Development and validation of the Scale of Motives for Using Social Networking Sites (SMU-SNS) for adolescents and youths


Autoři: Miguel-Ángel Pertegal aff001;  Alfredo Oliva aff001;  Ana Rodríguez-Meirinhos aff002
Působiště autorů: Departamento de Psicología Evolutiva y de la Educación, Universidad de Sevilla, Seville, Spain aff001;  Department of Communication and Education, Universidad Loyola Andalucía, Seville, Spain aff002
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: 10.1371/journal.pone.0225781

Souhrn

Over the past decade, the Uses and Gratifications theory has driven research on the motives behind social media use. The three most commonly explored motives have been: maintaining relationships, seeking information, and entertainment. The aim of this study was to develop and validate the Scale of Motives for Using Social Networking Sites (SMU-SNS), a measure to assess a wider range of motives for using Social Networking Sites than have previously been researched. A multi-method design with different samples of high-school and university students was used. First, to develop the pool of items, a literature review and a focus group study (n = 48, age range = 16–21) was conducted. Second, to reduce and refine the pool of items a pilot study (n = 168, age range = 14–24) was performed. Third, a validation study (n = 1102, age range = 13–25) was conducted to assess the validity and reliability of the SMU-SNS. Cross-validation using EFA and CFA resulted in a final version comprising 27 items distributed in nine factors (Dating, New Friendships, Academic Purposes, Social Connectedness, Following and Monitoring Others, Entertainment, seeking Social Recognition, Self-expression, and seeking Information). Internal consistency was excellent and evidence of measurement invariance across gender and age was largely achieved. The SMU-SNS scores significantly correlated with other relevant variables, including age, gender, certain personality traits, social support, loneliness, and life satisfaction. Overall, findings supported the SMU-SNS as a valid and reliable measure to assess youth’s motives for using Social Networking Sites. Psychometric and general implications are discussed.

Klíčová slova:

Adolescents – Age groups – Behavior – Facebook – Factor analysis – Interpersonal relationships – Personality – Personality traits


Zdroje

1. Pertegal MA, Oliva A, Rodríguez-Meirinhos A. Systematic review of the current state of research on Online Social Networks: Taxonomy on experience of use. Comunicar. 2019;27(60):81–91.

2. Ryan T, Chester A, Reece J, Xenos S. The uses and abuses of Facebook: A review of Facebook addiction. Journal of Behavioral Addictions. 2014;3(3):133–148. doi: 10.1556/JBA.3.2014.016 25317337

3. Phua J, Jin SV, Kim JJ. Uses and gratifications of social networking sites for bridging and bonding social capital: A comparison of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Sanpchat. Computers in Human Behavior. 2017;72:115–122.

4. Wang JL, Gaskin J, Wang HZ, Liu D. Life satisfaction moderates the association between motives and excessive social networking site usage. Addiction Research & Theory. 2016;24(6):450–457.

5. Busalim AH. Understanding social commerce: A systematic literature review and directions for further research. International Journal of Information Management. 2016;36(6):1075–1088.

6. Mikalef P, Giannakos MN, Pappas IO. Designing social commerce platforms based on consumers’ intentions. Behaviour & Information Technology. 2017;36(12):1308–1327.

7. Ha YW, Kim J, Libaque-Saenz CF, Chang Y, Park MC. Use and gratifications of mobile SNSs: Facebook and KakaoTalk in Korea. Telemat Inform. 2015;32:425–38. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2014.10.006

8. Katz E, Blumler JG, Gurevitch M. Uses and gratifications research. Public Opin Q. 1973;37:509–23. doi: 10.1086/268109

9. Whiting A, Williams D. Why people use social media: A uses and gratifications approach. Qual Mark Res. 2013;16:362–9. doi: 10.1108/QMR-06-2013-0041

10. Brandtzaeg PB, Heim J. Why people use social networking sites. In: Ozok AA, Zaphiris P, editors. Online Communities and Social Computing. OCSC 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Germany: Springer; 2009. p. 143–52.

11. Joinson AN. ‘Looking at’, ‘looking up’ or ‘keeping up with’ people? motives and uses of Facebook. In: CHI 2008-Proceedings of the 26th Annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM Press; 2008. p. 1027–36.

12. Raacke J, Bonds-Raacke J. MySpace and Facebook: Applying the uses and gratifications theory to exploring friend-networking sites. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2008;11:169–74. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2007.0056 18422409

13. Sheldon P. Student favorite: Facebook and motives for its use. Southwest Mass Commun J. 2008;23:39–53.

14. Krasnova H, Veltri NF, Eling N, Buxmann P. Why men and women continue to use social networking sites: The role of gender differences. J Strategic Inf Syst. 2017;26:261–84. doi: 10.1016/j.jsis.2017.01.004

15. Giannakos MN, Chorianopoulos K, Giotopoulos K, Vlamos P. Using Facebook out of habit. Behav Inf Technol. 2013;32:594–602. doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2012.659218

16. Hunt D, Atkin D, Krishnan A. The influence of computer-mediated communication apprehension on motives for Facebook use. J Broadcast Electron Media. 2012;56:187–202. doi: 10.1080/08838151.2012.678717

