Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010) 218–225

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

User goals in social virtual worlds: A means-end chain approach

Yoonhyuk Jung a,*, Hyunmee Kang b,1
a
Department of Information Systems and Decision Sciences, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA
b
The Manship School of Mass Communications, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The purpose of this study is twofold: first, to investigate user goals in social virtual worlds; second, to
Available online 1 November 2009 introduce a methodological alternative (i.e., a means-end chain approach) for analyzing user goals in
cyberspaces. The data were acquired from a web survey, and were analyzed by means-end chain analysis
Keywords: (MECA), which produces users’ goal structure in reference to a hierarchical system of interrelated goals
Virtual worlds (Olson & Reynolds, 1983). The results show that people come to social virtual worlds to satisfy their social
Social virtual worlds and hedonic needs, and to escape from real world constraints, as do virtual community members and vir-
User goal
tual gamers; they also pursue unique activities, such as creating virtual objects and selling them. On the
Goal structure
Means-end chain analysis
other hand, by clarifying relations among users’ goals, MECA provides a richer explanation for user goals
than prior research which only offers separate user goals for cyberspace users without explanation of
relationship among goals.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Virtual worlds (VWs) refer to computer-simulated, graphic-
based, virtual environments that are accessed by multiple users.
They have grown dramatically over the last decade as supporting
technologies (e.g., virtual reality, broadband) have been advanced.
World of Warcraft, which is the largest gaming virtual world
(GVW), had over 10 million subscribers as of the end of 2008
(MMOGchart.com, 2008). Virtual gaming even became a profes-
sional sport with leagues, sponsorships, and spectators in South
Korea (Castronova, 2005). Recently a new type of VWs that stress
social interaction and user empowerment has appeared, namely
social virtual worlds (SVWs) (e.g., Second Life, There.com). GVWs
are characterized by a pre-defined structure and quest-driven
behaviors, whereas SVWs have emergent structures that are cre-
ated by users under minimum constraints (Juul, 2005).
SVWs offer their users an opportunity to determine their expe-
riences in the virtual worlds for themselves (Dreyfus, 2008). This
autonomy makes the worlds places that are filled with diverse
activities such as socializing, learning, sprouting virtual business,
entertainment, and so on. The increased number of users reflects
SVWs’ popularity. For instance, Second Life, a popular SVW, an-
nounced that its subscribers exceeded 12 million as of February
2008 (SLOG, 2008). The amount of real-money trading in SVWs
has also been increasing exponentially. User-to-user trading of vir-
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 225 578 2126; fax: +1 225 578 2511.
E-mail addresses: yjung1@tigers.lsu.edu (Y. Jung), hkang2@tigers.lsu.edu (H.
Kang).
1
Tel.: +1 225 578 2336; fax: +1 225 578 2125.
tual goods in Second Life was estimated to be 360 million dollar in
2008 (Linden Lab, 2009). In addition to SVWs’ quantitative growth,
their potential as a marketing channel and a collaboration tool has
attracted both managers and researchers’ attention. Several corpo-
rations, such as Nike, Adidas, Levi’s, GM, and Toyota, create virtual
products, which simulate real products, and enable SVW users to
have virtual use experiences. Also, IBM trains new employees in
organizational culture and work processes, holds distant meetings,
and operates customer service centers in SVWs (Hobson, 2007).
Regarding SVWs as a future platform for e-learning, many educa-
tional organizations including Harvard University have been
increasingly using SVWs.
Despite renowned interest in SVWs, there is currently little
empirical research on SVWs, particularly on users’ perceptions
and behaviors in SVWs. SVWs’ distinctive characteristics may
cause users to access and behave in such environments differently
than in other cyberspaces, such as text-based virtual communities
and even GVWs. The initial step to study SVW users may be a ques-
tion of ‘why do people come to SVWs?’; that is, user goals for
accessing SVWs. Knowledge of these goals would benefit busi-
nesses that are considering the strategic use of SVWs, as well as
SVW operators in terms of attracting and retaining more users,
and also the researchers that are begging to investigate the nature
of SVW users.
In order to comprehend user goals for accessing SVWs, this
study employed means-end chain analysis (MECA), which is con-
sidered an effective method for eliciting people’s goal structure
(i.e., goals and their relations) when they approach an object or
an event (Olson & Reynolds, 1983). Prior studies that investigated
users’ goals for participating in virtual communities (Ridings & Ge-

0747-5632/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2009.10.002
 Y. Jung, H. Kang / Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010) 218–225 219

