社群媒體越來越受歡迎,而社群媒體的轉移現象也漸趨頻繁,此外使用者也不再長時間使用特定的社群媒體。本研究認為內在動機可以運用來解釋使用者的行為轉換和探討不同世代間的行為轉換。本研究利用Deci和 Ryan(2002)的自我決定論來瞭解使用者不同的內在動機所引發的行為轉換。因此,本研究目的在於探討(1)不同世代間,最重要的行為轉換動機為何;(2)對於特定的世代,哪些行為轉換因素有直接的影響力。本研究應用焦點團體法之主要目的為針對焦點問題提供大量言語互動的機會,並進行收集研究所需的資料。藉由Y世代和Z世代還有問卷進行資料的收集,Y世代人數為六人,年齡為25到34歲;Z世代人數為12人,年齡為15到23歲。研究結果顯示,關聯性為使用者中最先需要被滿足,再來是自主跟能力感。此外,同儕影響為使用者在不同的社群媒體間轉換的主要因素。另一方面,隱私,介面上的廣告數還有介面上的外部資訊也影響使用者的行為轉換。

Social networking sites (SNSs) have become increasingly popular, and the phenomenon of switching from SNSs is becoming more common. Also, users are no longer utilize specific social networking sites for long periods of time. This study consider intrinsic motivation can be used to manifest users’ SNS switching behavior and compare the switching behavior between generations. This study utilizes Deci and Ryans’ (2002) Self-determination theory to identify the users’ motivation on switching behavior. Hence, this study aims to investigate two research question: (1) what the most important motivations are for switching SNSs across different generations;(2) which SNS switching factors have a distinct effect on specific generations. The current study adopted a focus group method to collect data. Focus group enables the facilitator to enter participants’ realities and collect interpretations, which are crucial to understand the phenomenon of switching behavior. Data were collected through the use of two focus groups for generations Y and Z, which comprised 6 participants between the ages of 25 and 34 years and 12 participants between the ages of 15 and 23 years, respectively, as well as a short accompanying questionnaire during November to December 2018. The result revealed relatedness is the first need that must be satisfied, followed by autonomy and competence. Furthermore, the findings also indicated that peer influence was the main cause of users switching from one SNS to another and that three main factors other than relatedness also affected switching behavior: privacy, advertisements on the SNS interface, and breadth of information on the SNS interface.

Index
List of Tables...……………………………………………………………..V
List of Figures………………………………………………………………VI
Chapter 1. Introduction………………………………………………….......1
1.1	Background……………………………………………………….1
1.2 Motivation………….……………………………………………..2
1.3 Research aims……………………………………………………..5
1.4 Research questions……...…………………………………………6
Chapter 2. Literature Review…………………………………………..........8
     2.1 SNSs…………………..……………………………………..........8
     2.2 Self-determination Theory………………………………………..10
Chapter 3. Methodology……………………………………………….........12
     3.1 Introduction……………………………………………………….12
     3.2 Theoretical Foundation……………………………………………12
     3.3 Research Methods………………………………………………...15
        3.3.1 The fundamental and usage of focus groups ……...15
     3.4 Conducting the focus group………………………………………17
     3.5 Designing the questions for a focus group ……………19
Chapter 4. Data Analyze……………………………………………….........21
     4.1 Data collection…………………………………………………….21
     4.2 Demographics………………………………………………..........22
     4.3 Analysis…………………………………………………………...23
        4.3.1 Generation Y…………………………………………..........23
        4.3.2 Generation Z…………………………………………..........32
     4.4 Summary………………………………………………………….40
Chapter 5 Conclusion…………………………………………………..........42
     5.1 Conclusion………………………………………………………...42
     5.2 Managerial Implications……………………………………..........43
     5.3 Limitations…………….…………………………………………..44
References…………………………………………………………………...45
Appendix………………………………………………………………...…..54
Transcript of generation Y…………………………………………………...61
Transcript of generation Z…………………………………………………...68
List of Tables
TABLE 1DEMOGRAPHIC DETAILS OF THE SAMPLE	22
TABLE 2SUMMARY OF GENERATION Y FOCUS GROUP	23
TABLE 3HABITS RELATING TO THE USE OF SNSS AMONG Y1 TOY6	25
TABLE 4 THE SWITCHING BEHAVIOR OF GENERATION Y	29
TABLE 5SWITCHING BEHAVIOR OF GENERATION Y	30
TABLE 6 MAIN SNSS USED	34
TABLE 7 THE FACTORS STIMULATING SNS SWITCHING	37
TABLE 8 SDT SWITCHING BEHAVIOR RESULTS	38

List of Figures
FIGURE 1 NUMBER OF SOCIAL NETWORK USERS WORLDWIDE FROM 2010 TO 2021	1
FIGURE 2 AGE DIFFERENCES IN THE ACTIONS OF FACEBOOK USERS	3
FIGURE 3 ACTIONS OF GENERATION Z USERS OF SNSS	4
FIGURE 4 CONCEPTUAL MODEL	13
FIGURE 5 THE DESIGN OF THE FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS	20
FIGURE 6 AGE DISTRIBUTION OF ACTIVE SOCIAL MEDIA USERS WORLDWIDE BY PLATFORM	21
FIGURE 7 RECURRENT USE OF SNSS	28
FIGURE 8 FREQUENCY OF SNS USE PER DAY.	33
FIGURE 9 THE MOST FREQUENTLY USED SNSS AMONG GENERATION Z	36

References
Agar, M., & MacDonald, J. (1995). Focus groups and ethnography. Human. Organizations54(1), 78-86. 
