Platforms’ Technological Characteristics, Individual Satisfaction, and Behavioral Intentions: History
View Latest Version
Please note this is an old version of this entry, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Contributor:
Hang To Diem Tran
,
Minsook Kim

Virtual interactive platforms have gained popularity in remote and hybrid work settings. However, limited research exists regarding factors that explain employees’ continued use of these platforms, particularly in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). 

  • virtual interactive platforms
  • sustainable hybrid work
  • organismic integration theory
  • user satisfaction
  • continued use intention
  • remote work tools

1. Introduction

The practice of remote and hybrid work, as a viable alternative to traditional office businesses, has been steadily growing among the workforce, a shift that has recently been made possible by innovations in virtual interactive platforms (VIPs) such as Zoom, Microsoft Teams, and Metaverse-based oVice. These virtual technology-based platforms enable organizations to develop a new hybrid work model in which employees usually enjoy greater autonomy and a better work-life balance by combining in-office and remote work [1]. Virtual interactive platform was initially adopted in the business sector to facilitate professional interactions between firms and distributed work [2], and then were extended into telehealth [3], distance education [4], and more recently, individual use, for example, in long-distance relations [5][6]. Meanwhile, restrictions imposed to counteract the recent COVID-19 pandemic have forced an unprecedented acceleration in the adoption of remote work globally. Several big technology companies such as Meta, Microsoft, Apple, and Nvidia are developing technologies that enable users to interact physically with virtual content in a three-dimensional space; however, these companies are not well established [7]. Therefore, virtual interactive platforms are currently the best choice for small- and medium-sized entrepreneurs (SMEs), who are unable to create their own virtual collaborative systems, to ensure a hybrid work model. Many institutions have chosen to utilize virtual interactive platforms for diverse purposes, with 85% of organizations using more than one meeting platform, and 62% of videoconferencing companies using more than three different platforms or forms of software [8].
Usage of virtual interactive services has been shown to impact the sustainability of hybrid work arrangements. Gibaldi and McCreedy [9] proposed that working via virtual support tools may promote productivity and connectedness among employees and managers during a certain period. Martin et al. [10] supported these findings by clarifying that digital collaboration and communication tools have a positive impact on the productivity and job satisfaction of teleworkers. The authors argue that digital collaboration tools can help to build trust and enhance communication among team members, which can lead to better decision-making and more effective collaboration. Seeber and Erhardt [11] confirmed that job satisfaction is influenced by the frequency with which information employees use virtual work tools. Based on the background of the literature, researchers can conclude that the effective use of virtual interactive services can support sustainable hybrid work by improving communication and collaboration among remote and in-person workers, and enhancing job performance and job satisfaction. Hence, it is essential to explore which factors affect workers’ willingness to continue using a certain platform.
With an increasing number of platforms being established and introduced, users now have different choices on novel alternatives that utilize virtual technologies [7]. For example, oVice has recently offered 2D virtual spaces, wherein the user interacts as an avatar and connects with others around them, in a manner similar to an in-person interaction. To ensure work performance and productivity among hybrid teleworkers, managers need to consider (1) “What specific technical features drive employees to continue using a specific type of virtual interactive platform?”, and find out the most sustainable and appropriate platform for their workplace. Previous studies in this field have primarily investigated the theoretical and practical impacts of virtual interactive platforms on meetings in the medical and academic communities [12][13][14], and limited research has been conducted to explore employees’ attitudes and responses in SMEs’ virtual workplaces is limited. Thus, researchers selected employees in SMEs as the research subject, in order to understand their intentional behavior in this specific setting.

