What Drives Sharing and Receiving Usage in Social Network Sites?



Social Network Site (SNS) service providers have a strong interest in knowing which factors drive different kinds of usage in SNSs, in order to be able to foster behavior that is beneficial to their business models. Generally, SNSs possess numerous functionalities that allow their members to perform various actions. These actions can be separated into two categories, namely Receiving usage, where information is acquired, or Sharing usage, where information is shared with other members. But which factors drive Sharing and/or Receiving usage in SNSs? We present six potential factors that could be influencing Sharing and/or Receiving. After surveying Facebook users and applying a structural equation modeling approach, we confirmed that Extraversion and Personal Network Size are influence factors of Sharing usage and that Covert Social Curiosity, General Social Curiosity, and Perceived Informational Benefit are influence factors of Receiving usage. However, we were not able to confirm the influence of Curiosity and Personal Network Size on Receiving usage and present possible explanations for the insignificance of these relationships.


Social Network Site Online Social Network Technology Acceptance Model Average Variance Extract Structural Equation Modeling Approach 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Acar, A. (2008): Antecedents and consequences of online social networking behavior: The case of facebook. Journal of Website Promotion, 3 (1/2), pp. 62–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alarcón-Del-Amo, M.-D.-C., Lorenzo-Romero, C. and Gómez-Borja, M.-A. (2012): Analysis of acceptance of social networking sites. African Journal of Business Management, 6 (29), pp. 8609–8619.Google Scholar
  3. Alexa (2014): Top sites. (Accessed 04–30-2014). Backstrom, L., Bakshy, E., Kleinberg, J., Lento, T. and Rosenn, I. (2011): Center of attention: How facebook users allocate attention across friends. ICWSM 2011 Proceedings.
  4. Baumeister, R.F. and Leary, M.R. (1995): The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachements as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117 (3), pp. 497–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baumeister, R.F., Zhang, L. and Vohs, K. (2004): Gossip as cultural learning. Review of General Psychology, 8 (2), pp. 111–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benevenuto, F., Rodrigues, T., Cha, M. and Almeida, V. (2009): Characterizing user behavior in online social networks. IMC 2009 Proceedings.Google Scholar
  7. Bollen, K. and Lennox, R. (1991): Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110 (2), pp. 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brief, A.P. and Aldag, R.J. (1977): The intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy: Toward conceptual clarity. Academy of Management Review, 2 (3), pp. 496–500.Google Scholar
  9. Cavusoglu, H., Phan, T. and Cavusoglu, H. (2013): Privacy controls and content sharing patterns of online social network users: A natural experiment. ICIS 2013 Proceedings.Google Scholar
  10. Chen, R. (2013): Member use of social networking sites – an empirical examination. Decision Support Systems, 54 (3), pp. 1219–1227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Costa, P. and Mccrae, R. (1992): Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The neo personality inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4 (1), pp. 5–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis, F.D. (1989): Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13 (2), pp. 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P. and Warshaw, P.R. (1989): User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35 (8), pp. 982–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diamantopoulos, A. and Winklhofer, H.M. (2001): Index construction with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38 (2), pp. 269–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eaton, L. and Funder, D. (2003): The creation and consequences of the social world: An interactional analysis of extraversion. European Journal of Personality, 17 (5), pp. 375–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ernst, C.-P.H., Pfeiffer, J. and Rothlauf, F. (2013a): Hedonic and utilitarian motivations of social network site adoption. Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz: Working Papers in Information Systems and Business Administration.Google Scholar
  17. Ernst, C.-P.H., Pfeiffer, J. and Rothlauf, F. (2013b): The influence of perceived belonging on social network site adoption. AMCIS 2013 Proceedings.Google Scholar
  18. Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981): Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), pp. 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Foster, E. (2004): Research on gossip: Taxonomy, methods, and future directions. Review of General Psychology, 8 (2), pp. 78–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gangadharbatla, H. (2008): Facebook me: Collective self-esteem, need to belong, and internet self-efficacy as predictors of the igeneration's attitudes toward social networking sites. Journal of Interactive Advertising, 8 (2), pp. 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gerlitz, J.-Y. and Schupp, J. (2005): Zur Erhebung der Big-Five-basierten Persönlichkeitsmerkmale im SOEP: Dokumentation der Instrumententwicklung BFI-S auf Basis des SOEP-Pretests 2005. DIW, Berlin, Germany: Research Notes 2005 (4).Google Scholar
  22. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2009): Multivariate data analysis. 7th ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  23. Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011): Pls-sem: Indeed a silver bullet. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 19 (2), pp. 139–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hartung, F.-M. and Renner, B. (2011): Social curiosity and interpersonal perception: A judge × trait interaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37 (6), pp. 796–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hartung, F.-M. and Renner, B. (2013): Social curiosity and gossip: Related but different drives of social functioning. PLoS ONE, 8 (7), pp. 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hollenbaugh, E. and Ferris, A. (2014): Facebook self-disclosure: Examining the role of traits, social cohesion, and motives. Computers in Human Behavior, 30, pp. 50–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jiang, J., Wilson, C., Wang, X., Huang, P., Sha, W., Dai, Y. and Zhao, B. (2010): Understanding latent interactions in online social networks. IMC 2010 Proceedings. pp. 369–382.Google Scholar
