\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter \IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}% {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}% {\RequirePackage{color}} \usepackage{colortbl} \usepackage{wrapfig} \usepackage{ifxetex} \ifxetex \usepackage{fontspec} \usepackage{xunicode} \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash} \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{} \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}} \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}} \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}} \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}} \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono} \else \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}% {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc} \PrerenderUnicode{–} }% {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}} \usepackage[english]{babel} \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} \usepackage{float} \usepackage[]{ucs} \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash } \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{} \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}} \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}} \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,} \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ } \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>} \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}} \def\textJapanese{} \def\textChinese{} \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{} \fi \def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small} \DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25} \usepackage{relsize} \RequirePackage{array} \def\@testpach{\@chclass \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@ \else \z@ \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}% \@chnum \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else \z@ \@chclass \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else \if \@nextchar !6 \else \if \@nextchar @7 \else \if \@nextchar (8 \else \if \@nextchar )9 \else 10 \@chnum \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else \if \@nextchar p4 \else \if \@nextchar b5 \else \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi} \gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr} \def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}} \def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}} \def\abbr{} \def\corr{} \def\expan{} \def\gap{} \def\orig{} \def\reg{} \def\ref{} \def\sic{} \def\persName{}\def\name{} \def\placeName{} \def\orgName{} \def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}} \def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}} \def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}} \def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}} \def\textquoted#1{‘#1’} \def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}} \def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}} \def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}} \def\titlem{\itshape} \newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{bibl}{}{} \newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par } \newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par } \newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par} \newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par} \newenvironment{rubric}{}{} \newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par } \newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}} \newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}} \definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75} \def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}} \DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@} \def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}} \begingroup \catcode`\_=\active \gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}} \endgroup \mathcode`\_=\string"8000 \catcode`\_=12\relax \usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry} \usepackage{framed} \definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95} \usepackage{longtable} \usepackage[normalem]{ulem} \usepackage{fancyvrb} \usepackage{fancyhdr} \usepackage{graphicx} \usepackage{marginnote} \renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1} \renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize} \def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif} \pagestyle{fancy} \usepackage[pdftitle={Perceived Credibility of Social Networking Technologies in Uganda's Institutions of Higher Learning}, pdfauthor={}]{hyperref} \hyperbaseurl{} \paperwidth210mm \paperheight297mm \def\@pnumwidth{1.55em} \def\@tocrmarg {2.55em} \def\@dotsep{4.5} \setcounter{tocdepth}{3} \clubpenalty=8000 \emergencystretch 3em \hbadness=4000 \hyphenpenalty=400 \pretolerance=750 \tolerance=2000 \vbadness=4000 \widowpenalty=10000 \renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}% {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}} \renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}% {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\Large}} \renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}% {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\large}} \renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}% {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\normalsize}} \renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}% {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}% {-1em}% {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}} \def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt} \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par \endgroup} \def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}} \def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}} \def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}} \def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}} \@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{} \@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{} \newif\if@mainmatter \@mainmattertrue \def\chaptername{Chapter} \def\frontmatter{% \pagenumbering{roman} \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter} \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}} \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section} \def\theHsection{\roman{section}} \def\@chapapp{}% } \def\mainmatter{% \cleardoublepage \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter} \setcounter{chapter}{0} \setcounter{section}{0} \pagenumbering{arabic} \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6} \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}% \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}} \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section} \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}} } \def\backmatter{% \cleardoublepage \setcounter{chapter}{0} \setcounter{section}{0} \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2} \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}% \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter} \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}} \appendix } \newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{% \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}% {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}% \leftmargin\labelwidth \advance\leftmargin\labelsep \@openbib@code \usecounter{enumiv}% \let\p@enumiv\@empty \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}% }% \sloppy \clubpenalty4000 \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty \widowpenalty4000% \sfcode`\.