Social Media Involvement Among College Students and General Population: Implications to Media Management

  • Louisa HaEmail author
  • Xiao Hu
Part of the Media Business and Innovation book series (MEDIA)


Social media have been becoming one of the hottest topics in the recent years and various media incorporate social media to drive traffic and build customer relationships. This book chapter introduces a new concept—social media involvement—and applied it to our research. Social media involvement refers to the extent to which people indulge in social media. And then, by employing an audience survey in Northwest Ohio, we examined which demographic characteristics can predict social media involvement among college students and general population and compared and contrast the difference in social media content consumption behavior between college students and general population. In addition, we analyzed the media content topic preference in audience with different SNS involvement; and how SNS involvement affect people’s online media use.


College Student Social Medium Network Size Social Network Site Community Participation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors would like to acknowledge the funding of this study from the Bowling Green State University Research Capacity Enhancement Grant and the Toledo Blade.


  1. Aghazamani, A. (2010). How do university students spend their time on Facebook? An exploratory study. Journal of American Science, 6(12), 730–735.Google Scholar
  2. Alarcón-Del-Amo, M. D., Lorenzo-Romero, C., & Gómez-Borja, M. A. (2011). Classifying and profiling social networking site users: A latent segmentation approach. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14(9), 547–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barker, V. (2009). Older adolescents' motivations for social network site use: The influence of gender, group identity, and collective self-Esteem. Cyberpsychology and Behavior, 1, 5.Google Scholar
  4. Barnes, S. (2006). A privacy paradox: Social networking in the United States. First Monday, 11, 9. Retrieved November 5, 2010, from
  5. Boyd, D. (2008). Facebook’s privacy trainwreck: Exposure, invasion, and social convergence. Convergence, 14(1), 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cain, J. (2008). Online social networking issues within academia and pharmacy education. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 72, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell, S. W., & Kwak, N. (2010). Mobile communication and civic life: Linking patterns of use to civic and political engagement. Journal of Communication, 61(3), 536–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chapman, C. (2009). The history and evolution of social media. Retrieved November 17, 2010, from
  10. Chew, M., Balfanz, D., & Laurie, B. (2008). Undermining privacy in social networks. W2SP 2008: Web 2.0 Security and Privacy 2008. Retrieved October 27, 2011, from
  11. Clancy, K. (1992). CPMs must bow to ‘involvement’ measurement. Advertising Age, 63(3), 26.Google Scholar
  12. Cliff, L., Ellison, N., & Steinfield, C. (2006). A face (book) in the crowd: Social searching vs. social browsing. In Proceedings of the 2006 20th Anniversary Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work.Google Scholar
  13. ComScore (2011, December 21). It’s a social world: Top 10 need-to-knows about social networking and where it’s headed. Retrieved January 2, 2011 from
  14. Constantinides, E., Carmen Alarcón del Amo del, M., & Romero, C. L. (2010). Profiles of social networking sites users in the Netherlands. In 18th Annual High Technology Small Firms Conference, HTSF, 25–28 May 2010, Enschede, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  15. Constantinides, E., & Fountain, S. (2008). Web 2.0: Conceptual foundations and Marketing Issues. Journal of Direct, Data and Digital Marketing Practice, 9(3), 231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Constantinides, E., Lorenzo, C., & Gómez-Borja, M. A. (2008). Social Media: A new frontier for retailers? European Retail Research, 22, 1–27.Google Scholar
  17. Cooper, J., & Weaver, K. D. (2003). Gender and computers: Understanding the digital divide. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  18. Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored designed method. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). Digital inequality: From unequal access to differentiated use. In K. Neckerman (Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 355–400). New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Donath, J., & Boyd, D. (2004). Public displays of connection. BT Technology Journal, 22(4), 71–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dumenco, S. (2011, November 4). Fall TV update: Five social-TV successful stories (and one ratings disappointment). Retrieved January 2, 2012, from
  22. Ellison, N. B., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: Self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 11, 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ellison, N. B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. (2011). Retrieved December 20, 2011, from
  25. Fang, L., & Ha, L. (2011, August). Who are the heavy users of social network sites among college students? A study of social network sites and college students. Paper presented in AEJMC conference, St. Louis, MO.Google Scholar
  26. Gross, R., & Acquisti, A. (2005). Information revelation and privacy in online social networks. Pre-proceedings version. ACM Workshop on Privacy in the Electronic Society (WPES). Retrieved December 21, 2011, from
  27. Ha, L., & Fang, L. (2012). Internet experience and time displacement of traditional news media use: An application of the theory of the niche. Telematics and Informatics, 29, 177–186. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2011.06.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ha, L., Leconte, D., & Savidge, J. (2012). From TV to online to mobile phones: A national study of US college students’ multiplatform video use and satisfaction. In F. L. Lee, L. L. Leung, J. L. Qiu, & D. S. C. Chu (Eds.), Frontiers in new media research (pp. 278–298). UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Hampton, K., Goulet, L. S., Rainie, L., & Purcell, K. (2011). Socail networking sites and our lives. Retrieved December 25, 2011, from
  30. Hargittai, E. (2008a). Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 276–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hargittai, E. (2008b). The digital reproduction of inequality. In D. Grusky (Ed.), Social stratification. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  32. Helft, M., & Wortham, J. (2010, August 18). Facebook unveils a service to announce where users are. The New York Times. Retrieved from
  33. Hodge, M. J. (2006). The Fourth Amendment and privacy issues on the ‘new’ Internet: and Southern Illinois University Law Journal, 31, 95.Google Scholar