2. Technological Features of Virtual Interactive Platforms

Virtual interactive platforms are services that help people in different locations communicate with each other using various devices such as computers, tablets, and mobile devices [15]. Following technological development, the platform system has grown to include numerous features (e.g., high-quality visuals, audio, and eye contact) to suit user needs in a virtual meeting. Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Cisco Webex, and oVice are examples of these services. Although virtual interactive platforms have various technological features, telepresence (TEL) and interactivity (INT) are the two most significant factors perceived by users when using virtual platforms to connect with others and implement tasks in a virtual environment [15][16][17].
The concept of ‘telepresence’ was first introduced by Minsky [18], who defined it as the degree to which the attendees of a remote meeting witness and experience occurrences in a different location through a feedback system utilizing virtual technology. Subsequently, many scholars have emphasized the meaning of telepresence as “a sense of being physically present in an unreal, imagined environment with visual and auditory” [19] or force signals generated by a mediated medium, such as virtual platforms, TV, or other media [20][21]. In virtual meeting systems, the environment mediated via platforms is expected to erase the boundaries between the physical and remote environments. Service creators and providers continuously attempt to make technological improvements, such as capturing and rendering a 3D audio-visual likeness of a remote person, and creating comfortable displays with a wider field of view or stereopsis. Therefore, this research thus defines TEL as a measure of the technical attributes of virtual interactive platforms that enable users to perceive a sense of visual vividness while communicating through a platform interface from a distance.
Despite the diversity in definitions of ‘interactivity’, there are two basic approach perspectives [15]. The first perspective describes it as a set of processes that occur in communication that might be affected by the exchange of opinions or oral content between people. Therefore, both computer-mediated and in-person communication can enable high interactivity [22]. Meanwhile, the second perspective, suggested by Steuer [19], defines interactivity as “a degree to which users of a medium can influence the form or content of the mediated environment.” Interactivity can be separated into three dimensions: (1) Speed, which indicates the speed at which input could be assimilated into the mediated medium; (2) Range, which describes the number of action options available at any particular time; and (3) Mapping, which refers to a system’s capacity to map its controls naturally and predictably with shifts in the mediated environment. The goal of virtual interactive platforms is to serve as a communication tool for the user engagement, regardless of location, time, or context. Therefore, virtual interactive platforms must be designed to satisfy users desire to communicate effortlessly and remain in control of technical issues in various environments. Based on the background concepts in Steuer’s research [19], this research computes a measure of interactivity as an additive combination of a system’s speed, range, and mapping. This involves measuring how quickly (speed), how much (range), and how naturally (mapping) users can control communication using the tools provided in the platforms.

3. Organismic Integration Theory

Organismic integration theory (OIT) is one of the sub-theories of self-determination Theory (SDT) that explains the process of human motivation in social contexts [23]. The theory was first introduced by Deci and Ryan [24] to provide a framework for classifying different types of extrinsic motivation, including (1) intrinsic motivation, which is fully integrated with one’s sense of self; (2) identified motivation, which arises from personal values and goals; (3) introjected motivation, which is driven by internal pressures, such as guilt or shame; and (4) external motivation, which is based on external rewards or punishments [25][26]. OIT proposes that individuals have varying degrees of self-determination or autonomy in their actions, which can influence their motivation and engagement [24]. OIT also highlights the importance of internalization, which refers to the process of integrating external regulations or values into one’s sense of self. It suggests that individuals are more likely to engage in sustained and meaningful behavior when they have internalized the values and regulations associated with their actions [27].

4. User Satisfaction and Continued Use Intention

Satisfaction refers to the measure of the level of pleasurable/the feeling of being fulfilled by a product or service after comparing the product’s quality with the user’s expectations [28]. User satisfaction, however, refers to the emotional state of users that can be gained from experiencing a specific technological application or online service [29][30]. The degree of satisfaction has an important impact on marketing strategies because it is significantly related to brand engagement [31][32], loyalty [31][33], and behavioral intention [34][35] in various contexts, including technology-based services such as virtual interactive platforms.
The term “behavioral intention” is first mentioned in the Theory of Reasoned Actions by Fishbein and Ajzen [36]. This theory explains that behavioral intentions can help to determine individual behavior, and are influenced by subjective norms and attitudes. Then, the concept of continued use intention was suggested by Davis [37] in the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), which refers to the intention or likelihood of an individual to continue using a particular technology or system, or the likelihood of them continuing to use it. It is a concept commonly used in the field of information systems and technology acceptance research [38]. It aims to understand the factors that influence users’ decisions to continue using a technology or to discontinue its use. Moreover, Baker and Crompton [39] asserted that individuals’ behaviors can be predicted based on their underlying intentions. Consequently, it is possible to estimate individuals’ actual behaviors if it is feasible to precisely measure their intentions.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su15139972

