08874417.2019.1566801.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zviran M, Pliskin N, Levin R. Measuring user satisfaction and perceived usefulness in the ERP context. J Comput Inf Syst. 2005;45(3):43–52. doi:10.1080/08874417.2005.11645842.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chiu C-M, Chiu C-S, Chang H-C. Examining the integrated influence of fairness and quality on learners’ satisfaction and web-based learning continuance intention. Inf Syst J. 2007;17(3):271–87. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2007.00238.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang W-T, Ou W-M, Chen W-Y. The impact of inertia and user satisfaction on the continuance intentions to use mobile communication applications: a mobile service quality perspective. Int J Inf Manag. 2019;44:178–93. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nguyen L-T, Dwivedi YK, Tan G-H, Aw E-X, Lo P-S, Ooi K-B. Unlocking pathways to mobile payment satisfaction and commitment. J Comput Inf Syst. 2022;1–18. doi:10.1080/08874417.2022.2119444.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chow WS, Shi S. Investigating customers’ satisfaction with brand pages in social networking sites. J Comput Inf Syst. 2015;55(2):48–58. doi:10.1080/08874417.2015.11645756.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang X, Li Y. Users’ satisfaction with social network sites: a self-determination perspective. J Comput Inf Syst. 2016;56(1):48–54. doi:10.1080/08874417.2015.11645800.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chang I, Liu C, Chen K. The push, pull and mooring effects in virtual migration for social networking sites. Inf Syst J. 2014;24(4):323–46. doi:10.1111/isj.12030.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maier C, Laumer S, Weinert C, Weitzel T. The effects of technostress and switching stress on discontinued use of social networking services: a study of Facebook use. Inf Syst J. 2015;25(3):275–308. doi:10.1111/isj.12068.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mattila AS, Ro H. Customer satisfaction, service failure, and service recovery. In: Handb Hosp Mark Manag. Routledge; 2009. p. 318–45.
   Google Scholar
• Islam AKMN. Sources of satisfaction and dissatisfaction with a learning management system in post-adoption stage: a critical incident technique approach. Comput Hum Behav. 2014;30:249–61. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.09.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuch AN, Hornbaek K. Does Herzberg’s notion of hygienes and motivators apply to user experience? ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact. 2015;22(4):16. doi:10.1145/2724710.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang P, von Dran GM. Satisfiers and dissatisfiers: a two-factor model for website design and evaluation. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2000;51(14):1253–68. doi:10.1002/1097-4571(2000)9999:9999<:AID-ASI1039>3.0.CO;2-O.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang P, Small RV, Dran GMV, Barcellos S. A two factor theory for website design. Proc 33rd Annu Hawaii Int Conf Syst Sci Hawaii. 2000;1–10. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2000.926847.
   Google Scholar
• Cacioppo JT, Gardner WL, Berntson GG. Beyond bipolar conceptualizations and measures: the case of attitudes and evaluative space. Personal Soc Psychol Rev. 1997;1(1):3–25. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0101_2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cacioppo JT, Berntson GG. Relationship between attitudes and evaluative space: a critical review, with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates. Psychol Bull. 1994;115(3):401–23. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.115.3.401.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsen JT. Introduction to the special section on mixed emotions. Emot Rev. 2017;9(2):97–98. doi:10.1177/1754073916672523.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsen JT, McGraw AP, Cacioppo JT. Can people feel happy and sad at the same time? J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001;81(4):684–96. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.684.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsen JT, McGraw AP. Further evidence for mixed emotions. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011;100(6):1095–110. doi:10.1037/a0021846.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell JA. A circumplex model of affect. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1980;39(6):1161–78. doi:10.1037/h0077714.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell JA. Mixed emotions viewed from the psychological constructionist perspective. Emot Rev. 2017;9(2):111–17. doi:10.1177/1754073916639658.