Akbari, E., Naderi, A., Pilot, A., & Simons, P. R. J. (2016). Student engagement and foreign language learning through online social networks. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 1(4). Retrieved from https://sfleducation.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40862-016-0006-7
Alhabash, S., & Ma, M. (2017). A Tale of Four Platforms: Motivations and Uses of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat Among College Students? Social Media+Societ, 3 (1), 2056305117691544
Bansal, H. S., Taylor, S. F., & James, Y. S. (2005). Migrating to new service providers: Consumers' switching behaviors. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(1), 96-115. 
Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. (1998). The Future of Leadership in Learning Organizations. Journal of Leadership & Organization Studies, 7(3),18-40
Barbour, R., & Kitzinger, J. (1999). Developing focus group research, politics, theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bazarova, N. N., Choi, H. Y., Sosik, V. S., Cosley, D., & Whitlock, J. (2015). Social sharing of emotions on Facebook: Channel differences, satisfaction, and replies. Proceedings of the Computer-Supported Cooperative Work Conference (CSCW 2015), March, 14-18, 2015.
Beaven, T., Hauck, M., Comas-Quinn, A., Beatriz, D. L.A., (2014). MOOCs: striking the right balance between facilitation and self-determination. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching,10(1), 31-43.
Berkup, S.B. (2014). Working with Generations X and Y in Generation Z Period: Management of Different Generations in Business Life. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(19),218-229.
Bicen, H., & Bal, K. (2017). The purpose of students’ social media use and determining their perspectives on education. Procedia Computer Science 120 (2017), 177–181.
Bishop AL, et al. (2007) Phenotypic heterogeneity can enhance rare- cell survival in. 'stress-sensitive' yeast populations. Mol Microbiol 63(2),507-20.
Boddy, C.R. (2005). The implications of corporate psychopaths for business and society: An initial examination and a call to arms. Australasian Journal of Business and Behavioural Sciences,1(2),30-40.
Bolton, R.N. ..., Solnet, D. (2013). Understanding Generation Y and their use of. social media: a review and research agenda. Journal of Service Management, 24 (3), pp. 245-267. 
Boyd, D. M, Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), article 11.
Bramoulle, Y., Djebbari, H., Fortin, B. (2009). Identification of peers effects through social networks. Journal of Econometrics,1(150), 41-55
Brandtzæg P.B., Heim J. (2009) Why People Use Social Networking Sites. In: Ozok A.A., Zaphiris P. (eds) Online Communities and Social Computing. OCSC 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 5621. 
Chang, I. C., Liu, C. C., & Chen, K. (2014). The push, pull and mooring effects in virtual migration for social networking sites. Information Systems Journal, 24(4), 323-346.
Cao, X. F. (2016). Why are Users Switching Among Different Types of Social Media? An empirical study from China. The Eleventh International Multi-Conference on Computing in the Global Information Technology. 
Cheng, Z., Yang, Y., and Lim, J. (2009, 5-8 Jan. 2009). Cyber migration: An empirical investigation on factors that affect users' switch intentions in social networking sites. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. 
Choi, J., Jung, J., & Lee, S. W. (2013). What causes users to switch from a local to a global social network site? The cultural, social, economic, and motivational factors of Facebook’s globalization. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(6), 2665-2673.
Deci, E.L., &Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self- Determination in human behavior. NewYork: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). Self- Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. American Psychologist, 1(55), 68-78.
Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., Gagne’, M., Leone, D.R., Usunov, J., &Kornazheva, B.P. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former Eastern, Bloc country. Personality and social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 930-942. 
