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.
KeywordsMarketing Folk Phan
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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
- Alexa (2014): Top sites. http://www.alexa.com/topsites (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.
- Benevenuto, F., Rodrigues, T., Cha, M. and Almeida, V. (2009): Characterizing user behavior in online social networks. IMC 2009 Proceedings.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Katz, M.L. and Shapiro, C. (1985): Network externalities, competition, and compatibility. The American Economic Review, 75 (3), pp. 424–440.Google Scholar
- Krikelas, J. (1983): Information-seeking behavior: Patterns and concepts. Drexel Library Quarterly, 19 (2), pp. 5–20.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Will, A. (2005): SmartPLS 2.0 (beta). http://www.smartpls.de.
- Sledgianowski, D. and Kulviwat, S. (2008): Social network sites: Antecedents of user adoption and usage. AMCIS 2008 Proceedings. Paper 83.Google Scholar
- 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
- Van Der Heijden, H. (2004): User acceptance of hedonic information systems. MIS Quarterly, 28 (4), pp. 695–704.Google Scholar
- 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
- Watson, G.B. and Johnson, D. (1972): Social psychology; issues and insights. 2nd ed., Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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