fen, 2004) and gaming virtual worlds (Bartle, 2003; Yee, 2006),
produced sets of separate individual user goals but offer little
explanation about the relations among goals. Studies of relations
among goals, or a goal structure, can provide more information
about users’ goal-oriented behavior than those of isolated goals
(Pieters, Baumgartner, & Allen, 1995). Because it can clarify goal
structure, a means-end analysis is expected to offer richer informa-
tion about user goals for participating in SVWs. This study thus
contributes to research on cyberspace users, in terms of offering
a methodological novelty, and demonstrates an empirical study
of an emerging cyberspace.
2. Theoretical background
2.1. Social virtual worlds
Despite its diverse definitions, the term virtual world has been
commonly used to indicate a computer-simulated persistent spatial
environment that supports synchronous communication among
multiple users who are represented by avatars (Holmstro }m &
Jakobsson, 2001; Jakobsson, 2006). This concept of VWs is similar
with the notion of MMOGs or massive multiplayer online games,
such as World of Warcraft. However, MMOGs have been mainly
used to specify one type of VW that has a pre-defined theme and
plot and clarifies users’ performances (e.g., level-ups). Although
they (or GVWs) still occupy the majority of VWs, the other distinc-
tive VWs, where users create their experiences for themselves and
have diverse social interaction, have dramatically increased. In the
present study, we call these types of VWs social virtual worlds
(SVWs) and differentiate them from gaming virtual worlds
(GVWs). In GVWs, user activities are based on pre-defined themes
and plots which the game designers imagined and produced. Their
activities usually aim at a quest or level-ups rather than social inter-
actions. On the other hand, the lack of predetermined storyline of
SVWs makes them distinct from GVWs, and this openness has at-
tracted various kinds of users (Warburton, 2009). SVWs endow
users with the ability to personalize their virtual experiences,
which induce various social interactions under minimum con-
straints. As a result, SVWs’ nature of minimum rules leads to diver-
sity in members’ behavior (Juul, 2005). Furthermore, as some
SVWs (e.g., Second Life, There), supports transactional systems
(e.g., virtual currency, sanctioned virtual market), and allow users
to create virtual objects, users’ activities are extended to economic
activities, that is, production and real-money trade of virtual ob-
jects. This autonomy distinguishes SVWs’ characteristics from
GVWs’.
2.2. User goals in social cyberspaces
User goals for accessing SVWs may be analogous to motivations
for joining virtual communities (VCs) and playing GVWs. VCs are
cyberspaces in which people communicate and form networks of
personal relationships (Rheingold, 1993). SVWs that support 3D
interfaces and real-time avatar interactions can be differentiated
from conventional VCs that depend on asynchronous text-based
interactions. Nevertheless, because of the social nature, SVWs are
usually considered an extension of VCs. Prior studies note that
information exchange, social relations, psychological support, and
entertainment are common goals for joining VCs (Bressler & Gran-
tham, 2000; Hagel & Armstrong, 1997; Wellman, 1996). Informa-
tion exchange indicates that the members share information
generated by other members rather than merely accessing infor-
mation that the website operator provides (Hagel & Armstrong,
1997). VC members also interact with other members and are
embedded in web of personal relationships in VCs; that is, social
relations (Rheingold, 1993). Additionally, people satisfy psycholog-
ical needs, such as emotional support, a sense of belonging, and
encouragement in VCs, and also come to VCs for entertainment.
Ridings and Gefen (2004) empirically examined users’ motivation
to join VCs and confirm that those four goals are the main motiva-
tional forces.
Bartle (2003) classifies GVW users into four types according to
their goals: socializers, explorers, achievers, and controllers. Socializ-
ers attempt to form groups and complete shared objectives;
explorers seek new places in a GVW; achievers pursue the gradual
accumulation of wealth and reputation in GVWs; and controllers
want to compete with and defeat others. Yee (2006) empirically
examined Bartle’s GVW user typology through an exploratory fac-
tor analysis, and proposes a new framework that consists of three
overarching goals: achievement, socializing, and immersion. Each
overarching purpose is composed of sub-motivations. Achieve-
ment includes advancement, mechanics, and competition; socializ-
ing includes relationships and teamwork; and immersion includes
discovery, role-playing, customization, and escapism (see Table 1).

Table 1
User goals in cyberspaces.