Denscombe, M. (2003) The Good Research Guide: For Small-Scale Social Research Projects. (2nd edition) Buckingham: Open University Press. 
Denscombe, M. (2007) The Good Research Guide: for small-scale social research projects. (3rd edition) Maidenhead: Open University Press. 
Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26, 325–346. 
Dogan, U., Uysal H., & Sidekli, S. (2018). Why does the use of social network site (sns) make happy? : A qualitative analysis. International Journal of Educational Methodology, 4(3), 109-124. doi: 10.12973/ijem.4.3.109
Fagan, M.H., Neill, S., Wooldridge, B. (2008). Exploring the Intention to Use Computers: An Empirical Investigation of the Role of Intrinsic Motivation, Extrinsic Motivation, and Perceived Ease of Use. Marketing, 3(48),31-37.
Fei, L., & Bo, X. (2014, January). Do I switch? Understanding users' intention to switch between social network sites. In 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 551-560.
Frey, J. H., & Fontana, A. (1991). The group interview in social research. The Social Science Journal, 28(2), 175-187. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0362-3319(91)90003-M
Gemmill, E., & Peterson, M. (2006). Technology use among college students: Implications for student affairs professionals. NASPA Journal, 43(2), 280-300 
Gibbs, J. L., Ellison, N.B., ＆ Heino, R.D. (2006). Self-presentation in online personals the role of anticipated future interaction, self-disclosure, and perceived success in Internet dating. Communication Research, 33(2), 152-177.
Greg, G., Namey, E. , Taylor,J., Eley, N., & McKenna, K. (2017). Comparing focus groups and individual interviews: findings from a randomized study, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6(20), 693-708.doi: 10.1080/13645579.2017.1281601.
Hampton, K., Goulet, L., Rainie, L., Purcell, K. (2011). Social networking sites and our lives. Retrieved from Pew Internet & American Life Research Center, Web site: http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Technology-and-social-networks.aspx 
Hsieh, C. Y., Hsieh, J. K., & Feng, Y. C. (2011). Switching between social media: The role of motivation and cost. International Proceedings of Economics Development & Research,22,92. Retrieved from: http://aisel.aisnet.org/confirm2011/9 
Hsieh, J.K., Hsieh, Y.C., Chiu, H.C., & Feng, Y.C. (2012). Post-adoption switching behavior for online service substitutes: A perspective of the push–pull–mooring framework. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(5),1912-1920. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.05.010.
Jain, P., Kumaraguru, P., & Joshi, A. (2013). @ i seek'fb. me': Identifying users across multiple online social networks. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on World Wide Web (pp. 1259-1268). ACM.
Iordache, D. D.,& Lamanauskas, V. (2013). Exploring the usage of social networking websites: Perceptions and opinions of Romanian university students. Informatica Economică, 17(4),18-25. 
Jones, S. (2002). The Internet goes to college. Retrieved from Washington D.C.: Pew Internet & American Life Project Web site: http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_College_Report.pdf.
Kathy, N.S., Yan, Y., Mohamed, K. (2009). Knowledge contribution in virtual. communities: Accounting for multiple dimensions of social presence through social identity. University of Wollongong in Dubai,29,337-348.
Kietzmann, J. H., Hermkens, K., McCarthy, I. P., & Silvestre, B. S. (2011). Social media? Get serious! Understanding the functional building blocks of social media. Business horizons, 54(3), 241-251.
Kim, G., Shin, B., Ho, G.L. (2006). A study of factors that affect user intentions toward email service switching. Information & Management, 7(43), 884-893.doi: 10.1016/j.im.2006.08.004
Kim, G., Shin, B., Lee, H. G., and Pacis. (2006). Dynamics of portal email switching: Attractive alternatives and switching costs Pacific asia conference on information systems 2006, sections 1-8, 372-384. 
Kitzinger, J. (1994). The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction. between research participants. Sociology of Health & Illness, 16(1), 103-121.
Kopytoff, V.G. (2011). Blogs wane as the young drift to sites like Twitter. The New York Times, 20.
Ledbetter, A. M., Mazer, J. P., DeGroot, J. M., Meyer, K. R., Yuping Mao, and Swafford, B. (2011) Attitudes Toward Online Social Connection and Self-Disclosure as Predictors of Facebook Communication and Relational Closeness, Communication Research, 38, 1, 27–53. 
Lederman, E. (2005). The Science and Practice of Manual Therapy. London: Eyal. Lederman.