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell JA, Carroll JM. The phoenix of bipolarity: reply to Watson and Tellegen (1999). Psychol Bull. 1999;125(5):611–17. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.5.611.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson D, Wiese D, Vaidya J, Tellegen A. The two general activation systems of affect: structural findings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobiological evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999;76(5):820–38. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.5.820.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson D, Tellegen A. Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychol Bull. 1985;98(2):219–35. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.219.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Man V, Nohlen HU, Melo H, Cunningham WA. Hierarchical brain systems support multiple representations of valence and mixed affect. Emot Rev. 2017;9(2):124–32. doi:10.1177/1754073916667237.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Watson D, Stanton K. Emotion blends and mixed emotions in the hierarchical structure of affect. Emot Rev. 2017;9(2):99–104. doi:10.1177/1754073916639659.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baumeister RF, Bratslavsky E, Finkenauer C, Vohs KD. Bad is stronger than good. Rev Gen Psychol. 2001;5(4):323–70. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor SE. Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: the mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psychol Bull. 1991;110(1):67–85. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vaish A, Grossmann T, Woodward A. Not all emotions are created equal: the negativity bias in social-emotional development. Psychol Bull. 2008;134(3):383. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.134.3.383.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cunningham WA, Raye CL, Johnson MK. Implicit and explicit evaluation: fMRI correlates of valence, emotional intensity, and control in the processing of attitudes. J Cogn Neurosci. 2004;16(10):1717–29. doi:10.1162/0898929042947919.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelley NJ, Hortensius R, Schutter DJLG, Harmon-Jones E. The relationship of approach/avoidance motivation and asymmetric frontal cortical activity: a review of studies manipulating frontal asymmetry. International Journal Of Psychophysiology. 2017;119(Supplement C):19–30. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2017.03.001.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Spielberg JM, Stewart JL, Levin RL, Miller GA, Heller W. Prefrontal cortex, emotion, and approach/withdrawal motivation. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2008;2(1):135–53. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00064.x.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Zhang Y-Y, Xu L, Liang Z-Y, Wang K, Hou B, Zhou Y, Li S, Jiang T. Separate neural networks for gains and losses in intertemporal choice. Neurosci Bull. 2018;34(5):725–35. doi:10.1007/s12264-018-0267-x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rozin P, Royzman EB. Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2001;5(4):296–320. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0504_2.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wakefield RL. The acceptance and use of innovative technology: do positive and negative feelings matter? ACM SIGMIS Database Adv Inf Syst. 2015;46(4):48–67. doi:10.1145/2843824.2843828.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fong CT. The effects of emotional ambivalence on creativity. Acad Manage J. 2006;49(5):1016–30. doi:10.5465/amj.2006.22798182.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsen JT, Norris CJ, McGraw AP, Hawkley LC, Cacioppo JT. The evaluative space grid: a single-item measure of positivity and negativity. Cogn Emot. 2009;23(3):453–80. doi:10.1080/02699930801994054.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider IK, Mattes A. Mix is different from nix: mouse tracking differentiates ambivalence from neutrality. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2021;95:104106. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider IK, Schwarz N. Mixed feelings: the case of ambivalence. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2017;15:39–45. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.05.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snyder AI, Tormala ZL. Valence asymmetries in attitude ambivalence. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2017;112(4):555–76. doi:10.1037/pspa0000075.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider IK, Novin S, van Harreveld F, Genschow O. Benefits of being ambivalent: the relationship between trait ambivalence and attribution biases. Br J Soc Psychol. 