Type of cyberspaces Purposes Description References

Virtual communities Information Attain and transfer information about a topic, learn new things Ridings and Gefen
exchange (2004)
Social relations Get involved with other members
Psychological Attain and offer emotional support
support
Entertainment Attain fun
Gaming virtual Socializers Form groups and complete shared objectives Bartle (2003)
worlds Explorers Seek new places
Achievers Pursue the gradual accumulation of wealth and reputation
Controllers Compete with and defeat others
Gaming virtual Achievement Advancement Gain power and accumulate wealth or status Yee (2006)
worlds Mechanics Analyze the underlying rules and system to optimize character
performance
Competition Challenge and compete with others
Social Socializing Help and chat with other players
Relationships Form long-term meaningful relationships with others
Teamwork Be part of a group effort
Immersion Discovery Find things that most other players do not know about
Role-playing Create a persona with a background story and interact with others
Customization Customize the appearance of their character
Escapism Avoid thinking about real life problems
220 Y. Jung, H. Kang / Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010) 218–225
All prior studies that investigate user goals for inhabiting cyber-
spaces provide sets of isolated goals without addressing the rela-
tions among those goals. Although the prior studies recognize
that goals do not suppress each other (i.e., a user may have multi-
ple goals) (Bartle, 2003; Yee, 2006), they overlook how they are
connected. As a result, the prior studies provide just a set of sepa-
rate goals for social cyberspaces. This limit may preclude drawing a
more comprehensive picture of user goals because goals need to be
explained within a goal structure that includes a hierarchical sys-
tem of interrelated goals (Pervin, 1989). Accordingly, this study at-
tempts to clarify a goal structure beyond finding isolated goals by
employing a means-end chain analysis.
2.3. User goals and a means-end chain analysis
A goal is a desired outcome of an action (Locke & Latham, 1990).
Many researchers argue that goals exist within a hierarchical sys-
tem where a goal is located between its superordinate and subor-
dinate goals, and furthermore, each goal is a means to achieve its
superordinate goal (Kruglanski et al., 2002; Newell & Simon,
1972; Pervin, 1989). Means-end chain analysis (MECA) stems from
the idea of a hierarchical goal system. The analysis posits that
product or service attributes represent the means by which con-
sumers achieve benefits and important personal values (i.e., ends)
(Gutman, 1982; Olson & Reynolds, 1983). In other words, MECA
is an approach for discovering the important meanings that con-
sumers ascribe to a product or service’s attributes (Voss, Gruberb,
& Szmigin, 2007). The analysis assumes that consumer knowledge
is hierarchically organized by levels of abstraction (Reynolds &
Whitlark, 1995), and focuses on a product or service’s meanings
at three levels of abstraction: attributions, consequences, and values.
Attributes refer to a product or service’s physical or observable
properties: consequences are the benefits attained by the attri-
butes; and values imply highly abstract motivation that guides
usage behavior (Klenosky, 2002). An attribute–consequence–value
chain is usually expressed by a hierarchical map, which consists of
nodes (i.e., attributes, consequences, and values) and relationships
among them.
A means-end chain analysis typically depends on a laddering
interview technique, which has been comprehensively used in con-
sumer research that tries to understand consumers’ preferences to-
ward products or services (e.g., Klenosky, 2002; Reynolds &
Rochon, 2001), and organization research, which elucidates an
organization’s strategic values and decision-making structures
(e.g., Peffers, Gengler, & Tuunanen, 2003; van Rekom, van Riel, &
Wierenga, 2006). For helping respondents elicit lower or higher
levels of abstractions for the concepts, the technique aims to
understand the way in which the respondent sees the world (Rey-
nolds & Gutman, 1988). A laddering procedure typically includes
three questions: the attribute question (What attribute makes
the product (or service) attractive to you?), the consequence ques-
tion (Why is the attribute important or desirable to you?), and the
value question (Why is your response important?). In the first
phase, the respondent is asked to supply the attributes of a product
that affect his or her consumption decision. The respondent is then
asked to explain what benefits he or she attains owing to the attri-
butes. Finally, the respondent is asked to offer the reason why
those benefits are important to him or her, namely, a justification
stage. All responses are coded, and then a hierarchical map is final-
ly produced by the level of abstraction, that is,
attributes ? consequences ? values.
Even though means-end chain studies that employ a laddering
interview technique usually use the traditional way as stated
above, some studies employ a modified MECA. The main modifica-
tion appears to be a way to decide the level of abstraction and a
technique for data collection. Employing network theory (see Scott,
1991), some studies calculate the abstractness of each element
(concept) and use it to determine the position of the element in
a hierarchical map instead of a strict specification of three levels
of abstraction (i.e., attributes, consequences, and values) (Bagozzi
& Dabholkar, 1994; Capozza, Falvo, Robusto, & Orlando, 2003; Piet-
ers et al., 1995). This revised method allows researchers to know
the relationships of elements without having to conduct additional
work to classify elements into three levels. One critique of the lad-
dering technique is that an answer frequently does not correspond
to the question (e.g., a consequence or value answer to the attri-
bute question). Studies that employ network theory reduce this
limitation because each element has a level according to its
abstractness without any label (e.g., attribute) in the revised meth-
od. On the other hand, instead of in-depth interviews, some studies
use questionnaires: a technique developed by Walker and Olson
(1991) (e.g., Botschen & Hemetsberger, 1998; Pieters et al., 1995;
Voss et al., 2007). The advantage of a questionnaire version is that
respondents themselves decide when they finish the laddering
process, which may make respondents feel pressure (Botschen &
Hemetsberger, 1998). In addition, compared to the in-depth inter-
views, a questionnaire version is a cost-effective method for data
collection (Botschen, Thelen, & Pieters, 1999).
3. Methodology
3.1. Data gathering
The target SVW for this study was There (www.there.com),
which is a SVW equipped with a 3D environment. The reason
why we chose There was that it is closer to our definition of SVWs
in terms of users’ autonomy (i.e., diverse user activities including
creating and selling virtual objects), and it has recently grown rap-
idly in terms of membership. The number of its registered mem-
bers is over one million as of early 2008. In There, a member has
a personal avatar that represents oneself. A member can manipu-
late his or her personal avatar’s face, hair, and body and put it into
clothes. Also, a member can create 3D objects (e.g., chair, building,
waterfall) using developer program, and perform virtual tasks with
them or sell them to other members. Controlling their personal
avatars, members enjoy synchronous chatting at the park or on
the beach, dancing at night club, or taking a buggy in There.
During two weeks, we solicited Thereians, which There users call
themselves, to participate in the web-based survey. Two ap-
proaches were used to recruit participants. First, we sent group
leaders of a wide diversity of groups messages which requested
them to distribute our solicitation message which included the
web-based survey link. Also, we directly recruited participants in
various places (e.g., beaches, parks, sandboxes) of There. We first
sent longed-in users a message that introduced our survey, and if
they wanted to participate in the web-based survey, then we sent
the link. Fifty-four Thereians, which There users call themselves, re-
sponded to our web-based survey or a questionnaire-based ladder-
ing technique.2 Participation in this study was voluntary. The
participants were heterogeneous in age, gender, and educational
background as seen in Table 2, indicating that There is used by varied
sorts of people. The majority of the participants can be regarded as
highly-attached users in that over 60% of the participants logged in
There daily or several times a week and over half of the participants
had used There over one year.
The questionnaire consisted of three questions for a laddering
analysis and five questions about demographic information. Based
2
Prior research employing a laddering technique usually has from 40 to 140
samples (51 samples in Pieters et al. (1995), 53 samples in Klenosky (2002), 82 in
Voss et al. (2007), 133 samples in Bagozzi and Dabholkar (1994)). Thus, based on prior
research, our number of samples is acceptable.
 Y. Jung, H. Kang / Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010) 218–225 221