\@m}% {\def\@noitemerr {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}% \endlist} \def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}} \parskip0pt \parindent1em \def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}} \newenvironment{reflist}{% \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{} {% \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}% \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}% \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}% \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}% \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}% } {\end{list}\end{raggedright}} \newenvironment{sansreflist}{% \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{} {% \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}% \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}% \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}% \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}% \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}% } {\end{list}\end{raggedright}} \newenvironment{specHead}[2]% {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}% \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}% \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}% \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}% }{} \def\TheFullDate{2017-01-15 (revised: 15 January 2017)} \def\TheID{\makeatother } \def\TheDate{2017-01-15} \title{Perceived Credibility of Social Networking Technologies in Uganda's Institutions of Higher Learning} \author{}\makeatletter \makeatletter \newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{% \clearpage \if@twoside \ifodd\c@page \hbox{}\newpage \if@twocolumn \hbox{}\newpage \fi \fi \fi } \makeatother \makeatletter \thispagestyle{empty} \markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author} \renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@ \belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip \abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@ \belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@ \def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@ \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@ \itemsep 1pt} } \makeatother \fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm} \fancyhf{} \setlength{\headheight}{14pt} \fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} \fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} \fancyfoot[RO]{} \fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage} \fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID} \fancyfoot[LE]{} \fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage} \fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID} \hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true} \fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}} \date{} \usepackage{authblk} \providecommand{\keywords}[1] { \footnotesize \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1 } \usepackage{graphicx,xcolor} \definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81} \definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9} \definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70} \definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} \renewenvironment{abstract}{% \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}} \vskip16pt \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space} }{% \vskip8pt \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}} \vskip16pt } \usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos} \makeatother \usepackage{lineno} \linenumbers \begin{document} \author[1]{Bwiino Keefa} \author[2]{Lubogoyi Bumaali} \author[3]{Asst. Prof Kituyi} \affil[1]{ Makerere University Business School} \renewcommand\Authands{ and } \date{\small \em Received: 14 December 2016 Accepted: 3 January 2017 Published: 15 January 2017} \maketitle \begin{abstract} Abstract- Perceived Credibility on the use of Social Networking Technologies (SNTs) in institutions of higher learning in Uganda. The Study evaluates the influence of Perceived Ease of Use, Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Credibility on the adoption of Social Networking Technologies. Research Methodology: The study opted for cross sectional survey methodology to gather data from 146 institutions of higher learning on the variables captured by the modified Perceived Ease of Use, Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Credibility construct. Findings: Results of correlation and regression analysis indicated that in addition to Perceived Ease of Use and Perceived Usefulness, a positive and significant relationship exists between Perceived Credibility and SNTs adoption. Research Limitations: The Study was limited to senior managers, further research is recommended to investigate the perceived credibility of SNTs by Students and Lecturers because they are the actual users of such technologies. Practical Implications: This study suggests that managers of institutions of higher learning believe that a positive change in understanding and evaluating the source credibility, media credibility and content credibility of the teaching information exchanged on SNTs would increase reliance on the use of social networking technologies in education. Originality: This research provides an insight into the influence of perceived credibility on SNT adoption in the education context and besides, this study is one of the first studies to align perceived credibility as a significant predictor of SNT adoption in institutions of higher learning in Uganda. Research Methodology:The study opted for cross sectional survey methodology to gather data from 146 institutions of higher learning on the variables captured by the modified Perceived Ease of Use, Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Credibility construct.Findings: Results of correlation and regression analysis indicated that in addition to Perceived Ease of Use and Perceived Usefulness, a positive and significant relationship exists between Perceived Credibility and SNTs adoption. Research Limitations:The Study was limited to senior managers, further research is recommended to investigate the perceived credibility of SNTs by Students and Lecturers because they are the actual users of such technologies. \end{abstract} \keywords{social networking technologies, perceived credibility, perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, institutions of higher learning.} \begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) \textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark} \end{textblock*} \begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) \textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}} \end{textblock*} \let\tabcellsep& \section[{Introduction}]{Introduction}\par n recent times, the world has witnessed a convergence of novel technological networks that connect computers on the internet, and the virtual social networks that have linked humans irrespective of differences in the time zones. In institutions of higher learning, the most popular Social Networking Technologies (SNTs) being used are Facebook, Twitter, Whatsup, and YouTube (Manzira\&Tsvara, 2015). Consistent with other SNTs studies \hyperref[b29]{(Hussain et al., 2012;}\hyperref[b6]{Boumarafi, 2015;}\hyperref[b32]{Munguatosha et al., 2011)}, Social Networking Technologies is regarded as the engagement of participants online and the creation and sharing of user generated content. These internet based tools and technologies have audio and visual capabilities that among others, capture, store, connect and retrieve content \hyperref[b29]{(Hussain et al., 2012)}.\par A study conducted in Algerian Universities shows that 100\% of its students use Social Networking Technologies for different purposes and some of them have more than one social media account \hyperref[b6]{(Boumarafi, 2015)}. Further, extant literature shows that students use SNTs to discuss group project works, share assignments and course work as well as files and lecture notes \hyperref[b56]{(Zanamwe et al., 2013;}\hyperref[b32]{Munguatosha et al., 2011;}\hyperref[b6]{Boumarafi, 2015;} {\ref Manzira \& Tsvara, 2015)}. This is an indication that social networking technologies contributes to a student's life experience, knowledge and skills.\par The use of these SNTs in education comes with benefits like personalization, collaboration, information sharing, common interests, active participation, and group work support (Mazman and Usluel, 2010). Furthermore, Manzira \& Tsvara (2015) posits that potential learning occurs outside the classroom as students can be able to access educational resources as long as they are connected to internet and indeed, students benefit from the use of SNTs because these technologies have a positive aggregate effect of improved academic performance and growth \hyperref[b56]{(Zanamwe et al., 2013)}. Previous studies have shown that SNTs are being widely used in institutions of higher learning for studying purposes followed by research, and reading both news and notes \hyperref[b32]{(Munguatosha et al., 2011;} {\ref Rumanyika \& Galan, 2015;} {\ref Manzira \& Tsvara, 2015)}. This shows the importance of SNTs within the education sector.