  34. Hsia, L. (2010, December 10). How social media is changing the business of Television. Retrieved January 2, 2012, from
  35. Huffaker, D. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2005). Gender, identity, and language use in teenage blogs. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 10, 2, 1. Retrieved October 25, 2011, from
  36. Johnson, T. J., Bichard, S. L., & Zhang, W. (2009). Communication communities or ‘CyberGhettos?’: A path analysis model examining factors that explain selective exposure to blogs. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15(1), 60–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Junco, R. (2012). Too much face and not enough books: The relationship between multiple indices of Facebook use and academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 187–198. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Junco, R., Merson, D., & Salter, D. W. (2010). The effect of gender, ethnicity, and income on college students’ use of communication technologies. CyberPsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 13(6), 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kaiser Family Foundation. (2004). The digital divide survey snapshot. Menlo Park, CA: Kaiser Family Foundation. Retrieved December 21, 2011, from.⁄4/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID1⁄446366
  40. Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
  41. Keith, N. H., Lauren, S. G., Lee, R., & Kristen, P. (2011). Social networking sites and our lives. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved December 19, 2011, from
  42. Lampe, C., Ellison, N., & Steinfeld, C. (2007, April). Profile elements as signals in an online social network. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, CA, USA.Google Scholar
  43. Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2008). Teens, privacy and online social networks. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Retrieved November 18, 2010, from
  44. Lewis, C. C., & George, J. F. (2008). Cross-cultural deception in social networking sites and face-to-face communication. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(6), 2945–2964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lewis, K., Kaufman, J., & Christakis, N. (2008). The taste for privacy: An analysis of college student privacy settings in an online social network. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14, 79–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Liebling, R. (2011, October 6). Social TV: How content producers can engage their audiences in new ways. Retrieved January 2, 2012 from
  47. Livingstone, S. (2008). Taking risky opportunities in youthful content creation: Teenagers’ use of social networking sites for intimacy, privacy and self-expression. New Media and Society, 10(3), 393–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Magnuson, M. J., & Dundes, L. (2008). Gender differences in “social portraits” reflected in MySpace profiles. CyberPsychology and Behavior, 11(2), 239–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mithchell, A. (1979). Involvement: A potentially important mediator of consumer behavior. In W. L. Wilkie (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 6, pp. 191–196). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
  50. Muise, A., Christofides, E., & Desmarais, S. (2009). More information than you ever wanted: Does Facebook bring out the green-eyed monster of jealousy? CyberPsychology and Behavior, 12(4), 441–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Newman, A. A. (2011, August 4). Brands now direct their followers to social media. New York Times. Retrieved September 12, 2011 from:
  52. Nielsen Media Research (2010, August 2). What Americans Do Online: Social media and games dominate activity. Retrieved December 17, 2011 from:
  53. Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. (2005). Retrieved December 21, 2011, from
  54. Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. (2007). Retrieved December 21, 2011, from
  55. Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project. (2011). Trends in teen communication and social media use. Retrieved December 20, 2011, from
  56. Pfeil, U., Arjan, R., & Zaphiris, P. (2008). Age differences in online social networking-A study of user profiles and the social capital divide among teenagers and older users in MySpace. Computer in Human Behavior, 25, 643–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Robards, B. (2010). Randoms in my bedroom: Negotiating privacy and unsolicited contact on social network sites. PRism, 7, 3.Google Scholar
  58. Salaway, G., Caruso, J. B., & Nelson, M. R. (2008).The ECAR study of undergraduate students and information technology. Research Study, 8. Boulder, CO: EDUCAUSE Center for Applied Research. Retrieved December 22, 2011, from
  59. Skog, D. (2005). Social interaction in virtual communities: The significance of technology. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 1(4), 464–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Solomon, M. R. (2002). Consumer behavior buying, having, and being (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  61. Stutzman, F. (2006). An evaluation of identity-sharing behavior in social network communities. Journal of the International Digital Media and Arts Association, 3(1), 10–18.Google Scholar
  62. Tredinnick, L. (2006). Web 2.0 and business: A pointer to the intranets of the future. Business Information Review, 23(4), 228–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Utz, S. (2010). Show me your friends and I will tell you what type of person you are: How one’s profile, number of friends, and type of friends influence impression formation on social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 15(2), 314–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Utz, S., & Krämer, N. (2009). The privacy paradox on social network sites revisited: The role of individual characteristics and group norms. Cyberpsychology, 3, 2.Google Scholar
  65. Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2008). Adolescents’ identity experiments on the internet: consequences for social competence and self-concept unity. Communication Research, 35(2), 208–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wilson, E. J., & Sherrell, D. L. (1993). Source effects in communication and persuasion research: A meta-analysis of effect size. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21, 101–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Ybarra, M. L., & Mitchell, K. J. (2008). How risky are social networking sites? A comparison of places online where youth sexual solicitation and harassment occurs. Pediatrics, 121(2), 350–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct in marketing. Journal of Consumer Research, 12, 341–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bowling Green State UniversityBowling GreenUSA

Personalised recommendations