Table 2 4.1. Coding

Demographics of participants.

Frequency Percent For analysis, the responses from three probing questions were
Age 18–24 10 18.6 coded. One of the authors coded the data using an open coding pro-
25–34 6 11.1 cedure in which codes were not predetermined but rather emerged
35–44 13 24.1 from the data. This resulted in 45 detailed codes present in the
45–54 11 20.4 data. In cases where the data contained more than one topic, multi-
55 or older 3 5.5
No answer 11 20.4
ple codes were assigned. For example, ‘‘Thereians want to be soci-
able and have fun” was assigned two codes – Social relations and
Gender Male 21 38.9
Female 22 40.7
Fun. A second coder, the other author, independently re-coded
No answer 11 20.4 the data using the set of codes identified by the first coder. The
Education High school 11 20.4
two raters were in agreement on 292 of the 363 codes assigned
Community college 9 16.7 (Cohen’s Kappa = 0.78), indicating an acceptable level of inter-rater
Undergraduate 7 13.0 reliability (Fleiss, 1981). Inter-rater disagreements were then rec-
Graduate 15 27.8 onciled through discussion. Finally, associated codes were grouped
No answer 12 22.2
into 11 topics, as shown in Table 3. This categorization was also
Logging frequency Once a month 3 5.6 verified by the same procedure as the detailed coding procedure
Once a week 4 7.4
(Cohen’s Kappa = 0.91).
Several times a week 12 22.2
Daily 24 44.4
No answer 11 20.4 4.2. Generating a goal structure
Tenure Less than 6 months 7 13.0
6 months to 1 year 6 11.1 Responses to the three questions (the overarching question, the
1 year to 2 years 11 20.4 downward question, and the upward question) generated a
Longer than 2 years 19 35.2 means-end chain, or a ladder of meanings; that is, answers to the
No answer 11 20.4
downward question pertain to a means for answers to the over-
arching question, and likewise answers to the overarching ques-
tion correspond to a means for answers to the upward question.
For instance, if a subject responds Technical features to the down-
on prior laddering research, we made three open questions to ward question; Social relations to the overarching question; and
probe members’ goals for using There: (1) we first placed the over- Amusement to the upward question, two direct linkages are cre-
arching question (What are your main three purposes for using ated: Technical features ? Social relations, and Social rela-
There?); (2) we then asked the downward question (What charac- tions ? Amusement. We can also consider an indirect linkage; for
teristics of There help you achieve each purpose?); (3) and we finally instance, eliciting the linkage of Technical features ? Amusement
asked the upward question (Why is each purpose important to you?). from the linkage of Technical features ? Social relations ? Amuse-
In our procedure, the overarching question corresponds to the con- ment. Ultimately all linkages were summarized in an implication
sequence question of a conventional laddering technique; the matrix which depicts the number of times each topic (code) leads
downward question corresponds to the attribute question; and to each other topic in responses (Klenosky, 2002). As can be seen in
the upward question corresponds to the value question (see Table 4, each topic in the row leads to the other topics in the col-
Fig. 1). As previously stated, because our focus is on the relation- umn. For instance, T5 (Social relations) led to T8 (Escapism) 2 times;
ships of elements rather than of their classification into attributes, T11 (Technical features) led to T10 (Amusement) 5 times.
consequences, and values, we used our own terms rather than Typical means-end chain studies classify responses into attri-
those three labels. Also, based on our pilot study, we ordered the butes, consequences, and values and then produce a hierarchical
three questions. In the pilot study, most of our respondents an- structure of attributes ? purposes ? values. In order to mitigate
swered their consequences or values instead of attributes to the classification errors, the current study employed an alternative
attribute question (the downward question in our study). In this method proposed by Bagozzi and Dabholkar (1994) and Pieters
situation, we had difficulty continuing to probe because they had et al. (1995). Instead of classifying responses into three labels, this
already answered their highly abstractive purposes. For example, approach, which is based on network analysis (Scott, 1991), pro-
when we asked the attribute question (i.e., What characteristic duces a hierarchical structure by comparing the number of times
makes There attractive to you?), many respondents answered just each element is mentioned as the means versus the end. The ap-
fun or meeting new people which corresponded to consequences proach uses out-degrees and in-degrees in order to estimate
or values rather than attributes. Thus, we had to ask the attribute abstractness of each element. Out-degrees of a particular element
question again (i.e., What characteristic of There help you achieve refer to the number of times the element serves as the source or
this purpose?). In order to conduct more effective web survey- origin (means) of linkages with other elements (i.e., the row sum
based laddering procedure, we needed to modify a laddering pro- of the element in an implication matrix), whereas in-degrees of
cedure, and placed the overarching question first. Our procedure, the element indicate the number of times the element serves as
in which an intermediate question (consequence question) is the object or end of linkages with others (i.e., the column sum of
placed first, is also consistent with thought: humans set a goal at the element in an implication matrix) (Pieters et al., 1995).
an intermediate level rather than explicitly pursuing a highly ab- Abstractness of an element is the ratio of in-degrees over in-degrees
stract goal, and then decide operational strategies to attain it (Rif- plus out-degrees of the element, and ranges from 0 to l (Pieters
kin, 1985). et al., 1995). Elements with high abstractness scores are regarded
mainly as ends, while ones with low abstractness scores are
thought of primarily as means. Based on the alternative approach,
4. Results and analysis we created an implication matrix (see Table 4). Additionally, in or-
der for informative analysis, this study calculated centrality of each
The analysis consisted of two stages: (1) coding and (2) gener- element, which represents the degree to which the element has a
ating a goal structure (a hierarchical goal map). central role in the structure (Knoke & Burt, 1982). Centrality is cal-
222 Y. Jung, H. Kang / Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010) 218–225