\par Despite the importance of SNTs adoption, in Uganda's context SNTs adoption is very low. A study by the freedom on the net report (2014) has demonstrated that only 15\% of Ugandans use SNTs. The effect of this has been predominantly adverse, specifically low retention levels, low socialization levels, low student engagement levels and no sense of control and ownership of knowledge among students (Munguatosha, 2011). Therefore, knowing how to improve I SNTs adoption remains a crucial and virgin research area.\par The technology adoption literature is prevalent with studies that demonstrate the importance of Perceived Ease of Use and Percieved Usefulnes in influencing the adoption of information technologies \hyperref[b7]{(Bwiino et al., 2016a} \hyperref[b24]{Giner et al., 2009)}. Indeed,when a technology is perceived as simpler and easy to understand it as easily adopted and besides if the technology is perceived to be useful, its adoption rate increases {\ref (Bwiino et} \hyperref[b47]{Thiga et al., 2015;} {\ref Mccracken, 2011)}. However, the majority of these studies have dwelt on the credibility of the news medias and journalism \hyperref[b16]{(Chu, 2009;}\hyperref[b53]{Yaakop et al., 2012;} {\ref Rory, 2008;}\hyperref[b10]{Canini, 2011)} while others focus on the hosipitality industry \hyperref[b22]{(Fotis, 2011;}\hyperref[b43]{Seth, 2012;}\hyperref[b20]{Endsley et al., 2014)}. Surprisingly, little research about SNTs adoption has considered the education sector \hyperref[b28]{(Hoffman, 2009;} {\ref Grover \& Stewart, 2013}; Kingsly et a.l, 2013) in general and more specifically institutions of higher learning. The only study in Uganda is by \hyperref[b32]{(Munguatosha et al.,2011)} and besides the conceptual link between perceived credibility and adoption of SNTs is not shown by \hyperref[b32]{Munguatosha et al(2011)}. This is ideally a knowledge gap that this study intends to fill.\par Therefore, reliance on Perceived credibility by organizational managers has been argued to predict SNTs adoption \hyperref[b37]{(Paquette, 2013;}\hyperref[b11]{Castillo, 2011;}\hyperref[b47]{Thiga et al., 2015;}\hyperref[b31]{Minjeong, 2010)} if educators are to surrender some control to embrace the informal leaner-centered instructions that empowers the learners, increase student engagement, collaboration and knowledge retention levels with a cummulative effect being better academic performance. \section[{II.}]{II.} \section[{Theoretical Framework}]{Theoretical Framework}\par The conceptual link between peceived ease of use, perceived usefulness and SNTs adoption can best be explained by the Technology Adoption Model (TAM) propounded by \hyperref[b17]{Davis (1989)}. TAM is built on the bedrock that affirms that in a bid to accept a new or her mind, the usefulness and ease of use of that technology, if it is to be adopted and used \hyperref[b17]{(Davis, 1989)}. \hyperref[b48]{Tobbin (2012)}, argues that these two beliefs create a favorable disposition or intention towards use and consequently affect its use. He notes that Perceived Usefulness (PU) is said to be the degree to which a person thinks that using a particular system will enhance his or her performance. For the Perceived Ease of Use (PEOU), is simply the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system will be very appropriate \hyperref[b17]{(Davis, 1989)}. TAM has been applied in studies like the acceptance of internet and mobile related technologies, such as mobile payments, mobile banking, mcommerce. For that reason using TAM as a basis to study the acceptance of social networking technologies by higher institutions of learning is exceedingly a valid approach.\par Based on this, it is hypothesized that H 0 : Perceived Ease of Use is positively related to SNT Adoption in institutions of higher learning in Uganda. H 1 : Perceived Usefulness is positively related to SNT Adoption in institutions of higher learning in Uganda.\par However, it should be noted that \hyperref[b17]{Davis (1989)} The framework linking perceived credibility to SNT Adoption can best be explained by the Heuristic Systematic Model of Social Information Processing proposed by \hyperref[b12]{(Chaiken , 1980)}. The bedrock of this model is based on the critical assumption that people can engage in Systematic or Heuristic processing of the message or information \hyperref[b14]{(Chaiken \& Trope, 1999)}. Systematic processing involves analyzing the details of the messages and this is regarded as content or message credibility \hyperref[b12]{(Chaiken, 1980}\hyperref[b13]{(Chaiken, , 1987))}. The framework further posits that in Heursitic processing, people consider a few informational cues and form a judgement based on these cues for instance the source of the message or the medium of transmission of such messages \hyperref[b12]{(Chaiken, 1980}\hyperref[b13]{(Chaiken, , 1987))}.In this context therefore, Perceived Credibility is recognized as the believability of a source, its media and content and it rests largely on perceptions of the trustworthiness and expertise of the information source, media and content as interpreted by the information receiver (Metzger and {\ref Flanagin, 2013)}.\par Perceived Credibility can therefore be measured in terms of the Source Credibility, Media Credibility and Content Credibility which is inline with other scholar's findings(Lee \& McLoughlin, 2010;Uday and Pallavia, 2013; Newell\& Goldsmith, 2001) and besides, studying perceived credibility has been central in determining the persuation of information in psychology \hyperref[b12]{(Chaiken, 1980}\hyperref[b13]{(Chaiken, , 1987;;}\hyperref[b14]{Chaiken \& Trope, 1999}; Newell \& Goldsmith, perceived credibility will enable institutions of higher learning to consequently be persuaded to use them in teaching and learning hence adoption of SNTs.\par It is apparent from this preliminary work and the conceptual model presented that the study of Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use and Perceived Credibility will have implications for both academia and practioners. Figure one below illustrates a framework toguide this study; \section[{Literature Review a) Perceived Ease of use and SNT Adoption}]{Literature Review a) Perceived Ease of use and SNT Adoption}\par In the adoption of technologies in institutions of higher learning, students use information technologies that are simpler and easy to understand as well as how useful they deem such technologies to be (Daruish et al., 2015). In fact, this is confirmed by Susanto \& Aljoza (2015) who posit that dimensions of perceived ease of use of an online public service relates to an individual's perception on the web navigation and ability to use it anywhere anytime. Bwiino et al (2016a) further argues that institutions of higher learning should develop more user-friendly and user-oriented e-learning content on SNTs for successful adoption and that learning to use a technology is normally considered easy if it requires less mental effort.\par Extant literature indicates that much more attention should be paid to perceived ease of use by policy and decision makers to ensure accurate, valid, up-to-date, sufficient, free-of-error, and precisely present information in using online technologies \hyperref[b7]{(Bwiino et al., 2016a;}\hyperref[b2]{Almahamid et al., 2010;}\hyperref[b38]{Park, 2009;}\hyperref[b17]{Davis, 1989)}. This is further established by \hyperref[b18]{Delbasic et al (2013)} who argue that students easily use technologies that they have a clear understanding; this is an indicator of the potential contribution of perceived ease of use on SNTs adoption.\par A study by \hyperref[b1]{Agarwal \& Prasad (1999)} indicates that ease of use becomes a significant predictor of both attitude and usefulness when users are not familiar with the system and therefore a basic requirement for information technology system design. In fact, if system designers want the users to find the system easy to use, clear and understandable, the technology should use understandable terminologies other than jargon that would confuse the users (Hasan \& Ali, 2014).