Determinants of ethical behavior in social networks in Cameroon: case of group « Kerel Kongossa !!!! » on Facebook

Arsène Aurelien Njamen kengdo; Tii  Njivukuh NCHOFOUNG

Arsène Aurelien Njamen kengdo University of Dschang
Tii Njivukuh NCHOFOUNG University od Dschang

Keywords: ethical behavior, moral, amoral, social networks, kerel Kongossa !!!!, Facebook

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to determine the explanatory factors of ethical behavior in social networks in Cameroon. To do this, we are conducting a study based on the posts of members of a group on Facebook called Kerel Kongossa!!!! The data are obtained from 1000 posts recorded during the periods of April to August 2019.The methodology focuses on the analysis of descriptive statistics and logistic regression. Two main results are obtained from this research. On one hand, among the variables retained, posts of an educational nature, social events, funny, visible and intelligible posts have a positive and significant impact on the ethical behavior of individuals (determinants of moral behavior). On the other hand, insulting posts and unwanted content rather have a negative impact on ethical behavior of individuals (determinants of amoral behavior).

References

[1] Ajzen, Icek. 1985. “From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior”, In J. Kuhi &J.Beckmann (dir.), Action—control: From cognition to behavior, pp.11-39.
[2] Ajzen, Icek. 1991. “The Theory of Planned Behavior”, Organizational behavior and human decision processes, n°50, pp.179-211.
[3] Durkheim, Emile. 1893. De la division du travail social, Presse Universitaire de France, Paris, réimpression Paris, Felix Alcan, 416p.
[4] Fayon, David. 2008. Web 2.0 et au-delà, nouveaux internautes : du surfeur à l‘acteur, Economia, 204p.
[5] Fishbein, Martin and Ajzen Icek. 1974. “Attitudes toward objects as predictors of single and multiple behavioral Criteria’, Psychological Review, n°81, pp.59-74.
[6] Forehand, Garlie and Haller Gilmer. 1964. “Environmental variation in studies of organizational behavior”, Psychological Bulletin 62(6), pp.361-382.
[7] Gilchrist J C. 1959. “Social psychology and group processes”, Annual Review of Psychology 10, pp.233-264.
[8] Heyns R. 1958. “Social psychology and group processes”, Annual Review of Psychology 9, pp.419-452.
[9] Hosmer, David and Lemeshow Stanley. 2000. Applied logistic regression, Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics, 397p.
[10] Jodelet Denise, Viet Jean and Besnard Philippe. 1970. La psychologie sociale, une discipline en mouvement, préface de Serge Moscovici, Paris - La Haye, 470p.
[11] Joueet Josiane. 2003. “Technologies de communication et genre”, Réseaux, n°120, pp. 53-86.
[12] Kleinbaum David, Kupper Lawrence, MulleR Keith and Azhar Nizam. 1988. Applied regression analysis and other multivariate methods, PWS-KENT Publishing Company, Boston, 787p.
[13] Le Breton Marine. 2016. Réseaux sociaux : 5 manières dont ils influencent nos comportements, consulté le 10 février 2019, https://www.huffingtonpost.fr/2014/04/10/reseaux-sociaux-influencecomportement_n_5123479.html
[14] Magdalena, Grebosz and Jacek Otto. 2013. “L’impact des réseaux sociaux sur le comportement des jeunes consommateurs”, Studia Ekonomiczne, vol 151, pp.47-56.
[15] Mcpherson J Miller and Smith-Lovin Lynn. 1987. “Homophily in voluntary organizations: status distance and the composition of face-to-face groups”, American Sociological Review, 52(3), pp.370-379.
[16] Mulder, Mauk. 1963. Group structure, motivation and group performance, La Haye-Paris, 110p.
[17] Shaw, Marvin. 1964. “Communication networks”, pp.111-147 in: BERKOWITZ, L. Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 1. New York, Academic Press, 319p.
[18] Viard, Rudy. 2018. le classement des réseaux sociaux ; Webmarketing conseil, consulté le 10 février 2019, www.webmarketing-conseil.fr/classement-reseaux-sociaux