Fig. 1. Laddering procedure.

Table 3
Topics (super-codes) and sub-codes.

Topics Codes
T1. Addiction (removed) Addiction/hooked
T2. Creating Creating virtual objects/decorating own avatar or property/creativity
T3. Educational tool (removed) Educational tool
T4. Escapism Escaping from reality/free from disability
T5. Social relations Social interaction/meeting people/chatting/social events/dating
Finding friendly users
Having time with family or offline friends
Helping people
Worldwide availability/interacting with diverse people
T6. Exploring Exploring/traveling/adventuring/walking around
Lots of places/large scale of the virtual world
T7. Financial Economic freedom/auction system
Financial/running a business/making money
T8. Knowledge acquisition Acquiring new ideas
Doing research
Improving practical skills (programming)
T9. Positive administration (removed) Free membership
Good administration of There.com
Tutorial & class for training how to develop virtual objects
T10. Amusement Fun/enjoyment
Gaming (paintball, spades)
Movies/music
Relaxing/reducing stress
Something to do/goofing off/killing time
Buggies
T11. Technical features 3D environment/virtual reality/graphic
Human-like avatars’ behavior
Simple operation/easiness of navigation
Teleport
The map
Voice/IM/Email (communication tools in There)

culated by dividing the ratio of in-degree plus out-degree of a par-
ticular element by the sum of all active cells in the implication ma-
trix (the sum = 167 in the current study).
The next step was to generate a hierarchical map according to
the information in the implication matrix. In this stage, the impor-
tant point was determining what linkages were included in a hier-
archical goal map. Because inclusion of all linkages could decrease
a map’s usefulness and informativeness, we did not embrace all
linkages and decided to employ a cutoff level (Reynolds & Gutman,
1988). Following Bagozzi and Dabholkar’s (1994) method, we built
Table 5 to choose a cutoff level and finally selected a cutoff of four,
indicating that the included relations are counted at least four
times. This cutoff level represented 30.0% of the active cells and
64.1% of the active linkages, which corresponds to a measure of
variance (Gengler & Reynolds, 1995). According to the cutoff, T1
(Addiction), T3 (Positive administration), and T9 (Educational tool)
were excluded because they had no linkage to satisfy the cutoff
criterion.
The hierarchical goal map in Fig. 2 offers a graphical summary
of the means-end structure pertinent to using a SVW. In the
map, the topics are placed relative to their abstractness scores.
Accordingly, the more abstract a topic, the higher it is located in
the map.
5. Discussion
A means-end chain analysis played an effective role in clarifying
SVW users’ goal structure. The analysis is summarized in the hier-
archical goal map, which provides a quick and rich understanding
of SVW users’ goal structure. The findings show that SVW user
goals are usually overlapped with VC members’ and GVW players’
 Y. Jung, H. Kang / Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010) 218–225 223

Table 4
Implication matrix.

Abstractness Centrality Topics T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 Out-degrees

0.000 0.018 T1. Addiction 3 3
0.442 0.257 T2. Creating 3 4 4 5 1 5 2 24
0.800 0.060 T3. Educational tool 2 2
0.731 0.156 T4. Escapism 1 2 4 7
0.532 0.461 T5. Social relations 2 1 7 1 2 1 21 1 36
0.158 0.114 T6. Exploring 2 4 8 2 16
0.250 0.096 T7. Financial 7 2 1 2 12
0.722 0.108 T8. Knowledge acquisition 1 1 2 1 5
0.167 0.072 T9. Positive administration 3 2 3 1 1 10
0.725 0.413 T10. Amusement 1 2 12 1 1 2 19
0.195 0.246 T11. Technical features 3 1 3 18 1 2 5 33
In-degrees 0 19 8 19 41 3 4 13 2 50 8 167

Out-degree: the number of times the element serves as the source or origin (means) of linkages with other elements.
In-degree: the number of times the element serves as the object or end of linkages with others.
Abstractness: (in-degrees)/(in-degrees + out-degrees).
Centrality: (in-degree + out-degree)/the sum of all active cells.