17. Baker V. Older adolescents’ motivations for social network site use: The influence of gender, group identity, and collective self-esteem. Cyberpsychol Behav. 2009;12:209–13. doi: 10.1089/cpb.2008.0228 19250021

18. Chen GM. Tweet this: A uses and gratifications perspective on how active Twitter use gratifies a need to connect with others. Comput Human Behav. 2011;27:755–62. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.10.023

19. Davenport SW, Bergman SM, Bergman JZ, Fearrington ME. Twitter versus Facebook: Exploring the role of narcissism in the motives and usage of different social media platforms. Comput Human Behav. 2014;32:212–20. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.12.011

20. Haferkamp N, Eimler SC, Papadakis AM, Kruck JV. Men are from Mars, women are from Venus? Examining gender differences in self-presentation on social networking sites. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2012;15:91–8. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2011.0151 22132897

21. Igartua JJ, Rodríguez-de-Dios I. Correlatos motivacionales del uso y la satisfacción con Facebook en jóvenes españoles. Cuadernos Info. 2016;38:107–19. doi: 10.7764/cdi.38.848

22. Jackson LA, Wang JL. Cultural differences in social networking site use: A comparative study of China and the United States. Comput Human Behav. 2013;29:910–21. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.11.024

23. Krishnan A, Hunt DS. Influence of a multidimensional measure of attitudes on motives to use Social Networking Sites. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2015;18:165–72. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2014.0423 25751048

24. Malik A, Dhir A, Nieminen M. Uses and gratifications of digital photo sharing on Facebook. Telemat Inform. 2016;33:129–38. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2015.06.009

25. Mazman SG, Usluel YK. Gender differences in using Social Networks. TOJET. 2011;10:133–9.

26. Muscanell NL, Guadagno RE. Make new friends or keep the old: Gender and personality differences in social networking use. Comput Human Behav. 2012;28:107–12. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.016

27. Neira CJB, Barber BL. Social networking site use: Linked to adolescents’ social self-concept, self-esteem, and depressed mood. Aust J Psychol. 2014;66:56–64. doi: 10.1111/ajpy.12034

28. Orchard LJ, Fullwood C, Galbraith N, Morris N. Individual differences as predictors of Social Networking. J Comput Mediat Commun. 2014;19:388–402. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12068

29. Sumter SR, Vandenbosch L, Ligtenberg L. Love me Tinder: Untangling emerging adults’ motivations for using the dating application Tinder. Telemat Inform. 2017;34:67–78. doi: 10.1016/j.tele.2016.04.009

30. Teppers E, Luyckx K, Klimstra TA, Goossens L. Loneliness and Facebook motives in adolescence: a longitudinal inquiry into directionality of effect. J Adolesc. 2014;37:691–9. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.11.003 24321573

31. Timmermans E, De Caluwé E. To Tinder or not to Tinder, that’s the question: An individual differences perspective to Tinder use and motives. Pers Individ Dif. 2017;110:74–9. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.026

32. Grieve R. Unpacking the characteristics of Snapchat users: A preliminary investigation and an agenda for future research. Comput Human Behav. 2017;74:130–8. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.04.032

33. Hollenbaugh EE, Ferris AL. Facebook self-disclosure: Examining the role of traits, social cohesion, and motives. Comput Human Behav. 2014;30:50–8. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2013.07.055

34. Amichai-Hamburguer Y, Vinitzky G. Social network use and personality. Comput Human Behav. 2010;26:1289–95. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.03.018

35. Ross C, Orr ES, Sisic M, Arseneault JM, Simmering MG, Orr RR. Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Comput Human Behav. 2009;25:578–86. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.024

36. Bibby PA. Dispositional factors in the use of social networking sites: findings and implications for social computing research. In: Yang CC, Chen H, Chau M, Chang K, Lang SD, Chen PS, et al., editors. Intelligence and Security Informatics. ISI 2008. Workshops. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Germany: Springer; 2008. p. 392–400.

37. Horzum MB. Examining the relationship to gender and personality on the purpose of Facebook usage of Turkish university students. Comput Human Behav. 2016;64:319–28. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.010

38. Hughes DJ, Rowe M, Batey M, Lee A. A tale of two sites: Twitter vs. Facebook and the personality predictors of social media usage. Comput Human Behav. 2012;28:561–9. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2011.11.001

39. Seidman G. Self-presentation and belonging on Facebook: How personality influences social media use and motivations. Pers Individ Dif. 2013;54:402–7. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2012.10.009

40. Wright KB, Rosenberg J, Egbert N, Ploeger NA, Bernard DR, King S, et al. Communication competence, social support, and depression among college students: a model of Facebook and Face-to-Face support network influence. J Health Commun. 2013;18:1–17. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2012.688250

41. Rae JR, Lonborg SD. Do motivations for using Facebook moderate the association between Facebook use and psychological well-being? Front Psychol. 2015;6(12):771. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00771