2021;60(2):570–86. doi:10.1111/bjso.12417.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Larsen JT, Peter McGraw A, Mellers BA, Cacioppo JT. The agony of victory and thrill of defeat: mixed emotional reactions to disappointing wins and relieving losses. Psychol Sci. 2004;15(5):325–30. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00677.x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu Y, Li X, Jai TM. The impact of green experience on customer satisfaction: evidence from TripAdvisor. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag. 2017;29(5):1340–61. doi:10.1108/IJCHM-07-2015-0371.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penz E, Hogg MK. The role of mixed emotions in consumer behaviour: investigating ambivalence in consumers’ experiences of approach‐avoidance conflicts in online and offline settings. Eur J Mark. 2011;45(1/2):104–32. doi:10.1108/03090561111095612.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kari T, Salo M, Frank L. Role of situational context in use continuance after critical exergaming incidents. Inf Syst J. 2020;30(3):596–633. doi:10.1111/isj.12273.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benlian A, Klumpe J, Hinz O. Mitigating the intrusive effects of smart home assistants by using anthropomorphic design features: a multimethod investigation. Inf Syst J. 2020;30(6):1010–42. doi:10.1111/isj.12243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakhiwal A, Bala H, Léger P-M. Ambivalence is better than indifference: behavioral and neurophysiological assessment of ambivalence in online environments. Manag Inf Syst Q. 2023;47:705–32.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang T, Mai XT, Thai T-H. Approach or avoid? The dualistic effects of envy on social media users’ behavioral intention. Int J Inf Manag. 2021;60:102374. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balakrishnan J, Dwivedi YK, Hughes L, Boy F. Enablers and inhibitors of AI-Powered voice assistants: a Dual-factor approach by integrating the status Quo bias and technology acceptance model. Inf Syst Front. 2021 Dec 31. [Internet]. doi:10.1007/s10796-021-10203-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jain S, Basu S, Dwivedi YK, Kaur S. Interactive voice assistants – does brand credibility assuage privacy risks? J Bus Res. 2022;139:701–17. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.10.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vimalkumar M, Sharma SK, Singh JB, Dwivedi YK. ‘Okay google, what about my privacy?’: user’s privacy perceptions and acceptance of voice based digital assistants. Comput Hum Behav. 2021;120:106763. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2021.106763.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rana NP, Barnard DJ, Baabdullah AMA, Rees D, Roderick S. Exploring barriers of m-commerce adoption in SMEs in the UK: developing a framework using ISM. Int J Inf Manag. 2019;44:141–53. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2018.10.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jarvenpaa SL, Majchrzak A. Research commentary - vigilant interaction in knowledge collaboration: challenges of online user participation under ambivalence. Inf Syst Res. 2010;21(4):773–84. doi:10.1287/isre.1100.0320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lapointe L, Beaudry A. Identifying IT user mindsets: acceptance, resistance and ambivalence. In: 2014 47th Hawaii Int Conf Syst Sci. Hawaii: IEEE; 2014. p. 4619–28.
   Google Scholar
• Moody GD, Galletta DF, Lowry PB. When trust and distrust collide online: the engenderment and role of consumer ambivalence in online consumer behavior. Electron Commer Res Appl. 2014;13(4):266–82. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2014.05.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moody GD, Lowry PB, Galletta DF. It’s complicated: explaining the relationship between trust, distrust, and ambivalence in online transaction relationships using polynomial regression analysis and response surface analysis. Eur J Inf Syst. 2017;26(4):379–413. doi:10.1057/s41303-016-0027-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Edwards W. The theory of decision making. Psychol Bull. 1954;51(4):380. doi:10.1037/h0053870.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon HA. A behavioral model of rational choice. Q J Econ. 1955;69(1):99–118. doi:10.2307/1884852.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon HA. Rationality as process and as product of thought. Am Econ Rev. 1978;68:1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ. Behavioral decision research: a constructive processing perspective. Annu Rev Psychol. 1992;43(1):87–131. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.43.020192.000511.