Table 5 distinctive goals, such as Creation, Financial, and Exploring. On the

Statistics for determining a cutoff level. other hand, SVW users have differential goals, or Creation, Finan-
Cutoff Number of Percentage of Number of Percentage of cial, and Knowledge acquisition, from those of GVW players, and
level active cells in active cells at active active linkages do not mention achievement, which is one of GVW players’ goals.
the or above the linkages in the at or above the Accordingly, a SVW can be regarded as a novel cyberspace that al-
implication cutoff level (%) implication cutoff level (%) lows users to engage in activities that are different from traditional
matrix matrix
VCs and GVWs. The specific findings are summarized below:
1 50 100.0 167 100.0
2 33 66.0 150 89.8
 In terms of the topics’ centrality, Social relations (0.413) and
3 19 38.0 122 73.1
4 15 30.0 107 64.1 Amusement (0.416) are predominant, and Creating (0.257) and
5 11 22.0 91 54.5 Technical features (0.246) follow.
6 8 16.0 76 45.5  Amusement, Escapism, and Knowledge acquisition are the most
abstract topics (i.e., high-level purposes), whereas Financial,
Technical feature, and Exploring are the least abstract ones. Creat-
goals; yet they also have unique goals. Compared to VC members, ing and Social relations play an intermediary role in the hierar-
SVW user goals embrace VC members’ goals and further include chical structure (i.e., intermediary purposes).

Fig. 2. Hierarchical goal map for a social virtual worlds.