42. Valkenburg PM, Peter J. Online communication and adolescent well-being: Testing the stimulation versus the displacement hypothesis. J Comput Mediat Commun. 2007;12:1169–82. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00368.x

43. Rouquette A, Falissard B. Sample size requirements for the internal validation of psychiatric scales. International journal of methods in psychiatric research. 2011;20(4):235–49. doi: 10.1002/mpr.352 22020761

44. MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff PM, Podsakoff NP. Construct measurement and validation procedures in MIS and behavioral research: Integrating new and existing techniques. MIS Quart. 2011;35:293–334. doi: 10.2307/23044045

45. Aladwani AM. Gravitating towards Facebook (GoToFB): What it is? and How can it be measured? Comput Human Behav. 2014;33:270–8. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.005

46. Cheung CM, Chiu PY, Lee MK. Online social networks: Why do students use Facebook? Comput Human Behav. 2011;27:1337–43. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.028

47. Dhir A, Khalil A, Lonka K, Tsai CC. Do educational affordances and gratifications drive intensive Facebook use among adolescents? Comput Human Behav. 2017;68:40–50. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.014

48. Gan C, Li H. Understanding the effects of gratifications on the continuance intention to use WeChat in China: A perspective on uses and gratifications. Comput Human Behav. 2018;78:306–15. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.003

49. Infinedo P. Applying uses and gratifications theory and social influence processes to understand students’ pervasive adoption of social networking sites: Perspectives from the Americas. Int J Inf Manage. 2016;36:192–206. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2015

50. Ku YC, Chu TH, Tseng CH. Gratifications for using CMC technologies: A comparison among SNS, IM, and e-mail. Comput Human Behav. 2013;29:226–34. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.08.009

51. Lien CH, Cao Y. Examining WeChat users’ motivations, trust, attitudes, and positive word-of-mouth: Evidence from China. Comput Human Behav. 2014;41:104–11. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.08.013

52. Sheldon P, Bryant K. Instagram: Motives for its use and relationship to narcissism and contextual age. Comput Human Behav. 2016;58:89–97. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2015.12.059

53. Tosun LP. Motives for Facebook use and expressing ‘“true self”’ on the Internet. Comput Human Behav. 2012;28:1510–7. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2012.03.018

54. Xu C, Ryan S, Prybutok V, Wen C. It is not for fun: An examination of social network site usage. Inf Manag. 2012;49:210–7. doi: 10.1016/j.im.2012.05.001

55. Zhang CB, Li YN, Wu B, Li DJ. How WeChat can retain users: Roles of network externalities, social interaction ties, and perceived values in building continuance intention. Comput Human Behav. 2017;69:284–93. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.069

56. Rammstedt B, John OP. Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. J Res Pers. 2007;41:203–12. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001

57. Gosling SD, Rentfrow PJ, Swann WB. A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. J Res Pers. 2003;37:504–28. doi: 10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1

58. Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S. The satisfaction with life scale. J Pers Assess. 1985;49:71–5. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13 16367493

59. Zimet GD, Dahlem NW, Zimet SG, Farley GK. The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. J Pers Assess. 1988;52:30–41. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_2

60. Hays RD, DiMatteo MR. A short-form measure of loneliness. J Pers Assess. 1987;51:69–81. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa5101_6 3572711

61. Russell D, Peplau LA, Ferguson ML. Developing a measure of loneliness. J Pers Assess. 1978;42:290–4. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4203_11 660402

62. Osborne JW. Best Practices in Exploratory Factor Analysis. Seattle: CreateSpace Publishing; 2014.

63. Horn JL. A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometika. 1965;30:179–85. doi: 10.1007/BF02289447

64. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using Multivariate Statistics. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 2001.

65. Meredith W. Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika. 1993;58:525–43. doi: 10.1007/BF02294825

66. Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling. 2002;9:233–55. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

67. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modelling. 3rd ed. New York: Guilford; 2011.

68. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus user’s guide. 7th ed. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén; 1998–2015.

69. Trauth EM. The role of theory in gender and information systems research. Inf Organ. 2013;23:277–93. doi: 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2013.08.003

70. Baumeister RF, Sommer KL. What do men want? Gender differences and two spheres of belongingness: Comment on Cross and Madson (1997). Psychol Bull. 1997;122:38–44. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.122.1.38 9204778

71. Kraut R, Kiesler S, Boneva B, Cummings J, Helgeson V, Crawford A. Internet paradox revisited. J Soc Issues. 2002;58:49–74. doi: 10.1111/1540-4560.00248

72. Moore K, McElroy JC. The influence of personality on Facebook usage, wall postings, and regret. Comput Human Behav. 2012;28:267–74. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2011.09.009

73. Clark JL, Algoe SB, Green MC. Social network sites and well-being: The role of social connection. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2018;27:32–7. doi: 10.1177/0963721417730833

74. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-Determination Theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York: Guilford Publishing; 2017.

75. Debatin B, Lovejoy JP, Horn AK, Hugues BN. Facebook and online privacy: attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequences. J Comput Mediat Commun. 2009;15:83–108. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2009.01494.x


Článok vyšiel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 12