References

  1. Sokolic, D. Remote work and hybrid work organizations. In Proceedings of the 78th International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development, Aveiro, Portugal, 24–25 February 2022; pp. 202–213.
  2. Wilcox, J.R. Videoconferencing: The Whole Picture, 3rd ed.; CMP Books: Gilroy, CA, USA, 2000; ISBN 978-1-57820-054-2.
  3. Brecher, D.B. The use of skype in a community hospital inpatient palliative medicine consultation service. J. Palliat. Med. 2013, 16, 110–112.
  4. Mupinga, D.M. Distance education in high schools: Benefits, challenges, and suggestions. Clear. House A J. Educ. Strateg. Issues Ideas 2005, 78, 105–109.
  5. Follmer, S.; Raffle, H.; Go, J.; Ballagas, R.; Ishii, H. Video play: Playful interactions in video conferencing for long-distance families with young children. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (IDC), Barcelona, Spain, 9–12 June 2010; pp. 49–58.
  6. King-O’Riain, R.C. Emotional streaming and trans-connectivity: Skype and emotion practices in transnational families in Ireland. Glob. Netw. 2015, 15, 256–273.
  7. Schäfer, A.; Reis, G.; Stricker, D. A survey on synchronous augmented, virtual, and mixed reality remote collaboration systems. ACM Comput. Surv. 2022, 55, 1–27.
  8. Smart Systems. 33 Fascinating Video Conferencing Statistics. Available online: https://iesmartsystems.com/video-conferencing-statistics/ (accessed on 10 June 2023).
  9. Gibaldi, C.; McCreedy, R.T.W. The observed effects of mass virtual adoption on job performance, work satisfaction, and collaboration. In Work from Home: Multi-Level Perspectives on the New Normal; Kumar, P., Agrawal, A., Budhwar, P., Eds.; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2021; pp. 3–20.
  10. Martin, L.; Hauret, L.; Fuhrer, C. Digitally transformed home office impacts on job satisfaction, job stress and job productivity. COVID-19 findings. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0265131.
  11. Seeber, I.; Erhardt, J. Working from home with flexible and permeable boundaries: Exploring the role of digital workplace tools for job satisfaction. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 2023, 1–16.
  12. Correia, A.P.; Liu, C.; Xu, F. Evaluating videoconferencing systems for the quality of the educational experience. Distance Educ. 2020, 41, 429–452.
  13. Gegenfurtner, A.; Zitt, A.; Ebner, C. Evaluating webinar-based training: A mixed methods study of trainee reactions toward digital web conferencing. Int. J. Train. Dev. 2020, 24, 5–21.
  14. Rubinger, L.; Gazendam, A.; Ekhtiari, S.; Nucci, N.; Payne, A.; Johal, H.; Khanduja, V.; Bhandari, M. Maximizing virtual meetings and conferences: A review of best practices. Int. Orthop. 2020, 44, 1461–1466.
  15. Tran, H.T.D. Factors Affecting the Activation of Non-Face-to-Face Communication: Focusing on the Global Video Conferencing Platforms. Ph.D. Dissertation, Keimyung University, Daegu, Republic of Korea, 2022.
  16. Raake, A.; Fiedler, M.; Schoenenberg, K.; De Moor, K.; Döring, N. Technological factors influencing videoconferencing and zoom fatigue. arXiv 2022, arXiv:2202.01740.
  17. Karis, D.; Wildman, D.; Mané, A. Improving remote collaboration with video conferencing and video portals. Hum. Comput. Interact. 2016, 31, 1–58.
  18. Minsky, M. Telepresence. Omni 1980, 2, 44–51.
  19. Steuer, J. Defining virtual reality: Dimensions determining telepresence. J. Commun. 1992, 42, 73–93.