224 Y. Jung, H. Kang / Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010) 218–225
 In examining linkages, we have seven findings. First, the main
chain is Technical feature ? Social relations ? Amusement. This
chain is 23.3% of all relations in the implication matrix.
 Second, Exploring is a source for Social relations and Amusement.
 Third, Creating supports the highest abstraction out of three pur-
poses including Amusement, Escapism, and Knowledge acquisition.
 Fourth, Social relations functions as a means for Escapism.
 Fifth, Escapism leads Amusement.
 Sixth, Amusement has a strong reciprocal feedback loop with
Social relations. Both can be a means or an end for each other;
in other words, the both are deeply interwoven.
 Finally, Creating has a reciprocal feedback loop with Financial.
The results show that Social relations and Amusement are main
goals for using SVWs from the viewpoint of abstractness and cen-
trality, indicating that SVW users have goals that are similar to VC
members and GVW players. Social relations correspond to VC mem-
bers’ major goal, and thus we can conclude that a SVW is another
channel for expanding social relations, as are other social cyber-
spaces. Amusement is also mentioned as one of VC members’ main
goals. In the context of GVWs, Amusement is not explicitly stated as
a goal (Yee, 2006); it can be considered an intrinsic goal in playing
GVWs.
The most predominant relation is the link of Technical fea-
ture ? Social relations ? Amusement. This result indicates that var-
ious technical features (e.g., voice chatting, avatar interaction) help
users expend social relations, which subsequently lead to amuse-
ment. Ultimately, considering the strong reciprocal feedback rela-
tion of Social relations and Amusement, users tend to aim at
enjoyable social relations supported by technical features in SVWs.
Both Social relations and Amusement are also supported by another
topic of Exploring, which represents users’ traveling to 3D spatial
places where users come together for dancing or social events.
Thus, Exploring is directly relevant to social communications. In
addition, traveling to fantastic places (e.g., exotic heaven) or real-
like places (e.g., virtual New Orleans) may provide visitors with
an experience that produce pleasure.
Escapism, which implies that users try to get out of their routine
or constrained real-life environments (Hirschman, 1983), is one of
the most abstract goals and corresponds to one of GVW players’
goals. Escapism has a much higher position in the hierarchical goal
map as the end of two intermediary goals (Social relations and Cre-
ating). Some users achieve the Escapism goal by making social rela-
tions in SVWs. To users with limited social activities (e.g., a
disabled person, a housewife caring for four children), social inter-
action in SVWs can be a way to overcome their constraints in the
real world, which eventually leads to positive feelings or
amusement.
Creating is a goal that distinguishes VC members’ goals from
GVW players’ goals. Despite the fact that not all SVWs enable their
users to create virtual objects and even sell them, many SVWs do
so. This behavioral autonomy is a unique characteristic of SVWs
and is regarded as a central goal (3rd highest centrality). In partic-
ular, Creating plays an important role of an intermediary goal that
supports all three highest purposes in the hierarchical structure. By
creating virtual objects, users have fun and improve their practical
skills, such as computer programming. Also, by designing their
avatars’ appearances, which may be significantly different from
their real appearances, or by creating imaginary virtual objects,
they escape from constraints in real life.
Another point is that Creating has a reciprocal feedback loop
with the Financial goal. Besides making virtual objects to satisfy
their creative needs and imagination, users produce them partially
with the intent to sell them in SVWs. Whether their intention is to
gain self-contentment or do business, their creatures become fun-
damental contents of SVWs. VC research has stressed the impor-
tance of member-generated contents and further regarded them
as a vital factor in VCs’ success (Filipczak, 1998). However, accord-
ing to prior studies, only 10% of members of one popular peer-to-
peer sharing VC produced 87% of all contents (Adar & Huberman,
2000), and 4% of members in an open-source development VC pro-
duced 88% of new codes and 66% of code fixes (Mockus, Fielding, &
Andersen, 2002). Minor devotees produce almost all contents in
pre-existing VCs, whereas SVW users consider the behavior for
producing contents, or Creating, a central goal. Therefore, mem-
ber-generated contents are more prominent in SVWs than in tradi-
tional VCs. Furthermore, transactional systems (e.g., virtual
currency, virtual market for trading virtual objects) play some sort
of incentive for users’ creating behavior. SVWs’ transactional sys-
tems can encourage users to create contents spontaneously with-
out incentive systems supported by SVW providers. Thus, the
combination of Creating and Financial has a strong self-sustaining
function for SVWs. This finding provides current and future SVW
providers with managerial insights: advancing a creating tool, rein-
forcing transactional systems, and guaranteeing secure
transactions.
Knowledge acquisition is one of four of VC members’ main goals
(i.e., information exchange). Knowledge acquisition is, however, not a
central goal to SVW users (the second lowest centrality), though it
is one of the most abstract goals. Compared to Social relations and
Amusement, Knowledge acquisition seems to be considered a minor
goal in SVWs.
6. Contributions and limitations
This study’s contributions are threefold: conceptualizing SVWs,
empirical investigation of a timely topic, and finding a new ap-
proach towards analyzing user goals for social cyberspaces. First,
although SVWs have their own distinctive characteristics that are
different from traditional MMOGs (or GVWs), many studies perti-
nent to SVWs have considered them to belong to one broad single
category together with GVWs, or VWs. This study clarifies the no-
tion of SVWs through differentiating them from GVWs, and we
hope that our initial conceptualization of SVWs stimulates discus-
sion about what SVWs are, and how different these new cyberspac-
es are from others. Second, while SVWs have dramatically
attracted the attention of business mangers, educational practitio-
ners, and researchers, there is little empirical research on SVW
users. The study offers preliminary knowledge about SVW users
by empirical investigation of user goals. Lastly, the study intro-
duces a means-end chain analysis which provides a richer under-
standing of SVW user goals. In prior studies that examined
individuals’ goals for using social cyberspaces, those goals are sep-
arately listed without any explanation of relations among them. A
means-end chain analysis used in this study presented the hierar-
chical goal map, which consists of separate goals and their rela-
tions, and thus offers a better explanation of SVW user goals.
This study has the following three limitations. First, the study’s
samples may be biased in that the study surveyed users during a
short term, and chose a convenient sampling method. The other
potential bias with our data is that because the samples voluntarily
responded the survey our results may be based on highly-moti-
vated users’ responses. Accordingly, the study has a limitation in
fully generalizing the findings. Second, the study deals with only
one type of SVW which supports 3D interfaces and endows users
to create virtual object and sell them. Thus, the findings of the
study should be re-examined on other SVWs, which have different
environments, in future research. Furthermore, in order for further
understanding of SVWs user goals, future research needs to com-
pare them to user goals for other various social cyberspaces, such
as conventional text-based VCs, social networking services, or
 Y. Jung, H. Kang / Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2010) 218–225 225

