## 5 Draft Proposal of a Tool Assessing the Predilection to Use a \"Social\" Metaverse  
The interpretation of the \"social\" metaverse reported in Section 2.5 can be considered as more interesting and profound than the usual common attributes (the metaverse is the future, you will be able to do whatever you want, and so on), because it has the potential (the intention?) to involve the most natural life habits. From S1 and S2, few documents emerged which had examined what people think about the potential future rise of the metaverse for social purposes. Therefore, a survey could reveal information about the position of people regarding participation in a \"social\" metaverse (that is the topic addressed in Q, defined in Section 3); it also could foster opinions or discussions about this question. Questionnaires and scales are widely used surveying tools for measuring subjective feelings and positions. Many tools already exist for the assessment of specific technology features (as likeability, usability, acceptability, level of readiness, and so forth), for example Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) [49], Technology Acceptance Model v2 (TAM2) [50], Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) [51], Technology Readiness Index (TRI) [52], Technology Readiness Level (TRL) [53; 54], Human Readiness Level (HRL) [55], System Usability Scale (SUS) [56]. We found that such tools are not really suitable to investigate the topic touched on in Q, as they are aimed to be applied to technologies, i.e., to applications that are fairly specific, that are being implemented or are already working, to improve their characteristics for end users of industry and of organizations, and to enhance jobs. Instead, the features of a \"social\" metaverse embrace the field of human interactions and socializing. Moreover, these days, the metaverse appears to be not particularly suitable for specific surveys because it is not a specifically defined system, i.e., it is weakly diffused, and some of the required technologies (hardware and software) are still in development. An exception to this can be represented by the second version of \"Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology\" (UTAUT2) [57]. UTAUT2 extends the UTAUT model [51] to a consumer context by defining and including the constructs of \"Hedonic Motivation\", \"Price Value\", and \"Habit\" as elements influencing the \"behavioral intention\" of the subject to use a specific technology. The survey items of UTAUT2, according to the UTAUT model, address many specific pragmatic sides of using a given piece of technology. Given the above considerations, the development of a new specific assessment tool may be a more focused approach. Likert scales [58; 59] are widely used, self-reporting evaluation methods for measuring psychological constructs that, because of their nature, cannot be directly measured [60]. In this research, Q can be assessed by the quantification of the \"prediction\" to use a social metaverse, in terms of the intensity of positive feelings [61]. It is a subjective, non-observable, and not directly quantifiable variable. The Likert evaluation scale model is a tool that is suitable for such quantifications. Therefore, items for building a Likert scale assessing what Q is expressing in general terms could be designed and developed. This is made possible by focusing on the assessment of the construct, i.e., predilection for a new level of sociality in \"social\" metaverse (let's call it \"C\") and by specifically involving the design process from which those elements emerged as features of a \"social\" metaverse. When a construct is a bipolar continuum, typically, its presence in the subject represents the high end of the evaluation scale, while its absence, at the low end of the scale, is associated with the opposite of that construct. On the other hand, when a construct is a unipolar continuum, the low end of the scale just represents its absence in the subject [62].