\par Generally, if a system is easy to use, less effort is needed by the users to adopt it which increases the possibility of system usage and the more complex the system is, the more difficult it becomes to use by the user and only few can adopt it because it will need much effort and attention on the part of the user (Strogatz, 2001). Perceived ease of use is the degree which an individual beleives that using a particular system will be simple and free of effort understandable \hyperref[b17]{(Davis, 1989)}. In line with previous literature, this study postulates that Perceived Ease of Use is positively related to SNT Adoption in institutions of higher learning in Uganda. \section[{b) Perceived Usefulness and SNT adoption}]{b) Perceived Usefulness and SNT adoption}\par Perceived usefulness by \hyperref[b17]{Davis (1989)} is a belief from someone that using a particular information technology system will enhance job performance. Research conducted by {\ref Munguatosha et} \hyperref[b17]{Davis, 1989;}\hyperref[b52]{Venkatesh \& Davis, 2000)}. This gives confidence in the hypothesis that Perceived Usefulness is positively related to SNT Adoption in institutions of higher learning in Uganda (H 1 ). \section[{c) Perceived Credibility and SNT Adoption}]{c) Perceived Credibility and SNT Adoption}\par In communication research, the credibility of the communicator has widely been suggested to influence the processing of the communicated content and the change of audience attitudes and beliefs which influence the user's behavioral intention to adopt a technology \hyperref[b33]{(Newell \& Goldsmith, 2001)}. \hyperref[b31]{Minjeong (2010)} further argues that individual audiences are paying closer attention to the media that they perceive to be credible and that when individual audiences rely more on a certain communication medium for information seeking, they are likely to rate the medium more credible than other media.\par Previous research has shown that the credibility of the channel/medium of communication influences the selective involvement of the audience with the medium (Lee \& Mc Loughlin, 2010;Uday and Pallavia, 2013; \hyperref[b33]{Newell \& Goldsmith, 2001)}. This shows that the user's perceived credibility of a social networking technology will affect its adoption directly through users' trust and expertise which determines the user's attitude and intention to use a technology (Kyung \&Gretzel, 2008). \hyperref[b31]{Minjeong (2010)} further argues that credibility will provide strong predictive power of the perceived service quality provided by social networking technologies in Institutions of Higher Learning as ascertained by systems reliability and availability as key success factors for ICT-supported learning.\par Metzger and Flanagin (2008) posits that people are motivated to evaluate the credibility of the information they receive in order to determine its trustworthiness. The outcome of this postulation is that people engage in effortful evaluative processes in order to be certain of content or source credibility. Extant literature has focused on examining the credibility of ecommerce, political, news, and health web sites, as well as wikis, blogs, micro blogs ). Based on literature, recommended approaches to evaluation of the credibility of online information typically includes five criteria that users can employ that is checking the accuracy, authority, objectivity, currency, and coverage or scope of the information and/or its source {\ref (Metzger, 2007)}.\par Further, Metzger and Flanagin (2013) argue that the reputation, endorsement, and consistency heuristics are all premised on the notion that if a number of people use information, recommend it, and agree with it, then it is credible. This simply means that if managers of institutions of higher learning recommend the usage of SNTs by students and lecturers, and agree to use them, then they are credible teaching platforms and the information circulated on these SNTs would be regarded credible.\par Heldman et al., {\ref (2013)} asserts that due to the multi-way, interactive functionality that is inherent to SNTs, these platforms can allow people to increase direct engagement to maintain and increase trust and credibility.\par The consequence of this would be identification of the pedagogical information needs of users, strengthening communication which enhances socialisation among the users, and encouraging users to create, share and collaborate on user generated content {\ref (Cameron et} A study conducted by \hyperref[b15]{Cheong (2002)} shows that the adoption of an information media like the SNTs significantly depends on the perceived credibility of the source, media and content. Further, a recent study conducted in Nigerian universities by \hyperref[b19]{Edogor et al., (2015)} shows that 68\% of the students agree that social networking technologies are credible sources of information because senders of the messages get firsthand information, some of the messages come from the mass media, many of the messages are backed with pictures of what is reported, senders of the messages can be reached for clarifications and many of the reports are known to the members of the public. This is the basis upon which hypothesis H 2 which states that "Perceived Credibility is positively related to SNT Adoption in institutions of higher learning in Uganda" is formulated.\par IV. \section[{Methodology}]{Methodology}\par This study used a cross sectional survey research design to collect data from managers of institutions of higher learning in Uganda. This decision is in line with the view of Ohaja (2003, p.74), who suggests that "whenever the major source of primary data for a study would be the views of any particular group, a survey would be called for."\par The population of this study is made up of senior academic staff of Institutions of Higher Learning in Uganda like the heads of departments, deans of Perceived Credibility of Social Networking Technologies in Uganda's Institutions of Higher Learning faculties, principles and directors because they are at the center of implementation of such technologies for learning in education. The total population for this study was 284 institutions of higher learning obtained from the Uganda National Council for Higher Education website. A total sample of 166 institutions of higher learning was generated using the formula suggested by Yamane = the Sampling Error This is because the Yamane formula assumes a normal distribution of the population \hyperref[b54]{(Yamane, 1967)}. The Yamane formula was therefore considered suitable for determining an appropriate sample size.\par From the Ugandan Institutions of Higher Learning, a stratified sampling technique was used to select institutions from the institutional categories by the Uganda National Council for Higher Education.The institutions of higher learning are categorized into 12 major types namely Public Universities (6), Private Universities \hyperref[b29]{(32)}, public university colleges(9), private university colleges(4), public tertiary institutions \hyperref[b37]{(52)}, private tertiary institutions(102), commercial and cooperative institutions \hyperref[b23]{(26)}, health institutions \hyperref[b20]{(23)}, National teachers colleges(5), other degree awarding institutions \hyperref[b10]{(11)}, Technical colleges \hyperref[b9]{(10)} and military training institutions \hyperref[b3]{(4)}. Thereafter, we used simple random sampling to ensure that each participating institution had an equal chance of being chosen. This is because the population of interest was relatively homogeneous and yet simple random sampling technique provides estimates that are unbiased and have high precision in such conditions (Meng, 2013). An aggregated sum of One hundred and forty six questionnaires was retrieved from the field indicating a response rate of 88\%. The unit of inquiry was the senior academic managers of institutions of higher learning and the unit of analysis was the individual institution of higher learning. \section[{V.