↓ Skip to main content

Informational Power and Perceived Collective Benefit Affecting the Users’ Preference for a Mobile Technology: Evidences From a Survey Study

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Informational Power and Perceived Collective Benefit Affecting the Users’ Preference for a Mobile Technology: Evidences From a Survey Study
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, June 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00898
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stefania Fantinelli, Michela Cortini

Abstract

This study takes place from the idea that the personal usage of mobile technologies can bring positive outcomes to the user and to their society in an indirect way. Technologies studied in this work are defined as persuasive technologies (Fogg, 1997) because they are intentionally designed to modify the users' attitude or behavior. This research is aimed to evaluate if the intention to use the application can be influenced by positive attitudes toward technology, by the persuasive power of the application and by the perceived fun. Participants (N = 118; M = 55; F = 63; mean age = 27.4; range age = 15-69) filled in an online questionnaire that was partly based on the Media and Technology Usage and Attitude Scale (MTUAS - Rosen et al., 2013). An additional eight items were added to the scale, aimed at evaluating participants' technophobia, technophilia, perceived technology pervasiveness and perceived persuasive power of technology. By using linear regression analysis, it was found that the application's informational power and the perceived entertainment positively influenced the usage intention. Another interesting result, obtained through ANOVA, concerns a generational difference: baby boomers tended to trust more the fact that the single individual action through the application can have an effective impact on the environment. These results represent a basis for future in-depth investigations about socially relevant use of the ICT.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 33%
Student > Master 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 10%
Lecturer 2 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 9 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Business, Management and Accounting 13 33%
Psychology 4 10%
Social Sciences 4 10%
Computer Science 2 5%
Arts and Humanities 2 5%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 12 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 June 2018.
All research outputs
#18,612,796
of 23,056,273 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#22,554
of 30,375 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#254,530
of 329,269 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#552
of 659 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,056,273 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,375 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,269 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 659 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.