   Google Scholar
• Payne JW, Bettman JR, Coupey E, Johnson EJ. A constructive process view of decision making: multiple strategies in judgment and choice. Acta Psychol (Amst). 1992;80(1–3):107–41. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(92)90043-D.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky A, Simonson I. Context-dependent preferences. Manag Sci. 1993;39(10):1179–89. doi:10.1287/mnsc.39.10.1179.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coupey E, Irwin JR, Payne JW. Product category familiarity and preference construction. J Consum Res. 1998;24(4):459–68. doi:10.1086/209521.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slovic P. The construction of preference. Am Psychol. 1995;50(5):364. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.50.5.364.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang J, Lee AY. The role of regulatory focus in preference construction. J Mark Res. 2006;43(1):28–38. doi:10.1509/jmkr.43.1.28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bettman JR, Luce MF, Payne JW. Constructive consumer choice processes. J Consum Res. 1998;25(3):187–217. doi:10.1086/209535.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coupey E. Restructuring: constructive processing of information displays in consumer choice. J Consum Res. 1994;21(1):83–99. doi:10.1086/209384.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kivetz R, Netzer O, Srinivasan V. Alternative models for capturing the compromise effect. J Mark Res. 2004;41(3):237–57. doi:10.1509/jmkr.41.3.237.35990.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zwebner Y, Schrift RY, Campbell MC, Ratner RK. On my own: the aversion to being observed during the preference-construction stage. J Consum Res. 2020;47(4):475–99. doi:10.1093/jcr/ucaa016.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Häubl G, Murray KB. Preference construction and persistence in digital marketplaces: the role of electronic recommendation agents. J Consum Psychol. 2003;13(1–2):75–91. doi:10.1207/153276603768344807.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis FD, Warshaw PR. What do intention scales measure? J Gen Psychol. 1992;119(4):391–407. doi:10.1080/00221309.1992.9921181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Babin BJ, Griffin M. The nature of satisfaction: an updated examination and analysis. J Bus Res. 1998;41(2):127–36. doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(97)00001-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. Mis Q. 1989;13(3):319–40. doi:10.2307/249008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mamonov S, Koufaris M. Fulfillment of higher-order psychological needs through technology: the case of smart thermostats. Int J Inf Manag. 2020;52:102091. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102091.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD. Amazon’s mechanical turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011;6(1):3–5. doi:10.1177/1745691610393980.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mason W, Suri S. Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s mechanical turk. Behav Res Methods. 2012;44(1):1–23. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wessel M, Adam M, Benlian A. The impact of sold-out early birds on option selection in reward-based crowdfunding. Decis Support Syst. 2019;117:48–61. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2018.12.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steelman ZR, Hammer BI, Limayem M. Data collection in the digital age: innovative alternatives to student samples. Mis Q. 2014;38(2):355–78. doi:10.25300/MISQ/2014/38.2.02.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adjerid I, Acquisti A, Loewenstein G. Choice architecture, framing, and cascaded privacy choices. Manag Sci. 2018;65(5):2267–90. doi:10.1287/mnsc.2018.3028.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jenkins JL, Anderson BB, Vance A, Kirwan CB, Eargle D. More harm than good? How messages that interrupt can make us vulnerable. Inf Syst Res. 2016;27(4):880–96. doi:10.1287/isre.2016.0644.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mamonov S, Benbunan-Fich R. The impact of information security threat awareness on privacy-protective behaviors. Comput Hum Behav. 2018;83:32–44. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.028.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Han W, Ada S, Sharman R, Rao HR. Campus emergency notification systems: an examination of factors affecting compliance with alerts. Mis Q. 2015;39(4):909–29. doi:10.25300/MISQ/2015/39.4.8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harman HH. Modern factor analysis [Internet]. [place unknown]. University of Chicago Press; 1976. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=e-vMN68C3M4C&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=Harman+modern+factor+analysis&ots=t5HqIrfO-A&sig=r9mhbhB6cvA2RqCecPrccc_bPoc
   Google Scholar
• Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(5):879. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agarwal R, Karahanna E. Time flies when you’re having fun: cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. Mis Q. 2000;24(4):665–94. doi:10.2307/3250951.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chin WW. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Mod Methods Bus Res. 1998;295:295–336.
   Google Scholar
• Tan C-W, Benbasat I, Cenfetelli RT. It-mediated customer service content and delivery in electronic governments: an empirical investigation of the antecedents of service quality. Mis Q. 2013;37(1):77–109. doi:10.25300/MISQ/2013/37.1.04.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory [Internet]. [place unknown]. NY, USA: McGraw-Hill; 1967. http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2003-00036-000
   Google Scholar
• Sun H, Zhang P. The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance. Int J Hum Comput Stud. 2006;64(2):53–78. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.04.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang P, Aikman SN, Sun H. Two types of attitudes in ICT acceptance and use. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2008;24(7):628–48. doi:10.1080/10447310802335482.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1):39–50. doi:10.1177/002224378101800104.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar