- -

The use of social technologies in Spanish young people: a global behaviour model in teenagers

RiuNet: Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad Politécnica de Valencia

Compartir/Enviar a

Citas

Estadísticas

  • Estadisticas de Uso

The use of social technologies in Spanish young people: a global behaviour model in teenagers

Mostrar el registro completo del ítem

Gil Pechuán, I.; Conesa García, MP. (2013). The use of social technologies in Spanish young people: a global behaviour model in teenagers. Global business perspectives. 1(4):289-308. doi:10.1007/s40196-012-0006-z

Por favor, use este identificador para citar o enlazar este ítem: http://hdl.handle.net/10251/45221

Ficheros en el ítem

[Cerrado]
Nombre: Gil;Conesa - The ...
Tamaño: 261.5Kb
Formato: PDF
Descripción: Versión editorial
Solicitar una copia al autor

Metadatos del ítem

Título: The use of social technologies in Spanish young people: a global behaviour model in teenagers
Autor: Gil Pechuán, Ignacio Conesa García, María Pilar
Entidad UPV: Universitat Politècnica de València. Departamento de Organización de Empresas - Departament d'Organització d'Empreses
Fecha difusión:
Resumen:
The majority of all Spanish youths aged 12 17 use online social networking sites (internet and mobile technology), according to a new local survey of teenagers conducted by Valencia University, Fepad & the Universidad ...[+]
Palabras clave: Social technologies , Behaviour model , Participative social technologies , Web 2.0
Derechos de uso: Cerrado
Fuente:
Global business perspectives. (issn: 2194-0061 )
DOI: 10.1007/s40196-012-0006-z
Versión del editor: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs40196-012-0006-z
Tipo: Artículo

References

Becker, M. H. (1970). Sociometric location and innovativeness: Reformulation and extension of the diffusion Model. American Sociological Review, 35(2), 267–282.

Borgatti, S. P. (2005). Centrality and network flow. Social Networks, 27, 55–71.

Burt, R. S. (1978). Cohesion versus structural equivalence as a basis for network subgroups. Sociological Methods & Research, 7, 189–212. [+]
Becker, M. H. (1970). Sociometric location and innovativeness: Reformulation and extension of the diffusion Model. American Sociological Review, 35(2), 267–282.

Borgatti, S. P. (2005). Centrality and network flow. Social Networks, 27, 55–71.

Burt, R. S. (1978). Cohesion versus structural equivalence as a basis for network subgroups. Sociological Methods & Research, 7, 189–212.

Burt, R. S. (1987). Social contagion and innovation: Cohesion versus structural equivalence. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 1287–1335.

Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Burt, R. S. (2005). Brokerage and closure: An introduction to social capital. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Chu, J. (1997). Navigating the media environment: How youth claim a place through zines. Social Justice, 24(3), 71–85.

Dagenne, A., & Forsé, M. (1999). Introducing social networks. London: Sage Publications.

Dinar, A., Karagiannis, G., & Tzouvelekas, V. (2007). Evaluating the impact of agricultural extension on farms’ performance in Crete: A nonneutral stochastic frontier approach. Agricultural Economics, 36, 135–146.

Erickson, B. H. (1988). The relational basis of attitudes. In B. Wellman & S. D. Berkowitz (Eds.), Social structures: A network approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Feder, G., & Savastano, S. (2006). The role of opinion leaders in the diffusion of new knowledge: The case of integrated pest management. World Development, 34(7), 1287–1300.

Friedkin, N. E. (1984). Structural cohesion and equivalence explanations of social homogeneity. Sociological Methods and Research, 12, 234–261.

Friedkin, N. E. (1999). Social influence networks and opinion change. Advances in Group Processes, 16, 1–29.

Friedkin, N. E., & Johnssen, E. C. (1997). Social positions in influence networks. Social Networks, 19, 209–222.

Gamero, R. (2007). Servicios basados en redes sociales, la web 2.0. In Investigación y marketing, Vol. 97, pp. 16–20.

Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.

Granovetter, M. (1982). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In P. V. Marsden & N. Lin (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 82–111.

Krackhard, D. (1998). Simmelian ties: Super strong and sticky. In R. Kramer & M. Neale (Eds.), Power and influence in organizations. Thousand Oaks: California.

Krackhardt, D. (1999). The ties that torture: Simmelian tie analysis in organizations. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 16, 183–210.

Krackhardt, D., & Kilduff, M. (2002). Structure, culture and Simmelian ties in entrepreneurial firms. Social Networks, 24, 279–290.

Levin, D. Z., & Cross, R. (2004). The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science, 50, 1477–1490.

Liu, W. T., & Duff, R. W. (1972). The strength in weak ties. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 361–366.

Marsden, P. V. & Friedkin, N. E. (1994). Network studies of social influence. In: Wasserman, S. & Galaskiewicz, J. (Eds.), Advances in social network analysis: Research in the social and behavioural sciences. London: Sage.

McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a father: Homophily network. Annual of Sociology, 27, 415–444.

Michaelson, A., & Contractor, N. S. (1992). Structural position and perceived similarity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(3), 300–310.

Mizruchi, M. S. (1993). Cohesion, equivalence and similarity of behaviour: A theoretical and empirical assessment. Social Networks, 15, 275–307.

Monge, P. R. & Contractor, N. S. (2003). Theories of communication networks. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nyblom, J., Borgatti, S., Roslakka, J., & Salo, M. A. (2003). Statistical analysis of network data: An application to diffusion of innovation. Social Networks, 25, 175–195.

Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social networks, the Tertius Iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 100–130.

Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 240–267.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.

Sieber, S., & Valor, J. (2005). Criterios de adopción de las tecnologías de información y comunicación, e-Business Center Pricewaterhouse Coopers & IESE, Working Paper. http://www.ebcenter.org .

Strang, D., & Soule, S. (1998). Diffusion in organizations and social movements: From hybrid corn to poison pills. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 265–290.

Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up digital: The rise of the Net generation. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Valente, T. W. (1996). Social network thresholds in the diffusion of innovations. Social Networks, 18, 69–89.

Valente, T. W. (2005). Network models and methods for studying the diffusion of innovations. In: P. J Carrington, J. Scott & S. Wasserman (Eds.), Models and methods in social network analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wejnert, B. (2002). Integrating models of diffusion of innovations: A conceptual framework. Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 297–326.

Wilkening, E. A. (1956). Roles of communicating agents in technological change in agriculture. Social Forces, 34, 361–367.

[-]

recommendations

 

Este ítem aparece en la(s) siguiente(s) colección(ones)

Mostrar el registro completo del ítem