Lee, H.J., & Polinar, S.P. (2011) Switching Behavior in Social Networking Site. CONF-IRM Proceedings,9, http://aisel.aisnet.org/confirm2011/9. 
Lee, A. R., Son, S. M., & Kim, K. K. (2016). Information and communication technology overload and social networking service fatigue: A stress perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 51-61.
Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2007). Social networking websites and teens: An overview. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_SNS_Data_Memo_Jan_2007.pdf
Lin, X., Featherman, M., & Sarker, S. (2017). Understanding factors affecting users’ social networking site continuance: A gender difference perspective. Information & Management, 54(3), 383-395.
Liu, I., Cheung, C., & Lee, M. (2010). Understanding Twitter Usage: What Drive People Continue to Tweet. Proceedings of Pacific-Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS). Retrieved from https://repository.hkbu.edu.hk/hkbu_staff_publication/4736
Manotoc, T. (2010). Facebook is new king of the Web. Abs-cbnNEWS.com. Retrieved from http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/lifestyle/06/05/10/facebook-new-king-web 
Masadeh, M. A. (2012). Focus Group: Reviews and Practices. International Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 2(10),63-68. 
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0054346
Meens, E.E.M., Bakx, A.W.E.A., Klimstra, T.A., & Denissen, J.J.A. (2018) The association of identity and motivation with students' academic achievement in higher education. Learning and Individual Differences, 64, 54-70.
Merton, R. K., & Kendall, P. L. (1946). The focussed interview. American Journal of Sociology, 51, 541-557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/219886
Merton, R., Fiske, M., & Kendall, P. (1956). The Focused Interview: A Manual of. Problems and Procedures. New York: Free Press.
Morgan, D. (1996). Focus groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 129-152.
Nassar-McMillan, S. C., & Borders, L. D. (2002). Use of Focus Groups in Survey Item Development. The Qualitative Report, 7(1), 1-12. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol7/iss1/3 
Oueder, M., & Abousaber, I. (2018). A Study on the Impact of Social Media Usage on Student Academic Performance: University of Tabuk an Example. American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS),1(40), 77-88 
Palfrey, J., & Gasser, U. (2008). Born digital: Understanding the first generation of. digital natives. New York, NY, US: Basic Books.
Park, S.Y. (2009). An Analysis of the Technology Acceptance Model in Understanding University Students' Behavioral Intention to Use e-Learning.  Educational Technology &Society, 12(3),150-162. 
Park, N., Kee, K. F., & Valenzuela, S. (2009). Being immersed in social networking environment: Facebook groups, uses and gratifications, and social outcomes. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 12(6), 729-733.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd Sage Publications; Thousand Oaks, CA: 
Peng, X. X., Zhao, Y. X., Zhu, Q. G. (2016). Investigating user switching intention for mobile instant messaging application: Taking WeChat as an example. Computers in Human Behavior, 64. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.054.
Primack, B.A, Sidani, J.E., Shensa, A., Whaite, E.O., Lin, L.Y., Rosen, D.,…, &Miller, E. (2017). Social Media Use and Perceived Social Isolation Among Young Adults in the U.S. American journal of preventive medicine, 53 (1),1-8.
Quan-Haase, A., & Young, A. L. (2010). Uses and gratifications of social media: A comparison of Facebook and instant messaging. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 30, 350–361. doi:10.1177/0270467610380009.
Ray, S., Kim, S.S., and Morris, J.G., "Online Users' Switching Costs: Their Nature and Formation", Information Systems Research, 23(1), 2012, pp. 197-213.
Richardson, C.A., &Rabiee F. (2001). ‘A Question of Access’-an exploration of the factors  the health of young males aged 15-19 living in Corby and their use of care services. Health Education Journal 60, 3-6
Richardson CA & Rabiee F (2001) ‘A Question of Access’ – an exploration of the factors
influencing the health of young males aged 15–19 living in Corby and their use of
health care services. Health Education Journal 60, 3–6
Ritchie, J. and Lewis. J. (eds.) (2003) Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. Sage Publications, London (336 pages). 
Rouis S., Limayem M., Salehi-Sangari E. (2015) Social Media and Students’ Achievement: The Role of Culture and Personality. Developments in Marketing Science: Proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science, 148-152. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10873-5_77
Ruzek, E. A., Hafen, C. A., Allen, J. P., Gregory, A., Mikami, A. Y., & Pianta, R. C. (2016). How teacher emotional support motivates students: The mediating roles of perceived peer relatedness, autonomy support, and competence. Learning and Instruction, 42, 95-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.004
Ryan, R.M., Patrick, H., Deci, E.L., & Williams, G.C. (2008). Facilitating health behavior.  change and its maintenance: Interventions based on self-determination theory. The European Health Psychologist, 10, 2-5. 