  20. Kim, D.; Ko, Y.J. The impact of virtual reality (VR) technology on sport spectators’ flow experience and satisfaction. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2019, 93, 346–356.
  21. Sheridan, T.B. Musings on telepresence and virtual presence. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 1992, 1, 120–125.
  22. Rafaeli, S.; Sudweeks, F. Networked interactivity. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 1997, 2, JCMC243.
  23. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness; Guilford Publications: New York, NY, USA, 2017; ISBN 978-14-6253-896-6.
  24. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA, 1985; ISBN 978-03-0642-022-1.
  25. Gilal, F.G.; Paul, J.; Gilal, N.G.; Gilal, R.G. The role of organismic integration theory in marketing science: A systematic review and research agenda. Eur. Manag. J. 2022, 40, 208–223.
  26. Lin, C.; Tsai, Y.; Chiu, C. Modeling customer loyalty from an integrative perspective of self-determination theory and expectation–confirmation theory. J. Bus. Psychol. 2009, 24, 315–326.
  27. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2000, 25, 54–67.
  28. Kotler, P.; Keller, K.L. Marketing Management, 13th ed.; Pearson Education Inc.: New Jersey, NJ, USA, 2009; ISBN 978-01-3600-998-6.
  29. Amegbe, H.; Boateng, H.; Mensah, F.S. Brand community integration and customer satisfaction of social media network sites among students. Manag. Sci. Lett. 2017, 7, 541–554.
  30. Chea, S.; Luo, M.M. Post-adoption behaviors of e-service customers: The interplay of cognition and emotion. Int. J. Electron. Commer. 2008, 12, 29–56.
  31. Abror, A.; Patrisia, D.; Engriani, Y.; Evanita, S.; Yasri, Y.; Dastgir, S. Service quality, religiosity, customer satisfaction, customer engagement and Islamic bank’s customer loyalty. J. Islam. Mark. 2020, 11, 1691–1705.
  32. Agyei, J.; Sun, S.; Penney, E.K.; Abrokwah, E.; Ofori-Boafo, R. Linking CSR and customer engagement: The role of customer-brand identification and customer satisfaction. Sage Open 2021, 11, 21582440211040113.
  33. Noori, M. The effect of e-service quality on user satisfaction and loyalty in accessing e-government information. International J. Data Netw. Sci. 2022, 6, 945–952.
  34. Cowan, K.; Ketron, S. A dual model of product involvement for effective virtual reality: The roles of imagination, co-creation, telepresence, and interactivity. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 100, 483–492.
  35. Awad, R.; Aljaafreh, A.; Salameh, A. Factors affecting students’ continued usage intention of e-learning during COVID-19 pandemic: Extending Delone & Mclean IS Success Model. Int. J. Emerg. Technol. Learn. (IJET) 2022, 17, 120–144.
  36. Fishbein, M.; Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research; Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, USA, 1975; ISBN 978-02-0102-089-2.
  37. Davis, F.D. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989, 13, 319–340.
  38. Abu-Taieh, E.M.; AlHadid, I.; Abu-Tayeh, S.; Masa’deh, R.E.; Alkhawaldeh, R.S.; Khwaldeh, S.; Alrowwad, A.A. Continued intention to use of M-Banking in Jordan by integrating UTAUT, TPB, TAM and service quality with ML. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 120.
  39. Baker, D.A.; Crompton, J.L. Quality, satisfaction and behavioral intentions. Ann. Tour. Res. 2000, 27, 785–804.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
This entry is offline, you can click here to edit this entry!
ScholarVision Creations
Feedback