Limited capacity Lang et. al,.

(2003) Where the Mind Meets the Message: Reflections on Ten Years of Measuring Psychological Responses to Media ;

Wise et. al, (2009) The Effect of Searching Versus Surfing on Cognitive and Emotional Responses to Online News . Could you hide yourself on Facebook?

Technology acceptance, Diffusion of Innovations. In general, within this topic, the authors discussed the lack of a new direction for diffusion of innovations. They made good recommendations. For instance, Turner et. al (2009) suggested to look at the benefits of using new technologies (p. 471), or the impact of technology on working practices. However, it may fall out of the Diffusion Theory, which traditionally looked at the process of passing the awareness of knowledge, how it change behaviors. In their paper, Rodgers (2000) actually have an alike recommendation, which it to study not only the awareness-knowledge, but knowledge about the news event. They all want to know not only the spreading process, but how it could be applied to the reality to transform the people's behavioral habits. Any theory attempts to bring social changes. Even though Diffusion of Innovations is often be abused for the purpose of promoting business commercials, it can be taken advantage to build up underdeveloped societies. About the news diffusion, even though it's more often used to explicate the rumor mechanism, but it can also be used for the educational purpose, a good purpose outside political and corporal purpose. In this case, it should be linked to SCT, especially the self-efficacy variable to predict users' actual use of news.

Turner et. al (2009) did a systematic literature review (SLR), a big effort to draw out good implications for scholars who performed secondary studies and for researchers who are testing the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Although both SLR and TAM have limitations, one in providing the consistent conclusion for the associations between TAM's main variables, and the other in predicting the actual use, this paper was very helpful. The two research questions intertwined between the modified TAM variables suggested by Venkatesh and Davis, perceived ease of use (PEU), per- ceived usefulness (PU), and behavioural intention to use (BI). Why they abandoned the fourth variable of the original TAM model, attitude toward use (A), was not clear. Besides, the authors tried to weave between objective and subjective measures with the prediction of actual use. The third question, which I found very interesting, was left unanswered due to the lack of discourse literacy. But if we must provide an answer for whether factors such as prior use of technology, whether it is mandatorory or not, what is it? I think it have certain impacts on the adopting decision. >>> o factors such as the version of the TAM, the form of technology being evaluated, prior use of the technology or whether the technology is mandatory or not affect the accuracy of the predictions? (Q.3) There's another question left unanswered in this paper - under what conditions PU or
PEU are (or are not) good predictors. (p. 470)

I think I agree with all the conclusions. First, the TAM variables are a much stronger
predictor of the behavioural intention to use a technology than the actual usage of a technology. However, why PU is rejected? You perceived it's useful, then logically, you're gonna buy it if you have enough money. But then, if you perceived it's easy to use, it's not realistic that you're gonna buy the new tech. The questions may got some problem. Second, PEU is not as successful at predicting actual usage as BI. Second, the results show that the average proportion of all of the three TAM variables predicting actual usage is lower if the actual usage measure is objec- tive than if it is subjective. (p. 469) Certainly, when you interview

people, they will say what they wish, but not what they actually do. So, people have a lot of dreams but probably do not have enough resources to achieve these.
Applying it to the news field, Rodgers (2000) also went over the discourse of news diffusion theory. He wrote a very interesting paper with clear examples such as the "God drinking milks" in India (p. 571). Basically, he said that scholars went from looking at the audience as passive users of news to considering them as more active news distributor. His analyses of motivations for passing the news around were very interesting - reinforce their beliefs, discuss a puzzle, influence others, etc. (p. #) I think we can go deeper into this direction, because there are not so much articles discussing this point. How TAM model melts into it? Rodgers believed there was a connection between mass and interpersonal communication diffusions going on. But he didn't predict the actual spread-out of news, because he was more concerned with how users give the meaning to the news stories. He thought the nature of news stories (low vs. high salience of news) can heavily affect users' perception of the news. By thinking so, they went further than their predecessors who just focused on the rate of diffusion. (?, no, it's wrong, they added individual

and situational variables). They still want to find a new direction for news diffusion besides testing new channels. Probably, news diffusion can find a new direction in the social media news. How Reddit works to let the people modify the message because scattering it around. Why people want to spread it out? Or why people want to use social media? And how can we define "social media activities". Who will share information, and who will share self-disclosure info? How others react to what types of news? Pinterest was criticized for nudity photos which was redefined by users as art. Again, going to the meaning interpretations of news diffusions can be very interesting. Why people believe what they believed? Does it help them gain self-efficacy to spread out the news? How wrong and imaginative a person can be? Who create the rumors? Why people believe in the rumors? Rumor creators must be an idiot who misinterpret the media too.

Limited Capacity How readers searched for bad news? How bad news came to them? Affect them? Would it make them spread out the news?

I thought it's like rumors.

What is self-fullfilling nature of news stories and how does it differ from rumors? (p. 571) convince people, then reinforce ourselves, creating bigger news. Then, how about deceive ourselves first, then started deceiving other people. Talking about the meaning that people give to news stories? It was written to make people believe it in the same way. How can people interpret it in different ways? There should have some patterns. via interaction with other people, they create new symbols. They are not passive, because it depends on the event.