}]{V.} \section[{Measurement of Variables}]{Measurement of Variables}\par To measure Perceived Ease of Use, this study employed a self-generated scale arising from extant literature. Questions generated were used to measure the extent to which an individual perceives that using SNTs will be free of mental effort and easy understand ability using scales developed by \hyperref[b44]{(Shahzad et al., 2016;}\hyperref[b17]{Davis, 1989;} {\ref Venkatesh \& Balla, 2008;}\hyperref[b52]{Venkatesh\& Davis, 2000)}. An example of the items generated for perceived ease of use is: "It will be easy for teachers and students to become skilful at using SNTs in education."\par In order to measure Perceived Credibility, this study used a self-generated scale resulting from extant literature. Questions generated were used to measure the degree to which a person trusts the use of SNTs as credible to perform the expected service. Consequently, this study measured perceived credibility in terms of source credibility, media credibility and content credibility, using scales developed and tested by previous scholars (Lee \& McLoughlin, 2010; \hyperref[b50]{Uday and Pallavia, 2013;}\hyperref[b33]{Newell\& Goldsmith, 2001}). An example of items generated for the Perceived Credibility scale is:"I will trust the source of information on SNTs as a teaching platform in this institution".\par For SNT adoption, this study used a selfgenerated scale resulting from extant review of literature. According to Hussain et al (2012), Kingsly et al ( {\ref 2013}) and \hyperref[b40]{Reuben et al (2012)}, the domains of SNT adoption are create, engage and share user generated content. An example of items generated for the SNT adoption scale is:"I plan to use SNTs when carrying out my academic activities". All items were later anchored on a five-point Likert scale -strongly disagree to strongly agree. \section[{VI. Reliability and Content Validity Index of Variables}]{VI. Reliability and Content Validity Index of Variables}\par Following the administration of the survey, content validity index was used to establish the construct validity of the scales; content validity index was found to be greater than 0.70 which is the minimum as suggested by {\ref Amin (2007)}. Internal consistency of the questionnaire was determined by calculating the Cronbach alpha coefficient, reliability estimates were all greater than .70 which is the minimum as suggested by {\ref Nunnually (1978)}. The validity and reliability of the variables is indicated in table \hyperref[tab_5]{1} Perceived Credibility of Social Networking Technologies in Uganda's Institutions of Higher Learning Perceived Usefulness was also measured using a self-generated scale adopted from existing literature. The scale was used to measure the extent to which an individual believes that using SNTs will improve the job performance of the workers in the organization \hyperref[b44]{(Shahzad et al., 2016;}\hyperref[b17]{Davis, 1989;}\hyperref[b32]{Munguatosha et al., 2011;} {\ref Venkatesh and Balla, 2008;}\hyperref[b52]{Venkatesh\& Davis, 2000)}. An example of the items generated for perceived usefulness is: "In this institution, using SNTs will enable lecturers and teachers to accomplish their academic tasks more quickly". \section[{Results}]{Results}\par In order to test the formulated hypothesis, we use the Pearson(r) correlation analysis and regression analysis to ascertain the predictive effect of Perceived Credibility on SNT adoption and the results are displayed in table 4 and table 3 respectively; From Table \hyperref[tab_7]{3} above, at a preliminary level, correlation results indicated that Perceived Ease of Use has a positive and significant relationship on SNT adoption (r =.784;p< 0.01). This implies that a positive change in SNT adoption is related with a positive change in Perceived Ease of Use. Also, correlation results in Table \hyperref[tab_7]{3} above further show that Perceived Usefulness has a positive and significant relationship on SNTs adoption(r = .734; p < 0.01). This is an indicator that a positive change in Perceived usefulness positively affects SNTs adoption. Additionally, results in Table \hyperref[tab_7]{3} above show that Perceived Credibility is positively and significantly related to SNTs adoption (r = .611; p <0.01). This is an indication that a positive change in Perceived Credibility is associated with a positive change in SNT adoption. With reference to correlation results obtained from Table \hyperref[tab_7]{3} above, further evidence is adduced by the results of regression analysis as displayed in Table \hyperref[tab_8]{4}.\par Results indicate that 62\% of the variance in SNTs adoption is attributed to Perceived Ease of Use (R 2 = .615; p < 0.01). The regression coefficient of Perceived Ease of Use was significant at (? = .784, t = 15.167; p < 0.01). Also, from Table \hyperref[tab_8]{4} above, it can be deduced that Perceived Usefulness explains approximately 54\% of the variance in SNTs adoption in institutions of higher learning (R 2 = .539; p < 0.01). The regression coefficient of Perceived Usefulness was significant at (? = .734, t = 12.978; p < 0.01). Further, Results in Table \hyperref[tab_8]{4} above show that approximately 37 per cent of the total variance in SNT Adoption is explained by Perceived Credibility (R 2 = .373; p < 0.01). The regression coefficient of Perceived Credibility was significant (? = .611, t = 9.255; p < 0.01). On account of this, it can be adduced that Perceived Ease of Use, Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Credibility are positively related to adoption of SNTs in institutions of higher learning in Uganda and therefore, a positive change in Perceived ease of Use, Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Credibility will positively influence the adoption of Social Networking Technologies in Institutions of higher learning in Uganda. \section[{VIII.}]{VIII.} \section[{Discussion}]{Discussion}\par The results of this study have provided some theoretical implications and practical implementations to the field of technology adoption in education in institutions of higher learning in Uganda. For the theoretical contributions, this research provides an insight into the influence of perceived credibility on SNT adoption in the education context which is different from the previous studies on SNTs adoption which have not considered perceived credibility as an important factor \hyperref[b32]{(Munguatosha et al, 2011;} {\ref Meng, 2013;} {\ref Metzger \&Flanagin, 2013)} to influence social networking technologies adoption. In addition, this study is one of the first studies to align perceived credibility as a significant predictor of SNT adoption in institutions of higher learning in Uganda.\par The findings of this study also provide implications for practitioners. The findings of this study has found that perceived ease of use has a positive and significant effect on SNT adoption in institutions of higher learning in Uganda which implies that H 1 which states that "There is a positive and significant relationship between perceived ease of use and SNTs adoption in institutions of higher learning in Uganda" is supported. These findings are in line with previous studies \hyperref[b7]{(Bwiino et al., 2016a;}\hyperref[b16]{Daruish et al., 2015;}\hyperref[b32]{Munguatosha et al., 2011;} {\ref Venkatesh \& Balla, 2008;}\hyperref[b17]{Davis, 1989)}. Thus this study suggests that for successful adoption of SNTs in institutions of higher learning, designers of such systems should design systems that are easy to learn to use, that are easy to Year 2017 Volume XVII Issue X Version I ( G )\par access, that are flexible, clear and easily understandable by the user.\par The learning point here is that managers of institutions of higher learning should encourage faculty in their institutions to design teaching content on SNTs that are easy to learn, easy to access any time anywhere to ensure flexibility and above all content and ways of using such technologies should clear and understandable. These will accelerate the adoption levels of SNTs in institutions of higher learning in Uganda.