IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/tbitxx/v33y2014i11p1219-1230.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does confirmation always matter? Extending confirmation-based theories

Author

Listed:
  • Jack S. Hsu
  • Tung-Ching Lin
  • JiaJin Tsai

Abstract

Related theories have highlighted how important confirmation is to satisfaction. However, in their examinations of the effect of confirmation, all past studies viewed consumption experience from an overall perspective only. Given that the utilisation of online services may generate more than one type of benefits to customers, there is a need to decompose the overall concept into different dimensions and re-examine the importance of confirmation from different perspectives. In this study, based on goal-directed and experiential concepts, we separated the benefits provided by online social network services into two types: utilitarian and hedonic. Then, through confirmations, we tested their direct and indirect impacts on satisfaction. Data collected from 653 student-based Facebook users showed that perceived hedonic benefit is more strongly correlated with satisfaction than is perceived utilitarian benefit. In addition, the insignificant path coefficient hints that confirmation of hedonic benefits is not as important as indicated by related theories. We believe that our results generate interesting implications towards both academia and practitioners.

Suggested Citation

  • Jack S. Hsu & Tung-Ching Lin & JiaJin Tsai, 2014. "Does confirmation always matter? Extending confirmation-based theories," Behaviour and Information Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(11), pages 1219-1230, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:tbitxx:v:33:y:2014:i:11:p:1219-1230
    DOI: 10.1080/0144929X.2013.857431
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/0144929X.2013.857431
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/0144929X.2013.857431?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:tbitxx:v:33:y:2014:i:11:p:1219-1230. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/tbit .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.