  28. John, O.P., Donahue, E.M. and Kentle, R.L. (1991): The big five inventory – versions 4a and 54. Institute of Personality and Social Research, University of California, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
  29. John, O.P. and Srivastava, S. (1999): The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In: Pervin, L. A. & John, O. P. (eds.) Handbook of personality: Theory and research. 2nd ed., New York, NY: Guilford Press, pp. 102–138.Google Scholar
  30. Kanai, R., Bahrami, B., Roylance, R. and Rees, G. (2012): Online social network size is reflected in human brain structure. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 279 (1732), pp. 1327–1334.Google Scholar
  31. Katz, M.L. and Shapiro, C. (1985): Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. The American Economic Review, 75 (3), pp. 424–440.Google Scholar
  32. Killworth, P., Johnsen, E., Bernard, H., Shelley, G. and Mccarty, C. (1990): Estimating the size of personal networks. Social Networks, 12 (4), pp. 289–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. King, L. and Broyles, S. (1997): Wishes, gender, personality, and well-being. Journal of Personality, 65 (1), pp. 49–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Krasnova, H., Spiekermann, S., Koroleva, K. and Hildebrand, T. (2010b): Online social networks: Why we disclose. Journal of Information Technology, 25 (2), pp. 109–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Krikelas, J. (1983): Information-seeking behavior: Patterns and concepts. Drexel Library Quarterly, 19 (2), pp. 5–20.Google Scholar
  36. Lo, J. (2010): Privacy concern, locus of control, and salience in a trust-risk model of information disclosure on social networking sites. AMCIS 2010 Proceedings. Paper 110.Google Scholar
  37. Mehl, M., Gosling, S. and Pennebaker, J. (2006): Personality in its natural habitat: Manifestations and implicit folk theories of personality in daily life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90 (5), pp. 862–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moon, J.-W. and Kim, Y.-G. (2001): Extending the tam for a world-wide-web context. Information & Management, 38 (4), pp. 217–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Naylor, F.D. (1981): A state-trait curiosity inventory. Australian Psychologist, 16 (2), pp. 172–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Olson, K. and Weber, D. (2004): Relations between big five traits and fundamental motives. Psychological Reports, 95 (3), pp. 795–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ong, E., Ang, R., Ho, J., Lim, J., Goh, D., Lee, C. and Chua, A. (2011): Narcissism, extraversion and adolescents’ self-presentation on facebook. Personality and Individual Differences, 50 (2), pp. 180–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pai, P. and Arnott, D. (2013): User adoption of social networking sites: Eliciting uses and gratifications through a means–end approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 29 (3), pp. 1039–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pollet, T., Roberts, S. and Dunbar, R. (2011): Use of social network sites and instant messaging does not lead to increased offline social network size, or to emotionally closer relationships with offline network members. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14 (4), pp. 253–258.Google Scholar
  44. Renner, B. (2006): Curiosity about people: The development of a social curiosity measure in adults. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83 (3), pp. 305–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Will, A. (2005): SmartPLS 2.0 (beta).
  46. Romero, E., Villar, P., Luengo, M. and Gómez-Fraguela, J. (2009): Traits, personal strivings and well-being. Journal of Research in Personality, 43 (4), pp. 535–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ross, C., Orr, E.S., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J.M., Simmering, M.G. and Orr, R.R. (2009): Personality and motivations associated with facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 25 (2), pp. 578–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Skues, J., Williams, B. and Wise, L. (2012): The effects of personality traits, selfesteem, loneliness, and narcissism on facebook use among university students. Computers in Human Behavior, 28 (6), pp. 2414–2419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sledgianowski, D. and Kulviwat, S. (2008): Social network sites: Antecedents of user adoption and usage. AMCIS 2008 Proceedings. Paper 83.Google Scholar
  50. Thambusamy, R., Church, M., Nemati, H. and Barrick, J. (2010): Socially exchanging privacy for pleasure: Hedonic use of computer-mediated social networks. ICIS 2010 Proceedings. Paper 253.Google Scholar
  51. Tong, S., Van Der Heide, B., Langwell, L. and Walther, J. (2008): Too much of a good thing? The relationship between number of friends and interpersonal impressions on facebook. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13 (3), pp. 531–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Van Der Heijden, H. (2004): User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Quarterly, 28 (4), pp. 695–704.Google Scholar
  53. Von Stetten, A., Wild, U. and Chrennikow, W. (2011): Adopting social network sites – the role of individual it culture and privacy concerns. AMCIS 2011 Proceedings. Paper 290.Google Scholar
  54. Wang, S. and Stefanone, M. (2013): Showing off? Human mobility and the interplay of traits, self-disclosure, and facebook check-ins. Social Science Computer Review, 31 (4), pp. 437–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Watson, G.B. and Johnson, D. (1972): Social psychology; issues and insights. 2nd ed., Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.Google Scholar
  56. Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J.H. and Jackson, D.D. (1967): Pragmatics of human communication. A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York, NY, London, UK: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  57. Young, A. and Quan-Haase, A. (2009): Information revelation and internet privacy concerns on social network sites: A case study of facebook. C & T 2009 Proceedings.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Frankfurt am MainGermany

Personalised recommendations