\par Arising from the findings of this study, it has emerged that Perceived Usefulness has a positive and significant relationship with SNTs adoption in institutions of higher learning in Uganda. These findings have therefore supported H 2 of this study which states that "There is a positive and significant relationship between Perceived Usefulness and SNTs adoption in institutions of Higher learning in Uganda." In fact, this study suggests that SNTs should be designed in such a way that they will help users enhance their academic job performance, accomplish academic tasks more quickly, increase academic productivity and above all enable users to accomplish their academic work effectively and efficiently. These findings are consistent with previous studies {\ref (Bwiino et} The learning point here is that for successful adoption of SNTs in institutions of higher learning, managers should implement technologies that will improve the academic job performance of the faculty and the students in an effective and efficient manner.\par The results of this study have indicated that perceived credibility has a positive and significant effect on the adoption of social networking technologies. Thus the author suggests that managers believe that a positive change in understanding and evaluating the source credibility, media credibility and content credibility of the teaching information exchanged on SNTs would build more trust for social networking technologies. This might be due to the fact that most resourceful information is got on the internet so they have no problem with trusting the source and content on the social networking technologies. This is in line with previous studies {\ref (Lee \& McLoughlin, 2010;} {\ref Udayet al., 2007;}\hyperref[b33]{Newell\& Goldsmith, 2001)} which indicate that in case the user has trust in the use of a particular technology, its adoption will be very easy.\par Based on these findings, the learning point is that enhancement of SNT adoption in institutions of higher learning in Uganda will demand a managerial culture that focuses on understanding and evaluating the credibility of the source of information, the media through which the information is sent and above all evaluating systematically the content credibility. \section[{IX.}]{IX.} \section[{Limitations of the Study}]{Limitations of the Study}\par This study employs a cross sectional survey which lacks time richness explanation considering the fact that information technology adoption is a dynamic field which changes as time goes on. Hence, a longitudinal survey would be used to supplement the findings of this study. Secondly, this study considered only the senior managers since they are the ones at the centre of implementation of such technologies in institutions of higher learning. Further research can consider other stakeholders at the centre of implementation of these technologies like the students and lecturers.\par The study was limited by the research methodology employed by using a survey to collect data which relies on self-report measures which can result in a social desirability bias. Though the managers completed their questionnaires anonymously, it is possible that they may have wanted to respond in ways that made them look helpful in terms of using SNTs. While the prospective for this effect is possible, the probability that it would impact the study's findings is low, given that managers did not know the hypotheses put forward by this study or the desired responses. \section[{X. Recommendations and Conclusion}]{X. Recommendations and Conclusion}\par Findings of this study indicate that Perceived Ease of Use is essential for SNT adoption in institutions of higher learning in Uganda. This study therefore recommends that once SNTs are designed in a way that they are flexible, easy to access and above all easy to use, their adoption rate will accelerate. Therefore, institutions of higher learning should develop and adopt technologies that can be used by employing little or no mental effort in learning to use and the same time they should be clear and understandable.\par Further, this study shows that Perceived Usefulness is strategic for SNTs adoption in institutions of higher learning in Uganda. Therefore, this study recommends that once managers of institutions of higher learning in Uganda implement technologies that improve on the academic job performance of the faculty and students, SNTs adoption will be easy. In fact, institutions of higher learning should adopt technologies that help users to accomplish their academic tasks more quickly, that improve on the academic job performance, improve productivity and enhance job effectiveness and efficiency.\par From this study, it emerged that the source, content and media credibility are crucial for SNT adoption in institutions of higher learning in Uganda. The findings of this study suggests that once the source, media and content of the SNTs are reasonable and believable, they build trust and credibility of the use of the SNTs in institutions of higher learning in Uganda. Perceived Credibility of Social Networking Technologies in Uganda's Institutions of Higher Learning Institutions of higher learning should therefore develop and adopt technological innovations that consider the source, media and content of the information on SNTs as credible by the students and lecturers so as to foster significant actual system usages.\par Generally, this study suggests that managers of institutions of higher learning should put into consideration the perceived ease of use of SNTs, Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Credibility in order to enforce successful adoption of SNTs in institutions of higher learning as a dependable and credible teaching plat form. \section[{Year 2017}]{Year 2017}\par Volume XVII Issue X Version I ( G )\begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{1}\includegraphics[]{image-2.png} \caption{\label{fig_0}Figure 1 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.85\textwidth}} Other studies postulates that the adoption of\\ information technologies largely depends on the\\ perceived usefulness of a technology in terms of how\\ such technologies can improve on the individual job\\ performance (Surachman, 2013; Bwiino et al., 2016b;\\ Venkatesh \&Balla, 2008; Munguatosha et al.,\\ 2011;\end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_3}}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{} \par \begin{longtable}{} \end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_4}}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{1} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.06493055555555556\textwidth}P{0.4840277777777777\textwidth}P{0.2065972222222222\textwidth}P{0.09444444444444444\textwidth}} S/N\tabcellsep Variable\tabcellsep CVI\tabcellsep No. of Items\\ 01\tabcellsep Perceived Ease of Use\tabcellsep .78\tabcellsep 6\\ 02\tabcellsep Perceived Usefulness\tabcellsep .79\tabcellsep 6\\ 03\tabcellsep Perceived Credibility\tabcellsep .80\tabcellsep 6\\ 04\tabcellsep SNT Adoption\tabcellsep .83\tabcellsep 8\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Source: Primary Data}\end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_5}Table 1 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{2} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.05632530120481928\textwidth}P{0.4403614457831325\textwidth}P{0.27138554216867466\textwidth}P{0.0819277108433735\textwidth}} S/N\tabcellsep Variable\tabcellsep Cronbach Alpha(?)\tabcellsep No. of Items\\ 01\tabcellsep Perceived Ease of Use\tabcellsep .833\tabcellsep 6\\ 02\tabcellsep Perceived Usefulness\tabcellsep .912\tabcellsep 6\\ 03\tabcellsep Perceived Credibility\tabcellsep .834\tabcellsep 6\\ 04\tabcellsep SNT Adoption\tabcellsep .827\tabcellsep 8\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Source: Primary Data}\\ \tabcellsep VII.