weblogs. Finally, this study did not control variance caused by cul- Linden Lab (2009). Linden lab goes shopping, buys virtual goods marketplaces to
integrate web shopping with Second Life. Available: <http://lindenlab.com/
ture, which may function as a crucial variable in fully understand-
pressroom/releases/01_20_09>.
ing SVW users’ goals, in a sense that There is a worldwide Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.
cyberspace and the users come from various countries. Thus, cul- Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
tural consideration can be a prominent aspect in research on MMOGchart.com (2008). An analysis of MMOG subscription growth. Available:
<http://www.mmogchart.com/charts>.
SVW users’ behaviors. Mockus, A., Fielding, R. T., & Andersen, H. (2002). Two case studies of open source
software development: Apache and Mozilla. ACM Transactions on Software
Engineering and Methodology, 11, 309–346.
References Newell, A., & Simon, H. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Olson, J. C., & Reynolds, T. J. (1983). Understanding consumers’ cognitive structures:
Adar, E., & Huberman, B. A. (2000). Free riding on gnutella. First Monday, 5.
Implications for marketing strategy. In L. Percy & A. G. Woodside (Eds.),
Available: <http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/idl/papers/gnutella/gnutella.pdf>.
Advertising and consumer psychology (pp. 51–57). Lexington, MA: Lexington
Bagozzi, R. P., & Dabholkar, P. A. (1994). Consumer recycling goals and their effect
Books.
on decisions to recycle: A means-end chain analysis. Psychology & Marketing, 11,
Peffers, K., Gengler, C. E., & Tuunanen, T. (2003). Extending critical success factors
313–340.
methodology to facilitate broadly participative information systems planning.
Bartle, R. (2003). Designing virtual worlds. Indianapolis: New Riders Press.
Journal of Management Information Systems, 20, 51–85.
Botschen, G., & Hemetsberger, A. (1998). Diagnosing means-end structures to
Pervin, L. A. (1989). Goal concepts in personality and social psychology. Hillsdale, NJ:
determine the degree of potential marketing program standardization. Journal
Lawrence Erlbaum.
of Business Research, 42, 151–159.
Pieters, R., Baumgartner, H., & Allen, D. (1995). A means-end chain approach to
Botschen, G., Thelen, E. M., & Pieters, R. (1999). Using means-end structures for
consumer goal structures. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 12,
benefit segmentation. European Journal of Marketing, 33, 38–58.
227–244.
Bressler, S. E., & Grantham, C. E. Sr., (2000). Communities of commerce. Building
Reynolds, T. J., & Gutman, J. (1988). Laddering theory, method, analysis, and
internet business communities. New York: McGraw-Hill.
interpretation. Journal of Advertising Research, 28, 11–31.
Capozza, D., Falvo, R., Robusto, E., & Orlando, A. (2003). Beliefs about internet:
Reynolds, T. J., & Rochon, J. P. (2001). Consumer segmentation based on cognitive
Methods of elicitation and measurement. Papers on Social Representations, 12,
orientations: The ChemLawn case. In T. J. Reynolds & J. C. Olson (Eds.),
1.1–1.14.
Understanding consumer decision making? The means-end approach to marketing
Castronova, E. (2005). Synthetic worlds: The business and culture of online games.
and advertising strategy (pp. 283–298). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Reynolds, T. J., & Whitlark, D. B. (1995). Applying ladder data to communications
Dreyfus, H. L. (2008). Faking it. California, March/April, 51–54.
strategy and advertising practice. Journal of Advertising Research, 35, 9–17.
Filipczak, B. (1998). Trainers on the net: A community of colleagues. Training, 35, 70–76.
Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier.
Fleiss, J. L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gengler, C. E., & Reynolds, T. J. (1995). Consumer understanding and advertising
Ridings, C. M., & Gefen, D. (2004). Virtual community attraction: Why people hang
strategy: Analysis and strategic translation of laddering data. Journal of
out online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10 [Article 4].
Advertising Research, July/August, 19–33.
Rifkin, A. (1985). Evidence for a basic level in event taxonomies. Memory and
Gutman, J. (1982). A means-end model based on consumer categorization
Cognition, 13, 538–556.
processes. Journal of Marketing, 46, 60–72.
Scott, J. (1991). Social network analysis: A handbook. London: Sage Publications.
Hagel, J., & Armstrong, A. G. (1997). Net gain: Expanding markets through virtual
SLOG (2008). Second Life Statistics: 22-Feb-2008. Accessible: <http://
communities. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
secondslog.blogspot.com/2008/02/second-life-statistics-22-feb-2008.html>.
Hirschman, E. C. (1983). Predictors of self-projection, fantasy fulfillment, and
van Rekom, J., van Riel, C. B. M., & Wierenga, B. (2006). A methodology for
escapism. The Journal of Social Psychology, 120, 63–76.
assessing organizational core values. Journal of Management Studies, 43,
Hobson, N. (2007). Should businesses get a Second Life. Knowledge Management
175–202.
Review, 10, 5.
Voss, R., Gruberb, T., & Szmigin, I. (2007). Service quality in higher
Holmstro }m, H., & Jakobsson, M. (2001). Using models in virtual world design. In
education: The role of student expectations. Journal of Business Research,
Proceedings of the hawaii international conference on system sciences–41 (HICSS-
60, 949–959.
41). Big Island, HI.
Walker, B. A., & Olson, J. C. (1991). Means-end chains: Connecting products with
Jakobsson, M. (2006). Virtual worlds and social interaction design. Unpublished
self. Journal of Business Research, 22, 111–118.
doctoral dissertation, Umeå University.
Warburton, S. (2009). Second Life in higher education: Assessing the potential for
Juul, J. (2005). Half-real: Video games between real rules and factional worlds.
and the barriers to deploying virtual worlds in learning and teaching. British
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Journal of Educational Technology, 40, 414–426.
Klenosky, D. B. (2002). The ‘‘pull” of tourism destinations: A means-end
Wellman, B. (1996). For a social network analysis of computer networks: A
investigation. Journal of Travel Research, 40, 385–395.
sociological perspective on collaborative work and virtual community.
Knoke, D., & Burt, R. S. (1982). Prominence. In R. S. Burt & M. J. Minor (Eds.), Applied
Presented at the ACM SIGCPR/SIGMIS conference on computer personnel
network analysis (pp. 195–222). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
research, Denver, CO.
Kruglanski, A. W., Shah, J. Y., Fishbach, A., Friedman, M. R., Chun, W. Y., & Sleeth-
Yee, N. (2006). Motivations of play in online games. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9,
Keppler, D. (2002). A theory of goal systems. Advances in Experimental Social
772–775.
Psychology, 34, 331–379.