Schauer, P. (2015) 5 Biggest Differences between Social Media and Social Networking. Social Media Today. Retrieved 21March 2016, from http:// www. Social mediatoday.com/social-business/peteschauer/2015-06-28/5-differences-between-social-media-and-social.
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., Meece, J. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (2008). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Shardanand, U., & Maes, P. (2005). Social information Filtering: Algorithms for. Automating “Word of Mouth”. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – Proceedings,1,210-217. doi: 10.1145/223904.223931
Nawaz, M. A., Shah, Z., Nawaz, A., Asmi, F., Hassan, Z., & Raza, J. (2018). Overload and exhaustion: Classifying SNS discontinuance intentions. Cogent Psychology, 5(1), 1515584.
Stefan, Stieglitz, & Linh, D.X., (2013) Emotions and Information Diffusion in Social Media—Sentiment of Microblogs and Sharing Behavior, Journal of Management Information Systems, 29(4), 217-248. DOI: 10.2753/MIS0742-1222290408
Stewart, D. W., & Shamdasani, P. N. (1990). Applied social research methods series, Vol. 20. Focus groups: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
Subrahmanyam, K., & Greenfield, P. M. (2008). Communicating online: Adolescent. relationships and the media. The Future of Children: Children and Media Technology, 18,119−146.
Subramanian, K. R. (2017). Influence of Social Media in Interpersonal Communication. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS AND RESEARCH (IJSPR),109,70-75.
Valkenburg, P.M., Schouten, A., & Peter, J. (2006). Friend Networking Sites and Their Relationship to Adolescents' Well-Being and Social Self-Esteem. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9 (5),584-90.
Wu, A., DiMicco, J. M., & Millen, D.R.(2010). Detecting professional versus personal. closeness using an enterprise social network site. In Proceeding of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp.1955-1964).
Wu, Y., Tao, Y., Li, C., Wang, S., & Chiu, C. (2014). User-switching behavior in. social. network sites: A model perspective with drill-down analyses. Computers in Human Behavior, 33, 92-103. 
Wu, Y. L., Tao, Y. H., Chung, C. M., & Li, C. P. (2014). Why Users Leave? Discussion. about Users’ Switching Behaviors in Social Network Sites. In Proceedings of the International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists (Vol. 1).
Wang, X., Peng, L., Lou, X. (2016). Electronic word-of-mouth: a systematic. Perspective. and multilevel analysis. Annual International Conference on Electronic Commerce: e-Commerce in Smart connected World. Korea, Suwon.
Wang, X., & Li, Y. (2016). Users' satisfaction with social network sites: A self-determination perspective. Journal of Computer Information System.56(1), 48-52.
Waterson, P. (2006). Motivation in Online Communities. Germany: Patrick Waterson
Wilkinson, S. (2014). Focus group methodology: A review. International Journal of Social Research Methodology,1(3),181-203.
Ye, C., & Potter, R. (2011). The Role of Habit in Post-Adoption Switching of Personal Information Technologies: An Empirical Investigation. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 28, 585-610.  
Ye, C., Seo, D., Desouza, K. C., Papagari Sangareddy, S. R., & Jha, S. (2006). Post-adoption switching between technology substitutes: The case of web browsers. In ICIS 2006 Proceedings - Twenty Seventh International Conference on Information Systems, 1941-1958. Retrieved from: https://asu.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/post-adoption-switching-between-technology-substitutes-the-case-o
Yoon, C., ＆ Rolland, E. (2012). Knowledge-sharing in virtual communities: familiarity, anonymity and self-determination theory. Behaviour ＆ Information Technology, 31(11), 1133-1143.
Young, A. L., & Quan-Haase, A. (2009). Information revelation and Internet privacy concerns on social network sites. In Proceedings of C&T ’09, 265-274. doi:10.1145/1556460.1556499. 
Zengyan, C., Yang, Y. P., & Lim, J. (2009). Cyber migration: An empirical investigation on factors that affect users' switch intentions in social networking sites. System Sciences, HICSS'09. 42nd Hawaii International Conference on IEEE, 1,239-253.
Zhang, W., Johnson, T., Seltzer, T., & Bichard, S. (2009). The Revolution Will be Networked: The Influence of Social Networking Sites on Political Attitudes and Behavior. Social Science Computer Review,28(1),75-92.