\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_6}Table 2 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{3} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.5258474576271186\textwidth}P{0.0576271186440678\textwidth}P{0.17288135593220338\textwidth}P{0.007203389830508475\textwidth}P{0.07923728813559322\textwidth}P{0.007203389830508475\textwidth}} \multicolumn{2}{l}{S/N Variable}\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 2\tabcellsep 3\tabcellsep 4\\ 1\tabcellsep SNTA\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \\ 2\tabcellsep PEOU\tabcellsep .784**\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep \\ 3\tabcellsep PUSF\tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{.734** .809**}\tabcellsep 1\tabcellsep 1\\ 4\tabcellsep PCRD\tabcellsep \multicolumn{4}{l}{.611** .614** .694** .892**}\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Source: Primary Data}\\ \multicolumn{6}{l}{Key: SNTA=Social Network Technology Adoption, PCRD=}\\ \multicolumn{6}{l}{Perceived Credibility, PEOU = Perceived Ease of Use, PUSF =}\\ \multicolumn{2}{l}{Perceived Usefulness}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_7}Table 3 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{4} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.44088785046728973\textwidth}P{0.05957943925233644\textwidth}P{0.12313084112149532\textwidth}P{0.15093457943925231\textwidth}P{0.07546728971962616\textwidth}} Variable\tabcellsep R 2\tabcellsep ?\tabcellsep t\tabcellsep P\\ PEOU\tabcellsep .615\tabcellsep .784\tabcellsep 15.167\tabcellsep 0.01**\\ PUSF\tabcellsep .539\tabcellsep .734\tabcellsep 12.978\tabcellsep 0.01**\\ PCRD\tabcellsep .373\tabcellsep .611\tabcellsep 9.255\tabcellsep 0.01**\\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{N = 146; **P < .01}\tabcellsep \\ \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \tabcellsep \multicolumn{2}{l}{Source: Primary Data}\\ \multicolumn{5}{l}{Key: PEOU = Perceived Ease of Use, PUSF = Perceived}\\ \multicolumn{4}{l}{Usefulness, PCRD = Perceived Credibility}\tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_8}Table 4 :}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{} \par \begin{longtable}{} \end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_9}}\end{figure} \footnote{© 2017 Global Journals Inc. (US)Perceived Credibility of Social Networking Technologies in Uganda's Institutions of Higher Learning} \backmatter \subsection[{Conference on Education and Management}]{Conference on Education and Management}\par Innovation (pp. \hyperref[b0]{[1]}\hyperref[b1]{[2]}\hyperref[b2]{[3]}\hyperref[b3]{[4]}\hyperref[b4]{[5]}\hyperref[b5]{[6]}. IACSIT Press, Singapore. 33. Kevin, C. R., Bongwon, S., \& Peter, P. L. {\ref (2011)}.\par Finding \begin{bibitemlist}{1} \bibitem[Hussain et al. ()]{b29}\label{b29} \textit{}, I Hussain , N Gulrez , S \&tahirkheli . 2012. \bibitem[ Freedom on the Net (2014)]{b23}\label{b23} \textit{}, \url{http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/freedom-net-2014\#.VbVMI-ZjTMs} \textit{Freedom on the Net} 2014. May 2014. July 2, 2015. \bibitem[Munguatosha et al. ()]{b32}\label{b32} \textit{A social networked learning adoprion model for higher education institutions in developing countries}, G M Munguatosha , P B Muyinda , J T \&lubega . 2011. p. . \bibitem[Venkatesh and Davis ()]{b52}\label{b52} ‘A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies’. V Venkatesh , F D Davis . \textit{Management Science} 2000. \bibitem[Academic Use of Social Media: Practices and Problems of University Students. International]{b30}\label{b30} \textit{Academic Use of Social Media: Practices and Problems of University Students. International}, \bibitem[Adeyanju (2015)]{b0}\label{b0} A Adeyanju . \textit{Comparative Study of Social Media, Television and Newspapers' News Credibility. International Conference on Communication, Media, Technology and Design}, (Dubai -United Arab Emirates) 2015. May 2015. p. . \bibitem[Park ()]{b38}\label{b38} ‘An Analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model in Understanding University Students' Behavioral Intention’. S Park . \textit{Educational Technology \& Society} 2009. p. . \bibitem[Surachman ()]{b45}\label{b45} \textit{Analysis of the Influence of Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, Subjective Norm, Mobility, and Use Situation on Individual Intention to Use M-Library}, A Surachman . 2013. Thesis Summery. Gadjah Mada University \bibitem[Seth ()]{b43}\label{b43} \textit{Analyzing the Effects of Social Media on the Hospitality Industry. UNLV Theses/ Dissertations/Professional Papers/Capstones}, G Seth . 2012. (Paper 1346) \bibitem[Agarwal and Prasad (1999)]{b1}\label{b1} ‘Are Individual Differences Germane to the Acceptance of New Information Technologies’. R Agarwal , J Prasad . \textit{Decision Sciences} 1999. March 1999. 30 (2) p. . \bibitem[Rumayika and Galan ()]{b42}\label{b42} ‘Challenges for Teaching and Learning Information and Communication Technology Courses in Higher Learning Institutions in Tanzania: A Review" Information and Knowledge Management’. J D Rumayika , R M Galan . ISSN 2224-896X. \textit{Online)} 2224-5758. 2015. 2015. Paper. 5 (2) . \bibitem[Pang ()]{b36}\label{b36} ‘Civic Action and Media Perceptions within the Wall’. N Pang . \textit{Journal of Democracy} 2013. 2013. 5 (1) p. . \bibitem[Grover and Stewart (ed.) ()]{b25}\label{b25} \textit{Cutting edge social media approaches to business education: Teaching with LinkedIN, Facebook, Twitter, Second Life and Blogs}, A Grover , D W Stewart . C. Wankel\& M. Marovich\& J. Stanaityte (ed.) 2010. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing. (Defining interactive social media in an educational context) \bibitem[Flanagin and Metzger ()]{b21}\label{b21} ‘Digital media and youth: unparalleled opportunity and unprecedented responsibility’. A J Flanagin , M J Metzger . \textit{Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility}, M J Metzger, A J Flanagin (ed.) (Cambridge, MA) 2008. MIT Press. p. . \bibitem[Chaiken and Trope ()]{b14}\label{b14} \textit{Dual Process theories in Social Psychology}, S Chaiken , Y Trope . 1999. New York, Guilford. \bibitem[Bwiino et al. (2016)]{b8}\label{b8} ‘Enhancing Social Networking Technologies Adoption through Perceived Usefulness: The Setting of Ugandan Institutions of Higher Learning’. K Bwiino , G M Kituyi , I A \&musenze . \textit{Asian Journal of Computer and Information Systems} 2321 -5658. 2016b. October 2016. 04 p. 5. \bibitem[Yu ()]{b55}\label{b55} ‘Factors Affecting Individuals to Adopt Mobile Banking: Empirical Evidence from the Utaut Model’. C S Yu . \textit{Journal of Electronic Commerce Research} 2012. 2012. 13 (2) . \bibitem[Thiga et al. ()]{b47}\label{b47} ‘Factors Influencing the Intention to Use Location-Based Mobile Advertising among Micro-Enterprises in Kenya’. M M Thiga , J Siror , J Githeko , K Njagi . \textit{The African Journal of Information Systems} 2015. 8. (Iss. 1, Article 2) \bibitem[Canini et al. ()]{b10}\label{b10} ‘Finding Credible Sources in Social Networks Based on Content and Social Structure’. K R Canini , B Suh , P L \&pirolli . \textit{IEEE International Conference on Privacy, Security, Risk, and Trust, and IEEE International Conference on Social Computing}, 2011. \bibitem[Uday and Pallavia (2013)]{b50}\label{b50} ‘Food For Thought: Can Social Media be a Potential 'Learning Tool' for Universities?’. N Uday , S Pallavia . \textit{International Journal of Education and Applied Social Sciences: Educational Quest} 2013. August, 2013. 4 (2) p. . \bibitem[Giner et al. (2009)]{b24}\label{b24} \textit{Framework for the analysis of executive information systems based on the perceived usefulness and the perceived ease of use. Intangible Capital}, J L C Giner , V Fernadez -M , M D \&boladeras . \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/ic.2009.v5n4.p370-386}{10.3926/ic.2009.v5n4.p370-386}. 2009. 2009 -5(4. p. . \bibitem[Boland et al. ()]{b5}\label{b5} ‘From expert-derived user needs to user-perceived ease of use and usefulness: A two-phase mixed-methods evaluation framework’. M R Boland , A Rusanov , Y S C Lopez-Jimenez , L Busacca , R C Steinman , S Bakken , J T Bigger , C \&weng . \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2013.12.004}{10.1016/j.jbi.2013.12.004}. \url{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2013.12.004} \textit{Journal of Biomedical Informatics} 2013. \bibitem[Chaiken ()]{b12}\label{b12} ‘Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion’. S Chaiken . \textit{Journal of Personality and Social Psychology} 1980. 