Search (4 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Vishwanath, A."
  1. Vishwanath, A.; Chen, H.: Personal communication technologies as an extension of the self : a cross-cultural comparison of people's associations with technology and their symbolic proximity with others (2008) 0.00 
    0.002269176 = product of:
  0.004538352 = sum of:
    0.004538352 = product of:
      0.009076704 = sum of:
        0.009076704 = weight(_text_:a in 2355) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.009076704 = score(doc=2355,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1709182 = fieldWeight in 2355, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=2355)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Increasingly, individuals use communication technologies such as e-mail, IMs, blogs, and cell phones to locate, learn about, and communicate with one another. Not much, however, is known about how individuals relate to various personal technologies, their preferences for each, or their extensional associations with them. Even less is known about the cultural differences in these preferences. The current study used the Galileo system of multidimensional scaling to systematically map the extensional associations with nine personal communication technologies across three cultures: U.S., Germany, and Singapore. Across the three cultures, the technologies closest to the self were similar, suggesting a universality of associations with certain technologies. In contrast, the technologies farther from the self were significantly different across cultures. Moreover, the magnitude of associations with each technology differed based on the extensional association or distance from the self. Also, and more importantly, the antecedents to these associations differed significantly across cultures, suggesting a stronger influence of cultural norms on personal-technology choice.
    Type
    a
  2. Vishwanath, A.; Xu, W.; Ngoh, Z.: How people protect their privacy on facebook : a cost-benefit view (2018) 0.00 
    0.0022374375 = product of:
  0.004474875 = sum of:
    0.004474875 = product of:
      0.00894975 = sum of:
        0.00894975 = weight(_text_:a in 4223) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.00894975 = score(doc=4223,freq=14.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1685276 = fieldWeight in 4223, product of:
              3.7416575 = tf(freq=14.0), with freq of:
                14.0 = termFreq=14.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=4223)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Realizing the many benefits from Facebook require users to share information reciprocally, which has overtime created trillions of bytes of information online-a treasure trove for cybercriminals. The sole protection for any user are three sets of privacy protections afforded by Facebook: settings that control information privacy (i.e., security of social media accounts and identity information), accessibility privacy or anonymity (i.e., manage who can connect with a user), and those that control expressive privacy (i.e., control who can see a user's posts and tag you). Using these settings, however, involves a trade-off between making oneself accessible and thereby vulnerable to potential attacks, or enacting stringent protections that could potentially make someone inaccessible thereby reducing the benefits that are accruable through social media. Using two theoretical frameworks, Uses and Gratifications (U&G) and Protection Motivation Theory (PMT), the research examined how individuals congitvely juxtaposed the cost of maintaining privacy through the use of these settings against the benefits of openness. The application of the U&G framework revealed that social need fulfillment was the single most significant benefit driving privacy management. From the cost standpoint, the PMT framework pointed to perceived severity impacting expressive and information privacy, and perceived susceptability influencing accessibility privacy.
    Type
    a
  3. Vishwanath, A.: Impact of personality on technology adoption : an empirical model (2005) 0.00 
    0.0020506454 = product of:
  0.004101291 = sum of:
    0.004101291 = product of:
      0.008202582 = sum of:
        0.008202582 = weight(_text_:a in 3676) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.008202582 = score(doc=3676,freq=6.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.1544581 = fieldWeight in 3676, product of:
              2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                6.0 = termFreq=6.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=3676)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    An innovator's personality along with the perceived attributes of an innovation predicts the rate of diffusion. The current study focuses an the personality factors that determine the likelihood of adoption of a technological innovation. To that end, the study distinguishes between global innovativeness and context-specific innovativeness. An information processing model was tested where technological innovativeness was purported to be indirectly influenced by an individual's global innovativeness, through its impact an communication and media use behaviors. The structural model was tested an two separate technology clusters, and partial support was found for linking sophistication in information search, and prior technology ownership to technological innovativeness.
    Type
    a
  4. Vishwanath, A.; Chen, H.: Technology clusters : using multidimensional scaling to evaluate and structure technology clusters (2006) 0.00 
    0.0018909799 = product of:
  0.0037819599 = sum of:
    0.0037819599 = product of:
      0.0075639198 = sum of:
        0.0075639198 = weight(_text_:a in 6006) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.0075639198 = score(doc=6006,freq=10.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.14243183 = fieldWeight in 6006, product of:
              3.1622777 = tf(freq=10.0), with freq of:
                10.0 = termFreq=10.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=6006)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Empirical evidence suggests that the ownership of related products that form a technology cluster is signifIcantly better than the attributes of an innovation at predicting adoption. The treatment of technology clusters, however, has been ad hoc and study specific: Researchers often make a priori assumptions about the relationships between technologies and measure ownership using lists of functionally related technology, without any systematic reasoning. Hence, the authors set out to examine empirically the composition of technology clusters and the differences, if any, in clusters of technologies formed by adopters and nonadopters. Using the Galileo system of multidimensional scaling and the associational diffusion framework, the dissimilarities between 30 technology concepts were scored by adopters and nonadopters. Results indicate clear differences in conceptualization of clusters: Adopters tend to relate technologies based an their functional similarity; here, innovations are perceived to be complementary, and hence, adoption of one technology spurs the adoption of related technologies. On the other hand, nonadopters tend to relate technologies using a stricter ascendancy of association where the adoption of an innovation makes subsequent innovations redundant. The results question the measurement approaches and present an alternative methodology.
    Type
    a

Authors

Years