39 p. . \bibitem[Hassan and Ali ()]{b26}\label{b26} ‘Impact of Interface Characteristics on the Perceived Ease of Use and Perceived Usefulness of Digital Library Adoption among Post-Graduate Students in Somalia’. M M Hassan , A Y S Ali . ISSN 2222-2839. \textit{European Journal of Business and Management} www.iiste.org: 2222-1905. 2014. 2014. Paper. 6 (35) . \bibitem[Susanto and &aljoza ()]{b46}\label{b46} ‘Individual Acceptance of e-Government Services in a Developing Country: Dimensions of Perceived Usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use and the Importance of Trust and Social Influence’. T W Susanto , M \&aljoza . \textit{The Third Information Systems International Conference}, 2015. 2015. 72 p. . \bibitem[Castillo et al. ()]{b11}\label{b11} ‘Information credibility on twitter’. C Castillo , M Mendoza , B Poblete . \textit{Proc. WWW, ACM}, (WWW, ACM) 2011. p. . \bibitem[Cheong ()]{b15}\label{b15} ‘Internet adoption in Macao’. W H Cheong . \textit{Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication} 2002. 7 (2) p. . \bibitem[Ohaja ()]{b35}\label{b35} \textit{Mass communication research and project report writing}, E U Ohaja . 2003. Lagos-Nigeria: John Letterman. \bibitem[Minjeong ()]{b31}\label{b31} \textit{Measuring Social Media Credibility:A Study on a Measure of Blog Credibility}, K Minjeong . 2010. Kentucky: Institute for Public Relations. \bibitem[Edogor et al. ()]{b19}\label{b19} ‘Nigerian Users' Evaluation of Credibility of Social Media Sites’. I O Edogor , A A Jonah , L I \&ojo . \textit{Journal of New Media and Mass Communication} 2015. 40. \bibitem[Bwiino et al. (2016)]{b7}\label{b7} ‘Perceived Ease of Use as a Predictor of Social Networking Technologies in Institutions of Higher Learning in Uganda’. K Bwiino , G M Kituyi , I A \&musenze . \textit{Global Journal of Computers \& Technology} 2394-501X. 2016a. September 16. 2016. 5 (1) . \bibitem[Chu et al. ()]{b16}\label{b16} ‘Perceived usefulness and Perceived Ease of Use for Adoption Technology LCC Card: Case Study Paddy Farmers East Province Guilan’. S C Chu , A Daruish , A S Noorhosseini , R \&alishiri . \textit{Biological Forum -An International Journal} 2009. 2009. 2015. 7 (1) p. . (PhD Thesis 18) (Determinants of Consumer Engagement in Electronic Word-of-Mouth in Social Networking Sites. The University of Texas at Austin) \bibitem[Nunnally and Bernstein ()]{b34}\label{b34} \textit{Psychometric Theory}, J C Nunnally , I H Bernstein . 1994. Sydney, Australia: McGraw Hill. \bibitem[Rory (2009)]{b41}\label{b41} O Rory . \textit{Word of Mouse: Credibility, Journalism and Emerging Social Media. Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. Discussion Paper Series. \#D-50}, 2009. February 2009. \bibitem[Hoffman ()]{b28}\label{b28} ‘Social media and learning environments: Shifting perspective on the locus of control in education’. E Hoffman . \textit{Special IssueTechnology \& Social Media} 2009. 2 (15) . \bibitem[Cameron et al. ()]{b9}\label{b9} ‘Social media and organ donation registration: the Facebook effect’. A M Cameron , A B Massie , C E Alexander , B Stewart , R A Montgomery , N R Benavides , G D Fleming , D L Segev . \textit{American Journal of Transplant} 2013. 13 p. . \bibitem[Paquette ()]{b37}\label{b37} \textit{Social Media as a Marketing Tool: A Literature Review. Major Papers by Master of Science Students}, H Paquette . \url{http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/tmd\textunderscore major\textunderscore papers/2} 2013. \bibitem[Heldman et al. ()]{b27}\label{b27} ‘Social media engagement and public health communication: implications for public health organizations being truly "social’. A B Heldman , J Schindelar , J B Weaver . \textit{Public Health Reviews} 2013. 2013. 35. (epub ahead of print) \bibitem[Fotis et al. ()]{b22}\label{b22} \textit{Social Media Use and Impact during the holiday travel planning process}, J Fotis , D Buhalis , N \&rossides . 2011. \bibitem[Boumarafi ()]{b6}\label{b6} \textit{Social Media Use in Algerian Universities: University of Constantine 2 Case Study. The IAFOR Journal of Education, Technologies \& Education Special Edition}, B Boumarafi . 2015. p. . \bibitem[Amin ()]{b3}\label{b3} \textit{Social science research conception, methodology and analysis}, M Amin . 2005. Kampala. ICT University Printery \bibitem[Venkatesh and &bala ()]{b51}\label{b51} ‘Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions’. V Venkatesh , H \&bala . \textit{Decision Sciences} 2008. p. . \bibitem[Anderson et al. ()]{b4}\label{b4} ‘The "nasty effect:" online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies’. A Anderson , D Brossard , D A Scheufele , M A Xenos , P \&lawig . \textit{Journal of Computer Mediated Communications} 2013. (epub ahead of print) \bibitem[Newell and Goldsmith ()]{b33}\label{b33} ‘The development of a scale to measure perceived corporate credibility’. S J Newell , R E Goldsmith . \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0148-}{10.1016/S0148-}. \textit{Journal of Business Research} 2001. 52 (3) p. . \bibitem[Chaiken ()]{b13}\label{b13} ‘The Heuristic Model of Persuasion’. S Chaiken . \textit{Social Influence. The Ontario Sympossium}, M P Zanna, J M Olson, C P Herman (ed.) (Hillsdale, NJ) 1987. Lawrence Erlbawm. 5 p. . \bibitem[Petersen and Johnston ()]{b39}\label{b39} ‘The impact of social media usage on the cognitive social capital of university students’. C Petersen , K A Johnston . \textit{Informing Science: the International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline} 2015. 18 p. . \bibitem[Almahamid et al. ()]{b2}\label{b2} ‘The Relationship between Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, Perceived Information Quality, and Intention to use E-government’. S Almahamid , A C Mcadams , T A Kaladeh , M Al-Sa'eed . \textit{Journal of Theoretical and Applied Information Technology} 2010. p. . \bibitem[Endsley et al. (2014)]{b20}\label{b20} ‘The Source of the Story: Evaluating the Credibility of Crisis Information Sources’. T Endsley , Y Wu , J \&reep . \textit{Proceedings of the 11th International ISCRAM Conference}, S R Hiltz, M S Pfaff, L Plotnick, P C Shih (ed.) (the 11th International ISCRAM ConferenceUniversity Park, Pennsylvania, USA) 2014. May 2014. \bibitem[Reuben ()]{b40}\label{b40} \textit{The Use of Social Media in Higher Education for Marketing and Communications: A Guide for Professionals in Higher Education}, R Reuben . 2012. Elsevier. \bibitem[Tondorov et al. ()]{b49}\label{b49} \textit{Theories of Persuasion}, A Tondorov , S Chaiken , M D Henderson . 2000. New York, Guilford. p. . \bibitem[Shahzad et al. ()]{b44}\label{b44} ‘Third Party Recognition, Perceived Product Related Risk, and Perceived Ease of Use among the Online Consumer Trust: The Moderating Role of Internet Experience’. A Shahzad , N Mosawi , A G B Golamdin , A T Pasha , A A Sheikh . \textit{Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences} 2016. 2016. 10 (2) p. . \bibitem[Tobbin ()]{b48}\label{b48} \textit{Towards a model of adoption in mobile banking by the unbanked: a qualitative study}, P Tobbin . 2012. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. 14 p. . \bibitem[Zanamwe et al. ()]{b56}\label{b56} ‘Use of Social Networking Technologies in Higher Education in Zimbabwe: A learners' perspective’. N Zanamwe , T Rupere , O Kufandirimbwa . \textit{International Journal of Computer and Information Technology} 2013. 2 (1) p. . \bibitem[Davis ()]{b17}\label{b17} ‘User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models’. F Davis . \textit{Management Science} 1989. 37 (8) p. . \bibitem[Delbasic et al. ()]{b18}\label{b18} ‘White-Box Decision Tree Algorithms: A Pilot Study on Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and Perceived Understanding’. B Delbasic , M Vukicevic , M Z \&jovanovic . \textit{International Journal of Engineering Education} 2013. 2013. 29 (3) p. . \bibitem[Yaakop et al. ()]{b53}\label{b53} A Z Yaakop , M M Anuar , K Omar , A L \&liung . \textit{Consumers' Perceptions and Attitudes towards Advertising on Facebook in Malaysia. World Business and Economics Research Conference}, (Auckland New Zealand) 2012. \bibitem[Yamane ()]{b54}\label{b54} T Yamane . \textit{Statistics, An Introductory Analysis}, (New York) 1967. Harper and Row. (2nd ed.) \end{bibitemlist} \end{document}